Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Determining the acceleration regions of in situ electrons using remote radio and X-ray observations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The in situ electrons at Solar Orbiter on 3 October 2023 were accelerated mainly by the CME-driven shock in the southern type II radio source, with only a smaller flare contribution from far-side field lines.

desk verdict A solid, carefully hedged single-event case study that credibly separates shock and flare contributions to a Solar Orbiter electron event, though its shock-connectivity conclusion rests heavily on the same MHD model for both source location and field-line connectivity. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06477 v1 pith:E7XD2IPP submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

D. E. Morosan , N. Dresing , C. Palmroos , J. Gieseler , I. C. Jebaraj , A. Warmuth , A. Fedeli , S. Normo
show 8 more authors
J. Pomoell E. K. J. Kilpua P. Zucca B. Dabrowski A. Krankowski G. Mann C. Vocks R. Vainio
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarenergeticparticlestypeIIradioburstsIIIhardX-rayemissioncoronalmassejectionshockmagneticconnectivityinsituelectronscorona
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 takes a single well-observed event, an eruption behind the Sun's limb on 3 October 2023, and uses simultaneous radio, X-ray, and in situ electron data to ask where the electrons detected at Solar Orbiter were actually accelerated. The answer it argues for is that the main electron population was accelerated by the CME-driven shock, at the location of the southern type II radio burst, while a smaller flare contribution reached the spacecraft along separate far-side field lines. If correct, this shows that remote radio imaging can identify which acceleration site feeds a given spacecraft, and that a single in situ event can mix electrons from two very distant sources. The result matters because most solar energetic particle events are classified as flare- or shock-dominated using timing alone, whereas here the spatial connectivity is pinned down explicitly.

What carries the argument

The central device is the 3D reconstruction of the type II radio source positions: LOFAR plane-of-sky centroids are placed on the MAST coronal model's density surface at the harmonic plasma frequency for each frequency sub-band, giving each source a height, and then the same MAST model's open field lines are traced to Solar Orbiter. The southern type II source intersects a Solar Orbiter-connected field line whose magnetic polarity (negative) matches the in situ polarity, while the far-side hard X-ray footpoints sit near a different, positive-polarity open field line also reaching Solar Orbiter. A velocity dispersion analysis of the in situ electrons supplies the injection time and path length that tie the particle onset to the type II and hard X-ray timing.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to locate the 76 MHz type II source by an independent method, for example triangulation from two spacecraft, and trace its field line with a different magnetogram-driven model; if the line does not reach Solar Orbiter, or if Solar Orbiter's in situ magnetic polarity during the event is measured positive rather than negative, the shock-connectivity claim would be disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On 3 October 2023, an eruption behind the Sun's eastern limb produced a long-duration type II radio burst, hard X-ray peaks, and an electron event at Solar Orbiter. By de-projecting LOFAR images of the type II source onto density surfaces from the MAST coronal model and tracing open field lines from the same model, the paper places the southern type II radio source squarely on the one field line that connects to Solar Orbiter. The in situ electrons show strong field-aligned anisotropy and a velocity-dispersion injection time of 12:16±1 UT, matching the type II onset and the second hard X-ray peak. The paper concludes that the main electron population was shock-accelerated in the southern type II region, while a smaller, spectrally softer contribution came from flare-accelerated electrons on far-side field lines near the hard X-ray footpoints. These are two separate acceleration sites feeding Solar Orbiter along two distinct, widely separated field lines.

Load-bearing premise

The entire interpretation rides on the MAST model being correct: its density surfaces place the radio source in 3D and its magnetic field lines define which spacecraft is connected, so if that model is wrong near the far-side limb, the claimed match between the southern type II source and Solar Orbiter's field line fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The southern type II radio source is the acceleration site of the main Solar Orbiter electron population.
  • The in situ electron injection time (12:16±1 UT) matches the type II onset and the second hard X-ray peak, so remote and in situ timing agree.
  • The strong, short-lived anisotropy and matching negative magnetic polarity confirm a direct, nearly scatter-free magnetic connection to the source.
  • Parker Solar Probe seeing only high-energy electrons supports a localized shock source rather than a broad flare source.
  • Future multi-spacecraft radio imaging of type II and type III bursts can separate shock and flare contributions to single spacecraft events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the MAST-based connectivity is right, then for behind-the-limb eruptions, radio imaging alone could predict which spacecraft see shock-accelerated electrons and which see flare-accelerated ones.
  • Because the radio positions and the connecting field lines come from the same model, an independent density and magnetic-topology reconstruction could reduce or reveal the systematic uncertainty in the claimed intersection.
  • The two-source picture implies that a single spacecraft event can mix electrons from two widely separated acceleration regions, which could bias event classifications that assume a single source.
  • As Solar Orbiter leaves the ecliptic, the same analysis could separate northern and southern type II sources in latitude, testing whether both flanks inject into the same heliosphere.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-instrument case study of the 3 October 2023 behind-the-limb CME and the associated energetic electron event at Solar Orbiter. Using LOFAR imaging of a type II burst, STIX hard X-ray imaging, in situ electron observations from SolO/EPT-HET and PSP/ISIS, and the MAST MHD coronal model, the authors infer the 3D location of type II radio sources and trace open field lines to spacecraft. They conclude that the in situ electrons at SolO were predominantly accelerated by the CME-driven shock at the southern type II source, which is directly connected to SolO, with a smaller contribution from far-side flare-related type III/HXR activity on separate field lines. The claim is supported by timing (VDA injection time vs. type II and HXR emission), magnetic polarity, electron anisotropy, and spectral arguments.

Significance. If the connectivity conclusion holds, the paper provides one of the few direct remote-to-in-situ links between an imaged coronal type II source and an interplanetary electron event, and it demonstrates a methodology for combining LOFAR and MHD modelling with multi-spacecraft SEP measurements. The analysis is carefully hedged, uses multiple independent timing and polarity arguments, and the electron spectrum is fit quantitatively. The main limitation is that the spatial coincidence on which the shock-connectivity claim rests is derived from a single MHD model (MAST), so the significance is conditional on the model's accuracy in the eastern-limb/far-side region. As a single-event study, its immediate impact is moderate, but it is likely to be of interest to the solar radio and SEP communities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Figs. 4 and 5] The central claim that the southern type II source is directly connected to SolO is established by de-projecting LOFAR centroids onto MAST density iso-surfaces and then tracing MAST open field lines from the same model. Because both sides of the coincidence come from the same model, the intersection is not an independent validation. The authors state only that the MAST field lines 'are in agreement with the connectivity of the PFSS field lines in Fig. 1', without quantifying the separation at the height of the radio source. Since the overlaid source grazes the western edge of the SolO-connected streamer (Fig. 5), a modest systematic error in the MAST density (which sets the line-of-sight distance) or in the field-line topology would remove the intersection and with it the direct shock-connectivity argument. The paper should add a sensitivity study: for example, repeat the de-projection with MAST densities scaled by plausible factors (and with the alternative fundamental/harmonic assignment for the imaged lanes), trace field lines with perturbed source-surface footpoints, and report the minimum three-dimensional distance between the radio centroid and the SolO-connected field line as a function of these perturbations.
  2. [Appendix C, Table 1] The VDA injection time of 12:16 +/- 1 min and path length L = 0.29 +/- 0.06 AU are obtained from a channel selection that the authors state was 'chosen by eye'. Although the TSA check (Fig. C.2) demonstrates internal consistency, the path length is a free parameter of the VDA and enters the timing comparison that supports simultaneity with the type II and HXR II emission. The authors should test the sensitivity of the inferred injection time to alternative channel selections (e.g., retaining the excluded channels, or excluding additional ones) and to fixing L to the nominal Parker-spiral length. They should also state whether the 1-minute uncertainty in the injection time includes the systematic uncertainty from the channel selection.
  3. [Section 4 and Abstract] The proposed 'smaller flare contribution from the far side of the Sun' is based on type III bursts that are not imaged in 3D and on MAST field lines that are described only as 'relatively close' to the HXR footpoints. Unlike the shock contribution, this component lacks a spatial anchor; the type III emission observed by PSP and SolO could originate over a wide range of longitudes. The authors should either soften this conclusion to a speculative scenario or provide additional constraints, such as direction-finding analysis of the type III bursts at lower frequencies or a quantitative measure of the proximity of the HXR footpoints to the far-side SolO-connected field lines.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'elctron' should be 'electron'.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The phrase 'The arrows located to te left' should read 'to the left'.
  3. [Table 1 note] The note states that the asterisk in the last row indicates the energy range, but asterisks appear in both the onset-time column and the energy-range column; please clarify which values are affected.
  4. [Section 3.1, Fig. 5] The sentence 'The HXR footpoint locations (blue spheres) are visible inside this mesh closer to the photosphere' is ambiguous because the two spheres overlap in Fig. 5b,c; please use distinct symbols or labels.
  5. [Section 4] The phrase 'the in situ magnetic field polarity as SolO is negative' should read 'at SolO'.
  6. [Appendix C] The sentence 'leaving out the highest energy channels of both EPT and HET, that were clearly out of the general velocity dispersion trend' contains a relative-clause error; consider changing 'that' to 'which'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the injection-time comparison, in situ polarity/anisotropy, and spectral fits are independent benchmarks; the MAST-coupled spatial coincidence is a model-robustness limitation, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's main inference chain is not circular. The electron injection time is derived independently from SolO EPT/HET onsets via VDA (Appendix C) and cross-checked with TSA; the type II and HXR emission times are obtained from separate light-travel corrections, so the 12:13/12:14 vs 12:16 UT comparison is an external timing benchmark. The harmonic interpretation of the type II lanes is justified by the ~2:1 frequency ratio to PSP RFS lanes, not assumed. The spatial claim that the southern type II source intersects the SolO-connected streamer (Section 3.1, Figs. 4-5) does rely on the MAST model for both the deprojected z-coordinate (density iso-surface at the harmonic plasma frequency) and the traced open field lines; a systematic MAST density or topology error would shift both sides, and this coupling is not quantified. That is a model-uncertainty/correctness concern, but it is not a reduction by construction: the plane-of-sky LOFAR centroids, observed frequencies, the independent PFSS comparison, and the measured negative in situ magnetic-field polarity matching the modeled near-limb field-line polarity are external anchors, and the source is not fitted to the field line. Self-citations to Morosan et al. (2019, 2022a, 2024) are methodological rather than load-bearing; the methods are described in-text and the underlying data and MAST/PFSS models are external. The acknowledged shock-reconstruction field-of-view limitation and the by-eye VDA channel selection are caveats, not circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central association depends on model-internal steps (MAST densities for 3D source placement and MAST field lines for connectivity), on standard assumptions about plasma emission and PFSS/Parker-spiral connectivity, and on a VDA with manually selected channels. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • VDA propagation path length L = 0.29 +/- 0.06 AU
    Inferred from velocity dispersion of SolO electron onsets (Appendix C); used to compute the solar injection time 12:16 UT, which is the central timing association.
  • Triple power-law electron spectral parameters = delta1=-2.24+/-0.05, delta2=-3.0+/-0.38, delta3=-4.37+/-0.81; breaks at 58+/-11 keV and 323+/-143 keV
    Fit to the SolO/EPD peak spectrum (Fig. 7); delta2 is used to argue the spectrum lies between typical flare and shock values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MAST MHD model provides accurate coronal electron density and magnetic field in the eastern limb and far-side region.
    Used for 3D de-projection of type II sources and for tracing open field lines to SolO and PSP (Section 3.1, Figs. 4-5); not independently validated at the source heights.
  • domain assumption Type II radio emission is harmonic plasma emission at approximately the local plasma frequency.
    The de-projection maps observed frequency to MAST density surfaces via the plasma frequency, following standard plasma emission theory (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption PFSS plus ballistic Parker spiral gives the magnetic footpoints of spacecraft.
    Used to identify SolO and PSP connectivity (Section 2, Fig. 1); relies on standard coronal field extrapolation assumptions.
  • domain assumption VDA assumptions of common injection time, common path length, and negligible scattering.
    Appendix C; used to derive the injection time and path length; the manual exclusion of channels weakens the assumption.
  • domain assumption The in situ magnetic field polarity at SolO is representative of the large-scale open field line connecting to the source.
    Used to match the negative polarity of the type II-connected field line (Section 3.2, Fig. 6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Determining the acceleration regions of in situ electrons using remote radio and X-ray observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7XD2IPP

@misc{pith2026241206477,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Determining the acceleration regions of in situ electrons using remote radio and X-ray observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7XD2IPP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06477}
}
read the original abstract

Solar energetic particles in the heliosphere are produced by flaring processes on the Sun or shocks driven by coronal mass ejections. These particles are regularly detected remotely as electromagnetic radiation (X-rays or radio emission), which they generate through various processes, or in situ by spacecraft monitoring the Sun and the heliosphere. We aim to combine remote-sensing and in situ observations of energetic electrons to determine the origin and acceleration mechanism of these particles. Here, we investigate the acceleration location, escape, and propagation directions of electron beams producing radio bursts observed with the Low Frequency Array (LOFAR), hard X-ray (HXR) emission and, in situ electrons observed at Solar Orbiter (SolO) on 3 October 2023. These observations are combined with a three-dimensional (3D) representation of the electron acceleration locations and results from a magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) model of the solar corona in order to investigate the origin and connectivity of electrons observed remotely at the Sun to in situ electrons. We observed a type II radio burst with good connectivity to SolO, where a significant electron event was detected. However, type III radio bursts and Hard X-rays were also observed co-temporally with the elctron event but likely connected to SolO by different far-sided field lines. The injection times of the SolO electrons are simultaneous with both the onset of the type II radio burst, the group of type III bursts and the presence of a second HXR peak, however, the most direct connection to SolO is that of the type II burst location. The in situ electron spectra point to shock acceleration of electrons with a short-term connection to the source region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06477 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The location of relevant spacecraft monitoring the Sun on 3 October 2023 at 12:00 UT. (a) The Solar-MACH plot (Gieseler et al. 2023) shows the spacecraft constellation observing the Sun on 3 October 2023. The only spacecraft that observed the in situ particles associated with the far-side CME (SolO and PSP) are differentiated by clear circles. The arrow denotes the direction pointing outwards from the flare site and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray spectrogram, composite dynamic spectrum of a complex radio event and energetic electron time series observed on 3 October 2023. (a) X-ray spectrogram from SolO/STIX showing the onset of the flare and the presence of two hard X-ray peaks: HXR I and HXR II. (b) The dynamic spectrum consists of spectra from PSP/RFS (1-20 MHz), LOFAR LBA (10–90 MHz) and LOFAR HBA (110–170 MHz). The labels ’F’ and ’H’ refer to fund… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The type II burst in dynamic spectrum and radio images. The top panel shows a zoomed in dynamic spectrum of the onset of the type II harmonic lanes. The arrows located to te left of this panel represent the frequency subbands that were imaged in the bottom panels. The bottom panels show the 70% radio contours at the time and frequencies denoted in the top panel using the same colouring, overlaid on AIA 211 Å running… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The type II emission centroids and their reconstruction in 3D. (a) Radio source centroids at 12:24:57 UT, where the colour bar denotes the observing frequency in MHz, overlaid on a GOES / SUVI 195 Å image in helioprojective coordinates. (b) Radio source centroids in 3D…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 3D locations of the type II radio bursts, HXR footpoints and CME combined with the MHD model results. The locations are shown from three different perspectives: Earth (left), solar North pole (middle), and SolO (right) in Heliographic Stonyhurst coordinates. The axis i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energetic electrons in the range of 41–54 keV observed in the four viewing directions of SolO/EPT (top panel), and pitch angles covered by the four viewing directions (2nd panel), followed by the colour-coded pitch-angle distribution (PAD), the magnetic field magnitude…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energetic electron peak intensity spectrum measured by SolO/EPD. The lower and fainter points represent the pre-event background, while the higher points represent the peak intensity measured by STEP, EPT and HET. The spectrum is fit with a triple power-law, excluding …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Continuous Ultra-Low-Frequency Solar Radio Monitoring with ALBATROS from the High Arctic

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ALBATROS, an eight-station Arctic radio array, detected solar radio bursts across 1–125 MHz, saw the same bursts at all stations, and found them correlated with GOES soft X-ray flares.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2009, A&A, 507, 981

    Agueda, N., Lario, D., Vainio, R., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 981

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    L., Kaiser, M

    Bougeret, J. L., Kaiser, M. L., Kellogg, P. J., et al. 1995, Space Sci. Rev., 71, 231

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    E., Howard, R

    Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J., et al. 1995, Sol. Phys., 162, 357

    1995

  4. [4]

    Cairns, I. H. & Robinson, R. D. 1987, Sol. Phys., 111, 365

    work page 1987

  5. [5]

    M., Seaton, D

    Darnel, J. M., Seaton, D. B., Bethge, C., et al. 2022, Space Weather, 20, e2022SW003044 de Gasperin, F., Dijkema, T. J., Drabent, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A5

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Domingo, V ., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, Sol. Phys., 162, 1

    1995

  7. [7]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 143

    Dresing, N., Effenberger, F., Gómez-Herrero, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 143

    2020

  8. [8]

    2022, ApJ, 925, L21

    Dresing, N., Kouloumvakos, A., Vainio, R., & Rouillard, A. 2022, ApJ, 925, L21

    work page 2022

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    2021, A&A, 654, A92

    Dresing, N., Warmuth, A., Effenberger, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A92

    2021

  2. [10]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, Space Sci. Rev., 204, 7

    2016

  3. [11]

    2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 384

    Gieseler, J., Dresing, N., Palmroos, C., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 384

    2023

  4. [12]

    Glesener, L., Krucker, S., & Lin, R. P. 2012, ApJ, 754, 9

    2012

  5. [13]

    2006, GEOPHYSICAL MONOGRAPH-AMERICAN GEO- PHYSICAL UNION, 165, 207

    Gopalswamy, N. 2006, GEOPHYSICAL MONOGRAPH-AMERICAN GEO- PHYSICAL UNION, 165, 207

    2006

  6. [14]

    W., Hill, F., Hubbard, R

    Harvey, J. W., Hill, F., Hubbard, R. P., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 1284

    1996

  7. [15]

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

    1983

  8. [16]

    C., Kouloumvakos, A., Magdalenic, J., et al

    Jebaraj, I. C., Kouloumvakos, A., Magdalenic, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A64

    2021

  9. [17]

    W., Aurass, H., Mann, G., & Klassen, A

    Kahler, S. W., Aurass, H., Mann, G., & Klassen, A. 2007, ApJ, 656, 567

    2007

  10. [18]

    W., Ling, A

    Kahler, S. W., Ling, A. G., & Gopalswamy, N. 2019, Sol. Phys., 294, 134

    2019

  11. [19]

    2002, A&A, 385, 1078

    Klassen, A., Bothmer, V ., Mann, G., et al. 2002, A&A, 385, 1078

    2002

  12. [20]

    2011, Sol

    Klassen, A., Gómez-Herrero, R., & Heber, B. 2011, Sol. Phys., 273, 413

    2011

  13. [21]

    Kontar, E. P. & Reid, H. A. S. 2009, ApJ, 695, L140

    2009

  14. [22]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 974137

    Kouloumvakos, A., Rodríguez-García, L., Gieseler, J., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 974137

    2022

  15. [23]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 99

    Kouloumvakos, A., Rouillard, A., Warmuth, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 99

    2021

  16. [24]

    J., Grimm, O., et al

    Krucker, S., Hurford, G. J., Grimm, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A15

    2020

  17. [25]

    P., Christe, S., Glesener, L., & Lin, R

    Krucker, S., Kontar, E. P., Christe, S., Glesener, L., & Lin, R. P. 2011, ApJ, 742, 82

    2011

  18. [26]

    R., Title, A

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

    2012

  19. [27]

    2021, Geophys

    Li, G., Wu, X., Effenberger, F., et al. 2021, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e95138

    2021

  20. [28]

    P., Mewaldt, R

    Lin, R. P., Mewaldt, R. A., & Van Hollebeke, M. A. I. 1982, ApJ, 253, 949

    1982

  21. [29]

    & Vainio, R

    Lintunen, J. & Vainio, R. 2004, A&A, 420, 343

    2004

  22. [30]

    A., & Miki´c, Z

    Lionello, R., Linker, J. A., & Miki´c, Z. 2009, ApJ, 690, 902 Magdaleni´c, J., Marqué, C., Fallows, R. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, L15

    2009

  23. [31]

    2019, A&A, 624, L2

    Mancuso, S., Frassati, F., Bemporad, A., & Barghini, D. 2019, A&A, 624, L2

    2019

  24. [32]

    & Klassen, A

    Mann, G. & Klassen, A. 2005, A&A, 441, 319

    2005

  25. [33]

    T., et al

    Mann, G., Klassen, A., Classen, H. T., et al. 1996, A&AS, 119, 489

    1996

  26. [34]

    2022, A&A, 660, A71

    Mann, G., V ocks, C., Warmuth, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A71

    2022

  27. [35]

    J., Alexander, N., Angold, N., et al

    McComas, D. J., Alexander, N., Angold, N., et al. 2016, Space Sci. Rev., 204, 187

    2016

  28. [36]

    E., Carley, E

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

    2019

  29. [37]

    E., Palmerio, E., Lynch, B

    Morosan, D. E., Palmerio, E., Lynch, B. J., & Kilpua, E. K. J. 2020, A&A, 633, A141

    2020

  30. [38]

    E., Pomoell, J., Palmroos, C., et al

    Morosan, D. E., Pomoell, J., Palmroos, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A31

    2024

  31. [39]

    E., Räsänen, J

    Morosan, D. E., Räsänen, J. E., Kumari, A., et al. 2022b, Sol. Phys., 297, 47 Müller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1

    2020

  32. [40]

    R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, et al

    Offringa, A. R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 606

    2014

  33. [41]

    2018, Space Sci

    Oka, M., Birn, J., Battaglia, M., et al. 2018, Space Sci. Rev., 214, 82

    2018

  34. [42]

    D., Thompson, B

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

    2012

  35. [43]

    D., Bonnell, J

    Pulupa, M., Bale, S. D., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Re- search (Space Physics), 122, 2836

    2017

  36. [44]

    Reames, D. V . 1999, Space Sci. Rev., 90, 413

    1999

  37. [45]

    Reid, H. A. S. & Ratcli ffe, H. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 773

    2014

  38. [46]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8 Rodríguez-Pacheco, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R

    Rochus, P., Auchère, F., Berghmans, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8 Rodríguez-Pacheco, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Mason, G. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A7

    2020

  39. [47]

    Stansby, D., Yeates, A., & Badman, S. T. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2732

    2020

  40. [48]

    D., Dresing, N., Kollhoff, A., & Brüdern, M

    Strauss, R. D., Dresing, N., Kollhoff, A., & Brüdern, M. 2020, ApJ, 897, 24 van Haarlem, M. P., Wise, M. W., Gunst, A. W., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A2

    2020

  41. [49]

    P., & The Rhessi Team

    Vilmer, N., Krucker, S., Lin, R. P., & The Rhessi Team. 2002, Sol. Phys., 210, 261 V oshchepynets, A., Krasnoselskikh, V ., Artemyev, A., & V olokitin, A. 2015, ApJ, 807, 38

    2002

  42. [50]

    Wild, J. P. 1950, Australian Journal of Scientific Research A Physical Sciences, 3, 399

    1950

  43. [51]

    Zimovets, I., Vilmer, N., Chian, A. C. L., Sharykin, I., & Struminsky, A. 2012, A&A, 547, A6

    2012

  44. [52]

    E., Rouillard, A

    Zucca, P., Morosan, D. E., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A89 Article number, page 10 of 12 D. E. Morosan et al.: Remote and in situ observations of energetic electrons Appendix A: STIX X-ray Imaging In order to determine the flare longitude and position of the HXR p...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.