Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Multi-Path Quasi-Periodic Fast-mode Propagating Magnetoacoustic Waves to Diagnose Coronal Magnetic Field and Flaring Core

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper uses two oppositely directed quasi-periodic fast-mode wave trains from an M6.0 solar flare as separate seismological probes, recovering coronal magnetic fields of 14–73 G and 1.5–5.2 G that agree with force-free extrapolations, a

desk verdict Real multi-path QFP event, but the field-strength validation is not independent and a hidden μ_e factor inflates the agreement. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08487 v2 pith:EWGWSRXN submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.SR

Yuhu Miao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords coronalseismologyquasi-periodicfast-modewavessolarflaresmagneticfieldNLFFFextrapolationSDO/AIA171ÅAlfvénspeedwaveletperiodicity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper analyzes an M6.0 solar flare on August 3, 2011 that launched two quasi-periodic fast-mode (QFP) magnetoacoustic wave trains in opposite directions: a narrow wave guided by magnetic funnel loops and a broad wave spreading through the low corona. Using wave speeds, temperatures, and densities from SDO/AIA observations, the author performs MHD seismology to recover the magnetic field strengths of the two propagation channels, obtaining 14–73 G for the funnel and 1.5–5.2 G for the broad path. These values are compared with a nonlinear force-free field (NLFFF) extrapolation of the active region, which gives 5–35 G and 3–25 G, and are reported as highly consistent. The two wave trains also show matching periodicities of about 66–75 seconds, which the author interprets as evidence that both waves are driven by a common periodic energy release in the flare core. The paper's central claim is that multi-path QFP events can serve as a robust diagnostic for both coronal magnetic fields and flaring-core dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quasi-periodic fast-mode magnetoacoustic wave train (QFP), a compressive MHD wave that travels along magnetic field lines and carries a periodic intensity signal. The key relation is the fast-mode dispersion relation V_fast² = V_A² + C_s², which lets the author subtract the sound speed (from DEM temperatures) from deprojected wave speeds to obtain the Alfvén speed, and then convert V_A and electron density into magnetic field strength via B² = μ₀ ρ V_A². The electron density itself comes from emission measure divided by an assumed line-of-sight column depth, with the column depth estimated from the magnetic funnel's transverse width. The comparison benchmark is a no

