Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 79 references

High-resolution Observations of a C9.3 White-light Flare and Its Impact on the Solar Photosphere

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A modest C9.3 white-light flare sent Alfvén wave pulses into the solar photosphere, leaving a vortex flow and a magnetic field jump from about 650 to 1050 G in its northern kernel.

desk verdict A solid multi-instrument case study of a C-class white-light flare, but the Alfvén-wave interpretation is quantitatively self-contradictory and needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08411 v1 pith:TMRCNJ3X submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.SR

Zhe Xu , Xiaoli Yan , Zhentong Li , Liheng Yang , Zhike Xue , Jincheng Wang , Yian Zhou This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords white-lightflareAlfvénwavepulsessolarphotospherephotosphericmagneticfieldamplificationvortexflowC-classhigh-resolutionobservationsenergytransportinflares
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 tries to establish that a small C9.3 white-light flare—with no detected electrons above 50 keV—still delivered observable energy into the solar photosphere. Using high-resolution TiO images, the authors find sudden counterclockwise vortex flows and a magnetic field amplification from roughly 650 to 1050 G in the northern white-light kernel, both timed with the flare peak. They argue these are the photospheric footprints of an Alfvén wave pulse generated by the flare, a mechanism long proposed but rarely observed at this height. If the interpretation is right, Alfvén waves can transport flare energy from the corona down to the photosphere and contribute to white-light heating even in low-class flares.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Alfvén wave pulse—a transverse twist that propagates along the coronal magnetic loop and is predicted to be launched by the impulsive reconfiguration of the flare (Fletcher & Hudson 2008). Its photospheric footprint is the observed counterclockwise vortex of two co-rotating spots, and the associated magnetic amplification is the deposited twist energy. The analysis converts the measured photospheric velocity perturbation $\delta v$ into a magnetic perturbation via $\delta B = \sqrt{\mu_0 \rho} \, \delta v$, then scales to the corona with an assumed Alfvén speed of ~1000 km/s to estimate the Poynting flux; this chain is what allows the paper to claim the inferred wave carries more than enough energy to explain the field jump.

What would settle it

Analyze the full HMI vector-magnetogram sequence around the flare: if the 650 to 1050 G increase is a step-like change during the impulsive phase and the vortex and pore appear only after the flare peak, the flare-attribution survives; if the field strengthens gradually before the flare or a similar vortex forms in a sheared but non-flaring sunspot, the Alfvén interpretation loses its observational basis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the paper's own terms, is that the flare's impact on the photosphere was characterized by sudden vortex flows and significant amplification of the magnetic field in the white-light flare kernel region, and that this impact was driven by the propagation of flare-generated Alfvén wave pulses that deposited energy into the photosphere. Two white-light kernels (K1 and K2) were resolved in the TiO band, connected by filamentary brightenings aligned with penumbral fibrils—evidence for a photospheric contribution to the emission. Around the northern kernel, two same-polarity spots rotated around each other and merged into a pore, and the average field strength rose from about 650 to 1050 G. The energy budget is consistent: the Alfvén Poynting flux estimated from the velocity perturbation (~0.6 km/s, giving $\delta B \sim 100$ G) totals ~$3.79 \times 10^{30}$ erg over 5 minutes, more than enough to supply the ~$4.11 \times 10^{28}$ erg stored in the amplified field and exceeding the nonthermal electron flux of ~$1.05 \times 10^{27}$ erg/s.

