Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Flaring together: A preferred angular separation between sympathetic flares on the Sun

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sympathetic solar flares are real: flares pair up at about 30 degrees of longitude within 1.5 hours.

desk verdict Plausible multi-instrument confirmation of the ~30° sympathetic-flare excess, but the significance is not established: no calibrated null test, and the selection criteria are read off the same data. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10143 v1 pith:4CZXWVGO submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Louis-Simon Guité , Antoine Strugarek , Paul Charbonneau This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords Sun:flaresactivitysympatheticunsympatheticflarewaitingtimesmagneticconnectivityPFSSextrapolation
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 sets out to establish that solar flares can trigger other flares at a preferred angular separation: same-hemisphere flares separated by roughly $30^\circ$ in Carrington longitude and starting less than 1.5 hours apart occur more often than expected. Using consecutive-flare pairs from SDO/AIA, RHESSI, and Solar Orbiter/STIX over cycles 24 and 25, the authors find the excess in all three datasets, at an average occurrence rate near 5%, and show that its position shifts with solar cycle phase and hemisphere. They also report a complementary deficit, fewer transequatorial flare pairs at $25^\circ$--$30^\circ$ latitude separation when longitudes nearly coincide, which they name unsympathetic flares. Control distributions of active-region positions and PFSS-derived magnetic footpoint separations are used to argue that the angular scale comes from magnetic connectivity between active regions rather than from where active regions simply sit. If the detection holds up, it would make sympathetic flaring a quantitative, reproducible feature of solar activity rather than a collection of case studies.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by pair statistics of consecutive flares: for each pair the waiting time $w = T_{i+1} - T_i$ and the Haversine angular separation $\lambda$, with its longitudinal and latitudinal components $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\theta$, are computed in Carrington coordinates so that solar rotation does not inject spurious correlations. The signal is isolated by fitting Equation 3, a Gaussian peak added to an exponential-decay background plus constant, to the longitudinal-separation histogram of same-hemisphere pairs in short waiting-time bins; the Gaussian selects candidate sympathetic pairs, and a fit without the Gaussian supplies the background ratio used as the significance estimate. Two separate control constructions carry the argument that the signal is not geometric: the distribution of separations between nearest simultaneously present NOAA active regions (Appendix B), and the distribution of footpoint separations of closed coronal field lines traced with potential-field source-surface (PFSS) extrapolations from GONG magnetograms, which peaks at a comparable scale. The PFSS machinery is what converts the observed $30^\circ$ angular scale into a statement about magnetic connectivity between active regions.

