Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Avalanching together: A model for sympathetic flaring

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that magnetic connectivity between distinct solar active regions, if it drives sympathetic flaring, must be weak, with the product of the connectivity fraction and transfer strength below about 0.025.

desk verdict A genuine two-lattice avalanche model yields a quantitative connectivity bound, but the constraint is only as strong as the untested assumption that the observed short-waiting-time excess is mostly inter-region sympathy. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23889 v1 pith:6RU2CG7Q submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Louis-Simon Guité , Paul Charbonneau , Antoine Strugarek This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords AvalanchemodelsSympatheticsolarflaresSelf-organizedcriticalityWaiting-timedistributionsactiveregionsFlareenergycorrelationStellarLuandHamiltonmodel
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 asks whether sympathetic solar flares—eruptions in separate active regions that occur close in time—can be captured by the self-organized-critical avalanche models that reproduce ordinary flare statistics. The authors build a new sandpile model made of two connected lattices, one per active region, with a tunable link strength measured by the fraction of connected nodes times the fraction of magnetic variable transferred at each connection. They show that stronger coupling produces synchronized lattices, correlated avalanche energies, and an excess of very short waiting times, ending in a break in the otherwise exponential waiting-time distribution. Comparing that break with flare waiting times from SDO/AIA, RHESSI, and Solar Orbiter/STIX, only weak coupling matches the data. If the authors are right, inter-active-region magnetic connectivity on the Sun is limited, and strongly coupled stars should show correlated sympathetic flare energies and shorter waiting times.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the connected two-lattice avalanche model: a pair of two-dimensional Lu and Hamilton sandpiles ($N=48$, $Z_c=10$, running driving) with a random matching of $fN^2$ nodes between the lattices. When a connected node becomes unstable, a portion $L = (4/5)Z_c\xi$, with $\xi$ drawn uniformly from $[0,\alpha]$, is transferred to the paired node in the other lattice instead of to its four nearest neighbors. The product $\alpha\cdot f$ serves as a single connectivity parameter, and the comparison metric is the waiting-time break $W_b$, defined by fitting an exponential to the $W/\tau > 1$ tail and locating where the residuals depart by $2\sigma$ from a Gaussian fit. The model is judged against the same $W_b$ measured from the observed waiting-time distributions.

