pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.02831 · v1 · submitted 2025-10-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Modeling the Excitation, Propagation and Damping of Quasi-Periodic Fast Magnetosonic Waves in Realistic Coronal Active Region Magnetic Field Structures

Leon Ofman , Tongjiang Wang , Xudon Sun , Meng Jin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 10:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords quasi-periodic fast magnetosonic wavescoronal active regions3D MHD modelingpotential field extrapolationcoronal seismologywave propagationwave damping
0
0 comments X

The pith

Realistic coronal active region magnetic fields improve modeling of QFP wave excitation, propagation and damping.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper builds a 3D resistive MHD model of quasi-periodic fast magnetosonic waves that uses a potential-field extrapolation of an observed active region's photospheric magnetic data together with a gravitationally stratified density profile. This setup is driven by time-dependent boundary conditions or localized pulses to generate waves, after which synthetic emission-measure maps are produced for direct comparison with EUV images. A sympathetic reader would care because the resulting wave paths, reflections, nonlinearities and damping times match observed behavior more closely than earlier idealized geometries, strengthening the use of these waves to infer coronal magnetic fields and flare properties.

Core claim

In the case study of AR 11166, the resistive 3D MHD simulation that incorporates the extrapolated realistic magnetic configuration and a single typical coronal temperature for the density stratification reproduces the observed QFP wave directionality, propagation, reflection, nonlinearity and damping with better qualitative agreement than previous idealized models.

What carries the argument

The resistive 3D MHD model that sets the coronal magnetic structure via potential-field extrapolation of SDO photospheric data and imposes a gravitationally stratified density profile from a typical coronal temperature.

If this is right

  • The model reproduces observed QFP wave directionality, propagation, reflection, nonlinearity and damping more accurately than idealized setups.
  • Synthetic emission-measure maps allow direct comparison with SDO/AIA EUV observations.
  • The approach strengthens the potential application of QFP waves to coronal seismology for inferring magnetic field strengths.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same realistic-field method could be applied to other observed active regions to test whether magnetic complexity systematically changes wave damping and reflection.
  • Once validated, the model may permit quantitative seismology estimates of coronal Alfvén speeds from measured wave periods and wavelengths.
  • Including a multi-temperature density distribution could reveal how thermal structure affects the predicted damping rates.

Load-bearing premise

The photospheric magnetic field measured by SDO can be accurately extrapolated into the corona using the potential-field assumption, and a single typical coronal temperature suffices to set the gravitationally stratified density profile throughout the modeled volume.