What would settle it

Reshuffle the start times of the observed flares (or, separately, their longitudes) while keeping the flare locations and the active-region distribution fixed, and rebuild the waiting-time versus separation histograms; if a peak near 30 degrees at waiting times under 1.5 hours still appears in the scrambled data, the claimed sympathetic-flare signal is an artifact of active-region clustering rather than a flare-triggering interaction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that consecutive flares in the same hemisphere show a statistically significant excess at a longitudinal separation $\Delta\phi \approx 31^\circ \pm 10^\circ$ when the waiting time is less than about 1.5 hours. The excess is modeled by adding a Gaussian component to an exponential background (their Equation 3), and the ratio between the two fits implies about three times as many events in the peak as the background alone would give. The effect appears in the cumulative distribution only at short waiting times and is reproduced by RHESSI and STIX data, with peak positions of roughly $22^\circ$--$34^\circ$ depending on instrument and cycle phase. For transequatorial pairs with $\Delta\phi \lesssim 5^\circ$, the paper finds a deficit around $\Delta\theta \approx 25^\circ$--$30^\circ$ that is absent from the underlying active-region distribution; this is the proposed unsympathetic-flare effect. Finally, PFSS extrapolations give a footpoint longitudinal-separation distribution peaking at about $21^{+17}_{-15}$ degrees, broadly consistent with the flare-pair peak, which the authors offer as the structural reason why 30 degrees is special. Across instruments, candidate sympathetic pairs involve about 7%, 3.5%, and 3.9% of flares, for a mean occurrence rate near 5%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the excess of flare pairs at about 30 degrees of longitude within 1.5 hours is caused by flare-to-flare interaction rather than by the spatial and temporal clustering of active regions; the significance estimate compares two fits to the same histogram, and no reshuffled-null test that randomizes flare times or locations while preserving the active-region pattern is presented.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the excess is real, roughly 5% of solar flares occur as part of a sympathetic pair, so flare statistics and space-weather forecasting models must include inter-active-region triggering rather than treating flares as independent events.
  • The peak position changes with solar cycle phase and hemisphere, so the coupling mechanism is modulated by the Sun's large-scale magnetic configuration, not fixed at a universal 30-degree constant.
  • The implied propagation speeds for candidate sympathetic pairs are cut off below about 80 km/s, with a maximum around 104 km/s, well above the 45 km/s geometric minimum; this leaves slow EUV waves or mass surges as plausible mediators but excludes very slow mechanisms.
  • The reported transequatorial deficit at 25--30 degrees of latitude for nearly aligned pairs implies that a flare can also suppress later flaring at a comparable angular scale, a phenomenon the authors name unsympathetic flares.
  • The PFSS footpoint-separation peak around 21 degrees, with a wide spread, is broadly consistent with the flare-pair peak, supporting the proposal that magnetic connectivity between active regions sets the preferred angular scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same consecutive-pair histogram method could be applied to coronal mass ejections and filament eruptions; a ~30-degree excess there would show that the coupling scale is generic to eruptive events, not specific to X-ray flares.
  • Editorial extension: the unsympathetic-flare deficit makes a concrete prediction for magnetohydrodynamic simulations, namely that two active regions separated by 25--30 degrees in latitude and nearly aligned in longitude should show a reduced probability that the second region erupts after the first one flares.
  • Editorial extension: because the peak position shifts with cycle phase and hemisphere, the ~30-degree scale may track the latitude separation of the two activity belts rather than a fixed magnetic-connectivity length; comparing the fitted peak against the instantaneous width of the sunspot butterfly diagram would separate those explanations.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes consecutive solar flares from the SDO/AIA, RHESSI, and Solar Orbiter/STIX catalogs, computing waiting times and angular separations between successive events. It reports an excess of same-hemisphere flare pairs separated by approximately 30 degrees in Carrington longitude and triggered within less than 1.5 hours, which it interprets as a statistical signature of sympathetic flares, with an occurrence rate of roughly 5% (7% for AIA, 3.5% for RHESSI, 3.9% for STIX). It also identifies a deficit of transequatorial flare pairs at latitude separations of 25-30 degrees when the longitude separation is less than 5 degrees, termed 'unsympathetic flares.' The paper further examines variations with solar-cycle phase and hemisphere, propagation velocities, and flare magnitude correlations, and proposes a potential field source surface (PFSS) interpretation in which the longitudinal footpoint separation of closed coronal field lines peaks near 21 degrees. Appendix B uses the distribution of nearest active-region separations to argue that the flare excess is not caused by the underlying active-region distribution.

