pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.13291 · v1 · pith:QU2OL5THnew · submitted 2026-06-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Automatic detection of Flare Ribbon Fine Structures as Proxies for Plasmoid Dynamics in Flare Reconnection

Georgios Chouliaras , Peter F. Wyper , Joel T. Dahlin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 05:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords flare ribbonsplasmoidsmagnetic reconnectionsolar flares3D simulationautomated detectionfield-line lengthpower-law distribution
0
0 comments X

The pith

An automated method tracks spiral imprints on flare ribbons that match expected plasmoid dynamics in a 3D simulation.

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

The paper introduces an automated workflow to detect and follow spiral- and wave-like fine structures on flare ribbons using maps of magnetic field-line length taken from a high-resolution eruptive-flare simulation. These features are shown to stay locked to the outward motion of the ribbons while drifting along them at speeds well below the local Alfvén speed, with opposite along-ribbon drifts on the two ribbons. Occurrence rates, lifetimes, and average unsigned fluxes of the detected features all reach maxima during the impulsive phase of the flare. The distribution of mean unsigned flux per feature displays a scale-free tail above 6 times 10 to the 18 Mx with a power-law index near 3.4. The results indicate that bursty reconnection mediated by plasmoids imprints measurable, trackable signatures on the ribbon surface.

Core claim

The workflow applies the correlation-dimension method, density-based clustering, and a minimum-area ellipse fit to identify and summarise each spiral or wave-like imprint. Across the simulated flare the detected spirals remain locked to the ribbon's outward motion while drifting coherently along the ribbon. The two ribbons exhibit opposite along-ribbon drifts away from their hooks, with instantaneous speeds between 10 and 800 km/s. Occurrence, lifetimes and mean magnetic flux of the features peak during the impulsive phase, and the per-feature mean unsigned flux distribution shows a scale-free tail above roughly 6 times 10 to the 18 Mx with a power-law exponent near 3.4.

What carries the argument

Correlation-dimension method combined with density-based clustering and minimum-area ellipse fitting applied to magnetic field-line length maps to identify and track ribbon fine structures.

If this is right

  • Detected features stay locked to the ribbon's outward motion throughout the flare.
  • Along-ribbon drifts occur in opposite directions on the two ribbons and remain below the surface Alfvén speed.
  • Feature occurrence, lifetimes, and mean fluxes all maximise during the impulsive phase.
  • The unsigned-flux distribution per feature follows a power law with index near 3.4 above 6 times 10 to the 18 Mx.
  • Bursty plasmoid-mediated reconnection therefore leaves a clear, measurable surface signature on the ribbons.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same detection pipeline could be run on observed ribbon images from ground- or space-based telescopes to test whether real flares show the same drift and flux statistics.
  • If the proxy relation holds, the method supplies a practical way to infer the three-dimensional structure of reconnection from two-dimensional ribbon data.
  • The reported power-law index offers a quantitative target that future higher-resolution simulations or multi-wavelength observations can use to constrain plasmoid statistics.

Load-bearing premise

The spiral- and wave-like patterns found in the field-line length maps are faithful proxies for the formation and motion of plasmoids inside the flare current sheet.

