Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 74 references

Numerical Investigation of Efficient Electron Acceleration at an Unsteady Solar Flare Loop-Top

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-07-03 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Time-varying loop-top structures in solar flares accelerate electrons more efficiently than steady ones via betatron energization at the edges.

desk verdict Unsteady loop-top dynamics let betatron acceleration win at the escape point while quasi-steady cases show net cooling, but the guiding-center runs need checks for validity during fast compressions. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.01644 v1 pith:IE4V7C4O submitted 2026-07-02 astro-ph.SR

Yoshiaki Sato , Takafumi Kaneko , Noriyuki Narukage , Shinsuke Takasao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarflareselectronaccelerationloop-topbetatronmechanismMHDsimulationtest-particleplasmoid
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper investigates how time-dependent dynamics at the top of solar flare loops affect electron acceleration using MHD fields and guiding-center test-particle calculations. It establishes that unsteady velocity fields enhance net acceleration by allowing the betatron mechanism to energize electrons in compressed magnetic regions at the loop-top edge. In contrast, quasi-steady fields lead to suppression because betatron cooling offsets gains. The central argument is that acceleration depends on dynamic events such as plasmoid collisions, not only the static magnetic geometry, and that processes at the exit point where electrons leave the loop-top are important. This matters because prior work has emphasized reconnection outflows like termination shocks, so including loop-top dynamics could change how models account for observed flare particle energies.

What carries the argument

The unsteady MHD velocity field at the loop-top, which modulates guiding-center electron motion to produce net betatron acceleration in time-varying compressed B regions.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of electron energy gains or spectra from flares with identified steady versus unsteady loop-tops that shows no difference in acceleration efficiency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A time-varying loop-top velocity field enhances acceleration efficiency because the betatron mechanism readily accelerates electrons in the compressed magnetic field at the edge, whereas a quasi-steady field suppresses net acceleration through the decelerating effect of betatron cooling; thus acceleration at the loop-top is driven by dynamic events such as plasmoid collisions in addition to static structure.

Load-bearing premise

The MHD fields combined with guiding-center test-particle motion capture the main energization without other processes such as wave-particle interactions or non-adiabatic effects contributing substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Electrons gain energy specifically at the loop-top edge when the velocity field varies in time.
  • Plasmoid collisions and similar dynamic events contribute to driving the acceleration.
  • Processes at the exit point where electrons escape the loop-top affect the overall energization.
  • Acceleration models limited to reconnection outflows may understate the role of loop-top dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Flare observations with variable loop-top motions may show higher particle energies than steady cases.
  • Simulations adding turbulence or wave effects could test whether the steady-unsteady efficiency gap persists.
  • Similar unsteady structures in other reconnection environments might produce comparable acceleration patterns.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses MHD fields combined with guiding-center test-particle calculations to investigate adiabatic electron energization at a solar flare loop-top. It claims that time-varying (unsteady) loop-top structures enhance acceleration efficiency relative to quasi-steady cases, where betatron cooling suppresses net gains; in the unsteady case, betatron acceleration occurs readily in compressed fields at the loop-top edge, driven by dynamic events such as plasmoid collisions. The work argues that acceleration at the loop-top exit point is important in addition to processes in reconnection outflows.

Significance. If the central distinction between unsteady and quasi-steady cases holds under the stated approximations, the result would usefully redirect attention to time-dependent loop-top dynamics as a contributor to flare electron acceleration. The direct numerical experiments (MHD + test particles) constitute a concrete strength that allows falsifiable comparison of the two velocity-field regimes.

major comments (1)
  1. [Numerical methods / test-particle section] The central claim rests on the guiding-center test-particle results distinguishing unsteady from quasi-steady acceleration. No checks of the adiabaticity ordering (gyroradius ≪ field scale length; temporal variation slow compared with gyroperiod) or cross-validation against full-orbit integration are reported for the rapid compressions and plasmoid collisions at the loop-top edge. This omission is load-bearing because violation of the ordering would render the reported betatron enhancement an artifact of the approximation rather than a physical effect.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results sections lack quantitative metrics (e.g., energy spectra, acceleration timescales, efficiency ratios), grid resolution, or error estimates, making it difficult to assess the magnitude and robustness of the claimed enhancement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for highlighting the importance of validating the guiding-center approximation. We address the single major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen the numerical methods section.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical methods / test-particle section] The central claim rests on the guiding-center test-particle results distinguishing unsteady from quasi-steady acceleration. No checks of the adiabaticity ordering (gyroradius ≪ field scale length; temporal variation slow compared with gyroperiod) or cross-validation against full-orbit integration are reported for the rapid compressions and plasmoid collisions at the loop-top edge. This omission is load-bearing because violation of the ordering would render the reported betatron enhancement an artifact of the approximation rather than a physical effect.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of the adiabaticity ordering is necessary to support the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (and associated figure) that quantifies, for representative electron energies and locations including the loop-top edge during plasmoid collisions, (i) the ratio of gyroradius to local magnetic-field gradient scale length and (ii) the ratio of the MHD temporal variation timescale to the gyroperiod. We will also integrate a statistically meaningful subset of trajectories with the full Lorentz-force equations and directly compare the resulting energy spectra and spatial distributions with the guiding-center results; any discrepancies will be reported. These additions will be placed in the numerical-methods section so that readers can assess the validity of the approximation under the specific conditions of the unsteady runs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; results from direct numerical experiments

full rationale

The paper performs MHD simulations of quasi-steady versus unsteady loop-top flows, then integrates guiding-center test particles in the resulting time-dependent fields. The reported efficiency difference follows directly from comparing the computed particle energy gains in the two cases; no parameters are fitted to observations and re-used as predictions, no equations are defined in terms of their own outputs, and no load-bearing claims rest on self-citations. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

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

Only the abstract is available; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted from the full text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical Investigation of Efficient Electron Acceleration at an Unsteady Solar Flare Loop-Top." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IE4V7C4O

@misc{pith2026260701644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical Investigation of Efficient Electron Acceleration at an Unsteady Solar Flare Loop-Top},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IE4V7C4O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.01644}
}
read the original abstract

Using magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) fields and guiding-center test-particle calculations, this study investigates how time-dependent loop-top dynamics modulate the adiabatic energization of electrons in a solar flare. Our results indicate that a time-varying loop-top structure enhances acceleration efficiency compared to a quasi-steady one. In the quasi-steady velocity field, the net acceleration is suppressed due to the decelerating effect of betatron cooling. Conversely, in the unsteady velocity field, the betatron mechanism readily accelerates electrons within the compressed magnetic field at the edge of the loop-top. These findings suggest that the acceleration of electrons at the loop-top is driven not only by the static shape of the magnetic structure but also by dynamic events such as plasmoid collisions. While previous studies have primarily focused on acceleration processes within the reconnection outflow, such as at termination shocks or within plasmoids, our research highlights the importance of the acceleration and deceleration processes at the exit point where electrons escape from the loop-top.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of the number density distribu￾tion in the reconnection region from the MHD simulation. The upper panels show the overall view at t = 100, 150, and 200 s, illustrating the large-scale evolution of the recon￾nection region. The lower panels show zoomed-in views of the loop-top region at t = 130, 134, and 138 s, highlighting the transition from a quasi-steady state (t = 130 s) to an unsteady state (t = … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Electron acceleration in the quasi-steady loop-top configuration at t = 130 s. This figure shows the trajectories and energy evolution for two selected electrons. (a) Overview of electron trajectories with magnetic field lines. (b, f) Trajectories on the magnetic-field strength (B) map. (c, g) Time evolution of kinetic energy (black), cumulative Fermi reflection energy gain (orange), and cumulative betatron energy g… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial distributions of quantities governing acceleration mechanisms at t = 130 s. Panels (a)-(c) show factors for Fermi reflection: (a) vertical plasma flow (uey), (b) magnetic curvature ([(b · ∇)b]y), and (c) the resulting acceleration rate. Panels (d)-(f) show factors for betatron acceleration: (d) transverse plasma flow (uex), (e) magnetic field gradient (∂B/∂x), and (f) the resulting acceleration rate. Black b… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Electron acceleration in the unsteady loop-top at t = 138 s, perturbed by a plasmoid collision. The panel layout is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A schematic of the electron acceleration mechanism at the flare loop-top. In a quasi-steady state (top right), the inward plasma flow (uE) driven by slow shocks opposes the outward magnetic field gradient (∇B), resulting in betatron cooling. Conversely, in an unsteady,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatial regions used for particle selection in the calculation with loop-top-only initial conditions. Panels (a) and (b) show magnetic field lines for the quasi-steady and unsteady snapshots; black contours mark the selected loop-top-edge regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf123

    Akutagawa, K., Imada, S., & Shoda, M. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf123

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf123 2025

  2. [2]

    F., Swisdak , M., et al

    Arnold, H., Drake, J., Swisdak, M., et al. 2021, Physical Review Letters, 126, 135101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.135101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.135101 2021

  3. [3]

    2004, ApJL, 605, L77, doi: 10.1086/420768

    Asai, A., Yokoyama, T., Shimojo, M., & Shibata, K. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 605, L77, doi: 10.1086/420768

    work page doi:10.1086/420768 2004

  4. [4]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2002, Space Science Reviews, 101, 1, doi: 10.1023/A:1019712124366

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1019712124366 2002

  5. [5]

    Ashfield, W., Polito, V., Yu, S., Collier, H., & Hayes, L. A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad64ca 2024

  6. [6]

    2002, , 384, 273, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011735

    Aurass, H., Vrˇ snak, B., & Mann, G. 2002, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 384, 273, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011735

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011735 2002

  7. [7]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 2399, 10.1093/mnras/stae723

    Bacchini, F., Ruan, W., & Keppens, R. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae723

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae723 2024

  8. [8]

    Benz, A. O. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3 2017

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    V., Baker, D

    Birn, J., Artemyev, A. V., Baker, D. N., et al. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 173, 49, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9874-4

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ad4

    Birn, J., Battaglia, M., Fletcher, L., Hesse, M., & Neukirch, T. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ad4

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    F., & Hesse, M

    Birn, J., Thomsen, M. F., & Hesse, M. 2004, Physics of Plasmas, 11, 1825, doi: 10.1063/1.1704641

    2004 doi

  4. [12]

    2016, Solar Physics, 291, 1385, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0915-0

    Borissov, A., Neukirch, T., & Threlfall, J. 2016, Solar Physics, 291, 1385, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0915-0

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    C., et al

    Cai, Q., Shen, C., Raymond, J. C., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 3183, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2167

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Che, H., & Zank, G. P. 2019, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1332, 012003, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1332/1/012003

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

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

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Shen, C., et al

    Chen, B., Bastian, T. S., Shen, C., et al. 2015, Science, doi: 10.1126/science.aac8467

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad531a

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

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    T., Drake, J

    Dahlin, J. T., Drake, J. F., & Swisdak, M. 2014, Physics of Plasmas, 21, 092304, doi: 10.1063/1.4894484

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    T., Drake, J

    Dahlin, J. T., Drake, J. F., & Swisdak, M. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 092110, doi: 10.1063/1.4986211

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kr¨ oner, D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    F., Swisdak, M., Che, H., & Shay, M

    Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., Che, H., & Shay, M. A. 2006, Nature, 443, 553, doi: 10.1038/nature05116

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 684, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347600 Eradat Oskoui, S., & Neukirch, T

    Druett, M., Ruan, W., & Keppens, R. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 684, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347600 Eradat Oskoui, S., & Neukirch, T. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 567, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423886 Eradat Oskoui, S., Neukirch, T., & Grady, K. J. 201...

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1169

    Fermi, E. 1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1169

    1949 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 62, 437, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-010547

    Fletcher, L. 2024, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 62, 437, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-010547

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Hayes, L

    French, R. J., Hayes, L. A., Kazachenko, M. D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ed1

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 635, 636, doi: 10.1086/497366

    Giuliani, P., Neukirch, T., & Wood, P. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 635, 636, doi: 10.1086/497366

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    Gordovskyy, M., Browning, P., & Pinto, R. F. 2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 1453, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2018.09.024

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    J., & Neukirch, T

    Grady, K. J., & Neukirch, T. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 508, 1461, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913230

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Neukirch, T., & Giuliani, P

    Grady, K. J., Neukirch, T., & Giuliani, P. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 546, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218914

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    V., & Nordlund, ˚A

    Haahr, M., Gudiksen, B. V., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452117

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    2017, AIAA Journal, 55, 1487, doi: 10.2514/1.J055493 Jel´ ınek, P., Karlick´ y, M., Van Doorsselaere, T., & B´ arta, M

    Jameson, A. 2017, AIAA Journal, 55, 1487, doi: 10.2514/1.J055493 Jel´ ınek, P., Karlick´ y, M., Van Doorsselaere, T., & B´ arta, M. 2017, ApJ, 847, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88a6

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    2017, ApJ, 845, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d59 Karlick´ y, M., & B´ arta, M

    Kaneko, T., & Yokoyama, T. 2017, ApJ, 845, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d59 Karlick´ y, M., & B´ arta, M. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 647, 1472, doi: 10.1086/505460

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abcbf5

    Kong, X., Guo, F., Shen, C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abcbf5

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1510579, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1510579

    Kong, X., Ning, H., & Chen, Y. 2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1510579, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1510579

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5f67

    Kong, X., Guo, F., Shen, C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5f67

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 941, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca65c 16

    Kong, X., Chen, B., Guo, F., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 941, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca65c 16

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    T., & Dahlin, J

    Kumar, P., Karpen, J. T., & Dahlin, J. T. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada293

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    2021, Physics of Plasmas, 28, 052905, doi: 10.1063/5.0047644

    Li, X., Guo, F., & Liu, Y.-H. 2021, Physics of Plasmas, 28, 052905, doi: 10.1063/5.0047644

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/168

    Liu, W., Chen, Q., & Petrosian, V. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/168

    2013 doi

  32. [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

    1994 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Nakariakov, V

    McLaughlin, J. A., Nakariakov, V. M., Dominique, M., Jel´ ınek, P., & Takasao, S. 2018, Space Science Reviews, 214, 45, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0478-5

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Balsara, D

    Meyer, C. D., Balsara, D. S., & Aslam, T. D. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2102, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20744.x

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    D., Balsara, D

    Meyer, C. D., Balsara, D. S., & Aslam, T. D. 2014, Journal of Computational Physics, 257, 594, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2013.08.021

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 609, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2668

    Mowbray, K., Neukirch, T., & Threlfall, J. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 609, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2668

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Foullon, C., Verwichte, E., & Young, N

    Nakariakov, V. M., Foullon, C., Verwichte, E., & Young, N. P. 2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 452, 343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054608

    2006 doi

  38. [46]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 787, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/125

    Narukage, N., Shimojo, M., & Sakao, T. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 787, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/125

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/126

    Nishizuka, N., Karlick´ y, M., Janvier, M., & B´ arta, M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/126

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    Northrop, T. G. 1963, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 1, 283, doi: 10.1029/RG001i003p00283

    1963 doi

  41. [49]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 915, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/915

    Shinohara, I. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 915, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/915

    2010 doi

  42. [50]

    2023, Space Science Reviews, 219, 75, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-01011-8

    Oka, M., Birn, J., Egedal, J., et al. 2023, Space Science Reviews, 219, 75, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-01011-8

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2012, Space Science Reviews, 173, 535, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9900-6

    Petrosian, V. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 173, 535, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9900-6

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    Q., & McTiernan, J

    Petrosian, V., Donaghy, T. Q., & McTiernan, J. M. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 569, 459, doi: 10.1086/339240

    2002 doi

  45. [53]

    R., & Forbes, T

    Priest, E. R., & Forbes, T. G. 2002, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 10, 313, doi: 10.1007/s001590100013

    2002 doi

  46. [54]

    K., Polito, V., Chen, B., et al

    Reeves, K. K., Polito, V., Chen, B., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc4e0

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/132

    Rempel, M. 2014, ApJ, 789, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/132

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    2018, ApJS, 235, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab114

    Ripperda, B., Bacchini, F., Teunissen, J., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab114

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b4e

    Ruan, W., Yan, L., & Keppens, R. 2023, ApJ, 947, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b4e

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Sharma, P., & Hammett, G. W. 2007, Journal of Computational Physics, 227, 123, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.07.026

    2007 doi

  51. [59]

    K., et al

    Shen, C., Chen, B., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 317, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01570-2

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 451, L83, doi: 10.1086/309688

    Shibata, K., Masuda, S., Shimojo, M., et al. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 451, L83, doi: 10.1086/309688

    1995 doi

  53. [61]

    Shibata, K., Takasao, S., & Reeves, K. K. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa9c

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    V., & Kosugi, T

    Somov, B. V., & Kosugi, T. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 485, 859, doi: 10.1086/304449

    1997 doi

  55. [63]

    1968, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 5, 506, doi: 10.1137/0705041

    Strang, G. 1968, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 5, 506, doi: 10.1137/0705041

    1968 doi

  56. [64]

    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

    2016 doi

  57. [65]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/135

    Takasao, S., Matsumoto, T., Nakamura, N., & Shibata, K. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/135

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 150, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/150 V¨ ogler, A., Shelyag, S., Sch¨ ussler, M., et al

    Takasao, S., & Shibata, K. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 150, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/150 V¨ ogler, A., Shelyag, S., Sch¨ ussler, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 429, 335, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041507

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    2022, ApJL, 931, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac715a

    Wang, Y., Cheng, X., Ren, Z., & Ding, M. 2022, ApJL, 931, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac715a

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2954

    Xie, X., Mei, Z., Shen, C., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2954

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    K., et al

    Xie, X., Shen, C., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 984, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc91b

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 897, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93b5

    Ye, J., Cai, Q., Shen, C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 897, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93b5

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    K., et al

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

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/28

    Khabarova, O. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/28

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    V., Arzner, K., Benz, A

    Zharkova, V. V., Arzner, K., Benz, A. O., et al. 2011, Space Science Reviews, 159, 357, doi: 10.1007/s11214-011-9803-y

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 815, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/6 17 Øyre, E

    Zhou, X., B¨ uchner, J., B´ arta, M., Gan, W., & Liu, S. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 815, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/6 17 Øyre, E. S., Gudiksen, B. V., & Fletcher, L. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 703, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555424

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.