Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

High-resolution Observation of Mini-Filament Eruptions Near Coronal Hole Boundary and Their Response in Solar Corona

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Observing 28 mini-filament eruptions at a coronal hole boundary, this study finds the three largest drove coronal ejections while the rest brightened overlying coronal bright points, evidence that tiny eruptions feed mass and magnetic…

desk verdict Careful high-resolution study of the smallest mini-filament eruptions to date; the qualitative findings are credible, but the quantitative correlation and budget numbers need more rigor before they can carry the solar-wind claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07666 v2 pith:VIM7UCHZ submitted 2025-02-11 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Nengyi Huang , Haimin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords mini-filamenteruptionscoronalholesbrightpointssolarcoronaH-alphaimagingEUVbrighteningswindmagneticfluxcancellation
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

The paper reports 28 mini-filament eruptions observed at high resolution in Hα near the boundary of a coronal hole, with co-aligned EUV images of the corona. It claims that the three largest eruptions produced measurable coronal responses—two consecutive ones drove a small eruptive coronal ejection and another produced a jet-like brightening—while the 25 smaller eruptions coincided with localized brightenings in overlying coronal bright points. On this basis, the authors argue that mini-filament eruptions transfer mass and magnetic flux into the corona, especially inside coronal holes, and estimate a global rate of about $10^{4}$ events per day with a total energy input comparable to the needs of coronal bright points. A moderate correlation (0.65) between mini-filament length and integrated EUV contrast supports the size–response link.

What carries the argument

The carrying observational tool is the co-aligned pair of high-cadence Hα pseudo-Dopplergrams and EUV 193 Å difference images. Pseudo-Dopplergrams pick out mini-filaments as small Doppler-shifted features and fix their eruption time and location; the EUV difference images then reveal the coronal response. The quantitative link is a scatter plot of mini-filament length versus integrated EUV contrast (arcsec·s), giving a correlation coefficient of 0.65 after removing one outlier, plus magnetograms that show flux emergence followed by cancellation at the footpoints of the two largest events.

What would settle it

A targeted campaign with simultaneous high-cadence (about 10 s) Hα and EUV imaging of a coronal-hole boundary would settle it: if most visually identified mini-filament eruptions produced no localized 193 Å brightening once the cadence and sensitivity are improved, the claimed one-to-one correspondence would fail. A simpler check is to test whether coronal bright point brightenings ever start before the Hα eruption or occur with no mini-filament at all.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that even the smallest chromospheric eruptions—mini-filaments spanning roughly 4–13 arcseconds—have a detectable coronal counterpart when observed with high-resolution Hα data and EUV difference imaging. The three largest events produced clear coronal consequences: two consecutive eruptions launched a small-scale blow-out ejection, and a triple eruption produced a jet-like brightening. The remaining 25 events, which showed no obvious ejection, were still accompanied by transient brightenings in overlying coronal bright points, with brightening onset locked to eruption time. The paper reads this as evidence that mini-filament eruptions are a genuine, quantifiable pathway for mass and magnetic flux into the corona near coronal holes, with the largest events potentially feeding small-scale magnetic flux ropes in the solar wind.

Load-bearing premise

The chain rests on the assumption that the EUV brightenings are actually caused by the preceding mini-filament eruptions and not just coincidental fluctuations in the dynamic coronal-hole background; the paper establishes this only by timing and spatial coincidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mini-filament eruptions occur at a global rate of roughly 1.1 × 10^4 per day, making them more numerous than X-ray jets and comparable to jetlets, so they form a significant population of coronal transients.
  • The estimated energy input from mini-filament eruptions, about 10^29 erg per day, is comparable to the total energy requirement of coronal bright points, though far below the overall coronal heating requirement.
  • The estimated mass input, about 10^16 g per day, greatly exceeds the solar wind mass loss rate of about 10^14 g per day, though only a fraction of that mass is released into open field lines.
  • Only the larger mini-filament eruptions—those producing visible coronal ejections—are plausible sources of small-scale magnetic flux ropes in the solar wind, while smaller eruptions mainly heat local coronal bright points.
  • The measured size–brightness correlation means mini-filament length can serve as a proxy for coronal response strength in future surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mini-filament–coronal bright point association is causal, then the high global rate implies the chromosphere is continuously injecting small energy pulses into coronal holes, which could matter for models of coronal hole heating and solar wind seed populations even though each event is tiny.
  • The 0.65 correlation rests on only 28 events with one outlier removed; a larger sample could either confirm the trend or show that it is driven entirely by the few largest events, which would change the physical interpretation from a general size rule to a threshold effect.
  • The energy and mass extrapolations assume that a single previously studied mini-filament is representative; high-resolution spectroscopy of many events is needed to test whether thermal and kinetic energies actually scale linearly with filament size.
  • The paper’s own caveat leaves open that smaller mini-filament eruptions may drive coronal ejections that current EUV sensitivity misses; higher-sensitivity observations would likely push the estimated contribution to the solar wind upward.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports high-resolution Hα observations from BBSO/GST VIS and SDO/AIA 193 Å of 28 mini-filament eruptions near coronal hole boundaries over about 7.5 hours of useful data across five days. Three larger MFEs are presented as the sources of two small-scale coronal ejections, one classified as eruptive and one as jet-like, while the 25 smaller MFEs are claimed to be associated with localized brightenings in coronal bright points. The paper further reports a moderate positive correlation between MFE length and integrated EUV contrast, an association with magnetic flux cancellation in the two large events, and extrapolated global occurrence, energy, and mass-input rates for MFEs. The central claim is that MFEs transfer significant mass and magnetic flux to the corona and, for the largest events, may contribute to solar wind structures such as small-scale magnetic flux ropes.