What would settle it

Compute the magnetic field of NOAA 11261 near 13:45 UT with an independent method (e.g., microwave gyroresonance mapping or coronal loop kink-oscillation seismology) and compare with the seismological mean values of 54 ± 8 G and 3.4 ± 0.3 G; alternatively, derive the propagation angles from multi-spacecraft triangulation rather than the NLFFF geometry and recompute the fields to see whether the agreement with the 5–35 G and 3–25 G ranges survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a single flare can excite two spatially distinct QFP wave trains—one narrow and funnel-guided, one broad and low-coronal—and that both can be used as independent seismological probes. After correcting the observed propagation speeds for projection using inclination angles (60° for the narrow wave, 10° for the broad wave) taken from the extrapolated three-dimensional magnetic geometry, subtracting the sound speed, and converting emission measures to electron densities via column depths (6.5 Mm and 12.5 Mm), the paper derives Alfvén speeds and hence magnetic field strengths. The seismological fields (14.2–73 G and 1.5–5.2 G) overlap or bracket th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the propagation angles and line-of-sight column depths are correctly given by the same NLFFF extrapolation that later serves as the benchmark, and that electron density converts to mass density with a fixed mean mass per electron (the tabulated numbers imply roughly 2.2 proton masses per electron); if any of these is wrong, the agreement between seismology and extrapolation is not an independent confirmation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Coronal magnetic field strengths can be recovered from fast-mode QFP wave speeds without a separate coronal magnetograph, using only EUV imaging observations from a single passband (AIA 171 Å).
  • Multi-path events provide internal cross-checks: the funnel-guided and broad wave trains probe different field regimes (tens of gauss vs a few gauss) and different plasma densities in the same flaring active region.
  • Matching periodicities along two independent wave paths strengthen the case that the period is set by the flare core's energy release rather than by waveguide properties alone.
  • The simultaneous occurrence and independent propagation geometry of narrow and broad QFP waves argue against the leaky-wave interpretation in which the broad wave is simply leakage from the narrow funnel-guided wave.
  • Seismological field estimates can serve as a quantitative complement to extrapolation-based magnetic field models of flaring active regions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the dual-path periodicity is a general property of QFP events, then future flares that show two resolved wave trains could yield flare-core periodic-driver timing from EUV imaging alone, even when hard X-ray or GOES-derivative data are too noisy.
  • Inference: A natural testable extension is to apply the same dual-path seismology to an active region where the magnetic field is independently measured by microwave spectropolarimetry or loop-oscillation seismology, avoiding the potential circularity of benchmarking against the same NLFFF model that supplied the geometry.
  • Inference: The ratio of the mean fields (54 G vs 3.4 G, about 16) and densities (4.5×10⁸ vs 1.8×10⁸ cm⁻³) suggests the funnel compresses both plasma and field; a future study could check whether the wave-speed ratio between the two channels tracks the square root of the magnetic-energy-density ratio, as the fast-mode relation would predict.
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, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes an M6.0 solar flare on 2011 August 3 in AR 11261 using SDO/AIA 171 Å images. The authors identify two simultaneously excited QFP wave trains—a narrow funnel-guided wave and a broad low-coronal wave—and measure their apparent speeds and dominant periods (~66–75 s). They derive plasma temperature and density from DEM inversions, use NLFFF extrapolation to supply inclination angles and column depths, correct the observed speeds for projection, subtract the sound speed to obtain Alfvén speeds, and convert these into magnetic field strengths. The resulting B_seism values are compared with the NLFFF field and claimed to be highly consistent, supporting QFP-based coronal magnetometry and multi-path diagnostics of the flare core. The paper also reports matching periods in the two independent wave trains as evidence for a common flaring-core driver.

Significance. The observational event is genuinely interesting: simultaneous detection of a narrow funnel-guided QFP train and a broad low-coronal QFP train in the same flare, with measured periods of ~66–75 s, is a useful addition to the sparse sample of multi-path QFP events. The DEM-based temperature and density analysis, and the explicit exclusion of unreliable GOES derivative periodicities, are good practices. If the seismological inversion were made fully explicit and the comparison with NLFFF reframed appropriately, the paper would be a valuable demonstration of multi-path QFP diagnostics. At present, however, the central numerical consistency claim is not reproducible from the text and is partly conditioned on the benchmark model. The paper would benefit from more transparent algebra and a sensitivity analysis of the model-dependent geometric inputs.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5.1–3.5.3, Table 2] The inversion from Alfvén speed and electron density to magnetic field strength is never written. Reproducing the tabulated values from the stated V_A values requires a formula of the form B = V_A sqrt(4π μ_e n_e m_p) with an unstated mass-per-electron factor of roughly 2.2 m_p. Using the standard fully ionized coronal composition μ_e ≈ 1.17 m_p, the narrow mean (V_A ≈ 3012 km/s, n_e = 4.5×10^8 cm^-3) becomes ≈32 G rather than 54 G, and the broad mean (V_A ≈ 343 km/s, n_e = 1.8×10^8 cm^-3) becomes ≈2.3 G rather than 3.4 G. The broad mean then lies below the quoted NLFFF range 3–25 G. The claimed 'highly consistent' agreement in §3.5.3 therefore depends on this unexplained factor. Please state the explicit equation, justify the value of μ_e for coronal plasma, and recalculate all B_seism values and uncertainties.
  2. [§3.3 and §3.5.3, Conclusion (3)] The validation is not independent of the benchmark. The inclination angles (60° and 10°) and column depths (6.5 and 12.5 Mm) used to deproject the observed speeds and to convert EM into electron density are taken from the NLFFF extrapolation, and the same NLFFF model supplies the reference field-strength ranges to which B_seism is compared. A systematic error in the extrapolated geometry therefore propagates directly into the seismological result and can artificially improve the apparent agreement. I do not claim the result is forced by construction—the wave speeds and DEM densities are genuine observables—but the comparison should be reframed as 'consistent with the adopted NLFFF model,' or the authors should constrain φ and d by independent means or by a plausible-range sensitivity scan showing that the conclusion is robust.
  3. [§3.2, Conclusion (4)] The paper claims that matching periods in the two QFP trains constrain the flaring core's energy release cycle. However, the GOES derivative analysis was explicitly excluded as statistically unreliable, and no independent flare-core periodicity (e.g., hard X-ray or microwave pulsations) is presented. The consistent ~66–75 s periods in two independent wave trains demonstrate a common source, but they do not by themselves identify that source with the flaring core. The statement that the results provide 'robust observational constraints for a unified flaring-core driver' is stronger than the evidence supports and should be tempered.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] 'GOES-class M6.0' should be 'GOES class M6.0'; the abstract also repeats the phrase 'QFP waves' several times and could be tightened.
  2. [§4, Table 1] The statement that fast and slow components appear in each sector is not documented in Table 1 or Figure 2; the slow-component speeds are not listed. Either add these values or remove the claim.
  3. [§3.3] The NLFFF extrapolation is described only by citations to Jiang et al. (2018) and Zou et al. (2020). A short paragraph with the box size, grid resolution, boundary preprocessing, and force-free residual would help the reader assess the reliability of the geometry and field-strength references.
  4. [Figure 2] Panel (c) has a duplicated y-axis label 'Distance(Mm)', and the sector labels in the caption are not fully consistent with Figure 1; please check the labeling.
  5. [Table 2] The relation between the observed mean speed 1508.5 km/s, the deprojected mean 3017 km/s, and the division by cos(60°) should be stated explicitly so that the inversion can be followed step by step.
  6. [Data availability] No data or code availability statement is included. For reproducibility, the calibrated AIA cut data, DEM maps, and wavelet output should be made available or referenced.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Seismological B 'prediction' is not independent of its NLFFF benchmark: the same extrapolation supplies the projection angles and column depths used in the inversion, and the missing electron-mass conversion masks a non-standard factor.