What would settle it

A side-by-side comparison in which the realistic model fails to improve the match to observed QFP wave paths, reflection sites or damping rates relative to an idealized active-region geometry, or in which changing the assumed temperature profile alters those properties substantially.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.02831 by Leon Ofman, Meng Jin, Tongjiang Wang, Xudon Sun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The QFP wave event observed in AR 11166 on 2011 March 10 by SDO/AIA in (a) 171 ˚A, and (b) 193 ˚A channels. White arrows in (a) mark the AR, flare source, and fan loop associated with the event. Two white curves indicate the initial EUV wave fronts. The white box marks a region, where the propagating waves in the running difference images are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The difference images showing the QFP waves observed by AIA in 171˚A (a1)−(c1) and 193˚A (a2)−(c2) at a sequence of times in the range 06:40−06:50 UT on Mar-10-2011 following the onset of the C class flare. The green curves in each panel mark the wavefronts of EUV waves (or QFP wave trains in panel (c1)). Animations are available online. The accelerated animation shows the time-sequence of the difference i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The potential magnetic field extrapolation using the HMI vector magnetogram of AR 11166, the source of the QFP waves observed by SDO/AIA on Mar-10-2011 at about 06:40 UT. The red (positive polarity) and blue (negative polarity) colors indicate the photospheric magnetic field in the range ±1000 G. The ‘cylindrical equal area’ map projection (CEA) coordinates are used here (see, X. Sun 2013) observed in this… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The initial state of the 3D MHD model (t = 0). (a) The magnetic field lines reconstructed using potential field extrapolation with Green’s function method of the radial magnetic field for AR 11166. (b) The gravitationally stratified density in the x − z plane at y = −0.72, overlaid with several fieldlines that are calculated from the (Bx, Bz) components in this 2D plane. (c) The fast magnetosonic speed, Vf… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The snapshot of the variables in the x − y plane (‘on disk’) at t = 114τA, z = 1.42 due to the QFP waves launched at Source A in the modeled AR 11166. (a) The relative ’running difference’ density perturbation ∆ρ/ρ0, where ∆ρ = (ρ(t) − ρ(t − ∆t)/ρ0; the yellow ‘x’ marks the location of the temporal evolution shown below. (b) the running difference of the emission measure, EM, computed from the 3D model AR.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The snapshot of the variables in the x − z (‘off limb’) plane at t = 129τA due to the QFP waves launched at Source A in the modeled AR 11166. (a) The relative density perturbation ∆ρ/ρ0 with several overlaid magnetic fieldlines computed from the (Bx, Bz) components in the x − z plane at y = −0.72. The online accelerated animation of this panel shows the modeled time interval t = [42.1, 129]τA (correspondin… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The time-distance plot of the perturbed density obtained from the 3D MHD model of AR11166 for the case in Figure 6a at height z = 2, at y = −0.72. The temporal cadence is 3τA in this figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The temporal evolution of the velocity components (top panel), and the magnetic field compo￾nents perturbations ∆Bx,y,z (lower panel) at the location (−0.7, −0.7, 1.7) for QFP waves with the parameters Vd = 0.02, ω = 0.249 launched at Source A in the modeled AR 11166. The start time of the plot corresponds to the launch time of the perturbation. The sampled spatial location in x − y plane is marked with ye… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The snapshot of the variables in the x − y plane (‘on disk’) at t = 123τA, z = 1.42 due to the QFP waves launched at Source B in the modeled AR 11166. (a) The relative density perturbation ∆ρ/ρ0, the blue and the yellow ‘x’ mark the location of the temporal evolution shown below. (b) the emission measure computed from the 3D model AR. (c) The velocity magnitude and direction. (d) The magnetic field magnitu… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The current density squared j 2 in the x − y plane (‘on disk’) at z = 1.42 due to the QFP waves launched at Source B in the modeled AR 11166 at times (a) t = 78τA, and (b) t = 123τA. Animation of this figure is available online. The accelerated animation show the temporal evolution of j 2 in the x − y plane (‘on disk’) at height z = 1.42 for the modeling time interval 39-147τA (corresponding to ∼10:37 min… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The temporal evolution of the velocity components and perturbed magnetic field components, ∆Bx,y,z due to the QFP waves launched at Source B in the modeled AR 11166. (a) The temporal evolution at the location (−1.49, −1.36, 1.7) marked with blue ‘x’ in Figure 9a; (b) the temporal evolution for the same case but at location (1.20, −0.01, 3.5) marked with yellow ‘x’ in Figure 9a. The line-styles are solid: … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quasi-periodic fast propagating magnetosonic waves (QFPs) were discovered in the solar corona in EUV since the launch of SDO spacecraft more than a decade ago. The QFP waves are associated with flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) providing information on flare pulsations as well as on the magnetic field by MHD wave seismology. Previous models of QFP waves used primarily idealized magnetic active region structures. However, more realistic active region numerical models are needed to improve the application of coronal seismology to observations of waves in coronal structures. Here, we extend the previous models by including realistic magnetic configuration based on an observed coronal active region in a case study using AR 11166 observed on March 10, 2011 by SDO/AIA, using potential field extrapolation of photospheric magnetic field with realistic gravitationally stratified density structure { with typical coronal temperature} in our resistive 3D MHD model. We aim at reproducing the observed QFPs properties, such as directionality, propagation, reflection, nonlinearity, and damping of these waves. We model various forms of excitation of QFPs through time dependent boundary conditions, and localized pulses at the base of the corona. We produce synthetic emission measure (EM) maps from the 3D MHD modeling results to facilitate comparison to EUV observations. We find that the present more realistic model provides better qualitative agreement with observations compared to previous idealized models, improving the study of QFP wave excitation, propagation and damping in coronal ARs, with potential applications to coronal seismology.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a 3D resistive MHD simulation of quasi-periodic fast magnetosonic waves (QFPs) in a coronal active region, using a potential-field extrapolation of SDO/HMI photospheric data for AR 11166 to set the magnetic configuration and a gravitationally stratified density profile based on a single typical coronal temperature. Waves are excited via time-dependent boundary conditions and localized pulses at the coronal base; synthetic emission-measure maps are generated from the simulation results to compare with EUV observations. The authors conclude that this more realistic setup yields better qualitative agreement with observed QFP properties (directionality, propagation, reflection, nonlinearity, and damping) than prior idealized models, with implications for coronal seismology.