Significance. If the central detection is real, the paper would provide a long-sought statistical confirmation of sympathetic solar flares and identify a characteristic angular scale for flare-flare interactions, with implications for coronal connectivity and flare trigger mechanisms. The multi-instrument comparison across solar cycles and the public release of candidate event catalogs are valuable assets. However, the statistical foundation of the detection is currently insufficient to support the strength of the claims. The significance assessment rests on an ad hoc fit-ratio rather than a null-hypothesis test, the candidate selection criteria are derived from the same data used to establish the peak, and the active-region control in Appendix B is not the relevant null for consecutive flare pairs. The transequatorial 'unsympathetic' deficit is based on a very small sample with no significance quantification. These issues are load-bearing because the paper's conclusions, including the proposed 30-degree scale and the 5% occurrence rate, depend directly on them. The paper's significance is therefore conditional on a substantial reanalysis with proper statistical controls.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3)] The claimed statistical significance of the ~30-degree peak is based on the ratio of two fits to the same histogram: one including the Gaussian term in Eq. (3) and one excluding it. This ratio has no null distribution, no propagated uncertainty, and no correction for the fact that the peak position, width, and the 1.5-hour threshold are all read off the same data. The statement 'we find an average value of around 3 times more events within the peak' is not a significance measure. The authors need to replace this with a formal hypothesis test against a null model that preserves the active-region and flare-rate distributions while randomizing the inter-AR coupling (for example, by shuffling flare longitudes/latitudes or times within the observed AR schedule), and to report a p-value or confidence interval, along with a multiple-testing correction across the waiting-time bins, cycle phases, hemispheres, and instruments.
  2. [Section 2.3, Figures 4-5] The candidate sympathetic flares are selected using criteria (1) Delta-phi in [Delta-phi_0 +/- 2 sigma] and (2) w <= 1.5 hours, where Delta-phi_0 and sigma are fitted to the same histogram that is then used to compute the occurrence rate. This makes the reported 7% (AIA) and ~5% average circular. An out-of-sample or hold-out validation, or at least a systematic sensitivity analysis over a range of thresholds, is required. In addition, the threshold used to exclude pairs from the same active region is never stated in Section 2.3; it must be specified and its influence on the detected peak and on the candidate list must be quantified.
  3. [Appendix B, Figures B.2-B.3] The control analysis in Appendix B compares the distribution of angular separations between nearest active regions (or nearest transequatorial active regions), not the distribution of consecutive flare pairs expected under a null of independent flaring. A null in which flares occur independently within each active region with rates proportional to the observed flaring rates, but with no inter-AR coupling, could produce a surplus at ~30 degrees simply from the longitudinal clustering of flare-productive active regions. The current control therefore does not support the claim in Section 2.3 that 'this peak does originate from the flares and not the underlying spatial distribution of active regions.' The authors should construct the relevant null for the consecutive-flare-pair statistic.
  4. [Section 3.2, Figures 7-8] The transequatorial deficit ('unsympathetic flares') is a central new claim, but it is based on a very small sample (the text itself notes 'despite the small sample size') and has no significance quantification beyond √N error bars. The deficit is then used in Section 6 to propose a characteristic length scale of ~30 degrees. The authors should provide a significance test for this deficit, ideally using the same null model as for the hemispheric excess, and should report the sample size and confidence interval. Without this, the deficit is not established as a robust phenomenon.
  5. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3), background model] The background model in Eq. (3) is ad hoc, and the paper does not report goodness-of-fit, parameter uncertainties, or a comparison with alternative background parameterizations (e.g., a power law or a nonparametric estimate). The detection of the Gaussian excess is therefore conditional on the arbitrary functional form chosen for the background. The sensitivity of the peak location, width, and amplitude to the background model should be assessed, and the fit uncertainties should be propagated into the significance estimate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (3)] Please specify whether 'log' denotes the natural logarithm, and clarify that the fit is performed on binned probability densities; the choice of bin width and its effect on the fitted parameters should be stated.
  2. [Section 3.1] The claim that 'these results are not significantly impacted by splitting the cycle at a slightly different point in time' is not demonstrated; either provide the sensitivity analysis or remove the claim.
  3. [Section 4.1] The statement that the RHESSI decaying-phase peak is 'neither representative nor statistically significant' is qualitative; provide quantitative support, such as a p-value or confidence interval, or state the sample size.
  4. [Section 6] The conclusion that sympathetic flares are 'unambiguously present' is stronger than what the current statistical analysis supports; please temper the abstract and conclusion until the significance analysis is completed.
  5. [References] Several references have corrupted author lists, for example 'Démoulin, L. G. B. . C. H. M. ... 2000' and 'Harrison, G. P. . R. A. & Harrison, G. P. . R. A. 1990'; these need to be corrected.
  6. [Section 6, PFSS interpretation] The PFSS-derived peak of 21 +17/-15 degrees is only marginally consistent with the observed 30-degree excess; the large uncertainty should be acknowledged more explicitly when proposing the magnetic-connectivity interpretation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the 30-degree peak, its '3 times' significance, and the ~5% occurrence rate are all read out of the same Equation 3 fit that is used to define the candidate sympathetic-flare sample.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3, Eq. (3) and candidate-selection criteria; occurrence-rate claims in Sections 2.3 and 6]
    "The fit using Equation 3, overlaid on the blue histogram (w≤ 0.5 hour), is used to identify candidate sympathetic flaring events based on the following criteria: (1) ∆ϕ∈ [∆ϕ0± 2σ] and (2) w≤ 1.5 hour, corresponding to flares well within the peak. A second fit, excluding the Gaussian component of Equation 3, is also plotted in dashed to model the background distribution. By considering the ratio of these fits as a measure of the statistical significance of the signal, we find an average value of around 3 times more events within the peak."

