pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.29979 · v1 · pith:5ITQBWPVnew · submitted 2026-06-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Non-thermal Sources from Stereoscopic Hard X-ray and Earth-based Microwave Observations in a Data-Constrained Magnetohydrodynamic Simulation

Keitarou Matsumoto , Satoshi Inoue , Meiqi Wang , Bin Chen , Muriel Zo\"e Stiefel , S\"am Krucker , Satoshi Masuda , Haimin Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 04:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords solar flarehard X-ray imagingmicrowave observationsMHD simulationnon-thermal electronscurrent sheetstereoscopic analysislooptop source
0
0 comments X

The pith

Data-constrained MHD simulation reproduces the observed heights of both the main looptop and secondary non-thermal sources in the 2024 X7.1 flare.

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

The paper combines stereoscopic hard X-ray imaging from Solar Orbiter and ASO-S with EOVSA microwave observations of the October 1 2024 X7.1 flare and a three-dimensional MHD simulation started from a nonlinear force-free field extrapolation. The simulation is constrained by the observed height of the non-thermal looptop source, and the model then matches both that height and the height of a secondary microwave source tied to a southward plasma ejection and elongated current sheet. Spectral fitting of the microwave data indicates a higher low-energy cutoff for electrons at the secondary site than at the main looptop, consistent with transport of pre-accelerated particles by the ejection. The agreement between the constrained simulation and the two independent observational methods supports the interpretation that reconnection in weaker-field southern regions of the current sheet produces the secondary emission at higher altitude.

Core claim

The height of the non-thermal looptop source is consistent between the stereoscopic analysis and the MHD simulation. The height of the secondary source is consistent between the stereoscopic analysis and the MHD simulation. Microwave spectral fitting suggests a higher low-energy cutoff for non-thermal electrons in the secondary microwave source than in the main looptop source. This may reflect the transport of electrons pre-accelerated near the looptop source by the southward plasma ejection.

What carries the argument

Data-constrained three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulation initialized from a nonlinear force-free field extrapolation and further constrained by the stereoscopically measured height of the non-thermal looptop source.

If this is right

  • Reconnection in strong-field regions of the current sheet produces flare arcades with dominant looptop emission while reconnection in weaker southern regions produces secondary microwave emission at higher altitudes.
  • The secondary microwave source is localized to the southern segment of the elongated current sheet even though the sheet grows in multiple directions.
  • The higher low-energy cutoff inferred for the secondary source is consistent with electrons being pre-accelerated near the looptop and then transported outward by the plasma ejection.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same data-constrained approach could be used on other well-observed flares to test whether the distribution of non-thermal emission along a current sheet is systematically controlled by local magnetic field strength.
  • If the transport interpretation holds, time-resolved microwave spectra during the ejection phase should show a progressive hardening or cutoff increase at the secondary site.
  • The simulation results imply that large-scale source heights are robust against unresolved small-scale magnetic structure in this event, which could be checked by comparing runs with added sub-grid turbulence.

Load-bearing premise

The nonlinear force-free field extrapolation from photospheric vector magnetograms supplies an initial magnetic configuration whose subsequent evolution under the data-constrained MHD simulation faithfully reproduces the observed non-thermal source heights without significant influence from unresolved small-scale fields or projection effects in the stereoscopic measurements.