What would settle it

Measure the waiting-time distribution of flares assigned to a single active region (or to pairs of regions far apart) and check whether the break near $0.5\tau$ persists; if it does, the excess short waiting times are not from inter-active-region connectivity and the $\alpha\cdot f \lesssim 0.025$ bound would not follow. Alternatively, detect a statistically significant positive correlation between the energies of successive sympathetic flares in distinct regions, which the weak-connectivity regime forbids.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the waiting-time distributions of solar flares recorded by SDO/AIA, RHESSI, and STIX constrain the magnetic connectivity between distinct active regions to be low, specifically $\alpha\cdot f \lesssim 0.025$, provided such connectivity drives sympathetic flaring. In the model, connectivity is implemented by randomly pairing $fN^2$ nodes between two Lu and Hamilton lattices and transferring a fraction $\xi \in [0,\alpha]$ of the nodal variable from an avalanching connected node to its partner in the other lattice. Under strong coupling the two lattices temporally synchronize and their avalanche energies correlate (Pearson coefficient up to 0.88), while the waiting-time distribution develops a break at $W_b/\tau$ that moves to shorter times as connectivity increases. The observed break sits near $W_b \approx 0.5\tau$, which the model reaches only in the weakly coupled regime; in that regime the energy correlation between lattices is weak ($r \lesssim 0.5$), consistent with the lack of correlation reported in observed sympathetic flare pairs.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that the break in the observed full-disk flare waiting-time distribution comes mainly from sympathetic flaring between distinct active regions, so the two-lattice model can be calibrated against that break; alternative sources of short waiting times—flares within one active region, time-variable flare rates, or selection effects—are not modeled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Solar observations require inter-active-region connectivity no stronger than $\alpha\cdot f \approx 0.025$, so strong magnetic links between active regions are disfavored as a driver of observed sympathetic flares.
  • In the weakly coupled regime the model predicts uncorrelated energies between paired sympathetic flares, matching the absence of correlation in the observed flare pairs.
  • On strongly magnetized cool stars, sympathetic flares should show correlated energies, shorter mean waiting times, and a waiting-time break at much smaller $W/\tau$, giving two observable signatures to test the model.
  • The model retains self-organized criticality even at strong connectivity, but large avalanches are quenched, so the largest flares become less frequent and the peak-energy distribution can lose its power-law form.
  • The running-sandpile formulation (with $Z_c = 10$) keeps the two lattices time-aligned and reproduces the standard single-lattice results, validating its use for multi-region studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The degeneracy between $f$ and $\alpha$ in the product $\alpha\cdot f$ suggests the data pin down total transfer but not its spatial distribution; combining the model with the observed angular separation signature could separate many weakly coupled nodes from few strongly coupled ones.
  • Because strong connectivity quenches large avalanches, magnetically active stars with strong sympathetic coupling might show a high-energy cutoff in flare-energy distributions, a prediction that stellar flare surveys could test even without waiting-time statistics.
  • A direct test would be to apply the same waiting-time-break measurement to synthetic flare lists built from a single compromised active region; a break there would indicate that short-waiting-time excess can arise without inter-region connectivity, weakening the calibration.
  • The paper's bound is conditional on the driving assumption that the observed break is sympathetic in origin; if future work shows the break tracks instrumental cadence or flare-identification thresholds, the same model toolbox can be recalibrated against a residual non-sympathetic waiting-time distribution.
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 proposes a two-lattice extension of the Lu-Hamilton sandpile model to study sympathetic flaring. Two N=48 lattices representing distinct active regions are coupled by fN^2 random inter-lattice links; during a relaxation event at a connected node, a fraction ξ ∈ [0, α] of the redistributed quantity is transferred to the partner lattice. The authors validate a running-sandpile driving variant against the standard stop-and-go scheme for threshold Zc=10, then scan f ∈ {0.01,...,0.75} and α ∈ {0.02,...,0.9}. They find that stronger connectivity produces (i) a short-waiting-time excess relative to an exponential waiting-time distribution (WTD), quantified by a break Wb; (ii) suppression of the largest avalanches; and (iii) growing energy and temporal correlations between lattices. By comparing the model Wb to the break in the full-disk WTDs of SDO/AIA, RHESSI, and Solar Orbiter/STIX, they infer α·f ≲ 0.025 and conclude that if inter-active-region magnetic connectivity drives sympathetic flaring, it must be relatively weak. They close with observational predictions for strongly coupled stellar active regions.

