Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 76 references

An X3.5 flare's microwave and hard X-ray behaviors are unified by a magnetically asymmetric loop that traps high-energy electrons at the loop top while lower-energy electrons precipitate to the weaker southern footpoint.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 17:16 UTC pith:2ERMAVNO

load-bearing objection A serious dual-perspective flare study whose central HXR-footpoint inference rests on an unquantified correlation; worth a serious referee, but needs major revision to nail down that link. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17682 v1 pith:2ERMAVNO submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.SR

Dual-Perspective Microwave and Hard X-ray Constraints of Asymmetric Nonthermal Loops in an X-class Flare

Ruifei Huang , Yao Chen , Victor Melnikov , Alexey Kuznetsov , Zhao Wu , Dmitriy Smirnov , Sergey Anfinogentov , Feiyu Yu
show 4 more authors
Xiangliang Kong Ze Zhong Mingzhe Guo Hao Ning
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solar flaresnonthermal electronsgyrosynchrotron radiationhard X-raysmagnetic field diagnosticsloop trappingquasi-periodic pulsationsdual-perspective observations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper reports dual-perspective observations of an X3.5 flare on 2024 May 15, seen from Earth and from behind the Sun by Solar Orbiter. The authors identify nonthermal flaring loops that are magnetically asymmetric, with microwave sources near the loop top and hard X-ray sources (inferred, not directly imaged) at the weaker-field southern footpoint. They show that microwave and HXR light curves behave oppositely, with a time lag that grows to about 20 seconds and a microwave spectral 'soft-hard-harder' pattern, which they attribute to energy-dependent trapping and precipitation of energetic electrons in the asymmetric magnetic field. They further argue that the quasi-periodic pulsations (periods about 39 s and 25 s) arise from intermittent particle acceleration rather than MHD wave modulation. The paper demonstrates a self-consistent physical picture that ties the magnetic topology, electron transport, and multi-wavelength emission together.

Core claim

For the 2024 May 15 X3.5 flare, the magnetic field in the flaring loops is asymmetric: about 1600 +/- 100 G at the northern leg, 1300 +/- 100 G at the southern leg, and 700 +/- 100 G near the loop top, as derived from pixel-by-pixel gyrosynchrotron spectral fitting and supported by NLFFF extrapolation. The authors infer that hard X-ray emission comes from the weaker-field southern footpoint, based on the close similarity between the southern-leg microwave flux profile and the STIX HXR light curve. High-energy electrons are preferentially trapped near the loop top (where the microwave source sits), while lower-energy electrons precipitate to the southern footpoint. The combination of the ener

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is energy-dependent trapping and precipitation of energetic electrons in an asymmetric magnetic loop: the Coulomb collision time scales as E^(3/2)/n_e, so higher-energy electrons live longer and remain confined in the loop-top trap, whereas lower-energy electrons precipitate faster and reach the footpoints; in this event the weaker-field southern footpoint receives the precipitating electrons that produce hard X-rays, while the loop-top microwave source is fed by the progressively accumulating high-energy population. This single mechanism simultaneously produces the loop-top microwave source, the southern-footpoint HXR source, the opposite intensity trends, the increasi

Load-bearing premise

The scenario rests on two inferences: (1) the magnetic asymmetry derived from pixel-wise gyrosynchrotron fitting assuming a single isotropic power-law electron population and a fixed source size (area 3.3''x3.3'', depth 8'') at each pixel, and (2) the identification of the southern footpoint as the HXR source, which is not directly imaged because STIX positions are too uncertain; if either is wrong, the trapping/precipitation explanation loses its foundation.