What would settle it

A side-by-side comparison in the same simulation between the detected ribbon features and direct measurements of plasmoid locations, sizes, and velocities inside the current sheet that shows no statistical correspondence in drift speeds or flux distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13291 by Georgios Chouliaras, Joel T. Dahlin, Peter F. Wyper.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two complementary views of the same magnetic structure from the MHD run. Top: Oblique close–up of the current sheet (semi–transparent teal slice, coloured by the guide field Bϕ). The black and grey insert shows the field line length for field lines traced from the lower boundary, indicating the ribbon front (the boundary between black and grey) has a local spiral feature. A bundle of field lines (red and y… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Schematic showing circles with increasing radius within which the number of points on the ribbon front contour are counted as part of the correlation dimension cal￾culation. (b) A schematic representation of the number of points (C) as a function of radius (r), see text for details. clustering step because, in this simulation, the CDM￾selected core points form compact groups around spiral- /wave-like b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the L-maps during the early stages of the simulated flare. Left column: L-maps of the full domain at four snapshots (t = 12 960, 13 360, 13 380, and 13 560 s). Darker tones correspond to longer traced field-line lengths, highlighting the erupting flux-rope footpoints. Right column: outer boundary contours automatically extracted from the same maps (Sec. 4.1.1). These contours form the basis on… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CDM results at t = 13,360 s. (A) Run 1, r ∈ [0.50◦ , 0.75◦ ]: no spirals detected. (B) Run 2, r ∈ [0.25◦ , 0.49◦ ]: spiral segments identified (orange). (C) Run 3, r ∈ [0.05◦ , 0.24◦ ]: additional finer spirals, the star marks the sample used in (D). The inset shows a zoomed-in view of the detected spiral and the starred sample point. (D) log10 C(r) versus log10 r at the starred location with least-squares… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Local correlation-dimension D across five snapshots. Left column: full-domain L-maps with uniformly resampled boundary contours, points are colour-coded by their estimated D. The cyan rectangle marks the straight-section region of interest (ROI). Right column: zoom of the same ROI at the same times using the same colour scale. Elevated values 1 < D < 2 highlight spiral-like segments along the ribbon bounda… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CDM–DBSCAN detections at two representative snapshots. Left panels: uniformly sampled ribbon boundary overlaid on the grayscale L-map and colour-coded by the local correlation dimension D, where elevated D highlights spiral-like structure. Right panels: points with D > 1 that are grouped by DBSCAN are shown in red, with a minimum-area enclosing ellipse (yellow) fitted to each cluster. Rows correspond to t … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean spiral aspect ratio versus simulation time. Each coloured point shows the mean ellipse aspect ratio R = a/b for spirals in three temporal cohorts: an early phase (green; spirals starting before t = 13200 s), a mid￾event phase (blue; 13200 ≤ tstart ≤ 13650 s), and a late phase (orange; tstart > 13650 s). Points are plotted at the mean midpoint time of the spirals in each cohort, and the grey line conne… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ribbon average curve and kinematics. Left: snapshots at t = 13360 s and t = 13520 s; grey points are boundary samples, red points are spiral points (excluded), and blue/orange curves are the fitted north/south lines across the straight section. evolution of θribbon(t) at three longitudes per hemisphere shows coherent separation. Bottom right: normal speed of the midpoints . sis of the numerous spirals pres… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Latitudinal motion and across–ribbon displacement of detected spirals. Top row: latitude θ(t) of each ellipse centre (thin coloured curves, labels are spiral IDs) in the fixed simulation frame for the south (left) and north (right) ribbons. The overplotted references are the fitted ribbon tracks: dashed line is the ribbon latitude at the midpoint longitude θribbon(t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Along–ribbon motion of spiral centres by hemisphere. Top row: longitude ϕ(t) of each ellipse centre in the fixed simulation frame for the south (left) and north (right) ribbons; thin coloured curves are individual tracks (labels are spiral IDs). Bottom row: ribbon–frame along–ribbon displacement δt(t) in Mm, measured as the arclength change of each centre projected onto the fitted ribbon, relative to its … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Along–ribbon drift speeds of spiral centres. Top row: instantaneous longitudinal speed ϕ˙(t) of each ellipse centre in the simulation frame, reported in km s−1 , thin coloured curves are individual spirals. Bottom row: corresponding along–ribbon speed in the ribbon frame, ˙δt(t), obtained by differentiating the arclength coordinate of each centre projected onto the fitted ribbon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Schematic of the ribbon–frame kinematics. The fitted ribbon is a smooth curve γ(s) in (ϕ, θ). For an el￾lipse centre p = (ϕc, θc), the orthogonal projection onto the ribbon is q = γ(s ∗ ). The unit tangent T(s ∗ ) and unit nor￾mal N(s ∗ ) define the local ribbon frame. The across–ribbon displacement is δn = (p − q)· N(s ∗ ), while the along–ribbon coordinate is the arclength s ∗ (t); we report the along–r… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Complementary cumulative distribution of per￾spiral mean unsigned flux. Blue points: empirical CCDF S(Φ) = Pr(Φ′ ≥Φ) for N = 92 spirals, where Φ is the time￾averaged |Φ| over each track. The dashed line shows a power￾law tail fit above a data-driven cutoff Φmin ≈ 6.34×1018 Mx, yielding exponent α ≃ 3.41 (tail slope = −(α−1) ≈ −2.41 on log–log axes). The near-linear upper tail indicates a potential scale-f… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Spiral lifetimes, reconnection rate, and group statistics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Representative comparison of spiral detections obtained with DBSCAN and HDBSCAN. Each row shows a different simulation snapshot (t = 12960, 13360, and 13650 s). In each row, the left panel displays the ribbon-front boundary samples colored by the local correlation-dimension estimate D, the middle panel shows the final detections obtained with DBSCAN, and the right panel shows the corresponding detections … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Flare ribbons often display fine structures along their fronts that are commonly interpreted as signatures of intermittent reconnection dynamics including plasmoid formation in the flare current sheet. We introduce an automated method that detects and tracks the spiral- and wave-like imprints of these structures and as a proof of concept apply it to maps of magnetic field-line length from a high-resolution 3D eruptive-flare simulation. The workflow applies the correlation-dimension method, density-based clustering, and a minimum-area ellipse fit to summarise each feature. We show that across the simulated flare, the detected spirals remain locked to the ribbon's outward motion while drifting coherently along the ribbon. The two ribbons show opposite along-ribbon drift and motion away from their hooks in accordance with theoretical expectations, with instantaneous speeds of 10-800 km s^1, all well below the local surface Alfven speed. Occurrence, lifetimes, and mean magnetic flux of the features peak during the impulsive phase. The distribution of per-spiral mean unsigned flux shows a scale-free tail above roughly 6x10^18 Mx with a power-law exponent near 3.4. Together, these results show that bursty, plasmoid-mediated flare reconnection leaves a clear, measurable signature on the flare ribbons. The method provides a practical surface diagnostic of ribbon fine structure that can potentially be used to inform our understanding of three-dimensional magnetic reconnection in the flare current sheet.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an automated method using the correlation-dimension technique, DBSCAN clustering, and minimum-area ellipse fitting to detect and track spiral- and wave-like fine structures in maps of magnetic field-line length from a high-resolution 3D eruptive-flare simulation. As a proof of concept, it reports that the detected features remain locked to the ribbon's outward motion while drifting coherently along the ribbon (with opposite along-ribbon drifts for the two ribbons), instantaneous speeds of 10-800 km/s (below the local surface Alfvén speed), occurrence/lifetimes/flux peaking in the impulsive phase, and a scale-free tail in the per-spiral mean unsigned flux distribution above ~6×10^18 Mx with power-law exponent ~3.4. These are interpreted as measurable signatures of plasmoid-mediated reconnection in the flare current sheet.