    The candidate sample is not independent of the claimed signal: ∆ϕ0 and σ are free parameters fitted to the very ∆ϕ histogram that is then thresholded at ∆ϕ0±2σ to define 'candidate sympathetic flaring events'. The reported '3 times more events' significance is a ratio of two fits to the same data (with and without a Gaussian component), so it measures the fitted Gaussian against the fitted background and has no null distribution or propagated uncertainty. The later '581 candidate sympathetic flare pairs' and the '7%' SDO/AIA rate (averaged to 'approximately 5%' across instruments) are counts of pairs satisfying these same fitted criteria. Thus the preferred 30-degree scale and the occurrence rate are partly constructed by the selection rule rather than independently predicted.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical statistical study rather than a derivation, and most classical circularity patterns do not apply: there is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The PFSS footpoint-separation analysis (Figure 13) and the active-region distribution controls (Appendix B) are external inputs and provide some independent support; the multi-instrument comparison also offers outside consistency. However, the central quantitative claims reduce in part to the same fit. The Gaussian peak at ∆ϕ≈30 degrees is fitted to the SDO/AIA histogram and then used as the selection window for defining candidate sympathetic pairs; the claimed occurrence rate is the fraction of pairs inside that fitted window. The 'statistical significance' of about 3 is obtained by comparing two fits of the same histogram, with no calibrated null test. This makes the ~5% occurrence rate and the preferred-separation claim statistically forced by the selection, which is partial circularity. The Appendix B control compares nearest active-region separations, not the null distribution of consecutive flare pairs, so it does not remove this circularity. The transequatorial 'unsympathetic' deficit is not circular but is based on a small sample without significance quantification. Overall, the central excess may be real, but the paper presents fitted quantities as if they were independent evidence, warranting a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several free parameters fitted to the same data (the Gaussian peak location and width, the waiting time threshold, the ad hoc background), plus a set of domain assumptions about the null distribution, the PFSS model, and instrument completeness. The 'unsympathetic' deficit is a new observational claim but does not introduce a physical entity. The parameter count is moderate and dominated by the statistical fitting rather than by a theoretical derivation.