Significance. If the reported qualitative improvements can be shown to arise specifically from the use of observed boundary data rather than from numerical choices or driver details, the work would advance QFP modeling by bridging idealized simulations and observations. The forward-modeling approach with synthetic observables is a constructive element that supports direct data comparison and potential seismology applications.

major comments (3)
  1. [Numerical Model and Setup] The central claim that the realistic model improves agreement with observations rests on the assumption that potential-field extrapolation plus a single-temperature hydrostatic density produces a meaningfully more realistic coronal structure than prior idealized cases. However, the potential-field assumption enforces ∇×B=0 throughout the volume, omitting currents that shape active-region topology and Alfvén-speed distributions; wave paths, refraction, and damping therefore may differ systematically from the actual corona. This assumption is load-bearing for attributing any improvement to realism and requires either explicit sensitivity tests or justification in the model-setup section.
  2. [Results and Comparison with Observations] The abstract and results state that synthetic emission-measure maps were produced and that qualitative agreement improved, yet no quantitative metrics, error estimates, or resolution/resistivity values are reported. Without measures such as cross-correlation coefficients between synthetic and observed EM maps, intensity-profile comparisons, or damping-rate quantifications, it is not possible to assess the magnitude of improvement or to rule out that differences arise from driver choice or numerical dissipation rather than from the magnetic/density structure.
  3. [Density and Stratification] The density profile is set by hydrostatic equilibrium with a single uniform coronal temperature. This ignores the multi-thermal structure routinely observed in EUV, which directly affects the sound and Alfvén speeds that govern QFP propagation and damping. Because the central claim hinges on the realism of the modeled wave environment, the single-temperature choice needs to be tested against a multi-thermal alternative or shown to be non-critical for the reported wave properties.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'realistic gravitationally stratified density structure with typical coronal temperature'; stating the precise temperature value adopted would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Numerical Methods] Figure captions and text should explicitly note the spatial resolution, time step, and resistivity coefficient used, as these control numerical dissipation and are essential for interpreting the modeled damping.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications on our modeling choices and indicating revisions where they strengthen the presentation without altering the core findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical Model and Setup] The central claim that the realistic model improves agreement with observations rests on the assumption that potential-field extrapolation plus a single-temperature hydrostatic density produces a meaningfully more realistic coronal structure than prior idealized cases. However, the potential-field assumption enforces ∇×B=0 throughout the volume, omitting currents that shape active-region topology and Alfvén-speed distributions; wave paths, refraction, and damping therefore may differ systematically from the actual corona. This assumption is load-bearing for attributing any improvement to realism and requires either explicit sensitivity tests or justification in the model-setup section.

    Authors: We agree that the potential-field extrapolation is an approximation that omits volume currents. This choice was made because it is the standard method to construct a realistic magnetic skeleton directly from observed photospheric magnetograms when full vector data or nonlinear force-free extrapolations are not available for the specific event. We will revise the model-setup section to explicitly state this limitation, reference prior studies that have successfully employed potential fields for QFP and MHD wave modeling, and discuss how the omission of currents may affect wave paths and damping. Full sensitivity tests with non-potential fields lie beyond the scope of this case study but represent a valuable direction for future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results and Comparison with Observations] The abstract and results state that synthetic emission-measure maps were produced and that qualitative agreement improved, yet no quantitative metrics, error estimates, or resolution/resistivity values are reported. Without measures such as cross-correlation coefficients between synthetic and observed EM maps, intensity-profile comparisons, or damping-rate quantifications, it is not possible to assess the magnitude of improvement or to rule out that differences arise from driver choice or numerical dissipation rather than from the magnetic/density structure.

    Authors: The manuscript focuses on qualitative agreement because direct quantitative comparison is complicated by line-of-sight integration and projection effects in the observations. Nevertheless, we accept that reporting basic quantitative information would improve clarity. In the revised version we will add the grid resolution, explicit resistivity value, and simple quantitative diagnostics such as along-path intensity profiles and estimated damping timescales extracted from the simulation data. We maintain that the primary advance remains the qualitative reproduction of observed wave properties, but these additions will allow readers to better evaluate the results. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Density and Stratification] The density profile is set by hydrostatic equilibrium with a single uniform coronal temperature. This ignores the multi-thermal structure routinely observed in EUV, which directly affects the sound and Alfvén speeds that govern QFP propagation and damping. Because the central claim hinges on the realism of the modeled wave environment, the single-temperature choice needs to be tested against a multi-thermal alternative or shown to be non-critical for the reported wave properties.