What would settle it

Correctly calibrate the STIX aspect system or use another HXR imager to locate the 25-50 keV source: if it is not at the southern footpoint of the asymmetric loop, the precipitation scenario fails. Alternatively, independently measure the coronal magnetic field (e.g., via microwave polarimetry or coronal seismology) to verify the 1600-1300-700 G asymmetry; a field map that is not asymmetric would also falsify the model.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the scenario explains the observed opposite microwave-HXR intensity trends, the ~20 s growing time lag, and the 'soft-hard-harder' microwave spectrum as consequences of one physical mechanism.
  • It implies that the quasi-periodic pulsations observed in the flare (periods ~39 s and ~25 s) are driven by intermittent particle acceleration rather than by MHD wave modulation, and the stable microwave polarization supports this.
  • It demonstrates that spatially resolved microwave spectral imaging can independently constrain the coronal magnetic field strength and its asymmetry, corroborated by NLFFF extrapolation, in an otherwise partially occulted limb flare.
  • The high turnover frequencies (>14 GHz) and their correlation with spectral hardening indicate that self-absorption, not Razin suppression, governs the microwave spectrum in this flare.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The flux-profile-similarity method for localizing HXR footpoints when direct imaging is unavailable could be applied to other limb flares with ambiguous STIX positioning; a statistical study comparing inferred versus directly-observed footpoints would test its reliability.
  • The energy-dependent trapping model predicts that the microwave-HXR time lag should increase systematically with electron energy and with loop length; verifying this scaling across a sample of flares would either strengthen or refute the transport picture.
  • If the fitted magnetic asymmetry (1600/1300/700 G) is real, it should produce measurable differences in the degree and sign of circular polarization between the two legs; future observations with polarimetric capabilities could check this.
  • The self-absorption explanation for the high turnover frequency could be tested by imaging the flare at those frequencies: the source should appear optically thick (flat spectrum, large source size) at the turnover.

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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports multi-instrument observations of an X3.5 flare on 2024 May 15, combining SRH microwave imaging spectroscopy (2.8–24 GHz), CBSmm 35–40 GHz measurements, SolO/STIX HXR fluxes, and NLFFF modeling. The authors identify a loop system with microwave sources near the loop top, infer an asymmetric magnetic configuration (B ≈ 1600/1300/700 G in the northern leg, southern leg, and loop top) from spatially resolved GSFIT fits, and associate the HXR emission with the southern footpoint on the basis of a similarity between STIX 25–50 keV total flux and the box-3 microwave curve. They interpret the contrasting microwave/HXR intensity trends, the increasing microwave–HXR time lag, and the 'SHH' versus 'SHS' spectral patterns in terms of energy-dependent trapping and precipitation in the asymmetric loops, and argue that the observed QPPs are due to intermittent acceleration rather than MHD wave modulation.

Significance. If the inferred asymmetric magnetic configuration and the southern-footpoint HXR association are correct, the paper provides a unified and physically plausible interpretation of several independent observational signatures (loop-top microwave sources, opposite intensity trends, increasing lag, SHH/SHS patterns, stable polarization). The combination of Earth-based and Solar Orbiter perspectives is valuable, and the analysis is transparent about the STIX imaging aspect limitation and the unusable ASO-S/HXI data. The paper makes effective use of standard tools (GSFIT, OSPEX, wavelet analysis) and includes an NLFFF check. However, the two load-bearing steps—the quantitative B-map from homogeneous fixed-size GSFIT fits and the HXR-footpoint association from an unquantified profile match—currently rest on assumptions and subjective selection that need stronger support before the central scenario can be considered established.