  1. other [Section 3.3, Section 3.5, Section 3.5.3 / Conclusion (3)]
    "The inclination angles between the wave propagation direction and the plane of sky are estimated from the three-dimensional magnetic field geometry. The angle for the narrow QFP wave path is determined to be about 60°. The angle for the broad QFP wave path is determined to be about 10°. ... For the funnel-like structure that guides the narrow QFP waves, the field strength ranges from 5 to 35 G ... These values serve as the reference for verifying the seismological results."

    The NLFFF extrapolation is used twice: it provides the projection angles (60°, 10°) and column depths (6.5, 12.5 Mm) that deproject the observed speeds and convert EM into n_e, and it provides B_extr (5–35 G; 3–25 G) as the verification target. Any systematic error in the extrapolated geometry moves B_seism and B_extr together, so the 'highly consistent' agreement in §3.5.3 is partly a self-comparison rather than an independent test. The prediction is not forced by construction because the measured speeds and DEM are independent inputs, but the validation is bootstrapped.

  2. other [Section 3.5.1 / Table 2 (no B formula given)]
    "The true Alfvén speed VA is obtained by VA = sqrt(V_fast^2 − C_s^2). MHD seismology is implemented in two approaches... With n1 = 4.5×10^8 cm−3, after projection correction and subtracting the sound speed contribution, the seismological magnetic field range is B1seism ≈14.2±2.1–73±11 G."