Significance. If the proxy interpretation holds, the work supplies a practical, automated surface diagnostic for three-dimensional reconnection dynamics that could be applied to observations. The simulation demonstration yields concrete, quantitative results (drift directions matching theoretical expectations, specific speed range, power-law index ~3.4) and applies the workflow reproducibly to independent simulation output without reducing quantities to fitted parameters by construction. The significance remains moderate because the central mapping from surface imprints to volume plasmoid properties is untested.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and the section describing the proof-of-concept application: the claim that the detected spiral- and wave-like imprints are reliable proxies for plasmoid formation and dynamics in the flare current sheet is not supported by any direct comparison to independent volume diagnostics such as magnetic islands, O-points, or localized current-density enhancements within the 3D current sheet. The workflow is demonstrated only on surface-derived field-line length maps from a single simulation.
  2. [Results] The results section reporting speeds, lifetimes, and the flux distribution: no error analysis, sensitivity tests on DBSCAN or correlation-dimension parameters, or validation metrics are provided for the detected features, leaving the reported power-law exponent near 3.4 and the 6×10^18 Mx threshold without quantified uncertainties.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract writes speeds as '10-800 km s^1'; this should be corrected to the standard notation '10-800 km s^{-1}'.
  2. The description of the ellipse-fitting step would benefit from explicit criteria for the minimum-area choice and an example figure overlaying fitted ellipses on a field-line length map.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments. We will make revisions to address the concerns regarding validation and uncertainty quantification where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and the section describing the proof-of-concept application: the claim that the detected spiral- and wave-like imprints are reliable proxies for plasmoid formation and dynamics in the flare current sheet is not supported by any direct comparison to independent volume diagnostics such as magnetic islands, O-points, or localized current-density enhancements within the 3D current sheet. The workflow is demonstrated only on surface-derived field-line length maps from a single simulation.