free parameters (7)
  • Gaussian peak longitude Dphi0 = 31 degrees +/- 10 degrees (SDO/AIA full cycle 24); 30 +/- 3 degrees (rising); 34 +/- 7 degrees (decaying)
    Fitted to the observed histogram of consecutive hemispheric flare separations using Equation 3; defines the location of the claimed sympathetic excess.
  • Gaussian width sigma = about 10 degrees for the full cycle
    From the same Equation 3 fit; used to set the acceptance interval Dphi0 +/- 2 sigma for candidate sympathetic flares.
  • Waiting time threshold w_max = 1.5 hours
    Chosen by visual inspection to lie within the excess; not derived from a model or independent criterion.
  • Background model parameters A, B, D = not reported
    Ad hoc exponential-like background in Equation 3; the 3x excess ratio is computed from fits with and without the Gaussian component.
  • Transequatorial longitude cutoff = 5 degrees
    Used in Section 3.2 to define the sample for the 'unsympathetic' deficit analysis.
  • PFSS skewed Gaussian centroid = 21 degrees (+17/-15)
    Fit to the footpoint separation distribution from PFSS extrapolations; compared to the flare excess but not used to predict it.
  • Same-active-region exclusion threshold = not stated
    The text says events from the same active region are excluded from the sympathetic analysis but does not specify the angular threshold used.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The background distribution of unrelated consecutive flare pairs is described by log PDF = A exp(-B / Dphi^2) + D (Equation 3 without the Gaussian).
    No physical model justifies this functional form; the significance estimate depends entirely on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Under the null of no sympathetic flares, consecutive flares within a hemisphere are independent and their separations are governed only by the spatial distribution of active regions and the flare rate.
    The paper checks the active region distribution separately in Appendix B but does not construct a joint null for waiting time and separation.
  • standard math Carrington heliographic coordinates fully remove the effect of solar rotation so that no artificial spatiotemporal correlation is introduced.
    Standard assumption in solar coordinate systems; reasonable but worth noting because the waiting time and separation are computed in this frame.
  • domain assumption The PFSS extrapolation with r_SS = 2.5 R_sun and GONG magnetograms is a valid representation of the large-scale coronal connectivity relevant to flare interactions.
    Used to interpret the observed 30 degree scale; PFSS is a widely used but approximate potential field model.
  • domain assumption Instrumental duty cycles, data gaps, and fields of view do not bias the waiting time and angular separation distributions in a way that creates the observed peak.
    RHESSI and STIX have significant data gaps; the authors filter flagged events but do not model the instrument response.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flaring together: A preferred angular separation between sympathetic flares on the Sun." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4CZXWVGO

@misc{pith2026241210143,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flaring together: A preferred angular separation between sympathetic flares on the Sun},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4CZXWVGO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10143}
}
read the original abstract

Sympathetic solar flares are eruptions that occur nearby in space and time, driven by an apparent interaction between the active regions in which they are triggered. Their statistical existence on the Sun has yet to be firmly established. The main goal of this paper is to identify a statistical signature of sympathetic flares, characterize their properties and determine a potential mechanism driving their interaction. We perform a statistical analysis of a large number of flares observed by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) onboard the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), the Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) and the Spectrometer Telescope for Imaging X-rays (STIX) on Solar Orbiter during solar cycle 24 and 25. We examine the spatiotemporal distribution of consecutive flare pairs across solar cycle phases and hemispheres, along with the propagation velocity of potential causal interactions and the relationship between flare magnitudes. We observe an excess of hemispheric flares separated by about 30 degrees of longitude and triggered in less than 1.5 hours from each other. This peak in angular separation varies with the solar cycle phase and hemisphere. Moreover, we identify a deficit of transequatorial events separated by 25-30 degrees in latitude and less than 5 degrees in longitude, a phenomenon we term unsympathetic flares. We provide strong statistical evidence for the existence of sympathetic flares on the Sun, demonstrating that their occurrence rate reaches approximately 5% across the three instruments used in this study. Additionally, we propose an interpretation of the observed angular scale of the sympathetic phenomenon, based on the separation between magnetic field line footpoints derived from potential field source surface extrapolations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Aschwanden, M. J. & McTiernan, J. M. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 683

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    J., Newmark , J

    Aschwanden , M. J., Newmark , J. S., Delaboudini \`e re , J.-P., et al. 1999, , 515, 842

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    G., Gyenge , N., Kors \'o s , M

    Bal \'a zs , L. G., Gyenge , N., Kors \'o s , M. B., et al. 2014, , 441, 1157

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Biesecker, D. A. & Thompson, B. J. 2000, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys., 62, 1449

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    G., Sun, X., Hoeksema, J

    Bobra, M. G., Sun, X., Hoeksema, J. T., et al. 2014, Solar Physics, 289, 3549

    2014

  8. [8]