Significance. This is a useful forward-modeling study: f and α are scanned rather than fitted, the model Wb is computed independently of the observed benchmark, and the running-sandpile approximation is explicitly checked at Zc=10. The model yields concrete, falsifiable predictions (correlated flare energies and very short W/τ breaks for strongly coupled active regions). If the calibration is valid, the upper bound α·f≲0.025 would be a meaningful constraint on sympathetic-flare models. The principal weakness is that the observational calibration assumes that the short-waiting-time excess in full-disk WTDs is dominated by inter-active-region sympathy, an assumption the paper does not test; this affects the central quantitative conclusion and necessitates major revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 8; Section 5] The calibration target is the break Wb≈0.5τ measured from the full-disk waiting-time distributions of SDO/AIA, RHESSI, and STIX. The model's only source of a short-waiting-time excess is transfer between its two lattices, but full-disk flare WTDs are known to exhibit short-waiting-time excesses from non-stationary flaring rates (e.g., Wheatland 2001; Norman et al. 2001) and from clustering of flares within a single active region. The paper's constant, statistically stationary driving excludes those mechanisms by construction, and no attempt is made to decompose the observed excess into sympathetic versus non-sympathetic contributions. Consequently, the derived constraint α·f≲0.025 follows only under the assumption, stated but not tested, that the observed break is dominated by inter-active-region sympathetic flaring. To support the central claim, the authors should recalibrate against the waiting-time distribution of identified sympathetic flare pairs from Guité et al. (2025), or introduce time-dependent driving into the model and demonstrate that the inferred bound is unchanged.
  2. [Section 4, Figure 9a; Section 5] The paper claims that the model 'reproduces the observational waiting time distributions', but the quantitative comparison is limited to a single summary statistic, the break location Wb. No full WTD of the model is overlaid on the observed WTD (Figure 8), and no goodness-of-fit is reported. Since the amplitude and shape of the short-waiting-time excess can differ between models with the same Wb, the break location alone is insufficient to establish that the model reproduces the observed distributions. Please show the model WTDs corresponding to the allowed α·f≲0.025 region against the observed WTDs and quantify the agreement.
  3. [Section 3.1, Table 1, Figure 9a] The break diagnostic is not well behaved in exactly the parameter region that the paper identifies as allowed. For the weakest coupling (f=0.01, α=0.02), Table 1 reports no measurable Wb, and Figure 9a shows large scatter in Wb at low α·f, which the authors attribute to the distribution being close to exponential. Because the observational constraint selects low α·f, the statistical robustness of the upper bound depends on how runs without a detectable break are treated. The authors should state how such runs entered Figure 9a, report the fraction of the ten realizations in which a break could be identified, and test the sensitivity of the α·f≲0.025 boundary to the definition of Wb and to histogram binning.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.4] The last sentence of Section 3.4 contains a typo: 'a large energy release in one lattice is will impact the second lattice' should read 'will impact'.
  2. [Table 1] The reference-simulation row reports a time lag of '165 344' without a clear separator; please clarify the units and formatting.
  3. [Section 4] The three measured Wb values from SDO/AIA, RHESSI, and STIX are not stated; only the min/max band is shown. Please report the individual values and their uncertainties so the reader can assess the width of the observational constraint.
  4. [Section 2.2.2] The validation of the running-sandpile approximation (Figure 2) is presented visually; please add a quantitative comparison, such as a two-sample test or the number of avalanches used, to support the claim that the Zc=10 distributions are identical.
  5. [Section 3.1] The description of the 2σ residual method does not specify the number of bins or the W/τ range used for the exponential tail fit; please provide these details for reproducibility.
  6. [Section 5] The extrapolation to stellar flares is qualitative, since no mapping from magnetic field strength to f and α is provided; this is acceptable for a discussion, but the text should explicitly label it as such.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the model parameters f and alpha are scanned, not fitted, and the observed waiting-time break is an external benchmark taken from independent flare catalogs; the central conclusion is a forward-model constraint, not a reduction to the paper's inputs.

full rationale

This is a forward simulation study. The model's two connectivity parameters, f and alpha, are scanned over a grid (Section 4: alpha = [0.02, ..., 0.9] and f = [0.01, ..., 0.75]), and the waiting-time break Wb is computed from each simulation independently using a defined procedure (Section 3.1). The observational target, Wb ≈ 0.5 tau, is taken from the waiting-time distributions of SDO/AIA, RHESSI, and Solar Orbiter/STIX flares as assembled in the authors' earlier observational paper (Guité, Strugarek, and Charbonneau 2025). Although that earlier paper is a self-citation, the underlying data are external observations from three instruments, and the comparison is a standard forward-model parameter constraint rather than a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The inference that only low connectivity is allowed (alpha*f ≲ 0.025) is a consequence of comparing an independently computed model diagnostic with an observed diagnostic, not a definitional identity. The strongest caveat, namely that the observed short-waiting-time excess is attributed to inter-active-region sympathetic flaring and that competing explanations (non-stationary flaring rates, same-region clustering) are not modeled, is a scientific assumption about the physical origin of the observed signal. That assumption affects the interpretive validity of the constraint, but it does not make the derivation circular in the sense of a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction or a conclusion reducing to its inputs by construction. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-as-prediction step, or load-bearing self-citation chain was found. The paper is therefore assessed as having no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on two scanned model parameters (f and α), a set of domain assumptions inherited from SOC flare modeling, and an invented model element (inter-lattice transfer) that stands in for magnetic connectivity between active regions. No parameters were fitted to the target data; the observational constraint is applied after the simulations as a line in the parameter scan. This is a forward-model comparison, so the circularity burden is light, but the interpretation of the observed waiting-time break is a load-bearing domain assumption.