major comments (5)
  1. [3.2 (Figure 6d)] The inference that HXR 25–50 keV emission is associated with the southern leg rests entirely on visual similarity between the box-3 microwave curve and the STIX total flux curve. The fluxes are in arbitrary units, and no correlation coefficient, significance test, lag uncertainty, or null-hypothesis comparison is provided. Because the boxes were defined after inspecting the data (as stated in §3.2), the match is vulnerable to selection bias. Since the southern-footpoint inference is the sole observational link to the precipitation asymmetry in §4.2, please quantify the similarity (e.g., cross-correlation with error bars, significance relative to shuffled or alternative box placements) and discuss the robustness of the box selection.
  2. [3.3 (Figure 7a)] The B-map—the primary quantitative evidence for the asymmetric magnetic configuration—is derived with GSFIT assuming a fixed source size (3.3''×3.3'' area, 8'' depth) and a single isotropic power-law electron distribution per pixel. Systematic errors in these assumptions can bias B, and the quoted ±100 G likely reflects only the fitting statistical uncertainty. Please test the sensitivity of the inferred asymmetry (1600/1300/700 G) to the assumed source size, source depth, electron anisotropy, and inhomogeneity. A comparison with field strengths from the NLFFF extrapolation at the same locations, or a parameter scan, would help establish that the asymmetry is not an artifact of the model assumptions.
  3. [3.3 (NLFFF)] The NLFFF extrapolation uses the SDO/HMI magnetogram from 2024 May 12, three days before the flare. Although the paper states that the large-scale polarity distribution persists for days, the small-scale connectivity and the field strength in the flaring loops may have evolved. Please justify the use of this magnetogram more explicitly, and, if possible, check the selected field lines against a magnetogram closer in time or state why no closer data were used. This caveat should also be reflected in the summary of the magnetic constraints.
  4. [3.1.1 and Summary] The text is internally inconsistent about the phase relationship between the microwave and HXR oscillations. The Summary states that the oscillations are 'in-phase', while §3.1.1 and Figure 2(d) report an increasing separation reaching ~20 s between HXR and microwave peaks (P1–P5). Please clarify whether 'in-phase' refers only to similar periods (which is consistent with the wavelet analysis) and provide quantitative lag values with uncertainties for the five peaks, together with a statement of whether the increasing-lag trend is statistically significant.
  5. [4.2] The inference that energetic electrons preferentially precipitate at the weaker-field southern footpoint relies on the theoretical result of Yu et al. (2026), a self-cited reference. Since this is a load-bearing assumption for the entire scenario, please summarize the physical mechanism in the text rather than only citing the reference, and, where possible, state a testable prediction (e.g., a predicted footpoint HXR flux ratio or a specific microwave spectral evolution) that future observations could check.
minor comments (6)
  1. [1.2 / 3.1.2] The acronyms 'SHH' and 'SHS' are used without definition. Please spell out 'soft–hard–harder' and 'soft–hard–soft' at first use and clarify the convention for the sign of the spectral index.
  2. [Figure 6] The axes in Figure 6(b) and (d) lack units; the text calls them 'Arbitrary Unit'. Please label the y-axis and explain how the integrated fluxes are normalized, and state the pixel size of boxes 1–3.
  3. [2] The event is described as 'partially occulted' from the Earth perspective. Since much of the interpretation relies on the location of microwave sources relative to the limb, a brief sentence explaining what 'partially occulted' means for the visibility of the footpoints would help the reader.
  4. [Figure 3] The wavelet analysis reports periods of ~39 s and ~25 s but does not provide confidence intervals on these periods. Please indicate the uncertainties and whether the two periods are statistically distinct.
  5. [References] Some reference list entries appear incomplete (e.g., 'Melnikov, V. F. 1994' lacks a page range) and the formatting of the 'Twiss 1954' entry is non-standard. Please check journal style.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract states that the pulsations are 'consistent with intermittent particle acceleration rather than MHD wave modulation.' Given that the evidence is circumstantial (e.g., the absence of a phase difference and stable polarization), consider softening the wording in the abstract to 'consistent with' as the authors do in the text, but the current phrasing may overstate certainty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the magnetic asymmetry is fitted from microwave spectra, the HXR-footpoint association is a profile-similarity inference, and the transport scenario is a post-hoc interpretation. Only minor overlapping-author citations appear, and none is load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is observational rather than definitional. The central magnetic asymmetry (B ~ 1600/1300/700 G) is obtained from spatially resolved gyrosynchrotron spectral fitting with GSFIT (§3.3), which does not use the HXR profile or the southern-footpoint inference as input. The HXR–southern-leg association is explicitly not a localization: §4.1 states “Direct imaging localization of the nonthermal HXR sources from STIX is not feasible” and instead relies on “the similarity between the microwave flux profile from the southern leg and HXR 25–50 keV total flux.” This is a correlation-based inference, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The precipitation/trapping scenario in §4.2 is presented as a self-consistency argument (“These can be interpreted in terms of energy-dependent transport effects”), not as a derivation that reduces to its inputs. The cited Yu et al. 2026 and Melnikov works overlap with the author list, but the invoked physics (magnetic mirroring, Coulomb energy-dependent lifetimes) is standard and is supported by the paper’s own reasoning; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via those citations. The strongest concerns—STIX aspect uncertainty, the hand-selected box 3 without a significance test, and the tension between “in-phase oscillations” in the Summary and the “increasing separation up to ~20 s” in §3.1.1—are evidentiary/consistency weaknesses, not circularity. The paper’s central claims remain observably constrained and independently fitted, so the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on GSFIT-derived magnetic field values (a fitted model with fixed source size) and on the physical assumption that microwave and HXR emissions share the same electron population. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The NLFFF comparison uses a magnetogram from days earlier, which is the weakest external anchor.