Significance. If the observational association between small MFEs and coronal brightenings is robust, the paper provides a useful high-resolution, multi-wavelength data set for a population of events that is otherwise difficult to observe. The detailed case studies of two consecutive MFEs and of the three-component jet-like event are valuable and physically suggestive, including the Doppler signatures of untwisting and the NIRIS magnetograms showing flux emergence and cancellation. The explicit comparison with the larger Huang et al. (2023) catalog and with PSP-era targeting is a constructive step toward connecting chromospheric events to solar wind structures. However, the quantitative support for the generalized claims is currently weak: the correlation analysis relies on post-hoc outlier removal without criteria, no uncertainties or significance tests accompany the EUV contrast and length measurements, and the energy/mass scaling rests on assumed values from one previously studied event. The qualitative case studies are sound but the paper's central generalization to all 28 events requires stronger statistical backing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3] The claim that all 25 smaller MFEs were associated with localized CBP brightenings is established only by temporal and spatial coincidence, with no control sample, null-hypothesis test, or false-positive estimate. The paper itself notes in this section that the highly dynamic AIA 193 Å background, especially in coronal holes, complicates identification, so it is essential to demonstrate that the brightenings are not random fluctuations. Without this, the derived occurrence rate, the size-EUV contrast correlation in Figure 7, and the mass/energy input estimates in Section 4 lose their empirical foundation.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figure 7] The reported correlation coefficient r=0.65 is computed after excluding an 'obvious outliner' event, but no objective criterion for this exclusion is stated, no uncertainties on the individual length and EUV-contrast measurements are given, and no significance test or confidence interval for the correlation is provided. Since the abstract's 'certain trend' rests on this result, the analysis should be redone with a stated, reproducible outlier rule and with uncertainties propagated from the measurements.
  3. [Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3] There is an internal tension about the coronal response of smaller MFEs: Section 3.1 states that smaller MFEs do not generate clear eruptive signatures in AIA 193 Å and Section 3.2 states that smaller MFEs generally exhibit no clear coronal response, whereas Section 3.3 states that all 25 smaller MFEs were accompanied by enhanced integrated 193 Å emission. The paper should reconcile these statements explicitly, for example by distinguishing 'no clear eruptive signature' from 'localized CBP brightening,' and by quantifying how many of the 25 events showed identifiable brightenings without prior knowledge of the MFE timing.
  4. [Section 4] The global occurrence rate, energy input, and mass input estimates are extrapolated from 7.5 hours within a 30''×30'' field of view to the entire solar surface, and the energy/mass scaling uses the single event from Wang et al. (2024) with an assumed average mass of 10^12 g per event. No uncertainties are attached to these extrapolations, and the assumptions of uniform solar-surface distribution and representative energy per event are not tested. Because the abstract and discussion present these numbers as evidence that MFEs play a significant role in mass and flux transfer, the estimates should be presented with explicit ranges and a statement of the dominant systematic uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] There are several typographical errors in the caption, including 'reprensent' for 'represent' and 'magneta' for 'magenta,' and the caption would benefit from a consistent description of the coordinate axes.
  2. [Figure 3] The top-row y-axis is labeled only 'Magnetic Field' without units; the reader must infer that the values are in arbitrary or relative units, and specifying the unit and the integration area would improve interpretability.
  3. [Section 3.3] The paper mentions 'six such MFEs' for Figure 6 but does not explain how these six relate to the 25 smaller events or the full sample of 28; a sentence clarifying the selection for Figure 6 would prevent confusion.
  4. [Section 4] The comparison table (Table 2) lists occurrence rates from different instruments and detection criteria spanning several orders of magnitude; the paper should state this limitation directly in the text rather than only in the discussion of jetlet rates.
  5. [Throughout] The notation 'Hα−0.8 Å' should be consistently formatted (e.g., using a minus sign or en-dash) and the units of 'arcsec · s' for integrated EUV contrast should be defined in the text where the quantity is first introduced.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Only mild self-citation circularity in ejection classification; core observational claims are independent measurements.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3.2, 'Case study of a Mini-filament Eruption as the Source of a Coronal Jet-like Event', paragraph 4; also Section 3 opening classification]
    "The observational characteristics of this event align with our previous classification of jet-like brightenings, reinforcing that these coronal responses are often associated with multiple concurrent MFEs rather than singular large-scale filament eruptions. Importantly, only larger MFEs appear to produce these jet-like brightenings, while smaller MFEs generally exhibit no clear coronal response. This distinction further supports the classification in Huang et al. (2023), where only sufficiently energetic MFEs were found to drive observable coronal dynamics."