    Authors: The manuscript is explicitly framed as a proof-of-concept application to surface-derived maps from one simulation. The proxy interpretation is based on the observed properties aligning with multiple theoretical predictions for plasmoid-mediated reconnection, including opposite drifts on the two ribbons, locking to outward motion, speeds below the Alfvén speed, and peaking during the impulsive phase. We agree that direct comparison to volume quantities would strengthen the case but is outside the current scope. We will revise the abstract and discussion to clarify that the features are consistent with plasmoid dynamics rather than claiming they are definitively reliable proxies without volume validation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] The results section reporting speeds, lifetimes, and the flux distribution: no error analysis, sensitivity tests on DBSCAN or correlation-dimension parameters, or validation metrics are provided for the detected features, leaving the reported power-law exponent near 3.4 and the 6×10^18 Mx threshold without quantified uncertainties.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The original submission did not include sensitivity analysis or error estimates. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection detailing sensitivity tests to variations in the correlation-dimension threshold and DBSCAN parameters, showing the robustness of the detected features. We will also provide uncertainty estimates on the power-law exponent using fitting methods that account for uncertainties, and discuss the sensitivity of the 6×10^18 Mx threshold. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical measurements from independent simulation data

full rationale

The paper applies an automated detection pipeline (correlation-dimension method, DBSCAN clustering, minimum-area ellipse fitting) to magnetic field-line length maps extracted from a pre-existing 3D eruptive-flare simulation. Reported quantities—along-ribbon drifts, locking to outward ribbon motion, instantaneous speeds (10-800 km s^{-1}), occurrence/lifetime peaks during the impulsive phase, and the power-law tail of per-feature mean unsigned flux (exponent ~3.4 above 6e18 Mx)—are direct statistical summaries of the detected features in the simulation output. No equation or workflow step defines a target quantity in terms of itself or renames a fitted parameter as a prediction. The interpretive claim that the detected spirals serve as proxies for plasmoid dynamics is presented as an assumption to be tested by the method, not as a mathematical identity derived from the inputs. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked. The analysis chain is therefore self-contained against external simulation data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach relies on standard image-analysis algorithms applied to simulation-derived field-line length maps; no new physical entities or ad-hoc parameters are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The correlation-dimension method reliably identifies spiral- and wave-like structures in maps of magnetic field-line length.
    Invoked as the first step of the detection workflow.
  • domain assumption Density-based clustering and minimum-area ellipse fitting can summarize the detected features without introducing significant bias.
    Used to group and characterize each spiral.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5797 in / 1322 out tokens · 20358 ms · 2026-06-27T05:48:00.401165+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 557, doi: 10.1086/422159

    Asai, A., Yokoyama, T., Shimojo, M., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 557, doi: 10.1086/422159

    work page doi:10.1086/422159 2004

  2. [2]

    2012, A&A, 543, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219311

    Aulanier, G., Janvier, M., & Schmieder, B. 2012, A&A, 543, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219311

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219311 2012

  3. [3]

    Battaglia, M., Fletcher, L., & Benz, A. O. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 498, 891, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811196

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811196 2009

  4. [4]

    Beg, R., Russell, A. J. B., & Hornig, G. 2022, ApJ, 940, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8eb6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8eb6 2022

  5. [5]

    Benz, A. O. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41116-017-0002-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s41116-017-0002-1 2017

  6. [6]

    1986, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-8, 679, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851

    Canny, J. 1986, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-8, 679, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851

    work page doi:10.1109/tpami.1986.4767851 1986

  7. [7]

    1964, NASA Special Publication, 50, 451

    Carmichael, H. 1964, NASA Special Publication, 50, 451

    1964

  8. [8]

    Che, H., & Zank, G. P. 2020, ApJ, 889, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d3b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d3b 2020

  9. [9]

    F., Deng, Y

    Chen, P. F., Deng, Y. Y., Fang, C., & Liu, Y. 2012, Chinese Science Bulletin, 57, 1392, doi: 10.1007/s11434-011-4829-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11434-011-4829-9 2012

  10. [10]

    R., & Newman, M

    Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. 2009, SIAM Review, 51, 661, doi: 10.1137/070710111 Corchado Albelo, M. F., Kazachenko, M. D., French, R. J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.20470. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.20470 Corchado Albelo, M. F., Kazachenko, M. D., & Lynch, B. J. 2024, ApJ, 965, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad25f4

    work page doi:10.1137/070710111 2009

  11. [12]

    T., Antiochos, S

    Dahlin, J. T., Antiochos, S. K., Qiu, J., & DeVore, C. R. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 932, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e3d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e3d 2022

  12. [13]

    DeVore, C. R. 2025, ApJ, 993, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03c5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae03c5 2025

  13. [14]

    T., DeVore, C

    Dahlin, J. T., DeVore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2022, ApJ, 941, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e5a Dud´ ık, J., Aulanier, G., L¨ orinˇ c´ ık, J., & Zemanov´ a, A. 2025, SoPh, 300, 139, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02549-2 Dud´ ık, J., Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/144 Dud´ ık, J., Poli...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e5a 2022

  14. [15]

    1996, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-96) (Portland, OR, USA: AAAI Press), 226–231

    Ester, M., Kriegel, H., Sander, J., & Xu, X. 1996, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-96) (Portland, OR, USA: AAAI Press), 226–231

    1996

  15. [16]

    Fletcher, L., & Hudson, H. S. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 675, 1645, doi: 10.1086/527044

    work page doi:10.1086/527044 2008

  16. [17]

    R., Hudson, H

    Fletcher, L., Dennis, B. R., Hudson, H. S., et al. 2011, Space Science Reviews, 159, 19, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9701-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9701-8 2011

  17. [18]

    1983, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 9, 189, doi: 10.1016/0167-2789(83)90298-1

    Grassberger, P., & Procaccia, I. 1983, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 9, 189, doi: 10.1016/0167-2789(83)90298-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0167-2789(83)90298-1 1983

  18. [19]

    E., & Longcope, D

    Guidoni, S. E., & Longcope, D. W. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/2/90 2011

  19. [20]

    2018, Solar Physics, 293, 86, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1253-1

    Tschernitz, J., & P¨ otzi, W. 2018, Solar Physics, 293, 86, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1253-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-018-1253-1 2018

  20. [21]

    1974, SoPh, 34, 323, doi: 10.1007/BF00153671

    Hirayama, T. 1974, SoPh, 34, 323, doi: 10.1007/BF00153671

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00153671 1974

  21. [22]

    D., Aschwanden, M

    Holman, G. D., Aschwanden, M. J., Aurass, H., et al. 2011, Space Science Reviews, 159, 107, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9680-9 25

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9680-9 2011

  22. [23]

    2012, Phys

    Huang, Y.-M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 265002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.265002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.265002 2012

  23. [24]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/20

    Huang, Y.-M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2016, ApJ, 818, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/20

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/20 2016

  24. [25]

    2013, A&A, 555, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321164

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., Pariat, E., & D´ emoulin, P. 2013, A&A, 555, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321164

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321164 2013

  25. [26]

    2016, Scientific Reports, 6, 24319, doi: 10.1038/srep24319

    Jing, J., Xu, Y., Cao, W., et al. 2016, Scientific Reports, 6, 24319, doi: 10.1038/srep24319

    work page doi:10.1038/srep24319 2016

  26. [27]

    T., Antiochos, S

    Karpen, J. T., Antiochos, S. K., & DeVore, C. R. 2012, ApJ, 760, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/81

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/81 2012

  27. [28]

    Antiochos, S. K. 2024, ApJ, 966, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2eaa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2eaa 2024

  28. [29]

    D., Albelo-Corchado, M

    Kazachenko, M. D., Albelo-Corchado, M. F., Tamburri, C. A., & Welsch, B. T. 2022, SoPh, 297, 59, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-01987-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-022-01987-6 2022

  29. [30]

    D., Lynch, B

    Kazachenko, M. D., Lynch, B. J., Welsch, B. T., & Sun, X. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7ed6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7ed6 2017

  30. [31]

    A., & Pneuman, G

    Kopp, R. A., & Pneuman, G. W. 1976, SoPh, 50, 85, doi: 10.1007/BF00206193

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00206193 1976

  31. [32]

    T., Antiochos, S

    Kumar, P., Karpen, J. T., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abca8b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abca8b 2021

  32. [33]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 804, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L8

    Li, T., & Zhang, J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 804, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L8

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/l8 2015

  33. [34]

    2018, Physics of Plasmas, 25, 012114, doi: 10.1063/1.5020887

    Lingam, M., & Comisso, L. 2018, Physics of Plasmas, 25, 012114, doi: 10.1063/1.5020887

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5020887 2018

  34. [35]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/168 L¨ orinˇ c´ ık, J., Dud´ ık, J., Aulanier, G., et al

    Liu, W., Chen, Q., & Petrosian, V. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/168 L¨ orinˇ c´ ık, J., Dud´ ık, J., Aulanier, G., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab298f L¨ orinˇ c´ ık, J., Dud´ ık, J., Sainz Dalda, A., et al. 2025a, Nature Astronomy, 9, 45, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02396-4...

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/168 2013

  35. [36]

    F., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 100703, doi: 10.1063/1.2783986

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2783986 2007

  36. [37]

    F., & Uzdensky, D

    Loureiro, N. F., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2012, Phys. Plasmas, 19, 042303, doi: 10.1063/1.3703318

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3703318 2012

  37. [38]

    I., & Uritsky, V

    Mason, E. I., & Uritsky, V. M. 2022, ApJL, 937, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9124

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9124 2022

  38. [39]

    E., & Hudson, H

    McKenzie, D. E., & Hudson, H. S. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 519, L93, doi: 10.1086/312110

    work page doi:10.1086/312110 1999

  39. [40]

    H., Veronig, A

    Miklenic, C. H., Veronig, A. M., Vrˇ snak, B., & Hanslmeier, A. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 461, 697, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065751

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065751 2007

  40. [41]

    Milligan, R. O. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/70

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/70 2011

  41. [42]

    K., et al

    Patel, R., Pant, V., Srivastava, A. K., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039000

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039000 2020

  42. [43]

    R., & D´ emoulin, P

    Priest, E. R., & D´ emoulin, P. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 23443, doi: 10.1029/95JA02740

    work page doi:10.1029/95ja02740 1995

  43. [44]

    Z., & Gary, D

    Qiu, J., Wang, H., Cheng, C. Z., & Gary, D. E. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 604, 900, doi: 10.1086/382122

    work page doi:10.1086/382122 2004

  44. [45]

    Resnick, S. I. 2007, Heavy-Tail Phenomena: Probabilistic and Statistical Modeling (New York: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-75953-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-75953-1 2007

  45. [46]

    R., Warner, M., Keil, S

    Rimmele, T. R., Warner, M., Keil, S. L., et al. 2020, SoPh, 295, 172, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01736-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-020-01736-7 2020

  46. [47]

    L., McKenzie, D

    Savage, S. L., McKenzie, D. E., & Reeves, K. K. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 747, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L40

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/l40 2012

  47. [48]

    2001, Earth, Planets, and Space, 53, 473, doi: 10.1186/BF03353258

    Shibata, K., & Tanuma, S. 2001, Earth, Planets, and Space, 53, 473, doi: 10.1186/BF03353258

    work page doi:10.1186/bf03353258 2001

  48. [49]

    2012, Solar Physics, 276, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9848-9

    Song, H.-Q., Kong, X.-L., Chen, Y., et al. 2012, Solar Physics, 276, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9848-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9848-9 2012

  49. [50]

    Sturrock, P. A. 1966, Nature, 211, 695, doi: 10.1038/211695a0

    work page doi:10.1038/211695a0 1966

  50. [51]

    1985, Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 30, 32, doi: 10.1016/0734-189X(85)90016-7

    Suzuki, S., & Abe, K. 1985, Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 30, 32, doi: 10.1016/0734-189X(85)90016-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0734-189x(85)90016-7 1985

  51. [52]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 828, 103, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/103

    Takasao, S., Asai, A., Isobe, H., & Shibata, K. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 828, 103, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/103

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/2/103 2016

  52. [53]

    A., Kazachenko, M

    Tamburri, C. A., Kazachenko, M. D., Cauzzi, G., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf95e Thoen Faber, J., Joshi, R., Rouppe van der Voort, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452370

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf95e 2025

  53. [54]

    A., Loureiro, N

    Uzdensky, D. A., Loureiro, N. F., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 235002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.235002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.105.235002 2010

  54. [55]

    C., & Hunt, J

    Vassilicos, J. C., & Hunt, J. C. R. 1991, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 435, 505, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1991.0158

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1991.0158 1991

  55. [56]

    P., Brooks, D

    Warren, H. P., Brooks, D. H., Ugarte-Urra, I., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9b8 2018

  56. [57]

    1991, in LNCS, Vol

    Welzl, E. 1991, in LNCS, Vol. 555, New Results and New Trends in Computer Science (Springer), 359–370, doi: 10.1007/BFb0038202

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0038202 1991

  57. [58]

    F., Antiochos, S

    Wyper, P. F., Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd9ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd9ca 2021

  58. [59]

    F., & DeVore, C

    Wyper, P. F., & DeVore, C. R. 2016, ApJ, 820, 77, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/77

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/77 2016

  59. [60]

    F., DeVore, C

    Wyper, P. F., DeVore, C. R., Karpen, J. T., & Lynch, B. J. 2016, ApJ, 827, 4, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/4 26Chouliaras et al

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/1/4 2016

  60. [61]

    F., Lynch, B

    Wyper, P. F., Lynch, B. J., DeVore, C. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7941

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7941 2024

  61. [62]

    F., & Pontin, D

    Wyper, P. F., & Pontin, D. I. 2014, Physics of Plasmas, 21, 082114, doi: 10.1063/1.4893149 —. 2021, ApJ, 920, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1943

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4893149 2014

  62. [63]

    D., Cauzzi, G., et al

    Yadav, R., Kazachenko, M. D., Cauzzi, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf4c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf4c1 2025

  63. [64]

    2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 7, doi: 10.1007/s41614-024-00144-9

    Zhang, Q. 2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 7, doi: 10.1007/s41614-024-00144-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s41614-024-00144-9 2024