free parameters (2)
  • f (fraction of connected nodes) = scanned: 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75
    Sets the number of inter-lattice links; the derived constraint α·f ≲ 0.025 depends on f.
  • α (non-conservative transfer parameter) = scanned: 0.02 to 0.9
    Controls the amount of nodal variable transferred to the other lattice; combined with f, it sets the effective connectivity strength.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Lu-Hamilton (LH93) SOC sandpile model provides a valid statistical description of solar flare energy and duration distributions (power laws, scale invariance).
    The paper builds on LH93 and the extensive SOC flare literature; this is the starting point of the model (§2.1).
  • domain assumption The running sandpile approximation with Zc=10 preserves the avalanche dynamics relevant to waiting times; only energy distributions were shown to match stop-and-go (§2.2.2, Figure 2).
    The paper validates the running model against stop-and-go only for total energy distributions, not for waiting times, yet waiting times are the main observable used later.
  • domain assumption The observed excess of short waiting times in the full-disk flare waiting time distribution is attributable to inter-active-region sympathetic flaring, so a model of two coupled regions can be compared to that distribution.
    Section 4 compresses the 2D separation-time distribution from Guité et al. 2025 into a 1D WTD and treats its break as the target metric; alternative causes (same-region flares, rate variations) are not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper The waiting-time break Wb, defined by the 2σ residual method, is a meaningful and comparable measure of deviation from exponential waiting time statistics.
    Wb is defined in §3.1 via Gaussian fit to residual histogram; it is not a standard statistic but is applied consistently to both model and data.
  • domain assumption Normalizing waiting times by the mean waiting time τ makes model and observed WTDs comparable despite different absolute timescales.
    The paper compares W/τ distributions because simulation iterations and solar seconds are not directly mapped (§3.1, §4).
invented entities (1)
  • Inter-lattice connections (transfer links) independent evidence
    purpose: Represent non-local magnetic connectivity between two active regions; they transfer a fraction of the magnetic potential when a connected node avalanches, enabling sympathetic flaring.
    The connections are a model device rather than a new physical particle; their real-world counterpart (magnetic connections between active regions) has observational support, and the model makes falsifiable predictions for stellar flares (energy correlation, low Wb) that would test the construct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Avalanching together: A model for sympathetic flaring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6RU2CG7Q

@misc{pith2026250623889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Avalanching together: A model for sympathetic flaring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6RU2CG7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23889}
}
abstract