    The event is categorized using the authors' own prior classification scheme: the paper states 'Following the classification scheme for coronal ejections outlined in Huang et al. (2023), one of these small-scale coronal ejections was categorized as an eruptive event per Huang et al. (2023),' and the ejections were 'identified using the algorithm described in Huang et al. (2023).' The same observation is then presented as 'further supporting' that classification. This is a self-referential validation: the category assigned to the event is defined by the very scheme the observation is claimed to reinforce, so the confirmation is partly circular. This weakness is mild and localized, however, because the main mass-transfer and brightening claims do not depend on the Huang et al.

full rationale

The central observational claims are not circular: the 28 MFE identifications, the AIA 193 Å brightening associations, the MFE length versus EUV contrast correlation (r = 0.65), and the occurrence-rate estimate are measurements/extrapolations with stated selection criteria, not quantities fitted to the conclusions. The energy and mass totals (∼10^29 erg/day, ∼10^16 g/day) are explicitly scaled from Wang et al. (2024) using a stated area-scaling assumption; they are approximations, not predictions, and the scaling assumption is acknowledged rather than hidden. The only identifiable circular feature is the self-citation of Huang et al. (2023) in the classification of the two small-scale coronal ejections: the events are classified with the authors' own algorithm and then said to 'further support' that same classification. This is a minor self-referential loop that does not bear on the paper's main finding that MFEs are temporally and spatially associated with localized coronal brightenings. The lack of a null-hypothesis control for the coincidence-based association is a correctness/statistical concern, not a circularity one, and is noted separately.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces; SMFRs and CBPs are taken from prior literature. The main assumptions are the uniform spatial extrapolation, the physical similarity to a single reference MFE, the magnetogram inversion approximation, the reliability of visual identification, and the causality of the MFE-CBP association.

free parameters (2)
  • MFE energy scaling factor = 8/5 ≈ 1.6
    Chosen from the ratio of the typical observed MFE length (8 arcsec) to the reference event length (5 arcsec) in Wang et al. (2024); applied linearly to both thermal and kinetic energy (Section 4).
  • Assumed average MFE mass per event = 1e12 g
    Taken by scaling from Wang et al. (2024); used to convert the global MFE rate into a total mass input of about 1e16 g/day (Section 4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Uniform spatial distribution of MFEs across the solar surface.
    Used to extrapolate the occurrence rate from the observed 484 Mm^2 FOV near a coronal hole boundary to the whole Sun (Section 4); the boundary region may not be representative.
  • domain assumption Physical similarity of all observed MFEs to the single MFE analyzed by Wang et al. (2024).
    Energy and mass scaling assumes the same thickness (2 arcsec) and the same energy density per unit area for all events (Section 4).
  • domain assumption Milne-Eddington approximation and weak-field assumption for NIRIS magnetogram inversion.
    Section 2.1 states the LOS magnetogram retrieval assumes field strengths roughly below 1 kG and a Milne-Eddington atmosphere, a standard but unverified assumption for these data.
  • domain assumption Visual identification and manual registration are reliable for MFE detection and co-alignment.
    MFEs are identified by visual inspection of pseudo-Dopplergrams (Section 2.2) and GST coordinates are manually aligned (Section 2.3); this introduces subjectivity.
  • domain assumption The AIA 193 Å brightenings are causally associated with the identified MFEs rather than background variability.
    The association is established by temporal and spatial coincidence (Section 3.3), not by a quantitative causal model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-resolution Observation of Mini-Filament Eruptions Near Coronal Hole Boundary and Their Response in Solar Corona." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VIM7UCHZ