free parameters (4)
  • B_north (GSFIT magnetic field, northern loop leg) = ~1600 ± 100 G
    From per-pixel homogeneous gyrosynchrotron fitting; central to the asymmetric loop claim.
  • B_south (GSFIT magnetic field, southern loop leg) = ~1300 ± 100 G
    From the same fitting; weaker southern field is used to explain preferential precipitation at the southern footpoint.
  • B_loop_top (GSFIT magnetic field, loop top) = ~700 ± 100 G
    From the same fitting; lower loop-top field anchors the trap interpretation.
  • GSFIT secondary parameters (theta, n_t, delta, n_0) = not individually reported
    The fitting also varies viewing angle, nonthermal density, spectral index, and ambient density per pixel; these are not displayed but affect the B values and are part of the model degeneracy.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Microwave emission is optically thin gyrosynchrotron radiation from a homogeneous source with a single isotropic power-law electron distribution (10 keV–10 MeV).
    Invoked in §3.3 for the GSFIT per-pixel fitting; if the source is inhomogeneous or the electron distribution deviates, the derived B map is biased.
  • domain assumption Hard X-ray emission can be described by thermal + thick-target bremsstrahlung models in OSPEX.
    Used in §3.1.2 to fit STIX spectra and derive the electron spectral index δ_x.
  • ad hoc to paper The SDO/HMI magnetogram from 2024 May 12 (three days before the flare) adequately represents the active-region field on May 15 for NLFFF extrapolation.
    Stated in §3.3: the large-scale polarity distribution persists for days, but field evolution over 3 days could affect the loop geometry comparison.
  • domain assumption The same population of energetic electrons produces both the microwave and HXR pulsations, with the HXR total flux tracking the injection rate and the microwave tracking the trapped high-energy population.
    Basis for interpreting the opposite trends, increasing lag, and SHH/SHS patterns in §4.2; if different electron populations are involved, the scenario weakens.
  • domain assumption STIX imaging aspect uncertainty prevents reliable HXR source localization for this event, so total-flux profile similarity is a valid proxy.
    Acknowledged in §4.1; the southern-footpoint inference depends on this proxy rather than direct imaging.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12835 in / 11428 out tokens · 120226 ms · 2026-08-01T17:16:29.897824+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We report dual-perspective microwave and HXR observations of an X-class flare on 2024 May 15, taking advantage of the unique geometry of a front-side view from the Earth and a back-side perspective from the Solar Orbiter (SolO). Using spatially resolved imaging spectroscopy from Siberian Radioheliograph (SRH) together with Chashan Broadband Solar millimeter spectrometer (CBSmm) and STIX data, we identify a set of nonthermal flaring loops in an asymmetric magnetic field, with microwave sources located near the loop top and HXR sources associated with the southern footpoint. Compared with HXR, the microwave emission shows an opposite ascending trend, an increasing time lag in time profile, and a distinctive ``SHH'' spectral pattern, which we attribute to energy-dependent trapping and precipitation of energetic electrons in an asymmetric magnetic configuration. Flux pulsations and their spectral and polarization signatures are consistent with intermittent particle acceleration rather than MHD wave modulation. Microwave magnetic diagnostics, corroborated by non-linear force free field (NLFFF) extrapolation, provide key constraints on the three-dimensional magnetic configuration. The dual-perspective flux profile comparison and consistent QPP signatures across wavelengths together support a self-consistent picture of energy-dependent electron trapping, precipitation, and transport in these asymmetric loops.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17682 by Alexey Kuznetsov, Dmitriy Smirnov, Feiyu Yu, Hao Ning, Mingzhe Guo, Ruifei Huang, Sergey Anfinogentov, Victor Melnikov, Xiangliang Kong, Yao Chen, Ze Zhong, Zhao Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the X3.5-class flare on 2024 May 15. (a) SDO/AIA 171 ˚A running-difference image at 08:30:57 UT. (b)–(d) AIA 131, 304, 171 ˚A images at 08:30:59, 08:30:53 and 08:33:09 UT. Blue arrows in (a)–(c) denote the twisted ejecta. White boxes in (b) and (d) outline the field of view in 7(a). (e) SolO/EUI 174 ˚A image of the same active region at 08:33:04 UT, overlaid with red and blue contours at ±120 G… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a)–(d) Flux curves in SXR, 3–24 GHz, 35–40 GHz and 25–150 keV from GOES, SRH, CBSmm and SolO/STIX, respectively. All times are presented in UTC at the Earth. Gray vertical dashed lines in (b)–(d) indicate the five major microwave peaks at 08:31:13, 08:31:58, 08:32:45, 08:33:24 and 08:34:00 UT. P1–P5 in (d) mark the five major HXR peaks, which slightly precede the former [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Modulation depths of flux density at 35.25 GHz (black) from CBSmm and 25–50 keV (blue) from STIX. Gray vertical dashed lines indicate the five major microwave peaks shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Fitted total gyrosynchrotron spectra of SRH (diamonds) and CBSmm (triangles) at the five major peaks in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a)–(c) Microwave sources at 4.2–23.4 GHz superimposed onto AIA 94 ˚A images (shown in reverse grayscale) at 08:31:11, 08:33:22, 08:34:00 UT, i.e., the first, fourth and fifth microwave peaks. Contours are 90% of maximum brightness temperature, whose position is marked by crosses at each frequency. (d)–(f) Same as (a)–(c) but for 2.8–4.0 GHz. SRH beam sizes at 3.4, 6.0, 16.76, 23.40 GHz are indicated in th… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Stokes I (magenta) and V (cyan) sources at 16.76 GHz superimposed onto AIA 94 ˚A image at 08:34:00 UT. Contours are 30%, 50%, 70%, 90% of the maximum brightness temperature. Boxes 1–3 (3×3 pixels) represent the northern loop leg, loop top and southern loop leg. (b) Total flux profiles at SRH 16.76 GHz (black) and its integrations in boxes 1 and 2 (purple, blue). (c) Temporal evolution of microwave pola… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Magnetic field distribution from microwave spectral fitting at 08:34:00 UT, within the white box shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗

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

76 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Solar-Terrestrial Physics , year =

  2. [2]

    Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society , year =

  3. [3]

    Nature Communications , year =

  4. [4]

    Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences , year =

  5. [5]

    Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , year =

  6. [6]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/L16 , archiveprefix =

    , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/L16 , archiveprefix =. 1605.01963 , primaryclass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2041

  7. [7]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume =

    A joint microwave and hard X-ray study toward understanding the transport of accelerated electrons during an eruptive solar flare , author =. The Astrophysical Journal , volume =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  8. [8]

    Solar Physics , volume =

    Triangulation of hard X-ray sources in an X-class solar flare with ASO-S/HXI and Solar Orbiter/STIX , author =. Solar Physics , volume =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  9. [9]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume =

    Three-dimensional mapping of coronal magnetic field and plasma parameters in a solar flare , author =. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume =. 2026 , publisher =

    2026

  10. [10]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038467 , archiveprefix =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038467 , archiveprefix =. 2009.00861 , primaryclass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [12]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad0ef , archiveprefix =

    , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad0ef , archiveprefix =. 1807.02498 , primaryclass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [15]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acad02 , archiveprefix =

    , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acad02 , archiveprefix =. 2212.12314 , primaryclass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2041

  13. [16]

    Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii

    To the theory of radio emission spectra caused by discrete sources at frequencies lower than 30 MHz , author =. Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii. Radiofizika , volume =

  14. [17]

    On the nature of the discrete radio sources , author =

    XXIX. On the nature of the discrete radio sources , author =. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science , volume =. 1954 , publisher =

    1954

  15. [18]

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2008-1 , adsurl =

    Living Reviews in Solar Physics , keywords =. doi:10.12942/lrsp-2008-1 , adsurl =

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2008-1 2008

  16. [25]

    doi:10.1007/s11207-022-02029-x , archiveprefix =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11207-022-02029-x , archiveprefix =. 2202.09334 , primaryclass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [26]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2029 , archiveprefix =

    , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2029 , archiveprefix =. 2409.04722 , primaryclass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [27]

    , keywords =

    Data-constrained Modeling of Electron Transport and Asymmetric Precipitation in the 2011 August 4 Solar Flare. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae6816 , archivePrefix =. 2605.03380 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [29]

    Solar Physics , volume=

    Magnetography of solar flaring loops with microwave imaging spectropolarimetry , author=. Solar Physics , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  20. [30]

    T., Lesovoi , S

    Altyntsev , A. T., Lesovoi , S. V., Globa , M. V., & et al. 2020, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 6, 30, 10.12737/stp-62202003

    work page doi:10.12737/stp-62202003 2020

  21. [31]

    G., Cooper , K., et al

    Bajnokov \'a , N., Hannah , I. G., Cooper , K., et al. 2024, , 533, 3742, 10.1093/mnras/stae2029

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2029 2024

  22. [32]

    E., Howard , R

    Brueckner , G. E., Howard , R. A., Koomen , M. J., & et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 357, 10.1007/BF00733434

    doi:10.1007/bf00733434 1995

  23. [33]

    A., Yu , S., & et al

    Collier , H., Hayes , L. A., Yu , S., & et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A215, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348652

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348652 2024

  24. [34]

    Dulk , G. A. 1985, ARA&A, 23, 169, 10.1146/annurev.aa.23.090185.001125

    arXiv 1985

  25. [35]

    D., Gary , D

    Fleishman , G. D., Gary , D. E., Chen , B., et al. 2020, Science, 367, 278, 10.1126/science.aax6874

    doi:10.1126/science.aax6874 2020

  26. [36]

    D., Nita , G

    Fleishman , G. D., Nita , G. M., Chen , B., Yu , S., & Gary , D. E. 2022, , 606, 674, 10.1038/s41586-022-04728-8

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04728-8 2022

  27. [37]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 156, 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/156

    Gan , W.-Q., Zhu , C., Deng , Y.-Y., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 156, 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/156

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/156 2019

  28. [38]

    E., Fleishman, G

    Gary, D. E., Fleishman, G. D., & Nita, G. M. 2013, Solar Physics, 288, 549

    2013

  29. [39]

    E., Chen , B., Dennis , B

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad0ef 2018

  30. [40]

    2016, , 828, 82, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/82

    Guo , Y., Xia , C., Keppens , R., & Valori , G. 2016, , 828, 82, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/82

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/2/82 2016

  31. [41]