    The paper never writes B = V_A sqrt(4π μ_e n_e m_p), yet the tabulated B_seism values are not reproducible from the stated V_A, n_e, and standard coronal composition. Reproducing the quoted ranges requires an unstated mass-per-electron of roughly 2.2 m_p, and even then the mean-speed entries are internally inconsistent. With the standard μ_e≈1.17 m_p, the broad-wave mean becomes ≈2.3 G, below the quoted NLFFF range 3–25 G. Thus the claimed 'highly consistent' agreement depends on an undocumented conversion factor; the derivation chain is not transparent and the consistency is partly an artifact of this choice.

full rationale

The central seismological inversion retains genuinely independent content: the QFP phase speeds come from time–distance measurements and the DEM-derived temperatures and densities come from AIA observations, so B_seism is not defined to equal B_extr by construction; this is not a score-6+ forced-by-construction case. However, the validation in §3.5.3 is not an external benchmark: the same NLFFF model supplies the projection angles and column depths that enter B_seism and the field-strength range used as the reference. In addition, the paper never writes the conversion from V_A and n_e to B; reproducing the quoted numbers requires a non-standard mass-per-electron ≈2.2 m_p, and with the usual coronal value the broad-wave mean falls outside the claimed NLFFF range. This makes the consistency claim partly self-referential and undocumented rather than fully independent. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-import pattern is present, so the score is moderate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central B estimates depend on several hand-chosen or model-derived inputs: NLFFF geometry for angles and depths, DEM-derived T/n, and an unstated mass-per-electron factor. The NLFFF simultaneously serves as the comparison benchmark, making the 'validation' partly model-bootstrapped.

free parameters (5)
  • Inclination angle φ1 (narrow QFP) = 60°
    Estimated from NLFFF geometry; used to deproject narrow-wave speeds into B_seism.
  • Inclination angle φ2 (broad QFP) = 10°
    Estimated from NLFFF geometry; used to deproject broad-wave speeds.
  • Column depth d1 (narrow) = 6.5 Mm
    Adopted from NLFFF funnel width (~5 Mm) plus line-of-sight projection; converts EM to n_e.
  • Column depth d2 (broad) = 12.5 Mm
    Adopted for the broad-wave region; critical for converting EM to density.
  • Mass-per-electron factor in B–n conversion = implied ≈2.2 m_p
    The reported B_seism values imply ρ ≈ 2.2 n_e m_p, but the factor and the inversion equation are never stated.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Observed moving ridges are quasi-periodic fast magnetoacoustic waves satisfying V_fast^2 = C_s^2 + V_A^2
    Section 3.5: the entire seismological inversion rests on this wave-mode identification; finite-width and dispersion effects are not discussed.
  • domain assumption NLFFF extrapolation of the HMI magnetogram accurately reconstructs the coronal magnetic geometry
    Section 3.3: supplies both the reference B_extr and the projection angles/column depths used in the measurement.
  • domain assumption DEM peak temperatures (2.0 MK and 1.6 MK) represent the plasma along the propagation paths; the >10 MK DEM component is unphysical and discarded
    Section 3.4: T sets the sound speed; the exclusion of the high-T component is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Electron density can be obtained from EM and column depth via n_e = sqrt(EM/d)
    Section 3.4: density uncertainties are not quantified and depend on the NLFFF-derived d.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Path Quasi-Periodic Fast-mode Propagating Magnetoacoustic Waves to Diagnose Coronal Magnetic Field and Flaring Core." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWGWSRXN

@misc{pith2026260708487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Path Quasi-Periodic Fast-mode Propagating Magnetoacoustic Waves to Diagnose Coronal Magnetic Field and Flaring Core},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWGWSRXN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08487}
}
read the original abstract