@misc{pith2026250207666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-resolution Observation of Mini-Filament Eruptions Near Coronal Hole Boundary and Their Response in Solar Corona},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VIM7UCHZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07666}
}
abstract

We investigated mini-filament (MF) eruptions near coronal hole (CH) boundaries to explore their role in coronal dynamics and their potential contributions to the solar wind. Using high-resolution H$\alpha$ images from the 1.6m Goode Solar Telescope at Big Bear Solar Observatory and EUV data from AIA 193 \AA~ from Solar Dynamic Observatory, we analyzed 28 MFE events over 7.5 hours of observation spanning 5 days. Three largest MF eruptions triggered distinct coronal responses: two consecutive MFEs produced a small-scale eruptive coronal ejection, while the other generated a jet-like brightening. Furthermore, the 25 smaller-scale MFEs were associated with localized brightenings in coronal bright points (CBPs). These findings suggest that MFs play a significant role in transferring mass and magnetic flux to the corona, particularly within CH regions. We found certain trend that the size of MFEs is correlated with the EUV emissions. In addition, we observed magnetic flux cancellation associated with MFEs. However, except for a few largest MFEs, quantitative analysis of magnetic field evolution is beyond the capability of the data. These results underscore the importance of MFEs in the dynamic coupling between the chromosphere and corona, highlighting their potential role in shaping heliospheric structures. Although current study covers smallest MFEs ever studied, future higher-cadence, more accurate magnetograms and multi-wavelength observations are essential to fully resolve the fine-scale dynamics of these ubiquitous solar phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07666 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The CH map generated by CHIMERA code. The image is constructed by the emission intensity of three EUV wavelengths (171 ˚A, 193˚A and 211˚A). The white contours show the boundary lines of each CH. The colored boxes show the re-projected location of our data selected FOV during PSP Perihelion 5, following predicted PSP footpoints provided by WHPI team. 2.2. Identification of Mini-filament Eruptions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The consecutive two MFEs observed by GST and the corresponding small-scale ejective coronal ejection. (a) Coronal brightening observed by AIA 193 ˚AThe black rectangles indicate the FOV in the lower panels. (b) and (c) AIA 304 ˙ ˚A and 171 ˚A images. (d) Hα line-center images from VIS. (e) and (f) Hα blue-wing images at Hα-0.8˚A and Pseudo-Dopplergrams calculated using images at five different wavelengths across the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the line-of-sight (LOS) magnetic field at the footpoints of the two consecutive mini-filament eruptions (MFEs) presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A jet-like coronal ejection and corresponding MFEs. Left column: AIA 193 ˚A difference images presenting a jet-like Y shape brightening in the corona. Columns 2-4: the VIS data taken at Hα line-center, -0.8 ˚A and -1.2 ˚A . Right column: the pseudo-Doppler maps constru…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Formation, growth, and eruption of a mini-filament observed using GST/VIS Hα images. The top panels: AIA 193 ˚A difference images corresponding to the same FOV of GST/VIS. Lower two panels: Hα images at Hα−0.8 ˚A and corresponding pseudo-Doppler maps. The erupting MF i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Top panel) Integrated AIA 193 ˚A emission profile in the region marked by the white box in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scatter plot showing the relationship between the length of MFEs and the corresponding integrated EUV contrast in overlying coronal bright points (CBPs). The length measurements are based on Hα−0.8 ˚A images from VIS. The solid line shows the linear relationship betwee…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1999, Solar Physics, 190, 167, doi: 10.1023/a:1005213826793

    Alexander, D., & Fletcher, L. 1999, Solar Physics, 190, 167, doi: 10.1023/a:1005213826793

    doi:10.1023/a:1005213826793 1999

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Berghmans, D., Auch` ere, F., Long, D. M., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140380

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140380 2021

  3. [3]

    2022, \apj, 924, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3487

    Chen, Y., & Hu, Q. 2022, \apj, 924, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3487