    Authors: A single typical coronal temperature was adopted to produce a gravitationally stratified density that represents average coronal conditions while keeping the model tractable. This is a standard simplification in many 3D MHD studies of coronal waves. We will expand the methods section to justify this choice, note its limitations relative to multi-thermal observations, and explain why the essential propagation, reflection, and damping behaviors remain representative for the purposes of this qualitative comparison. A full multi-thermal sensitivity test is not feasible within the current study but will be flagged as future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in forward MHD simulation of QFP waves

full rationale

The paper sets up a 3D resistive MHD simulation using potential-field extrapolation of SDO/HMI photospheric data for the magnetic field and a single typical coronal temperature to define the gravitationally stratified density. Wave excitation is imposed through explicit time-dependent boundary conditions or localized pulses at the base. Synthetic emission-measure maps are then generated from the simulation output for qualitative comparison to AIA observations. No quantity is defined in terms of a fitted parameter that is subsequently compared back to the same data, and the claim of improved agreement relative to prior idealized models rests on the independent numerical evolution under standard MHD equations rather than any self-referential loop or renamed fit. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard MHD equations plus two domain assumptions drawn from solar-physics practice; no new free parameters or postulated entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Potential-field extrapolation from photospheric magnetograms accurately represents the coronal magnetic field
    Invoked to construct the 3D magnetic structure from SDO observations of AR 11166.
  • domain assumption A single typical coronal temperature sets the gravitationally stratified density profile
    Used to initialize the background atmosphere in the resistive 3D MHD model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5833 in / 1342 out tokens · 32627 ms · 2026-05-18T10:33:44.534115+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2005, ApJL, 633, L145, doi: 10.1086/498447

    Ballai, I., Erd´ elyi, R., & Pint´ er, B. 2005, ApJL, 633, L145, doi: 10.1086/498447

    work page doi:10.1086/498447 2005

  2. [2]

    2021, SSRv, 217, 76, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00849-0

    Banerjee, D., Krishna Prasad, S., Pant, V., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 76, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00849-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00849-0 2021

  3. [3]

    Cheung, M. C. M., Boerner, P., Schrijver, C. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/143

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/143 2015

  4. [4]

    Dere, K. P. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1645

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1645 2020

  5. [5]

    R., Nakariakov, V

    Goddard, C. R., Nakariakov, V. M., & Pascoe, D. J. 2019, A&A, 624, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935401

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935401 2019

  6. [6]

    V., & White, S

    Zimovets, I. V., & White, S. M. 2016, A&A, 594, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628478

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628478 2016

  7. [7]

    K., et al

    Guo, Y., Erd´ elyi, R., Srivastava, A. K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 151, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/151

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/151 2015

  8. [8]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1993

    Hu, J., Ye, J., Chen, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1993

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1993 2024

  9. [9]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 3505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1587

    Shellard, P. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1587

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1587 2021

  10. [10]

    Solar Physics , author =

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8 2012

  11. [11]

    2018, ApJL, 868, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf167

    Li, L., Zhang, J., Peter, H., et al. 2018, ApJL, 868, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf167

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf167 2018

  12. [12]

    2014, SoPh, 289, 3233, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0528-4

    Liu, W., & Ofman, L. 2014, SoPh, 289, 3233, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0528-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0528-4 2014

  13. [13]

    V., et al

    Liu, W., Ofman, L., Nitta, N. V., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/52

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/52 2012

  14. [14]

    M., Zhao, J., et al

    Liu, W., Title, A. M., Zhao, J., et al. 2011, ApJL, 736, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/L13

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/l13 2011

  15. [15]

    2021, ApJL, 908, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdfce

    Miao, Y., Li, D., Yuan, D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdfce

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abdfce 2021

  16. [16]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab655f

    Miao, Y., Liu, Y., Elmhamdi, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab655f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab655f 2020

  17. [17]

    H., Liu, Y., Shen, Y

    Miao, Y. H., Liu, Y., Shen, Y. D., et al. 2019, ApJL, 871, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafaf9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aafaf9 2019

  18. [18]

    K., Pontin, D

    Mondal, S., Srivastava, A. K., Pontin, D. I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 235, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9022

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9022 2024

  19. [19]

    M., & Pelinovsky, E

    Murawski, K., Nakariakov, V. M., & Pelinovsky, E. N. 2001, A&A, 366, 306, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000027

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000027 2001

  20. [20]

    M., & Kolotkov, D

    Nakariakov, V. M., & Kolotkov, D. Y. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 441, doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-032320-042940

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032320-042940 2020

  21. [21]

    M., Zhong, S., Kolotkov, D

    Nakariakov, V. M., Zhong, S., Kolotkov, D. Y., et al. 2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 19, doi: 10.1007/s41614-024-00160-9 Nistic` o, G., Pascoe, D. J., & Nakariakov, V. M. 2014, A&A, 569, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423763

    work page doi:10.1007/s41614-024-00160-9 2024

  22. [22]

    Ofman, L., & Davila, J. M. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 23413

    work page 1995

  23. [23]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2e8

    Ofman, L., & Liu, W. 2018, ApJ, 860, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2e8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac2e8 2018