    A., Gallagher , P

    Hayes , L. A., Gallagher , P. T., Dennis , B. R., & et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 33, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ca3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ca3 2019

  32. [42]

    2023, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Inglis , A., Hayes , L., Guidoni , S., & et al. 2023, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 55, 181, 10.3847/25c2cfeb.55d6b861

    work page doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.55d6b861 2023

  33. [43]

    R., & Nakariakov , V

    Inglis , A. R., & Nakariakov , V. M. 2009, A&A, 493, 259, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810473

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810473 2009

  34. [44]

    D., & Ryan, D

    Kaltman, T., Yu, S., Fleishman, G. D., & Ryan, D. F. 2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 707, A158

    2026

  35. [45]

    M., & Shibasaki , K

    Kim , S., Nakariakov , V. M., & Shibasaki , K. 2012, ApJL, 756, L36, 10.1088/2041-8205/756/2/L36

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/2/l36 2012

  36. [46]

    Y., Nakariakov , V

    Kolotkov , D. Y., Nakariakov , V. M., Kupriyanova , E. G., Ratcliffe , H., & Shibasaki , K. 2015, A&A, 574, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424988

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424988 2015

  37. [47]

    2007, , 243, 3, 10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6

    Kosugi , T., Matsuzaki , K., Sakao , T., et al. 2007, , 243, 3, 10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6

    doi:10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6 2007

  38. [48]

    J., Grimm , O., & et al

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937362 2020

  39. [49]

    2020, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 6, 3, 10.12737/stp-61202001

    Kupriyanova , E., Kolotkov , D., Nakariakov , V., & Kaufman , A. 2020, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 6, 3, 10.12737/stp-61202001

    doi:10.12737/stp-61202001 2020

  40. [50]

    G., Melnikov , V

    Kupriyanova , E. G., Melnikov , V. F., Nakariakov , V. M., & Shibasaki , K. 2010, SoPh, 267, 329, 10.1007/s11207-010-9642-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9642-0 2010

  41. [51]

    A., Van Doorsselaere , T., & Reznikova , V

    Kuznetsov , A. A., Van Doorsselaere , T., & Reznikova , V. E. 2015, SoPh, 290, 1173, 10.1007/s11207-015-0662-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-015-0662-7 2015

  42. [52]

    R., Title , A

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

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

  43. [53]

    2022, ApJL, 931, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6fd2

    Li , D., & Chen , W. 2022, ApJL, 931, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6fd2

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6fd2 2022

  44. [54]

    2020, A&A, 639, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038398

    Li , D., Feng , S., Su , W., & Huang , Y. 2020, A&A, 639, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038398

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038398 2020

  45. [55]

    F., Volpara , A., et al

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

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

  46. [56]

    A., Nakariakov , V

    McLaughlin , J. A., Nakariakov , V. M., Dominique , M., Jel \' nek , P., & Takasao , S. 2018, SSRv, 214, 45, 10.1007/s11214-018-0478-5

    doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0478-5 2018

  47. [57]

    Melnikov , V. F. 1994, Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics, 37, 557, 10.1007/BF01046804

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01046804 1994

  48. [58]

    F., Gary , D

    Melnikov , V. F., Gary , D. E., & Nita , G. M. 2008, SoPh, 253, 43, 10.1007/s11207-008-9275-8

    doi:10.1007/s11207-008-9275-8 2008

  49. [59]

    F., & Magun , A

    Melnikov , V. F., & Magun , A. 1998, , 178, 153, 10.1023/A:1004944812520

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1004944812520 1998

  50. [60]

    F., Reznikova , V

    Melnikov , V. F., Reznikova , V. E., Shibasaki , K., & Nakariakov , V. M. 2005, A&A, 439, 727, 10.1051/0004-6361:20052774

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052774 2005

  51. [61]

    Mossessian , G., & Fleishman , G. D. 2012, ApJ, 748, 140, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/140

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/140 2012

  52. [62]

    M \"u ller , D., St. Cyr , O. C., Zouganelis , I., et al. 2020, , 642, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038467 2020