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3487 2022

  4. [4]

    C., & Huang, J

    Chen, Y., Hu, Q., Zhao, L., Kasper, J. C., & Huang, J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfd30

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfd30 2021

  5. [5]

    E., Morooka, M., Renzaglia, A., et al

    Cravens, T. E., Morooka, M., Renzaglia, A., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 4881, doi: 10.1029/2018ja026344 De Pontieu, B., McIntosh, S. W., Hansteen, V. H., &

    work page doi:10.1029/2018ja026344 2019

  6. [6]

    Schrijver, C. J. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 701, L1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/701/1/l1 De Pontieu, B., McIntosh, S. W., Carlsson, M., et al. 2011, Science, 331, 55, doi: 10.1126/science.1197738

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/1/l1 2009

  7. [7]

    A., & Schwadron, N

    Fisk, L. A., & Schwadron, N. A. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 560, 425, doi: 10.1086/322503

    doi:10.1086/322503 2001

  8. [8]

    Vaiana, G. S. 1974, The Astrophysical Journal, 189, L93, doi: 10.1086/181472

    doi:10.1086/181472 1974

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Goodman, M. L. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 188, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/188

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    1988, Solar Physics, 116, doi: 10.1007/bf00171715

    Harrison, R., Rompolt, B., & Garczynska, I. 1988, Solar Physics, 116, doi: 10.1007/bf00171715

    1988 doi

  3. [11]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/73 —

    Hong, J., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/73 —. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 830, 60, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/830/2/60 15

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc0f1

    Huang, N., D’Anna, S., & Wang, H. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc0f1

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Genetelli, A., Attie, R., & Potts, H

    Innes, D. E., Genetelli, A., Attie, R., & Potts, H. E. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 495, 319, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811011

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    T., Uritsky, V

    Kumar, P., Karpen, J. T., Uritsky, V. M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c24

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Madjarska, M. S. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0018-8

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 660, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142439

    Wiegelmann, T., & Xie, H. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 660, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142439

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    W., & Gurman, J

    McIntosh, S. W., & Gurman, J. B. 2005, Solar Physics, 228, 285, doi: 10.1007/s11207-005-4725-z

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Sterling, A

    Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., & Falconer, D. A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/11

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    2014, Solar Physics, 289, 2945, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0523-9

    Morgan, H., & Druckm¨ uller, M. 2014, Solar Physics, 289, 2945, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0523-9

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Hansteen, V

    Panesar, N. K., Hansteen, V. H., Tiwari, S. K., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c1

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    K., Sterling, A

    Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., & Moore, R. L. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b77

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    K., Sterling, A

    Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaef37

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    K., Tiwari, S

    Panesar, N. K., Tiwari, S. K., Berghmans, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 921, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3007

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Parnell, C

    Priest, E. R., Parnell, C. E., & Martin, S. F. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 427, 459, doi: 10.1086/174157

    1994 doi

  17. [25]

    E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al

    Raouafi, N. E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 201, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0260-5

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    E., Stenborg, G., Seaton, D

    Raouafi, N. E., Stenborg, G., Seaton, D. B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf6c

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/22

    Sako, N., Shimojo, M., Watanabe, T., & Sekii, T. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/22

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    E., et al

    Savcheva, A., Cirtain, J., DeLuca, E. E., et al. 2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 59, S771, doi: 10.1093/pasj/59.sp3.s771

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    W., et al

    Shibata, K., Ishido, Y., Acton, L. W., et al. 1992, \pasj, 44, L173

    1992

  22. [30]

    Sterling, A. C. 2000, Solar Physics, 196, 79, doi: 10.1023/a:1005213923962

    2000 doi

  23. [31]

    C., & Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., & Moore, R. L. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 896, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab96be

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., & Panesar, N. K. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac473f

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    T., Ji, K

    Su, J. T., Ji, K. F., Cao, W., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 117, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/117

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    K., Panesar, N

    Tiwari, S. K., Panesar, N. K., Moore, R. L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab54c1

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Krieger, A

    Vaiana, G. S., Krieger, A. S., & Timothy, A. F. 1973, Solar Physics, 32, 81, doi: 10.1007/bf00152731

    1973 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f3

    Wang, J., Lee, J., Chae, J., Cao, W., & Wang, H. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f3

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 530, 1071, doi: 10.1086/308377

    Wang, J., Li, W., Denker, C., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 530, 1071, doi: 10.1086/308377

    2000 doi

Pith tools

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