What would settle it

New stereoscopic hard X-ray observations of a similar flare that place the looptop or secondary source at a height measurably different from the height produced by an otherwise identical data-constrained MHD run would falsify the claimed consistency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29979 by Bin Chen, Haimin Wang, Keitarou Matsumoto, Meiqi Wang, Muriel Zo\"e Stiefel, S\"am Krucker, Satoshi Inoue, Satoshi Masuda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) and (b) Temporal evolution of X-ray observed by HXI and STIX. For both HXI and STIX, the data are summed to a 4 s resolution. The red and blue curves represent the 14-16 keV and 32-50 keV ranges, respectively. The STIX light curves are shifted by 352.9 s to consider the different travel time of the light. The two gray shaded regions indicate the time intervals 22:09:04-22:10:04 (Phase 0) and 22:10:30-2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) ∆x map at t = 1.08. Red and blue contours mark Bz = 1.0 × 10−2 T and Bz = −5.0 × 10−3 T at 20:36 UT. (b) ∆x map at t = 1.92 with the same Bz contours as in (a). (c) AIA 1600 ˚A at 22:09:50 UT highlighting the remote brightening. (d) Same as (c) with ∆x > 0.05 (green) at t = 1.92 overlaid. The animation of panels (a) and (b) proceeds from t = 0.00 to 2.40. 3.2. Hard X-ray and Microwave Images Figures 3(… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a)–(b) AIA 1600 ˚A images reprojected to the STIX viewpoint and overlaid with STIX HXR sources. (a) AIA 1600 ˚A at 22:09:50 UT with 14–16 keV (red) and 32–50 keV (blue) sources integrated over 22:09:04–22:10:04 UT. (b) AIA 1600 ˚A 22:10:38 UT with the same energy bands integrated over 22:10:30–22:10:50 UT. Blue contours show 15%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 80%, and 90% of the peak intensity in (a), and 15%, 30%, 50%,… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) STIX 32-50 keV HXR contours (same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic illustration of the viewing geometry used to explain why the magnetic field strength inferred from the microwave emission in the X7.1 flare exceeds the field in the MHD model. The top surface shows the plane for the EOVSA view, while the front face shows the same structure as viewed from the STIX view. field erupts, it reconnects with the surrounding field lines. In particular, field lines rooted… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Field lines colored in Vz and cross-section of |B| at t = 1.92. Small inset shows the strong |B| region, corresponding to the flare arcades. The purple field lines shown in the inset are traced from the same location as the purple field lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Magnetic field lines colored in Vz and cross-section of Bg/Br at t = 1.92. Purple field lines show the magnetic field lines of S1, which are traced from the same region as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: MCMC analysis for the spectral fit of the EOVSA data at S1, (x, y) = (−266′′ , −396′′), as mentioned in Section 3.4. The diagonal panels show the distributions of each fitted parameter, and the other panels show how pairs of parameters are correlated. The dashed lines in the histograms indicate the 16 percent, 50 percent (median), and 84 percent quantiles corresponding to 1 σ interval from the median. The … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a)-(b) The comparison in observation and modeled spectrum for S2, based on the fitting parameters, as summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Microwave observations observed by EOVSA at 22:09:54 UT, identical to those shown in Figures 3 (d) and 4(c), with the slit placed along S2. The slit width is 3 pixels, corresponding to about 6 arcsec (4.35 Mm). The short tick marks along the slit indicate 5 Mm intervals. (b) Temporal evolution of the background-subtracted brightness temperature enhancement (∆Tb) along the slit. The brightness temperat… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We analyze the X7.1 flare on 2024 October 1 from NOAA AR 13842 using hard X-ray (HXR) imaging, microwave observations by the Expanded Owens Valley Solar Array (EOVSA), and a three-dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation. The flare was observed from two vantage points, with Solar Orbiter/Spectrometer Telescope for Imaging X-rays viewing the flare near the limb and Advanced Space-based Solar Observatory/Hard X-ray Imager and EOVSA observing it on the disk. We carried out a data-constrained MHD simulation using a nonlinear force-free field extrapolation as the initial condition and constrained the height of the non-thermal looptop source from stereoscopic HXR and microwave observations. The height is consistent between the stereoscopic analysis and the MHD simulation. A secondary non-thermal microwave source aligned with a southward plasma ejection corresponds to an elongated current sheet. Although the current sheet grows in multiple directions, the secondary microwave emission is observed only from the southern segment. This localization suggests reconnection in regions with different magnetic field strengths. Reconnection in strong-field regions produces flare arcades with dominant looptop emission, whereas reconnection in weaker southern regions gives rise to secondary microwave emission at higher altitudes. The height of the secondary source is consistent between the stereoscopic analysis and the MHD simulation. Microwave spectral fitting suggests a higher low-energy cutoff for non-thermal electrons in the secondary microwave source than in the main looptop source. This may reflect the transport of electrons pre-accelerated near the looptop source by the southward plasma ejection.

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 analyzes the 2024 October 1 X7.1 flare using stereoscopic HXR imaging from Solar Orbiter/STIX and ASO-S/HXI together with EOVSA microwave data and a data-constrained 3D MHD simulation initialized from an NLFFF extrapolation. The central claims are that (i) the height of the main non-thermal looptop source is consistent between stereoscopic measurements and the simulation, (ii) a secondary microwave source aligned with a southward plasma ejection and elongated current sheet has a height also consistent with the simulation, and (iii) spectral fitting shows a higher low-energy cutoff for non-thermal electrons in the secondary source than in the looptop source, interpreted as transport by the ejection.

Significance. If the height consistencies were shown to be independent of the imposed constraint, the work would provide a concrete demonstration that data-constrained MHD models can locate non-thermal sources and distinguish reconnection regimes in strong versus weak field regions. The reported difference in low-energy cutoffs would then supply a falsifiable signature of electron transport between sites. The current constraint step, however, removes the ability to test whether the NLFFF initial condition plus MHD evolution reproduces the observed heights on its own.

major comments (2)
  1. [MHD simulation description] MHD simulation description (abstract and methods): the simulation is explicitly 'constrained the height of the non-thermal looptop source from stereoscopic HXR and microwave observations' and then reports that 'the height is consistent'. Because the looptop height is an input constraint rather than an output prediction, the reported agreement is enforced by construction and does not constitute an independent verification of the NLFFF+MHD model. This directly weakens the central consistency claim for the main source; the secondary-source consistency may be independent but is not distinguished in the text.
  2. [Results on secondary source] Results on secondary source: the claim that the secondary microwave source 'corresponds to an elongated current sheet' and that emission is localized to the southern segment relies on the simulation geometry, yet no quantitative comparison (e.g., current-sheet thickness, field strength at the two segments, or predicted versus observed microwave brightness) is provided to show that the localization is a model prediction rather than a post-hoc interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Spectral fitting] The abstract and text state that 'microwave spectral fitting suggests a higher low-energy cutoff' but supply neither the fitting method, the functional form used, nor the formal uncertainties on the cutoff energies; these details are required to assess whether the reported difference is statistically significant.
  2. [Observation analysis] Error budgets and projection effects for the stereoscopic height measurements are not quantified; the reader's weakest-assumption note on unresolved small-scale fields and projection effects should be addressed with explicit sensitivity tests.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: MHD simulation description (abstract and methods): the simulation is explicitly 'constrained the height of the non-thermal looptop source from stereoscopic HXR and microwave observations' and then reports that 'the height is consistent'. Because the looptop height is an input constraint rather than an output prediction, the reported agreement is enforced by construction and does not constitute an independent verification of the NLFFF+MHD model. This directly weakens the central consistency claim for the main source; the secondary-source consistency may be independent but is not distinguished in the text.

    Authors: We agree that the main looptop source height was imposed as a constraint, so the reported consistency for that source is by construction and does not provide an independent test of the NLFFF+MHD evolution. The secondary source height was not constrained. We will revise the abstract, methods, and discussion sections to explicitly distinguish the two cases, clarify the nature of the constraint, and temper the language on verification for the main source while highlighting the independent check provided by the secondary source. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results on secondary source: the claim that the secondary microwave source 'corresponds to an elongated current sheet' and that emission is localized to the southern segment relies on the simulation geometry, yet no quantitative comparison (e.g., current-sheet thickness, field strength at the two segments, or predicted versus observed microwave brightness) is provided to show that the localization is a model prediction rather than a post-hoc interpretation.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for quantitative support. In the revised manuscript we will add direct measurements from the simulation of current-sheet thickness, magnetic field strengths along the northern versus southern segments, and forward-modeled microwave brightness using the derived non-thermal electron distributions. These additions will demonstrate that the observed southern localization follows from the model rather than post-hoc interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Looptop height consistency is enforced by the explicit data constraint in the MHD simulation rather than independently verified.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "We carried out a data-constrained MHD simulation using a nonlinear force-free field extrapolation as the initial condition and constrained the height of the non-thermal looptop source from stereoscopic HXR and microwave observations. The height is consistent between the stereoscopic analysis and the MHD simulation."

    The simulation is initialized and run with the looptop height explicitly set to reproduce the observed stereoscopic value; reporting consistency afterward is therefore enforced by the constraint step itself and does not constitute an independent test of whether the NLFFF+MHD evolution would have produced that height.

full rationale

The paper explicitly states that a data-constrained MHD simulation was performed by constraining the non-thermal looptop source height to match stereoscopic observations, then reports that the height is consistent. This reduces the central consistency claim for the main source to a tautology by construction. The secondary source consistency and microwave spectral fitting are not directly forced by the same constraint and retain independent content, so the overall circularity is partial rather than total. No other load-bearing steps (self-citations, ansatzes, or renamings) are evident from the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard solar-physics modeling assumptions and observational techniques rather than new free parameters or invented entities. The low-energy cutoff is obtained by spectral fitting rather than introduced ad hoc.

free parameters (1)
  • low-energy cutoff energy
    Obtained via microwave spectral fitting for each source; not a free parameter of the MHD model itself.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Nonlinear force-free field extrapolation from photospheric magnetograms supplies a valid initial coronal magnetic configuration.
    Explicitly used as the initial condition for the data-constrained MHD simulation.
  • domain assumption Stereoscopic HXR and microwave observations yield accurate source heights free of major projection or calibration biases.
    These heights are used both to constrain the simulation and to validate its output.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5856 in / 1724 out tokens · 81225 ms · 2026-06-30T04:28:50.896402+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

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Wuelser, J.-P., Nitta, N

    Aschwanden, M. J., Wuelser, J.-P., Nitta, N. V., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/124

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/124 2012

  2. [2]

    J., W¨ ulser, J.-P., Nitta, N

    Aschwanden, M. J., W¨ ulser, J.-P., Nitta, N. V., & Lemen, J. R. 2008, ApJ, 679, 827, doi: 10.1086/529542

    work page doi:10.1086/529542 2008

  3. [3]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac820

    Ball, D., Sironi, L., & ¨Ozel, F. 2018, ApJ, 862, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac820

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac820 2018

  4. [4]

    S., Benz, A

    Bastian, T. S., Benz, A. O., & Gary, D. E. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 131, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.131

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.131 1998

  5. [5]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98e6

    Beck, C., Prasad, A., Hu, Q., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad98e6 2025

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Glesener, L. 2021, ApJL, 908, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe471

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe471 2021

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Chen, B., Yu, S., Reeves, K. K., & Gary, D. E. 2020a, ApJL, 895, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab901a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab901a 2041

  8. [8]

    E., et al

    Chen, B., Shen, C., Gary, D. E., et al. 2020b, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1140, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1147-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1147-7

  9. [9]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad531a

    Chen, B., Kong, X., Yu, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad531a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad531a 2024

  10. [10]

    2025, ApJL, 990, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa71

    Chen, X., Chen, B., Yu, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa71

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfa71 2025

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    T., Drake, J

    Dahlin, J. T., Drake, J. F., & Swisdak, M. 2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23, 120704, doi: 10.1063/1.4972082

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4972082 2016

  13. [13]

    Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kr¨ oner, D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6961 18 (a) (b) Figure 11.(a) Microwave observations observed by EOVSA at 22:09:54 UT, identical to those shown in Figures 3 (d) and 4(c), with the slit placed along S2. The slit width is 3 pixels, corresponding to about 6 arcsec (4.35 Mm). ...

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6961 2002

  14. [14]

    D., & Kuznetsov, A

    Fleishman, G. D., & Kuznetsov, A. A. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/2/1127 2010

  15. [15]

    R., Hudson, H

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

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

  16. [16]

    E., Fleishman, G

    Gary, D. E., Fleishman, G. D., & Nita, G. M. 2013, SoPh, 288, 549, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0299-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0299-3 2013

  17. [17]

    E., Chen, B., Dennis, B

    Gary, D. E., Chen, B., Dennis, B. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad0ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad0ef 2018

  18. [18]

    Gary, G. A. 2001, SoPh, 203, 71, doi: 10.1023/A:1012722021820

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1012722021820 2001

  19. [19]

    2007, SoPh, 243, 63, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-0182-1

    Golub, L., DeLuca, E., Austin, G., et al. 2007, SoPh, 243, 63, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-0182-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-007-0182-1 2007

  20. [20]

    2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23, 055708, doi: 10.1063/1.4948284

    Guo, F., Li, H., Daughton, W., Li, X., & Liu, Y.-H. 2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23, 055708, doi: 10.1063/1.4948284

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4948284 2016

  21. [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

  22. [22]

    2016, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 3, 19, doi: 10.1186/s40645-016-0084-7

    Inoue, S. 2016, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 3, 19, doi: 10.1186/s40645-016-0084-7

    work page doi:10.1186/s40645-016-0084-7 2016

  23. [23]

    S., & Park, Y

    Inoue, S., Hayashi, K., Magara, T., Choe, G. S., & Park, Y. D. 2014a, ApJ, 788, 182, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/182

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/182

  24. [24]

    S., et al

    Inoue, S., Magara, T., Pandey, V. S., et al. 2014b, ApJ, 780, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/1/101

  25. [25]

    Ishikawa, S., Krucker, S., Takahashi, T., & Lin, R. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/48

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/48 2011

  26. [26]

    2023, ApJL, 942, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca97c

    Jin, C., Zhou, G., Ruan, G., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca97c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca97c 2023

  27. [27]

    L., Kucera, T

    Kaiser, M. L., Kucera, T. A., Davila, J. M., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0 2008

  28. [28]

    D., & Ryan, D

    Kaltman, T., Yu, S., Fleishman, G. D., & Ryan, D. F. 2026, A&A, 707, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557507

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557507 2026

  29. [29]

    A., & Pneuman, G

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

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00206193 1976

  30. [30]

    2022, Nature Communications, 13, 7680, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35377-0

    Kou, Y., Cheng, X., Wang, Y., et al. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 7680, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35377-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-35377-0 2022

  31. [31]

    S., Glesener, L., et al

    Krucker, S., Hudson, H. S., Glesener, L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1108

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/2/1108 2010

  32. [32]

    J., Grimm, O., et al

    Krucker, S., Hurford, G. J., Grimm, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937362

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937362 2020

  33. [33]

    D., Gary, D

    Kuroda, N., Fleishman, G. D., Gary, D. E., et al. 2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 22, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2020.00022

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2020.00022 2020

  34. [34]

    The Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).Sol

    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

  35. [35]

    2019, Atmosphere, 10, 488, doi: 10.3390/atmos10090488

    Li, S., Jaroszynski, S., Pearse, S., Orf, L., & Clyne, J. 2019, Atmosphere, 10, 488, doi: 10.3390/atmos10090488

    work page doi:10.3390/atmos10090488 2019

  36. [36]

    2015, ApJL, 811, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L24 —

    Li, X., Guo, F., Li, H., & Li, G. 2015, ApJL, 811, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L24 —. 2017, ApJ, 843, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa745e 19

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/l24 2015

  37. [37]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adba56

    Liu, N., Inoue, S., Wang, Y., & Wang, H. 2025, ApJ, 983, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adba56

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adba56 2025

  38. [38]

    K., et al

    Massa, P., Schwartz, R., Tolbert, A. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8637

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8637 2020

  39. [39]

    F., Volpara, A., et al

    Massa, P., Battaglia, A. F., Volpara, A., et al. 2022, SoPh, 297, 93, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-02029-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-022-02029-x 2022

  40. [40]

    1994, Nature, 371, 495, doi: 10.1038/371495a0

    Masuda, S., Kosugi, T., Hara, H., Tsuneta, S., & Ogawara, Y. 1994, Nature, 371, 495, doi: 10.1038/371495a0

    work page doi:10.1038/371495a0 1994

  41. [41]

    2025a, ApJ, 991, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa20

    Matsumoto, K., Inoue, S., Hayashi, K., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 991, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa20

  42. [42]

    2025b, ApJ, 985, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcac2

    Matsumoto, K., Inoue, S., Liu, N., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 985, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcac2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcac2

  43. [43]

    2026, ApJL, 998, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4000 M¨ uller, D., St

    Matsumoto, K., Inoue, S., Wang, M., et al. 2026, ApJL, 998, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4000 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae4000 2026

  44. [44]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2122

    Roddanavar, A., Inoue, S., Hayashi, K., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2122

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2122 2026

  45. [45]

    F., Massa, P., Battaglia, A

    Ryan, D. F., Massa, P., Battaglia, A. F., et al. 2024a, SoPh, 299, 114, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02341-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-024-02341-8

  46. [46]

    F., Laube, S., Nicula, B., et al

    Ryan, D. F., Laube, S., Nicula, B., et al. 2024b, A&A, 681, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347212

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347212

  47. [47]

    1982, SoPh, 76, 301, doi: 10.1007/BF00170988

    Sakurai, T. 1982, SoPh, 76, 301, doi: 10.1007/BF00170988

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00170988 1982

  48. [48]

    , Schou , J

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 207, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2 2012

  49. [49]

    Z., Bajnokov´ a, N., & Krucker, S

    Stiefel, M. Z., Bajnokov´ a, N., & Krucker, S. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.09108, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.09108

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.09108

  50. [50]

    Z., Kuhar, M., Limousin, O., et al

    Stiefel, M. Z., Kuhar, M., Limousin, O., et al. 2025b, A&A, 694, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452574

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452574

  51. [51]

    Z., Battaglia, A

    Stiefel, M. Z., Battaglia, A. F., Barczynski, K., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245044

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245044 2023

  52. [52]

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

    work page doi:10.1038/211695a0 1966

  53. [53]

    2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 5, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2012-5

    Wiegelmann, T., & Sakurai, T. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 5, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2012-5

    work page doi:10.12942/lrsp-2012-5 2012

  54. [54]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9df4

    Yamasaki, D., Inoue, S., Bamba, Y., Lee, J., & Wang, H. 2022, ApJ, 940, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9df4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9df4 2022

  55. [55]

    K., et al

    Yu, S., Chen, B., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba8a6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba8a6 2020

  56. [56]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 160, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/160

    Zhang, Z., Chen, D.-Y., Wu, J., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 160, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/160

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/160 2019