Quasi-periodic fast-mode magnetoacoustic waves are often detected during solar flare events, although they are not observed in every flare, due to observational signal-to-noise limits and differences in flare magnetic topology and energy release strength. These structures propagate along magnetic configurations and supply effective diagnostics for coronal magnetic environments and flaring regions. Periodic signatures seen in fast-mode QFP wave trains carry physical information about excitation processes and propagation conditions. These signatures support quantitative studies of flare cores and magnetic channel properties. This work focuses on a well-documented event involving two oppositely oriented QFP waves simultaneously excited by a GOES-class M6.0 solar flare that occurred in active region NOAA 11261 on August 3, 2011. These QFP waves can be categorized into broad and narrow wave trains, with the narrow one propagating along funnel-like loops and the broad one moving through the low corona. Observational results suggest that both broad-wave and narrow-wave QFP phenomena can be simultaneously triggered by a single flare eruption. This study also indicates that such multi-path QFP wave events can be utilized to diagnose the magnetic field and the flare's core, and demonstrates the capability of multi-path QFP waves for robust coronal magnetic field and flare core diagnostics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08487 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) SDO/AIA 171 ˚A image of active region NOAA 11261, showing the coronal funnel structures. (b) Running difference image of AIA 171 ˚A highlighting the propagation of bidirectional QFP waves. White arcs mark the broad wave train, while red and blue arcs denote the narrow wave train and its split components. Sectors “A1–A4” are used to extract time–distance diagrams in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SDO/AIA running difference images and corresponding time–distance diagrams for sectors “A1–A4”. White dashed lines indicate positions for wavelet analysis (L1–L4). Green and red dotted lines trace typical QFP wave fronts, whose slopes yield propagation speeds. Wavelet transforms are applied to capture periodic components from observed intensity changes at positions L1–L4 within sectors “A1–A4” (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Time-distance plot of Sector “A1”, overlaid with the GOES X-ray flux (red curve). (b) Detrended emission intensity measured at L1 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Non-linear force-free field extrapolation. (a)-(c) show magnetic field lines highlighting coronal funnels from different viewing angles. The right column employs height as a color bar to represent the magnetic field lines, whereas the bottom column uses magnetic field …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: DEM maps as a function of temperatures. (a)–(d) show the DEM maps before the flare eruption at 13:00 UT. (e)–(h) present DEM maps during the QFP wave propagation at 14:30 UT. and projection error. The corresponding period is 75±20 s. All measured propagation speeds and…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references

  1. [1]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc12a

    Chen, H., Tian, H., Zhang, Q., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc12a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc12a 2025

  2. [2]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 2011

  3. [3]

    F., Wu, S

    Chen, P. F., Wu, S. T., Shibata, K., & Fang, C. 2002, ApJL, 572, L99, doi: 10.1086/341486

    doi:10.1086/341486 2002

  4. [4]

    W., Li, B., et al

    Chen, Y., Feng, S. W., Li, B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 728, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/147

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/2/147 2011

  5. [5]

    Q., Li, B., et al

    Chen, Y., Song, H. Q., Li, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 644, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/644 Delaboudini` ere, J.-P., Artzner, G. E., Brunaud, J., et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 291, doi: 10.1007/BF00733432

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/1/644 2010

  6. [6]

    D., Qiu, J., Wang, H., & Goode, P

    Ding, M. D., Qiu, J., Wang, H., & Goode, P. R. 2001, ApJ, 552, 340, doi: 10.1086/320441

    doi:10.1086/320441 2001

  7. [7]

    R., Nakariakov, V

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935401 2019

  8. [8]

    D., & Chen, P

    Guo, Y., Ding, M. D., & Chen, P. F. 2015, ApJS, 219, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/36

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/36 2015

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeacc

    Jiang, C., Zou, P., Feng, X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeacc

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Y., Nakariakov, V

    Kolotkov, D. Y., Nakariakov, V. M., & Cloesen, M. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3681

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    M., & Cho, K.-S

    Kumar, P., Nakariakov, V. M., & Cho, K.-S. 2017, ApJ, 844, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d53

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    2013, ApJ, 766, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/55

    Kwon, R.-Y., Ofman, L., Olmedo, O., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/55

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Title, A

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

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, A&A, 639, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038433

    Li, D., Yuan, D., Goossens, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038433

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

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

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

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    V., et al

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

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Zhao, J., et al

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

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    2026, Universe, 12, 52, doi: 10.3390/universe12020052

    Miao, Y. 2026, Universe, 12, 52, doi: 10.3390/universe12020052

    2026 doi

  11. [19]

    2025, Physics of Fluids, 37, 107163, doi: 10.1063/5.0296041

    Miao, Y., Deng, L., Qiao, Y., et al. 2025, Physics of Fluids, 37, 107163, doi: 10.1063/5.0296041

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

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

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

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

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

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

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    H., Liu, Y., Shen, Y

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

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    2024b, Progress in Astronomy, 42, 429, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8349.2024.03.02