Load-bearing premise

The northern kernel's vortex flow and magnetic field jump are attributed to the flare rather than to the sunspot shear and flux emergence that the paper shows were already underway in the same active region; the jump itself rests on just two magnetograms taken 720 seconds apart.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A C-class flare with no electrons above 50 keV can produce white-light emission and photospheric magnetic changes, implying that total released energy is not the only factor in white-light flare production.
  • Alfvén wave pulses provide a viable energy transport channel from the corona to the photosphere, with enough energy to account for the observed magnetic amplification.
  • The time delay between 304 Å and TiO peaks (~10–50 s, consistent with a ~40 s travel time at an assumed Alfvén speed of ~50 km/s) supports a downward-propagating perturbation from the chromosphere to the photosphere.
  • Lower-frequency Alfvén waves can reach the photosphere, while higher-frequency waves are expected to dissipate in the chromosphere, matching the several-minute period of the observed pulse.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same vortex-plus-magnetic-jump signature could be sought in other low-class flares using high-cadence magnetograms, testing whether a step-like field increase at the flare impulsive phase is a general feature of Alfvén pulse deposition.
  • If Alfvén pulses accelerate electrons in the low atmosphere, one would predict a delayed hard X-ray or microwave brightening at the northern kernel following the vortex onset; this is testable with dense HXR cadence.
  • The energy budget implies that most of the Alfvén flux is not stored magnetically, so simultaneous continuum and Doppler observations could search for the residual energy appearing as heat or bulk motion in the photosphere.
  • The asymmetry between the northern and southern kernels suggests the Alfvén pulse was directed by the eruption geometry, so correlating kernel-side vortex strength with the erupting filament's tilt could provide a geometric test of the mechanism.
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 multi-instrument observations (NVST TiO/H-alpha, SDO/HMI and AIA, ASO-S/HXI, CHASE) of a C9.3 white-light flare on 2023 September 11 in NOAA AR 13431. The authors identify two white-light kernels connected by filamentary brightenings, locate the hard X-ray emission below 50 keV, and analyze photospheric spectral changes. The central claim is that after the flare, a vortex flow and a ~400 G magnetic-field amplification in the northern kernel are caused by flare-generated Alfvén wave pulses that transport energy from the corona to the photosphere. The paper estimates the associated magnetic energy and compares it with nonthermal and Poynting-flux energy budgets.

Significance. If the Alfvén-wave interpretation were quantitatively supported, the result would be an important observational constraint on energy transport to the photosphere in a low-class white-light flare, with implications for white-light heating mechanisms. The dataset is genuinely valuable: it combines high-resolution TiO imaging with vector magnetograms, EUV/UV observations, hard X-ray imaging and spectroscopy, and spectral line profiles, and the authors provide careful coalignment, spectral fitting with uncertainties, and a quantitative energy budget. However, the central Alfvén-wave claim is not supported by the paper's own numbers, and the causal attribution to the flare is weakened by limited temporal sampling and the lack of error estimates on the magnetic-field change.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 (energy budget)] The central Alfvén-wave inference is not quantitatively consistent with the reported numbers. Section 3.4 states that B_tot increased from ~650 to ~1050 G in the northern kernel, a ~400 G change, while Section 4 states that the photospheric velocity perturbation in the same region is ~0.6 km/s. Using the paper's stated relation δB = sqrt(μ0 ρ) δv with ρ = 2×10^-4 kg m^-3 gives δB ≈ 100 G, not 400 G. Moreover, an incompressible Alfvén wave changes the field magnitude only to second order, δ|B| ≈ δB_perp^2/(2B0) ≈ 8 G for δB_perp = 100 G and B0 = 650 G. Thus the observed |B| amplification is roughly 50 times larger than the wave's second-order effect; reproducing a 400 G transverse perturbation would require δv ≈ 2.5 km/s. As written, the Poynting-flux estimate based on 100 G is not connected to the claimed 400 G field amplification, so the conclusion that the amplification results from Alfvén-wave energy deposition is unsupported by the paper's own quantitative relations.
  2. [Section 3.4, Figure 5(h)] The reported magnetic-field amplification rests on only two HMI vector magnetograms separated by 720 s, with no stated uncertainties or noise floor for the individual magnetograms. The amplification region is selected post hoc as pixels with enhancement greater than 150 G, and the average field is then computed inside that region before and after the flare; this selection biases the inferred change. The paper itself attributes a nearby elongated enhancement to ongoing shearing motion unrelated to the flare, so a control analysis using non-flaring regions or a longer time sequence is needed to establish that the northern change is flare-induced. With only two snapshots, the 'sudden' character of the increase and its causal link to the flare are not demonstrated.
  3. [Section 3.4, Figures 5(a)-(f)] The vortex flow and pore formation are presented as flare-associated primarily because they appear during the flare and persist for about 10 minutes, but the optical-flow comparison uses only two time intervals (05:54:45-05:59:45 and 06:05:15-06:10:15). Without continuous tracking of the photospheric velocity and magnetic topology across the pre-flare hours, or a comparison with a non-flaring control region, intrinsic sunspot evolution or local flux emergence cannot be excluded as the cause of the vortex and the field increase. This alternative is particularly relevant because the paper already interprets a similar nearby magnetic enhancement as driven by shearing motion and unrelated to the flare.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'the the Hard X-ray Imager' should be 'the Hard X-ray Imager'.
  2. [Section 2] The TiO channel is described as 'centered at 6562.8 Å with a bandwidth of 10 Å'; 6562.8 Å is the H-alpha wavelength, and the NVST TiO band is near 7050 Å. Please correct the filter wavelength or clarify the intended center.
  3. [Section 2] The optical-flow parameters are described as insensitive to choice, but the 11-pixel window is said to be 'determined empirically'; a brief sensitivity test or a reference for the endpoint-error estimate would make the flow-field uncertainties more transparent.
  4. [Section 3.2] The suggested 10-50 s delay between the 304 Å and TiO emissions is based on a 30 s TiO cadence; the text acknowledges this, but the wording 'approximately 10-50 s' overstates the resolution. Consider presenting this as an unresolved upper limit of about one minute.
  5. [Section 4] The equation for magnetic energy density is garbled in the manuscript text; it should read e_B = (B_t^2 - B_0^2)/(2 μ0).
  6. [Section 4] The Poynting-flux and Alfvén-wave energy estimates are reported without propagating the stated ~10% velocity uncertainty or the uncertainty in the magnetic perturbation; adding error bars would make the comparison with the nonthermal energy more robust.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Alfvén-wave interpretation rests on independent NVST/HMI/CHASE/HXI observations; the only self-citations are non-load-bearing side support, and the paper explicitly flags its speculative claims as unconfirmed.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that flare-generated Alfvén wave pulses deposited energy into the photosphere, producing the observed vortex flows and the 650→1050 G field amplification — is an interpretation of independent observations, not a derivation from its own inputs. The amplification is measured directly from HMI vector magnetograms (Section 3.4, Fig. 5h); the selection of the enhancement region (>150 G) does not force the reported 400 G average, and the magnetic energy requirement (4.11×10^28 erg) is computed from the observed B0 and Bt with an assumed volume. The Alfvén-wave energy budget uses the measured flow amplitude δv ≈ 0.6 km/s, the standard linear-MHD relation δB = sqrt(μ0ρ)δv giving δB ≈ 100 G, a typical coronal Alfvén speed (1000 km/s), and the observed kernel area; none of these inputs is fitted to the target quantity. The vortex-flow 'twist' interpretation comes from Fletcher & Hudson (2008), an external reference, and the paper repeatedly disclaims direct confirmation: 'direct evidence of Alfvén wave dissipation leading to atmospheric heating was not obtained in this event' and 'the acceleration of nonthermal electrons by the Alfvén wave pulse and the damping of the Alfvén wave cannot be confirmed based on the current observations' (Section 4), plus the unresolved 10–50 s delay given the 30 s TiO cadence (Section 3.2). The self-citations that appear are not load-bearing: Z. Xu et al. (2020, 2022) support only the side interpretation that the southern elongated field enhancement is a non-flare shearing effect (Section 3.4), Z. Li et al. (2025) documents the HXI background selection, and X. L. Yan et al. (2020) is the NVST instrument reference. A genuine quantitative gap exists — the paper's own relation gives δB ≈ 100 G while the observed amplification is ΔB ≈ 400 G — but that is an internal consistency/correctness concern, not a circular reduction: the observations were not produced by the model. Hence no circular step is identified; score 2 reflects minor, non-load-bearing self-citation only.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation depends on several assumed physical inputs and analysis thresholds. The empirical white-light and flow measurements are more robust than the energy budget.

free parameters (9)
  • Low-energy cutoff of HXR spectrum = 26.6 ± 5.6 keV
    Fitted with OSPEX thick-target and thermal models to derive nonthermal power; supports the claim of electrons below 50 keV.
  • Nonthermal spectral index = 7.41 ± 1.56
    Fitted from HXI spectrum; the steep spectrum is used to argue for a weak high-energy electron population.
  • Optical flow window size = 11 pixels (about 0.6 arcsec)
    Chosen empirically; controls the spatial scale of derived photospheric velocity fields and the vortex detection.
  • Magnetic field amplification threshold = 150 G
    The region with enhancement greater than 150 G defines where average B before and after is computed, directly shaping the quoted 650 to 1050 G increase.
  • White-light kernel intensity threshold = 2% enhancement
    Defines the flare kernel area used for energy flux density and area estimates.
  • Assumed photospheric height for volume = 500 km
    Together with the selected area this gives the volume 1.52e24 cm^3 used to estimate magnetic energy deposition.
  • Assumed photospheric mass density = 2e-4 kg/m^3
    Used with the observed velocity perturbation to infer a magnetic field perturbation of about 100 G.
  • Assumed coronal Alfvén speed = 1000 km/s
    Used to estimate Poynting flux; the Alfvén wave energy budget scales linearly with this value.
  • Assumed flare duration for Alfvén wave energy = 5 minutes
    Multiplied by Poynting flux and area to get total Alfvén wave energy; not measured for the wave itself.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Optical flow assumes brightness constancy, spatial coherence, and small motion between consecutive TiO images.
    The OpenCV Farneback method relies on these assumptions; stated in Section 2.
  • domain assumption HMI vector magnetograms accurately represent photospheric magnetic field and are properly coaligned with NVST.
    No cross-calibration or noise estimate is given; used in Section 2 and Section 3.4.
  • domain assumption TiO band forms near 150 km and FeI continuum in the mid-photosphere, so their enhancements indicate photospheric contribution.
    Formation heights are cited from literature; used in Section 3.2.
  • standard math The linearized MHD relation delta-B = sqrt(mu0 rho) delta-v describes an incompressible Alfvén wave along a uniform background field.
    Used to convert the observed velocity perturbation to a magnetic perturbation; stated in Section 4.
  • ad hoc to paper The observed vortex flow and magnetic field increase in the northern kernel are caused by the flare and not by concurrent sunspot evolution.
    Alternative non-flare mechanisms are not quantitatively excluded; this is the key interpretive assumption in Section 3.4 and Section 4.
  • ad hoc to paper The Alfvén wave pulse originates in the corona and propagates to the photosphere with properties inferred at the footpoint.
    No direct detection of the wave along its path exists; assumed in Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-resolution Observations of a C9.3 White-light Flare and Its Impact on the Solar Photosphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TMRCNJ3X

@misc{pith2026250608411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-resolution Observations of a C9.3 White-light Flare and Its Impact on the Solar Photosphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TMRCNJ3X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08411}
}
read the original abstract

We present a detailed analysis of a C9.3 white-light flare using high-resolution observations from the New Vacuum Solar Telescope (NVST). The flare occurred near the eastern solar limb on September 11, 2023, within NOAA AR 13431, and produced beam electrons with energies just below 50 keV as observed by the the Hard X-ray Imager (HXI) onboard the Advanced Space-based Solar Observatory (ASO-S). Two white-light flare kernels were detected in the TiO band, connected by filamentary brightenings aligned with penumbral fibrils, suggesting a photospheric contribution to the white-light emission. Notably, the impact of the flare on the solar photosphere was characterized by sudden vortex flows and significant amplification of magnetic field in the white-light flare kernel region. We infer that this impact is driven by the propagation of flare-generated Alfv\'en wave pulses, which deposited energy into the photosphere. These observations support the potential role of the Alfv\'en wave mechanism in driving energy transport and heating during white-light flares.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08411 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (b) reveals that the ;aring region exhibited a magnetic δ con@guration, which is a pattern of ;are productivity. Notably, both the chromospheric loop-shaped brightening and the photospheric brightening point were located near the magnetic PIL of the δ-type sunspot, as illustrated by the orange and cyan contours on the magnetogram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panels (a)–(c): intensity enhancement maps of the NVST TiO, HMI continuum, and CHASE continuum emissions during the white-light ;are. Panels (d) and (e): NVST TiO image and HMI magnetogram illustrating the @ne structures of the sunspots and their associated magnetic @elds in the ;aring region. The three colored contours in panel (e) correspond to enhancement levels of 3%, 8%, and 20% in the respective intensity enha… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panels (a)–(d): NVST TiO images and HMI LOS magnetograms depicting the photospheric evolution leading up to the ;are. The red and blue circles mark the spots P and N, which exhibited signi@cant shearing motion. The contour levels in panels (c) and (d) represent the magnetic @eld strengths of ±200, 500, and 800 G. Panels (e)–(h): NVST Hα images showing the chromospheric evolution toward the ;are. The green dotted cir… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Panels (a) and (b): CHASE continuum image and the Fe I line pro@les in the white-light ;are region (marked by the black circle). The red, blue, and green cross symbols represent the Fe I line pro@les during, before, and after the ;are. The corresponding solid curves ar…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Panels (a)–(d): NVST TiO images illustrating the sudden formation of a small pore in the white-light ;are region. Panels (e) and (f): photospheric ;ow @elds derived using the optical ;ow method applied to NVST TiO images, showing the velocity patterns 5 minutes before …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An animation showing the photospheric evolution of AR 13431 from 05:10 to 06:35 UT on 2023 September 11, as observed in the NVST TiO images. The left panel presents a large FOV, displaying the white-light ;are event continuously with a cadence of 30 s. The right panel …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aboudarham, J., & Henoux, J. C. 1987, A&A,174, 270

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    D., Liu, Y., et al

    Bi, Y., Liu, Y. D., Liu, Y., et al. 2018,ApJ ,865, 139

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    C., Turkmani, R., Kontar, E

    Brown, J. C., Turkmani, R., Kontar, E. P., et al. 2009,A&A ,508, 993 Castellanos Durán, J. S., & Kleint, L. 2020,ApJ ,904, 96

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

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

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    W., Petrie, G

    Cliver, E. W., Petrie, G. J. D., & Ling, A. G. 2012,ApJ ,756, 144

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    2024,ApJ ,976, 207

    Chen, H., Fletcher, L., Zhou, G., et al. 2024,ApJ ,976, 207

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Chen, P.-F., Fang, C., & Ding, M.-D. D. 2001,ChJAA ,1, 176

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    D., & Fang, C

    Ding, M. D., & Fang, C. 1996,SoPh ,166, 437

    work page 1996

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    D., Fang, C., & Yun, H

    Ding, M. D., Fang, C., & Yun, H. S. 1999,ApJ ,512, 454

    1999

  2. [10]

    D., Liu, Y., Yeh, C.-T., et al

    Ding, M. D., Liu, Y., Yeh, C.-T., et al. 2003,A&A ,403, 1151

    2003

  3. [11]

    G., & Sturrock, P

    Emslie, A. G., & Sturrock, P. A. 1982,SoPh ,80, 99

    1982

  4. [12]

    2013,RAA ,13, 1509

    Fang, C., Chen, P.-F., Li, Z., et al. 2013,RAA ,13, 1509

    2013

  5. [13]

    G., Hudson, H

    Fletcher, L., Hannah, I. G., Hudson, H. S., et al. 2007,ApJ ,656, 1187

    2007

  6. [14]

    Fletcher, L., & Hudson, H. S. 2008,ApJ ,675, 1645

    2008

  7. [15]

    Q., & Mauas, P

    Gan, W. Q., & Mauas, P. J. D. 1994,ApJ ,430, 891

    1994

  8. [16]

    Q., Rieger, E., Zhang, H

    Gan, W. Q., Rieger, E., Zhang, H. Q., et al. 1992,ApJ ,397, 694

    1992

  9. [17]

    2023,SoPh ,298, 68

    Gan, W., Zhu, C., Deng, Y., et al. 2023,SoPh ,298, 68

    2023

  10. [18]

    2024,MNRAS ,530, 3897 Farnebäck, G

    Gong, L., Yan, X., Liang, H., et al. 2024,MNRAS ,530, 3897 Farnebäck, G. 2003,LNCS , 2749, 363

    2024

  11. [19]

    2012,A&A ,544, L17

    Hao, Q., Guo, Y., Dai, Y., et al. 2012,A&A ,544, L17

    2012

  12. [20]

    2017,NatCo,8, 2202

    Hao, Q., Yang, K., Cheng, X., et al. 2017,NatCo,8, 2202

    2017

  13. [21]

    D., Li, Y., et al

    Hong, J., Ding, M. D., Li, Y., et al. 2018,ApJL ,857, L2

    2018

  14. [22]

    2022,A&A ,668, A9

    Hong, J., Qiu, Y., Hao, Q., et al. 2022,A&A ,668, A9

    2022

  15. [23]

    Hudson, H. S. 1972,SoPh ,24, 414

    1972

  16. [24]

    Hudson, H. S. 2011,SSRv ,158, 5

    2011

  17. [25]

    Hudson, H. S. 2016,SoPh ,291, 1273

    2016

  18. [26]

    S., Wolfson, C

    Hudson, H. S., Wolfson, C. J., & Metcalf, T. R. 2006,SoPh ,234, 79

    2006

  19. [27]

    B., Mathioudakis, M., Crockett, P

    Jess, D. B., Mathioudakis, M., Crockett, P. J., et al. 2008,ApJL ,688, L119

    2008

  20. [28]

    2019,ChSBu , 64, 1738

    Ji, K., Liu, H., Jin, Z., Shang, Z., & Qiang, Z. 2019,ChSBu , 64, 1738

    2019

  21. [29]

    2024,SoPh ,299, 11

    Jing, Z., Li, Y., Feng, L., et al. 2024,SoPh ,299, 11

    2024

  22. [30]

    2024,ApJ ,975, 46

    Jin, C., Zhou, G., Ji, H., et al. 2024,ApJ ,975, 46

    2024

  23. [31]

    2021,A&A ,654, A31

    Joshi, R., Schmieder, B., Heinzel, P., et al. 2021,A&A ,654, A31

    2021

  24. [32]

    S., & Fletcher, L

    Kerr, G. S., & Fletcher, L. 2014,ApJ ,783, 98

    2014

  25. [33]

    S., Fletcher, L., Russell, A

    Kerr, G. S., Fletcher, L., Russell, A. J. B., et al. 2016,ApJ ,827, 101

    2016

  26. [34]

    2016,ApJ ,816, 88

    Kleint, L., Heinzel, P., Judge, P., et al. 2016,ApJ ,816, 88

    2016

  27. [35]

    S., Jeffrey, N

    Krucker, S., Hudson, H. S., Jeffrey, N. L. S., et al. 2011,ApJ ,739, 96

    2011

  28. [36]

    Krucker, S., & Lin, R. P. 2008,ApJ ,673, 1181

    2008

  29. [37]

    S., et al

    Krucker, S., Saint-Hilaire, P., Hudson, H. S., et al. 2015,ApJ ,802, 19

    2015

  30. [38]

    C., et al

    Kuhar, M., Krucker, S., Martínez Oliveros, J. C., et al. 2016,ApJ ,816, 6

    2016

  31. [39]

    R., Title, A

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

    2012

  32. [40]

    2022,SCPMA ,65, 289602

    Li, C., Fang, C., Li, Z., et al. 2022,SCPMA ,65, 289602

    2022

  33. [41]

    2024,SoPh ,299, 57

    Li, D., Dong, H., Chen, W., et al. 2024,SoPh ,299, 57

    2024

  34. [42]

    2023,ApJ ,954, 7

    Li, D., Li, C., Qiu, Y., et al. 2023,ApJ ,954, 7

    2023

  35. [43]

    2009,ApJL ,706, L17

    Li, L., & Zhang, J. 2009,ApJL ,706, L17

    2009

  36. [44]

    2025,SoPh ,300, 56

    Li, Z., Su, Y., Liu, W., et al. 2025,SoPh ,300, 56

    2025

  37. [45]

    2014,RAA ,14, 705 Lörinčík, J., Polito, V., Kerr, G

    Liu, Z., Xu, J., Gu, B.-Z., et al. 2014,RAA ,14, 705 Lörinčík, J., Polito, V., Kerr, G. S., et al. 2025, arXiv:2504.10619

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    E., Emslie, A

    Machado, M. E., Emslie, A. G., & Avrett, E. H. 1989,SoPh ,124, 303 Martínez Oliveros, J.-C., Hudson, H. S., Hurford, G. J., et al. 2012,ApJL , 753, L26

    1989

  39. [47]

    B., Erdélyi, R., et al

    Mathioudakis, M., Jess, D. B., Erdélyi, R., et al. 2013,SSRv ,175, 1

    2013

  40. [48]

    R., Alexander, D., Hudson, H

    Metcalf, T. R., Alexander, D., Hudson, H. S., et al. 2003,ApJ ,595, 483

    2003

  41. [49]

    Neidig, D. F. 1989,SoPh ,121, 261

    1989

  42. [50]

    Neupert, W. M. 1968,ApJL ,153, L59

    1968

  43. [51]

    A., Graham, J

    Norton, A. A., Graham, J. P., Ulrich, R. K., et al. 2006,SoPh ,239, 69

    2006

  44. [52]

    2016,ApJL ,819, L30

    Penn, M., Krucker, S., Hudson, H., et al. 2016,ApJL ,819, L30

    2016

  45. [53]

    D., Thompson, B

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

    2012

  46. [54]

    2022,SCPMA ,65, 289603

    Qiu, Y., Rao, S., Li, C., et al. 2022,SCPMA ,65, 289603

    2022

  47. [55]

    W., & Russell, A

    Reep, J. W., & Russell, A. J. B. 2016,ApJL ,818, L20

    2016

  48. [56]

    W., Russell, A

    Reep, J. W., Russell, A. J. B., Tarr, L. A., et al. 2018,ApJ ,853, 101

    2018

  49. [57]

    H., Bush, R

    Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012,SoPh ,275, 229

    2012

  50. [58]

    2025,ApJL ,983, L41

    Song, D.-C., Dominique, M., Zimovets, I., et al. 2025,ApJL ,983, L41

    2025

  51. [59]

    2023,ApJL ,952, L6

    Song, D.-C., Tian, J., Li, Y., et al. 2023,ApJL ,952, L6

    2023

  52. [60]

    2018,ApJ ,867, 159

    Song, Y., & Tian, H. 2018,ApJ ,867, 159

    2018

  53. [61]

    2020,ApJL ,893, L13

    Song, Y., Tian, H., Zhu, X., et al. 2020,ApJL ,893, L13

    2020

  54. [62]

    L., Tian, H., Zhang, M., et al

    Song, Y. L., Tian, H., Zhang, M., et al. 2018,A&A ,613, A69

    2018

  55. [63]

    2024,SoPh ,299, 10

    Su, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, W., et al. 2024,SoPh ,299, 10

    2024

  56. [64]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Su, Y., Zhang, Z., Gan, W., et al. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Santangelo(Singapore: Springer)

    2022

  57. [65]

    2014,A&A ,563, A51

    Varady, M., Karlickỹ, M., Moravec, Z., et al. 2014,A&A ,563, A51

    2014

  58. [66]

    2010,ApJL ,716, L195

    Wang, H., & Liu, C. 2010,ApJL ,716, L195

    2010

  59. [67]

    2015,RAA ,15, 145

    Wang, H., & Liu, C. 2015,RAA ,15, 145

    2015

  60. [68]

    2010,ApJ ,715, 651

    Watanabe, K., Krucker, S., Hudson, H., et al. 2010,ApJ ,715, 651

    2010

  61. [69]

    S., Melrose, D

    Wheatland, M. S., Melrose, D. B., & Mastrano, A. 2018,ApJ ,864, 159

    2018

  62. [70]

    2006,ApJ ,641, 1210

    Xu, Y., Cao, W., Liu, C., et al. 2006,ApJ ,641, 1210

    2006

  63. [71]

    2022,A&A ,660, A55

    Xu, Z., Ji, H., Hong, J., et al. 2022,A&A ,660, A55

    2022

  64. [72]

    2020,ApJL ,900, L17

    Xu, Z., Ji, H., Ji, K., et al. 2020,ApJL ,900, L17

    2020

  65. [73]

    2016,ApJL ,820, L21

    Xu, Z., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2016,ApJL ,820, L21

    2016

  66. [74]

    2017,ApJL ,840, L21

    Xu, Z., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2017,ApJL ,840, L21

    2017

  67. [75]

    L., Liu, Z., Zhang, J., et al

    Yan, X. L., Liu, Z., Zhang, J., et al. 2020,ScChE,63, 1656

    2020

  68. [76]

    2017,ApJ ,838, 32

    Yurchyshyn, V., Kumar, P., Abramenko, V., et al. 2017,ApJ ,838, 32

    2017

  69. [77]

    2022,ApJL ,933, L20

    Zhang, Y., Xu, Z., Zhang, Q., et al. 2022,ApJL ,933, L20

    2022

  70. [78]

    2019,RAA ,19, 160

    Zhang, Z., Chen, D.-Y., Wu, J., et al. 2019,RAA ,19, 160

    2019

  71. [79]

    L., Capparelli, V., et al

    Zuccarello, F., Guglielmino, S. L., Capparelli, V., et al. 2020,ApJ ,889, 65 12 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 986:L15(12pp), 2025 June 10 Xu et al

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.