    2000, Solar Physics, 195, 135

    Changxi, Z., Huaning, W., Jingxiu, W., & Yihua, Y. 2000, Solar Physics, 195, 135

    work page 2000

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    W., Liu, H

    Charbonneau, P., McIntosh, S. W., Liu, H. L., & Bogdan, T. J. 2001, SoPh, 203, 321

    2001

  2. [10]

    X., Fang, C., Chen, P

    Cheng, J. X., Fang, C., Chen, P. F., & Ding, M. D. 2005, Chinese J. Astron. Astrophys., 5, 265

    2005

  3. [11]

    2011, , 270, 493

    Christe , S., Krucker , S., & Saint-Hilaire , P. 2011, , 270, 493

    2011

  4. [12]

    L., Harra , L

    Culhane , J. L., Harra , L. K., James , A. M., et al. 2007, , 243, 19

    2007

  5. [13]

    D., Selhorst , C

    Cunha-Silva , R. D., Selhorst , C. L., Fernandes , F. C. R., & Oliveira e Silva , A. J. 2018, , 612, A100

    2018

  6. [14]

    P., Artzner , G

    Delaboudini \`e re , J. P., Artzner , G. E., Brunaud , J., et al. 1995, , 162, 291

    1995

  7. [15]

    Y., Hu, Y

    Ding, J. Y., Hu, Y. Q., & Wang, J. X. 2006, Solar Physics, Volume 235, Issue 1-2, pp. 223-234, 235, 223

    2006

  8. [16]

    Démoulin, L. G. B. . C. H. M. . M. G. R. . P. D. . L. G. B. . C. H. M. . M. G. R. . P. 2000, A&A, 363, 779

    2000

  9. [17]

    C., Svestka, Z., et al

    Fritzova-Svestkova, L., Chase, R. C., Svestka, Z., et al. 1976, SoPh, 48, 275

    1976

  10. [18]

    2007, , 243, 63

    Golub , L., DeLuca , E., Austin , G., et al. 2007, , 243, 63

    2007

  11. [19]

    Harrison, G. P. . R. A. & Harrison, G. P. . R. A. 1990, A&A, 228, 513

    1990

  12. [20]

    W., Hill , F., Hubbard , R

    Harvey , J. W., Hill , F., Hubbard , R. P., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 1284

    1996

  13. [21]

    Hathaway , D. H. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 4

    2015

  14. [22]

    J., Li, T., Song, Z

    Hou, Y. J., Li, T., Song, Z. P., & Zhang, J. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 640

    2020

  15. [23]

    2012, , 275, 67

    Hurlburt , N., Cheung , M., Schrijver , C., et al. 2012, , 275, 67

    2012

  16. [24]

    2009, RAA, 9, 603

    Jiang, Y., Ji, H., Wang, H., et al. 2009, RAA, 9, 603

    2009

  17. [25]

    2008, ApJ, 677, 699

    Jiang, Y., Shen, Y., Yi, B., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, 699

    2008

  18. [26]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 179

    Jiang, Y., Yang, J., Hong, J., Bi, Y., & Zheng, R. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 179

    2011

  19. [27]

    J., Cheung, M

    Jin, M., Schrijver, C. J., Cheung, M. C. M., et al. 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    C., Schmieder, B., Magara, T., Guo, Y., & Aulanier, G

    Joshi, N. C., Schmieder, B., Magara, T., Guo, Y., & Aulanier, G. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 126

    2016

  21. [29]

    Klvaňa, V. B. . M. 1993, Ap&SS, 199, 45

    1993

  22. [30]

    J., Grimm , O., et al

    Krucker , S., Hurford , G. J., Grimm , O., et al. 2020, , 642, A15

    2020

  23. [31]

    R., Title , A

    Lemen , J. R., Title , A. M., Akin , D. J., et al. 2012, , 275, 17

    2012

  24. [32]

    Li, S., