Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Solar flares as electron accelerators: toward a resolution of the acceleration efficiency issue

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Solar flares are modest electron accelerators: hard X-ray imaging across six events gives an acceleration efficiency between 0.1% and 1.5%.

desk verdict Solid new measurement of eta from six STIX flares, but the error bars are missing and the geometry sensitivity means the 2% ceiling is not yet proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04769 v1 pith:273DXM5G submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEphysics.space-ph

Anna Volpara , Paolo Massa , Michele Piana , Anna Maria Massone , A Gordon Emslie This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEphysics.space-ph
keywords solarflareselectronaccelerationefficiencyhardX-rayimagingspectroscopySTIXCoulombcollisionaltransportDreicerfieldaccelerateddensityflareloops
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

Solar flares were recently claimed, from microwave observations, to accelerate nearly all the electrons in a large coronal volume; hard X-ray observations of the same event instead implied that less than 1% of the available electrons are accelerated. This paper attempts to settle that contradiction by using spatially resolved STIX hard X-ray observations of six flares to follow how the nonthermal electron spectrum changes along the loop. A cold-target Coulomb collisional model is fitted to those spectral shapes, giving an independent estimate of the ambient target density and thereby breaking the degeneracy in the product $n_{\rm acc}\times n_{\rm target}$. The inferred acceleration efficiency $\eta = n_{\rm acc}/n_{\rm target}$ lies between 0.001 and 0.015 in every event, whether the flare is of GOES class C, M, or X, and it decreases with target density as expected for acceleration by a weak, large-scale sub-Dreicer electric field. If the result holds, the Sun is a modest electron accelerator, not the near-ideal one suggested by microwaves.

What carries the argument

The engine is the spatial fingerprint of Coulomb collisional losses in a cold target: as electrons stream away from the acceleration site, the peak of their spectrum shifts to higher energies with distance, with $E_{\max}=E_{\rm stop}/\sqrt{\delta}$ and $E_{\rm stop}=\sqrt{2K n_{\rm target}(s-s_o)}$. Equation (3) convolves the point-source spectrum over a uniform acceleration region of length $L$, and fitting its shape to the STIX-derived spectra at positions along the loop yields the target density $n_{\rm target}$. With $n_{\rm target}$ in hand, equation (5) turns the observed density-weighted electron flux map into $n_{\rm acc}$, so the ratio $\eta=n_{\rm acc}/n_{\rm target}$ follows without any assumption about the magnetic field geometry. The complementary mechanism is the Dreicer runaway criterion, which gives $\eta=\frac12 \mathrm{erfc}\big((E_D/E)^{1/2}\big)$ and supplies the predicted decrease of efficiency with target density observed in the six events.

What would settle it

Measure the coronal target density of one of the six flares independently of the collisional fit (for example, from EUV differential emission measure or from the drift rate of type III radio bursts at the same loop position and time); if the independent density comes out more than roughly three times lower than the fitted $n_{\rm target}$ in Table 2, then $\eta$ for that event would exceed the claimed $1.5\%$ ceiling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the acceleration efficiency $\eta \equiv n_{\rm acc}/n_{\rm target}$, with $n_{\rm acc}$ the mean density of hard-X-ray-producing accelerated electrons and $n_{\rm target}$ the mean ambient density, is smaller than a percent in general and never exceeds $1.5\%$ in the six flares analyzed. The paper obtained this by first reconstructing electron flux maps at multiple energies from STIX visibilities using the imaging-spectroscopy method of [8], then fitting the spatial evolution of the nonthermal spectra with equation (3), the convolution of the point-source cold-target collisional spectrum over a uniform acceleration region of length $L$. The fit determines $n_{\rm target}$ from the position-dependent spectral peak, after which equation (5) converts the observed flux into $n_{\rm acc}$. The paper further shows that $\eta$ decreases with $n_{\rm target}$, a trend reproduced by a Dreicer-field runaway model with an accelerating field $\sim 2\times10^{-5}$ V cm$^{-1}$, and argues that the microwave-based near-unity efficiency of [5] rests on assumptions about magnetic geometry, electron angular distribution, and spectral extrapolation that hard X-ray data do not require.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spatial evolution of the electron spectrum is governed entirely by cold-target Coulomb collisions in a uniform-density target, with electrons injected uniformly over a region of length $L$, so that fitting equation (3) returns an unbiased $n_{\rm target}$; since $\eta \propto n_{\rm target}^{-2}$, an error of a factor of two in that density changes the claimed efficiency by a factor of four.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In all six flares, spanning GOES classes C, M, and X, the efficiency lies between $0.1\%$ and $1.5\%$, so even the most favorable event accelerates only a small minority of the ambient electrons.
  • The inferred efficiency does not track flare intensity but falls as the target density rises, which is the signature expected when a sub-Dreicer electric field (about $2\times10^{-5}$ V cm$^{-1}$) competes with Coulomb drag.
  • Spatially resolved hard X-ray spectroscopy can separate the product $n_{\rm acc}n_{\rm target}$ without invoking the magnetic-field or pitch-angle assumptions that microwave analyses need.
  • The near-unity microwave efficiency would require the steep nonthermal spectra to continue unflattened to low energies and a favorable magnetic and pitch-angle configuration, so the hard X-ray result places the practical upper bound on acceleration efficiency much lower.
  • These values constrain models of flare particle acceleration, ruling out mechanisms that energize most of the coronal electron population to deka-keV energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If non-collisional losses such as turbulence, magnetic mirroring, or return-current electric fields act inside the loop, the fitted $n_{\rm target}$ would absorb their effect and the true efficiency could be higher; a direct test is to compare the fitted $n_{\rm target}$ with an independent density diagnostic (EUV emission measure or radio type III drift) on the same events.
  • The same pipeline would settle the controversy at the level of individual events if applied to flares observed simultaneously by STIX and microwave instruments, rather than comparing different events as the current six-event sample does.
  • The paper's single-electric-field interpretation predicts that, across a larger sample, $\eta$ should track temperature and density through the combination $n_{\rm target}/T$; measuring that correlation would tell whether one sub-Dreicer field scale applies to all flares.
  • A practical extension would push the electron integration down from the 20 keV low-energy cutoff using the regularized spectra themselves, since the fraction of accelerated electrons depends sensitively on how the spectrum behaves near the thermal/nonthermal transition.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes six loop-shaped flares observed by STIX. From visibility-based imaging spectroscopy the authors reconstruct position-dependent electron flux spectra and fit a one-dimensional cold-target Coulomb-collision model (Eq. 3) to their evolution along the loop, obtaining an average target density n_target per event. Combining n_target with the HXR flux normalization (Eq. 5) gives the accelerated electron density n_acc and the efficiency eta = n_acc/n_target. The reported values lie in the range 0.001 < eta < 0.015, and the authors interpret the anti-correlation of eta with n_target using a sub-Dreicer electric-field acceleration model. The paper concludes that solar flares accelerate only a few percent or less of the ambient electron population, in line with the HXR-based conclusion of Kontar et al. (2023) and in conflict with the microwave-based near-unity efficiency of Fleishman et al. (2022).

Significance. If the quantitative result is robust, it would help resolve a well-publicized controversy in solar flare physics by using a different instrument (STIX) and a spatially resolved method. The pipeline is physically well motivated: the visibility-to-electron-map conversion uses standard bremsstrahlung cross sections, the transport model is the basic Coulomb collision formula, and the code and data are publicly available. The paper is also transparent about the ell assumption. However, the central claim is an upper bound ('never exceeds 2%'), and that bound depends sensitively on n_target and ell, for which no uncertainties or systematic validation are given. The strengths of the method do not yet close the gap between the observed F and the quoted eta under realistic loop geometry.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.3 and Table 2] All fitted quantities in Table 2 are quoted without uncertainties. Since the observed F fixes the electron map in Eq. (1) and Eq. (5) then gives n_acc proportional to 1/(ell n_target), the efficiency satisfies eta = n_acc/n_target proportional to 1/(ell n_target^2). Consequently a factor-of-2 error in n_target changes eta by a factor of 4, which is the whole span of the claimed range 0.001–0.015. The paper should report confidence intervals from the fits, propagate them to eta, and include a systematic-sensitivity table with respect to ell and to the assumed loop geometry; without this, the headline statement 'never exceeds 2%' is not yet established.
  2. [§2.3, Eq. (3) and §4.4] The manuscript does not state explicitly whether the fit to determine n_target is performed on the weighted quantity F (Eq. 1) or on the unweighted electron flux F(s;E). Eq. (3) is derived for F, while the STIX inversion returns F, which contains the extra s-dependent factor n_target(s)ell(s). If the fit is to the spectral shape of F, that factor is ignored; if it is removed first, the removal requires prior knowledge of n_target and ell. This distinction is important because a position-dependent weighting changes the shape evolution along the loop and can bias the fitted n_target. Please specify the fitted quantity and justify the treatment of the weighting factor.
  3. [§2.3, §4.4] Equation (3) models a uniform-density target and uses the path length s traveled by the electrons. In the analysis, s is effectively taken from the projected distance along the loop on the plane of the sky. For a loop inclined to the line of sight the true traversed column is larger by approximately 1/cos(theta); with a 60-degree inclination, n_target would be overestimated by a factor 2 and eta underestimated by a factor 4. A density gradient along the loop distorts the spectrum shape relative to Eq. (3) even when the projected distance equals the true distance. The paper's robustness discussion in Section 3 covers the bremsstrahlung cross-section and the Coulomb-loss model, but not this geometric/density-gradient bias. A synthetic forward-model test of the full pipeline is needed to show that n_target is recovered without bias in realistic geometries.
  4. [§2.3 and Fig. 3] The regression that produces n_target is not documented in enough detail: the number of energy channels and spatial positions entering the fit, the treatment of the thermal component at low energies, the handling of the parameters A and delta, and the fit residuals are not shown. The acceleration-region length L is taken from the image and held fixed (e.g., L = 5.2 x 10^8 cm in Fig. 3), yet its uncertainty is not propagated. Since Eq. (3) can be degenerate for certain combinations of n_target, delta, and L, the identifiability of n_target from the spectral shape should be demonstrated. This is a load-bearing point because n_target is the main input to eta.
  5. [§2.3] The accelerated density n_acc is integrated over 20–45 keV, with the lower limit described as a low-energy cutoff. The value of eta depends directly on this cutoff, and the claim that solar flares accelerate only a small fraction of the ambient electrons should account for electrons accelerated to energies below 20 keV. Please provide a sensitivity analysis with respect to the low-energy cutoff and, if possible, an estimate of the number of accelerated electrons that may be missing below the integration range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'eventto' should be 'event to' in the second sentence of the abstract.
  2. [§2.4, Eq. (7)] The definition of n_o is confusing: the text writes 'The constant parameter 2 n_o = ...' and then uses n_o in Eq. (7) and in the fit n_o = 5 x 10^9 cm^-3. Please define n_o unambiguously and check whether the factor of 2 appears consistently in the derivation.
  3. [Fig. 4] The caption states that each symbol is related to a particular event and each color to a different position within that event, while Table 2 gives one n_target per event. Please clarify whether the plotted points are individual pixels/positions or event-averaged values, since this affects the interpretation of the fit to Eq. (7).
  4. [Table 1] The event identifiers are not in the standard STIX format (e.g., SOL2023-01-10T22:44:24). Using the standard naming would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: n_target comes from spectral-shape fitting and n_acc from flux normalization, so the ratio is not a fit by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The target density n_target is obtained by fitting the collisional transport model of equation (3) to the spatially resolved shapes of the electron flux spectra F(s;E) derived from STIX visibilities; this fitting uses only the evolution of the spectral shape with position, not the absolute flux normalization. The accelerated electron density n_acc is then obtained from equation (5), which uses the absolute hard X-ray flux normalization together with the assumed line-of-sight depth l and the already-determined n_target. These are distinct observables: spectral shape versus flux magnitude. Thus the ratio eta = n_acc/n_target is not equivalent by construction to a fitted parameter; it is a derived quantity from two independent pieces of data. The electric-field interpretation in Section 4.3 and Figure 4 is explicitly a post-hoc fit of equation (7) to the observationally derived (eta, n_target) points, not an input to their derivation. Self-citations to the imaging-spectroscopy method [8], the MEMGE reconstruction [10], and the extended-acceleration-region transport formulas [39-41] provide methodological tools, but the load-bearing physics (Coulomb energy-loss rate, bremsstrahlung cross-section, and the cold-target transport equation) is standard external physics, and the cited prior results are not invoked to forbid alternatives or to define the target quantity. The paper's acknowledged assumptions about uniform density, single-path propagation, and plane-of-sky geometry affect the robustness and uncertainty of n_target and hence of eta, but they are modeling assumptions rather than circular reductions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no step reduces to its own input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard thick-target bremsstrahlung and Coulomb collisional models, on the assumption of a square uniform acceleration region, and on several fitted or hand-chosen quantities, especially n_target, ell, and the 20 to 45 keV integration range. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Mean target density n_target per event = 1.1e10 to 3.6e10 cm^-3 (Table 2)
    Fit by matching the collisional model in equation (3) to the spatially varying electron spectra. This quantity enters equation (5) and strongly affects eta, which scales roughly as 1/n_target^2.
  • Injected spectral index delta and normalization A per event = not tabulated
    Fitted parameters in equation (3) needed to reproduce the observed spectral shapes and therefore to extract n_target from the collisional model.
  • Line-of-sight source depth ell per event = 5e8 to 1.0e9 cm (Table 2)
    Assumed equal to the sky-plane loop width because no direct line-of-sight information exists. n_acc and eta scale as 1/ell, so an error in ell directly changes the result.
  • Low-energy integration cutoff for n_acc = 20 keV lower, 45 keV upper
    Chosen because the thermal component dominates below 20 keV and the inferred electron spectrum is unreliable above 45 keV. Changing these limits would change the accelerated density n_acc.
  • Acceleration region length L per event = 4.0e8 to 1.1e9 cm (Table 2)
    Taken from loop geometry and used in equation (3); the fitted n_target depends on this assumed spatial extent and on the square injection profile.
  • n_o or equivalent electric field E in Figure 4 = n_o = 5e9 cm^-3, E about 2e-5 V/cm
    Free parameter obtained by fitting equation (7) to the eta versus n_target scatter. This is used for the self-consistent interpretation, not for deriving the central efficiency values.
  • Temperature T per event = 1.4e7 to 2.2e7 K (Table 2)
    Obtained from isothermal fits to the STIX photon spectra and used in the electric-field interpretation through equation (7), not in the primary calculation of eta.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The hard X-ray source is optically thin and bremsstrahlung follows the isotropic Bethe-Heitler cross-section.
    Used in equations (9) through (13) to convert count visibilities into electron flux visibilities. This is standard in solar hard X-ray spectroscopy.
  • domain assumption Target electron and proton densities are equal by quasi-neutrality, so bremsstrahlung on protons probes the target electron density.
    Invoked in the Introduction and implicitly used in equation (5) to connect hard X-ray flux to n_acc times n_target.
  • domain assumption Electrons lose energy by Coulomb collisions with cold ambient electrons at a rate dE/ds = -K n_target/E, with K = 2 pi e^4 ln Lambda, and pitch-angle scattering is neglected.
    Equation (21) in Section 4.4. This is the key physical model used to fit n_target from the spatial variation of the electron spectrum. Non-collisional losses or significant scattering would bias n_target.
  • ad hoc to paper Electrons are injected uniformly over a square acceleration region of length L at the loop apex with a power-law spectrum A E^-delta.
    Equation (3) and equation (27). This injection geometry is assumed, not independently verified, and it is central to the n_target fit.
  • domain assumption The density in the acceleration region is comparable to n_target in the rest of the loop.
    Stated just before equation (7) in Section 2.4. It is required to interpret eta as the fraction of the Maxwellian population accelerated by a uniform electric field.
  • domain assumption Regularized spectral inversion produces electron spectra whose spatial variation is preserved well enough for quantitative fitting.
    This underlies all reconstructed electron maps F(x,y;E), and the paper argues smoothing is helpful, but no synthetic validation is shown to quantify the bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solar flares as electron accelerators: toward a resolution of the acceleration efficiency issue." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/273DXM5G

@misc{pith2026250204769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solar flares as electron accelerators: toward a resolution of the acceleration efficiency issue},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/273DXM5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04769}
}
read the original abstract

A major open issue concerning the active Sun is the effectiveness with which magnetic reconnection accelerates electrons in flares. A paper published by {\em{Nature}} in 2022 used microwave observations to conclude that the Sun is an almost ideal accelerator, energizing nearly all electrons within a coronal volume to nonthermal energies. Shortly thereafter, a paper published in {\em{Astrophysical Journal Letters}} used hard X-ray measurements \emph{of the same event} to reach the contradictory conclusion that less than 1\% of the available electrons were accelerated. Here we address this controversy by using spatially resolved observations of hard X-ray emission and a spectral inversion method to determine the evolution of the electron spectrum throughout the flare. So we estimated the density of the medium where electrons accelerate and, from this, the ratio of accelerated to ambient electron densities. Results show that this ratio never exceeds a percent or so in the cases analyzed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Solar Phys.18(3), 489–502 (1971) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00149070

    Brown, J.C.: The Deduction of Energy Spectra of Non-Thermal Electrons in Flares from the Observed Dynamic Spectra of Hard X-Ray Bursts. Solar Phys.18(3), 489–502 (1971) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00149070

    doi:10.1007/bf00149070 1971

  2. [2]

    Solar Phys

    Brown, J.C.: The Temperature Structure of Chromospheric Flares Heated by Non-Thermal Electrons. Solar Phys. 31(1), 143–169 (1973) https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00156080

    work page 1973

  3. [3]

    Solar Phys.50(1), 153–178 (1976) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00206199

    Lin, R.P., Hudson, H.S.: Non-thermal Processes in Large Solar Flares. Solar Phys.50(1), 153–178 (1976) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00206199

    doi:10.1007/bf00206199 1976

  4. [4]

    Space Sci

    Fletcher, L., Dennis, B.R., Hudson, H.S., Krucker, S., Phillips, K., Veronig, A., Battaglia, M., Bone, L., Caspi, A., Chen, Q., Gallagher, P., Grigis, P.T., Ji, H., Liu, W., Milligan, R.O., Temmer, M.: An Observational Overview of Solar Flares. Space Sci. Rev.159(1- 4), 19–106 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-010-9701-8 arXiv:1109.5932 [astro- ph.SR]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Nature 606(7915), 674–677 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04728-8 15

    Fleishman, G.D., Nita, G.M., Chen, B., Yu, S., Gary, D.E.: Solar Flare Accelerates nearly all Electrons in a Large Coronal Volume. Nature 606(7915), 674–677 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04728-8 15

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04728-8 2022

  6. [6]

    Kontar, E.P., Emslie, A.G., Motorina, G.G., Dennis, B.R.: The Efficiency of Electron Acceleration during the Impulsive Phase of a Solar Flare. Ap. J. Letters 947(1), 13 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acc9b7 arXiv:2304.01088 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    A&A642, 15 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201937362

    Krucker, S., Hurford, G.J., Grimm, O., K ¨ogl, S., Gr¨obelbauer, H.-P., Etesi, L., Casadei, D., Csillaghy, A., Benz, A.O., Arnold, N.G.: The Spectrometer/Telescope for Imaging X-rays (STIX). A&A642, 15 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201937362

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937362 2020

  8. [8]

    Piana, M., Massone, A.M., Hurford, G.J., Prato, M., Emslie, A.G., Kontar, E.P., Schwartz, R.A.: Electron Flux Spectral Imaging of Solar Flares through Regularized Analysis of Hard X-Ray Source Visibilities. Ap. J. 665, 846–855 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1086/ 519518

    work page 2007

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Solar Phys

    Lemen, J.R., Title, A.M., Akin, D.J., Boerner, P.F., Chou, C., Drake, J.F., Duncan, D.W., Edwards, C.G., Friedlaender, F.M., Heyman, G.F., Hurlburt, N.E., Katz, N.L., Kushner, G.D., Levay, M., Lindgren, R.W., Mathur, D.P., McFeaters, E.L., Mitchell, S., Rehse, R.A., Schrijver,...

    2012

  2. [10]

    Massa, P., Schwartz, R., Tolbert, A.K., Massone, A.M., Dennis, B.R., Piana, M., Ben- venuto, F.: MEMGE: A New Maximum Entropy Method for Image Reconstruction from Solar X-Ray Visibilities. Ap. J. 894(1), 46 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ ab8637 arXiv:2002.07921 [ast...

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Koch, H.W., Motz, J.W.: Bremsstrahlung Cross-Section Formulas and Related Data. Rev. Mod. Phys.31(4), 920–955 (1959) https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.31.920

    1959 doi

  4. [12]

    A&A 684, 185 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 202348553 arXiv:2311.07148 [astro-ph.SR]

    Volpara, A., Massa, P., Krucker, S., Emslie, A.G., Piana, M., Maria Massone, A.: Vari- ation of the Electron Flux Spectrum along a Solar Flare Loop as Inferred from STIX Hard X-ray Observations. A&A 684, 185 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 202348553 arXiv:2311.07148 ...

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Emslie, A.G.: The Collisional Interaction of a Beam of Charged Particles with a Hydrogen Target of Arbitrary Ionization Level. Ap. J. 224, 241–246 (1978) https: //doi.org/10.1086/156371

    1978 doi

  6. [14]

    Benka, S.G., Holman, G.D.: A Thermal/Nonthermal Model for Solar Hard X-Ray Bursts. Ap. J. 435, 469 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1086/174829

    1994 doi

  7. [15]

    Solar Phys.194(2), 327–343 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1005298816626 16

    Litvinenko, Y.E.: Particle Acceleration in Reconnecting Current Sheets in Impulsive Electron-Rich Solar Flares. Solar Phys.194(2), 327–343 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1005298816626 16

    2000

  8. [16]

    A&A304, 576 (1995)

    Mann, G., Classen, H.-T.: Electron Acceleration to High Energies at Quasi-parallel Shock Waves in the Solar Corona. A&A304, 576 (1995)

    1995

  9. [17]

    Miller, J.A., Larosa, T.N., Moore, R.L.: Stochastic Electron Acceleration by Cascading Fast Mode Waves in Impulsive Solar Flares. Ap. J. 461, 445 (1996) https://doi.org/10. 1086/177072

    1996

  10. [18]

    Space Sci

    Zharkova, V.V., Arzner, K., Benz, A.O., Browning, P., Dauphin, C., Emslie, A.G., Fletcher, L., Kontar, E.P., Mann, G., Onofri, M., Petrosian, V., Turkmani, R., Vilmer, N., Vlahos, L.: Recent Advances in Understanding Particle Acceleration Processes in Solar Flares. Space Sci. ...

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Interscience, New York (1962)

    Spitzer, L.: Physics of Fully Ionized Gases. Interscience, New York (1962)

    1962

  12. [20]

    Dreicer, H.: Electron and Ion Runaway in a Fully Ionized Gas. I. Physical Review115(2), 238–249 (1959) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.115.238

    1959 doi

  13. [21]

    Massone, A.M., Emslie, A.G., Kontar, E.P., Piana, M., Prato, M., Brown, J.C.: Anisotropic Bremsstrahlung Emission and the Form of Regularized Electron Flux Spectra in Solar Flares. Ap. J.613(2), 1233–1240 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1086/423127

    2004 doi

  14. [22]

    SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences 8(2), 1315–1331 (2015)

    Giordano, S., Pinamonti, N., Piana, M., Massone, A.M.: The Process of Data Formation for the Spectrometer/Telescope for Imaging X-rays (STIX) on Solar Orbiter. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences 8(2), 1315–1331 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    A&A624, 130 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935323

    Massa, P., Piana, M., Massone, A.M., Benvenuto, F.: Count-based Imaging Model for the Spectrometer/Telescope for Imaging X-rays (STIX) on Solar Orbiter. A&A624, 130 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935323

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Solar Phys

    Massa, P., Hurford, G.J., Volpara, A., Kuhar, M., Battaglia, A.F., Xiao, H., Casadei, D., Perracchione, E., Garbarino, S., Guastavino, S.,et al.: The STIX Imaging Concept. Solar Phys. 298(10), 114 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-023-02205-7

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Open Astronomy29(1), 220–230 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1515/astro-2020-0022

    Siarkowski, M., Mrozek, T., Sylwester, J., Litwicka, M., Dabek, M.: The non-Fourier Image Reconstruction Method for the STIX Instrument. Open Astronomy29(1), 220–230 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1515/astro-2020-0022

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Perracchione, E., Massa, P., Massone, A.M., Piana, M.: Visibility Interpolation in Solar Hard X-ray Imaging: Application to RHESSI and STIX. Ap. J. 919(2), 133 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac158d

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    A&A 668, 145 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243907

    Volpara, A., Massa, P., Perracchione, E., Battaglia, A.F., Garbarino, S., Benvenuto, F., Krucker, S., Piana, M., Massone, A.M.: Forward Fitting STIX Visibilities. A&A 668, 145 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243907

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Perracchione, E., Camattari, F., Volpara, A., Massa, P., Massone, A.M., Piana, M.: 17 Unbiased CLEAN for STIX on Solar Orbiter. Ap. J. Supplement Series 268(2), 68 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/acf669

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Inverse Problems 40(12), 125017 (2024) https://doi

    Volpara, A., Catalano, M., Piana, M., Massone, A.M.: Multi-scale CLEAN for Fourier- based Hard X-ray Solar Imaging. Inverse Problems 40(12), 125017 (2024) https://doi. org/10.1088/1361-6420/ad91db

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Brown, J.C., Emslie, A.G., Kontar, E.P.: The Determination and Use of Mean Electron Flux Spectra in Solar Flares. Ap. J. 595(2), 115–117 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1086/ 378169

    2003

  23. [31]

    Solar Phys

    Lin, R.P., Dennis, B.R., Hurford, G.J., Smith, D.M., Zehnder, A., Harvey, P.R., Curtis, D.W., Pankow, D., Turin, P., Bester, M., Csillaghy, A., Lewis, M., Madden, N., van Beek, H.F., Appleby, M., Raudorf, T., McTiernan, J., Ramaty, R., Schmahl, E., Schwartz, R., Krucker, S., A...

    2002

  24. [32]

    A&A 288, 949–959 (1994)

    Piana, M.: Inversion of Bremsstrahlung Spectra emitted by Solar Plasma. A&A 288, 949–959 (1994)

    1994

  25. [33]

    Piana, M., Massone, A.M., Kontar, E.P., Emslie, A.G., Brown, J.C., Schwartz, R.A.: Regularized Electron Flux Spectra in the 2002 July 23 Solar Flare. Ap. J. 595, 127–130 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1086/378171

    2003 doi

  26. [34]

    Brown, J.C., Emslie, A.G., Holman, G.D., Johns-Krull, C.M., Kontar, E.P., Lin, R.P., Massone, A.M., Piana, M.: Evaluation of Algorithms for Reconstructing Electron Spectra from Their Bremsstrahlung Hard X-Ray Spectra. Ap. J. 643(1), 523–531 (2006) https: //doi.org/10.1086/501497

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    Springer, Berlin (2022)

    Piana, M., Emslie, A.G., Massone, A.M., Dennis, B.R.: Hard X-ray Imaging of Solar Flares. Springer, Berlin (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87277-9

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Solar Phys

    Kontar, E.P., Emslie, A.G., Piana, M., Massone, A.M., Brown, J.C.: Determination of Electron Flux Spectra in a Solar Flare with an Augmented Regularization Method: Application to RHESSI Data. Solar Phys. 226(2), 317–325 (2005) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11207-005-7150-4 arXiv:a...

    2005 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Abramowitz, M., Stegun, I.A.: Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, (1965) 18

    1965

  30. [38]

    Solar Phys.26, 441–459 (1972) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00165286

    Brown, J.C.: The Directivity and Polarisation of Thick Target X-Ray Bremsstrahlung from Solar Flares. Solar Phys.26, 441–459 (1972) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00165286

    1972 doi

  31. [39]

    Xu, Y., Emslie, A.G., Hurford, G.J.: RHESSI Hard X-Ray Imaging Spectroscopy of Extended Sources and the Physical Properties of Electron Acceleration Regions in Solar Flares. Ap. J. 673(1), 576–585 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1086/524184

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    Guo, J., Emslie, A.G., Massone, A.M., Piana, M.: Properties of the Acceleration Regions in Several Loop-structured Solar Flares. Ap. J.755(1), 32 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/755/1/32 arXiv:1206.2391 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A&A 543, 53 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201219341 arXiv:1206.0477 [astro-ph.SR] 19

    Guo, J., Emslie, A.G., Kontar, E.P., Benvenuto, F., Massone, A.M., Piana, M.: Determi- nation of the Acceleration Region Size in a Loop-structured Solar Flare. A&A 543, 53 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201219341 arXiv:1206.0477 [astro-ph.SR] 19

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.