    MIAO, Y.-h., DENG, L.-h., SU, J.-t., et al. 2024b, Progress in Astronomy, 42, 429, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8349.2024.03.02

    2024

  16. [25]

    2026, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 26, 035004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ae1ec4

    Miao, Y.-H., Deng, L.-H., Jiang, C.-W., et al. 2026, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 26, 035004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ae1ec4

    2026 doi

  17. [26]

    M., & Verwichte, E

    Nakariakov, V. M., & Verwichte, E. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2005-3 Nistic` o, G., Pascoe, D. J., & Nakariakov, V. M. 2014, A&A, 569, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423763

    2005 doi

  18. [27]

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

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

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

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

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

    2011 doi

  20. [29]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1036

    Ofman, L., Wang, T., Sun, X., & Jin, M. 2025, ApJ, 994, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1036

    2025 doi

  21. [30]

    2025, Physics of Fluids, 37, 037177, doi: 10.1063/5.0257443

    Ouyang, W., Liang, H., Yu, K., Zhou, X., & Miao, Y. 2025, Physics of Fluids, 37, 037177, doi: 10.1063/5.0257443

    2025 doi

  22. [31]

    J., Nakariakov, V

    Pascoe, D. J., Nakariakov, V. M., & Kupriyanova, E. G. 2013, A&A, 560, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322678 —. 2014, A&A, 568, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423931

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    D., Thompson, B

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

    2012 doi

  24. [33]

    N., Jiang, L

    Qu, Z. N., Jiang, L. Q., & Chen, S. L. 2017, ApJ, 851, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9beb

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/53 Multi-Path QFP Magnetoacoustic W aves11

    Shen, Y., & Liu, Y. 2012, ApJ, 753, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/53 Multi-Path QFP Magnetoacoustic W aves11

    2012 doi

  26. [35]

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

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

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    D., Su, J., Qu, Z., & Tian, Z

    Shen, Y., Liu, Y. D., Su, J., Qu, Z., & Tian, Z. 2017, ApJ, 851, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9a48

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

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

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

    2022 doi

  29. [38]

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

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

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 150, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/150

    Takasao, S., & Shibata, K. 2016, ApJ, 823, 150, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/150

    2016 doi

  31. [40]

    J., Plunkett, S

    Thompson, B. J., Plunkett, S. P., Gurman, J. B., et al. 1998, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2465, doi: 10.1029/98GL50429

    1998 doi

  32. [41]

    W., Wang, T., et al

    Tian, H., McIntosh, S. W., Wang, T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/144

    2012 doi

  33. [42]

    R., Reeves, K

    Tian, H., Young, P. R., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2016, ApJL, 823, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/L16

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae505b

    Wang, T., Liu, W., Ofman, L., Sun, X., & Jin, M. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae505b

    2026 doi

  35. [44]

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

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

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    Wang, Y.-M., & Sheeley, Jr., N. R. 2002, ApJ, 575, 542, doi: 10.1086/341145

    2002 doi

  37. [46]

    2007, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed

    Warmuth, A. 2007, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. K.-L. Klein & A. L. MacKinnon, Vol. 725, 107 —. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 3, doi: 10.1007/lrsp-2015-3

    2007 doi

  38. [47]

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

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

    2013 doi

  39. [48]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 856, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01973-3

    Yuan, D., Fu, L., Cao, W., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 856, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01973-3

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    2022, ApJL, 937, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e01

    Zhang, Q., Li, C., Li, D., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e01

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/112

    Zheng, R., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/112

    2012 doi

  42. [51]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 1359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt258

    Zheng, R.-S., Jiang, Y.-C., Yang, J.-Y., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt258

    2013 doi

  43. [52]

    M., Miao, Y., Fu, L., & Yuan, D

    Zhong, S., Nakariakov, V. M., Miao, Y., Fu, L., & Yuan, D. 2023, Scientific Reports, 13, 12963, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-40063-2

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4456

    Zhou, X., Shen, Y., Yan, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4456

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6aa8

    Zou, P., Jiang, C., Wei, F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6aa8

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.