Avalanche models running in a self-organized critical regime have proven powerful in reproducing the power-law distributions and scale invariance that characterize the statistical properties of solar flares. They are often interpreted as representing an individual active region of the Sun. As a result, this class of models has rarely been applied to describe sympathetic flares $\unicode{x2014}$ solar eruptions that occur in close spatial and temporal proximity, seemingly driven by their mutual interaction. In this study, we investigate the phenomenon of sympathetic flaring using avalanche models and compare their statistical properties with observations of sympathetic flares on the Sun. We developed a novel avalanche model featuring two connected lattices, each representing a distinct active region. This connectivity allows the transfer of nodal variable between the lattices, simulating the non-local effects expected to occur during sympathetic flares. Our results show that under strong connectivity, the lattices exhibit temporal synchronization, with correlations between their avalanche energies. Furthermore, increasing the connectivity between the lattices results in an excess of avalanches at short waiting times. A quantitative comparison with observational data suggests that only a weak connectivity allows our model to replicate the observed solar waiting time distributions. Consequently, we propose that if magnetic connectivity between distinct active regions drives sympathetic flaring on the Sun, it must remain relatively weak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23889 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of connected lattices, where red nodes are connected together. Arrows show the direction of redistribution for an avalanching node (details in the text). Ai,j is the nodal variable and Li,j is the amount transferred given by Equation (8). Note that the connection is bidirectional, meaning that nodal variable can be transferred both ways. are flagged to prevent them from contributing to the total elapsed ti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of avalanche total energy for Zc = 3 (a) and Zc = 10 (b), with orange being Stop-and-Go and blue running sandpile model. We consider a single lattice of linear size N = 48 with a LH93 model, and δA ∈ [−0.2, 0.8]. granularity at small scales, as there exists a minimum energy that can be released by a single avalanche. 3. Properties of connected sandpile models In this section, we consider 9 main simulati… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Waiting time distributions for f = 0.01 (a), f = 0.1 (b), and f = 0.25 (c), with α values of 0.02 (green), 0.2 (orange), and 0.9 (blue). The black distribution represents a reference simulation, where no transfer occurs between the lattices. Lattices have linear size N = 48 and Zc = 10. The distributions are normalized by their arithmetic mean waiting time τ. corresponding to the 2σ threshold (vertical dashed black … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Waiting time distribution with an exponential fit (a), residuals as a function of waiting time (b), and the fit residuals histogram (c) for a simulation with f = 0.1 and α = 0.9. The vertical dashed red line indicates the waiting time break Wb while the dashed black li…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of total energy (a), peak energy (b), and avalanche duration (c), with α values of 0.02 (green), 0.2 (orange), and 0.9 (blue). We use f = 0.1 for all simulations. The black distribution represents a reference simulation, where no transfer occurs between t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between the instantaneous energy released of each lattice for α values of 0.02 (a), 0.2 (b), and 0.9 (c). The colormap indicates the probability density. We use f = 0.1 for all simulations. Lattices have linear size N = 48 and Zc = 10. The dashed red line in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Coefficient of correlation between the two lattices’ time series as a function of the time lag, for f = 0.01 (a), f = 0.1 (b), and f = 0.25 (c), with α values of 0.02 (green), 0.2 (orange), and 0.9 (blue). The dashed black line represents a reference simulation, where …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Waiting time distribution of flares observed by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) instrument on board the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). The flare list comes from Guit´e, Strugarek, and Charbonneau (2025). The waiting times are normalized by the arithmetic mean…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Waiting time break (a) and Pearson coefficient of energy correlation between the two lattices (b) as a function of α · f. For each parameter set, 10 simulations are performed to compute the mean values Wb and r, with the uncertainty represented by the standard deviatio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , Crosby , N.B

    barticle Aschwanden , M.J. , Crosby , N.B. , Dimitropoulou , M. , Georgoulis , M.K. , Hergarten , S. , McAteer , J. , Milovanov , A.V. , Mineshige , S. , Morales , L. , Nishizuka , N. , Pruessner , G. , Sanchez , R. , Sharma , A.S. , Strugarek , A. , Uritsky , V. : 2016 , 25 Years of Self-Organized Criticality: Solar and Astrophysics . 198 , 47 . https://...

    doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0054-6 2016

  2. [2]

    , Tang , C

    barticle Bak , P. , Tang , C. , Wiesenfeld , K. : 1987 , Self-organized criticality: An explanation of the 1/f noise . Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 , 381 . https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.381 . https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.381 . barticle

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.381 1987

  3. [3]

    , McIntosh , S.W

    barticle Charbonneau , P. , McIntosh , S.W. , Liu , H.L. , Bogdan , T.J. : 2001 , Avalanche models for solar flares (Invited Review) . SoPh 203 , 321 . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013301521745 . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001SoPh..203..321C/abstract . barticle

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1013301521745 2001

  4. [4]

    : 1985 , Solar Hard X-Ray Bursts

    barticle Dennis , B.R. : 1985 , Solar Hard X-Ray Bursts . 100 , 465 . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00158441 . 1985SoPh..100..465D . barticle

    doi:10.1007/bf00158441 1985

  5. [5]

    , Chase , R.C

    barticle Fritzova-Svestkova , L. , Chase , R.C. , Svestka , Z. , Fritzova-Svestkova , L. , Chase , R.C. , Svestka , Z. : 1976 , On the occurrence of sympathetic flares. SoPh 48 , 275 . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00151996 . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976SoPh...48..275F/abstract . barticle

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00151996 1976

  6. [6]

    , Vilmer , N

    barticle Georgoulis , M.K. , Vilmer , N. , Crosby , N.B. : 2001 , A comparison between statistical properties of solar X-ray flares and avalanche predictions in cellular automata statistical flare models . 367 , 326 . https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20000422 . 2001A&A...367..326G . barticle

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000422 2001

  7. [7]

    , Strugarek , A

    barticle Guit \'e , L.-S. , Strugarek , A. , Charbonneau , P. : 2025 , Flaring together: A preferred angular separation between sympathetic flares on the Sun . 694 , A74 . https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202452381 . 2025A&A...694A..74G . barticle

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452381 2025

  8. [8]

    , Kardar , M

    barticle Hwa , T. , Kardar , M. : 1989 , Dissipative transport in open systems: An investigation of self-organized criticality . Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 , 1813 . https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.1813 . https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.1813 . barticle

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.62.1813 1989

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    , Kardar , M

    barticle Hwa , T. , Kardar , M. : 1992 , Avalanches, hydrodynamics, and discharge events in models of sandpiles . Phys. Rev. A 45 , 7002 . https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.45.7002 . https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.45.7002 . barticle

    1992 doi

  2. [10]

    : 1998 , Self-Organized Criticality: Emergent Complex Behavior in Physical and Biological Systems , Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics , Cambridge University Press

    bbook Jensen , H.J. : 1998 , Self-Organized Criticality: Emergent Complex Behavior in Physical and Biological Systems , Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics , Cambridge University Press . bbook

    1998

  3. [11]

    o gl , S. , Gr \

    barticle Krucker , S. , Hurford , G.J. , Grimm , O. , K \"o gl , S. , Gr \"o belbauer , H.-P. , Etesi , L. , Casadei , D. , Csillaghy , A. , Benz , A.O. , Arnold , N.G. , Molendini , F. , Orleanski , P. , Schori , D. , Xiao , H. , Kuhar , M. , Hochmuth , N. , Felix , S. , Schr...

    2020

  4. [12]

    , Charbonneau , P

    barticle Lamarre , H. , Charbonneau , P. , Strugarek , A. : 2024 , Energy Definition and Minimization in Avalanche Models for Solar Flares . 299 , 13 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-024-02254-6 . 2024SoPh..299...13L . barticle

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    , Title , A.M

    barticle 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...

    2012

  6. [14]

    , Dennis , B.R

    barticle 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...

    2002

  7. [15]

    : 1995 , The Statistical Physics of Solar Active Regions and the Fundamental Nature of Solar Flares

    barticle Lu , E.T. : 1995 , The Statistical Physics of Solar Active Regions and the Fundamental Nature of Solar Flares . 446 , L109 . https://doi.org/10.1086/187942 . 1995ApJ...446L.109L . barticle

    1995 doi

  8. [16]

    , Hamilton , R.J

    barticle Lu , E.T. , Hamilton , R.J. : 1991 , Avalanches and the Distribution of Solar Flares . ApJL 380 , L89 . https://doi.org/10.1086/186180 . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...380L..89L/abstract . barticle

    1991 doi

  9. [17]

    , Hamilton , R.J

    barticle Lu , E.T. , Hamilton , R.J. , McTiernan , J.M. , Bromund , K.R. : 1993 , Solar Flares and Avalanches in Driven Dissipative Systems . The Astrophysical Journal 412 , 841 . ADS Bibcode: 1993ApJ...412..841L . https://doi.org/10.1086/172966 . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu...

    1993 doi

  10. [18]

    , MacPherson , K.P

    barticle MacKinnon , A.L. , MacPherson , K.P. , MacKinnon , A.L. , MacPherson , K.P. : 1997 , Nonlocal communication in self-organising models of solar flare occurrence. A&A 326 , 1228 . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...326.1228M/abstract . barticle

    1997

  11. [19]

    , Choe , G.S

    barticle Moon , Y.-J. , Choe , G.S. , Park , Y.D. , Wang , H. , Gallagher , P.T. , Chae , J. , Yun , H.S. , Goode , P.R. : 2002 , Statistical Evidence for Sympathetic Flares . The Astrophysical Journal 574 , 434 . https://doi.org/10.1086/340945 . https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/340...