  53. [63]

    M., & Melnikov , V

    Nakariakov , V. M., & Melnikov , V. F. 2009, SSRv, 149, 119, 10.1007/s11214-009-9536-3

    doi:10.1007/s11214-009-9536-3 2009

  54. [64]

    M., Melnikov , V

    Nakariakov , V. M., Melnikov , V. F., & Reznikova , V. E. 2003, A&A, 412, L7, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031660

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031660 2003

  55. [65]

    D., Thompson , B

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

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

  56. [66]

    1969, ApJ, 158, 753, 10.1086/150233

    Ramaty , R. 1969, ApJ, 158, 753, 10.1086/150233

    doi:10.1086/150233 1969

  57. [67]

    1960, Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii

    Razin, V. 1960, Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii. Radiofizika, 3, 584

    1960

  58. [68]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663

    Rochus , P., Auch \`e re , F., Berghmans , D., & et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936663 2020

  59. [69]

    F., Massa, P., Battaglia, A

    Ryan, D. F., Massa, P., Battaglia, A. F., et al. 2024, Solar Physics, 299, 114

    2024

  60. [70]

    H., Schou , J., Bush , R

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

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

  61. [71]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 45, 10.3847/1538-4365/acee00

    Shang , Z., Wu , Z., Liu , Y., & et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 45, 10.3847/1538-4365/acee00

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acee00 2023

  62. [72]

    2022, ApJS, 258, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4257

    Shang , Z., Xu , K., Liu , Y., & et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4257

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4257 2022

  63. [73]

    K., del Toro Iniesta , J

    Solanki , S. K., del Toro Iniesta , J. C., Woch , J., & et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935325

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935325 2020

  64. [74]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 206, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/206

    Tan , B., Yu , Z., Huang , J., Tan , C., & Zhang , Y. 2016, ApJ, 833, 206, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/206

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/206 2016

  65. [75]

    R., Reeves , K

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/l16 2016

  66. [76]

    2020, OSPEX: Object Spectral Executive , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Tolbert , K., & Schwartz , R. 2020, OSPEX: Object Spectral Executive , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    2020

  67. [77]

    Torrence , C., & Compo , G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 61, 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0061:APGTWA>2.0.CO;2

    doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079 1998

  68. [78]

    1954, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 45, 249

    Twiss, R. 1954, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 45, 249

    1954

  69. [79]

    G., & Yuan , D

    Van Doorsselaere , T., Kupriyanova , E. G., & Yuan , D. 2016, SoPh, 291, 3143, 10.1007/s11207-016-0977-z

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

  70. [80]

    M., Benz , A

    White , S. M., Benz , A. O., Christe , S., & et al. 2011, SSRv, 159, 225, 10.1007/s11214-010-9708-1

    doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9708-1 2011

  71. [81]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad46ff

    Wu , Z., Kuznetsov , A., Anfinogentov , S., & et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad46ff

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad46ff 2024

  72. [82]

    2023, , 942, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/acad02

    Yan , F., Wu , Z., Shang , Z., et al. 2023, , 942, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/acad02

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acad02 2023

  73. [83]

    2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 20, 10.3389/fspas.2021.584043

    Yan , Y., Chen , Z., Wang , W., et al. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 20, 10.3389/fspas.2021.584043

    arXiv 2021

  74. [84]

    2026, , 1003, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ae6816

    Yu , F., Kong , X., Zhong , Z., et al. 2026, , 1003, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ae6816

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae6816 2026

  75. [85]

    V., McLaughlin , J

    Zimovets , I. V., McLaughlin , J. A., Srivastava , A. K., & et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 66, 10.1007/s11214-021-00840-9

    doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00840-9 2021

  76. [86]

    V., & Struminsky , A

    Zimovets , I. V., & Struminsky , A. B. 2009, SoPh, 258, 69, 10.1007/s11207-009-9394-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9394-x 2009