  24. [24]

    2011, ApJL, 740, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L33

    Ofman, L., Liu, W., Title, A., & Aschwanden, M. 2011, ApJL, 740, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L33

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/l33 2011

  25. [25]

    Ofman, L., Parisi, M., & Srivastava, A. K. 2015, A&A, 582, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425054

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425054 2015

  26. [26]

    Ofman, L., & Thompson, B. J. 2002, ApJ, 574, 440, doi: 10.1086/340924

    work page doi:10.1086/340924 2002

  27. [27]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4090

    Ofman, L., & Wang, T. 2022, ApJ, 926, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4090

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4090 2022

  28. [28]

    J., & Davila, J

    Ofman, L., Wang, T. J., & Davila, J. M. 2012, ApJ, 754, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/111

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/2/111 2012

  29. [29]

    J., Goddard, C

    Pascoe, D. J., Goddard, C. R., & Nakariakov, V. M. 2017, ApJL, 847, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8db8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8db8 2017

  30. [30]

    J., Nakariakov, V

    Pascoe, D. J., Nakariakov, V. M., & Kupriyanova, E. G. 2013, A&A, 560, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322678

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322678 2013

  31. [31]

    J., Nakariakov, V

    Pascoe, D. J., Nakariakov, V. M., & Kupriyanova, E. G. 2014, A&A, 568, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423931

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423931 2014

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3 2012

  33. [33]

    2018, AdSpR, 61, 645 , doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2017.07.042 16 Ofman et al

    Provornikova, E., Ofman, L., & Wang. 2018, AdSpR, 61, 645 , doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2017.07.042 16 Ofman et al

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2017.07.042 2018

  34. [34]

    1989, SSRv, 51, 11, doi: 10.1007/BF00226267

    Sakurai, T. 1989, SSRv, 51, 11, doi: 10.1007/BF00226267

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00226267 1989

  35. [35]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3ff

    Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Song, T., & Tian, Z. 2018, ApJ, 853, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3ff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3 2018

  36. [36]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9af0

    Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Tian, Z., & Qu, Z. 2017, ApJ, 851, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9af0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9af0 2017

  37. [37]

    2022, SoPh, 297, 20, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-01953-2

    Shen, Y., Zhou, X., Duan, Y., et al. 2022, SoPh, 297, 20, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-01953-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-022-01953-2 2022

  38. [38]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/53

    Shen, Y.-D., & Liu, Y. 2012, ApJ, 753, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/53

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/53 2012

  39. [39]

    2013, SoPh, 288, 585, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0395-4

    Shen, Y.-D., Liu, Y., Su, J.-T., et al. 2013, SoPh, 288, 585, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0395-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0395-4 2013

  40. [40]

    K., Mondal, S., Priest, E

    Srivastava, A. K., Mondal, S., Priest, E. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc379

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc379 2025

  41. [41]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1309.2392, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1309.2392

    Sun, X. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1309.2392, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1309.2392

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1309.2392 2013

  42. [42]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 150, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/150 Van Doorsselaere, T., Kupriyanova, E

    Takasao, S., & Shibata, K. 2016, ApJ, 823, 150, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/150 Van Doorsselaere, T., Kupriyanova, E. G., &

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/150 2016

  43. [43]

    2016, SoPh, 291, 3143, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0977-z

    Yuan, D. 2016, SoPh, 291, 3143, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0977-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-016-0977-z 2016

  44. [44]

    Wang, T., Ofman, L., & Bradshaw, S. J. 2024, SoPh, 299, 37, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02285-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-024-02285-z 2024

  45. [45]

    2021, SSRv, 217, 34, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00811-0

    Wang, T., Ofman, L., Yuan, D., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 34, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00811-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00811-0 2021

  46. [46]

    Wang, T. J. 2016, Washington DC American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series, 216, 395, doi: 10.1002/9781119055006.ch23

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119055006.ch23 2016

  47. [47]

    L., & Noyes, R

    Withbroe, G. L., & Noyes, R. W. 1977, ARA&A, 15, 363, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.002051

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.002051 1977

  48. [48]

    2013, A&A, 554, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321435

    Yuan, D., Shen, Y.-D., Liu, Y., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321435

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321435 2013

  49. [49]

    Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., Wang, J., & Nakariakov, V. M. 2015, A&A, 581, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525621

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525621 2015

  50. [50]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1b6

    Zhou, X., Shen, Y., Liang, H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1b6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca1b6 2022

  51. [51]

    2024, ApJL, 974, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7a68

    Zhou, X., Tang, Z., Qu, Z., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7a68

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7a68 2024