    2002 doi

  12. [20]

    barticle M \"u ller , D. , St. Cyr , O.C. , Zouganelis , I. , Gilbert , H.R. , Marsden , R. , Nieves-Chinchilla , T. , Antonucci , E. , Auch \`e re , F. , Berghmans , D. , Horbury , T.S. , Howard , R.A. , Krucker , S. , Maksimovic , M. , Owen , C.J. , Rochus , P. , Rodriguez-P...

    2020

  13. [21]

    , Charbonneau , P

    barticle Norman , J.P. , Charbonneau , P. , McIntosh , S.W. , Liu , H.-L. , Norman , J.P. , Charbonneau , P. , McIntosh , S.W. , Liu , H.-L. : 2001 , Waiting-Time Distributions in Lattice Models of Solar Flares . ApJ 557 , 891 . https://doi.org/10.1086/321678 . https://ui.adsa...

    2001 doi

  14. [22]

    : 1988 , NANOFLARES AND THE SOLAR X-RAY CORONA 1

    barticle Parker , E.N. : 1988 , NANOFLARES AND THE SOLAR X-RAY CORONA 1 . 474P The Astrophysical Journal 330 , 474 . barticle

    1988

  15. [23]

    , Harrison , R.A

    barticle Pearce , G. , Harrison , R.A. , Pearce , G. , Harrison , R.A. : 1990 , Sympathetic flaring . A&A 228 , 513 . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...228..513P/abstract . barticle

    1990

  16. [24]

    , Thompson , B.J

    barticle Pesnell , W.D. , Thompson , B.J. , Chamberlin , P.C. : 2012 , The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) . 275 , 3 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3 . 2012SoPh..275....3P . barticle

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    : 1994 , Self-organized criticality involving vector fields and random driving

    barticle Robinson , P.A. : 1994 , Self-organized criticality involving vector fields and random driving . Phys. Rev. E 49 , 1984 . https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.49.1984 . https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.49.1984 . barticle

    1994 doi

  18. [26]

    , Higgins , P.A

    botherref Schrijver , C.J. , Higgins , P.A. , Springer , C. : 2015, A Statistical Study of Distant Consequences of Large Solar Energetic Events. botherref

    2015

  19. [27]

    , Charbonneau , P

    barticle Strugarek , A. , Charbonneau , P. , Joseph , R. , Pirot , D. : 2014 , Deterministically Driven Avalanche Models of Solar Flares . Solar Physics 289 , 2993 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-014-0509-7 . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SoPh..289.2993S/abstract . barticle

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    , Strugarek , A

    barticle Thibeault , C. , Strugarek , A. , Charbonneau , P. , Tremblay , B. : 2022 , Forecasting Solar Flares by Data Assimilation in Sandpile Models . Solar Physics 297 , 125 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-022-02055-9 . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022SoPh..297..125T/...

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    , Reinhold , T

    barticle Vasilyev , V. , Reinhold , T. , Shapiro , A.I. , Usoskin , I. , Krivova , N.A. , Maehara , H. , Notsu , Y. , Brun , A.S. , Solanki , S.K. , Gizon , L. : 2024 , Sun-like stars produce superflares roughly once per century . Science 386 , 1301 . https://doi.org/10.1126/s...

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    : 2001 , Rates of Flaring in Individual Active Regions

    barticle Wheatland , M.S. : 2001 , Rates of Flaring in Individual Active Regions . 203 , 87 . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012749706764 . 2001SoPh..203...87W . barticle

    2001 doi

  23. [31]

    : 2006 , A rate-independent test for solar flare sympathy

    barticle Wheatland , M.S. : 2006 , A rate-independent test for solar flare sympathy . Solar Physics 236 , 313 . https://doi.org/10.1007/S11207-006-0161-Y/METRICS . https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-006-0161-y . barticle

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.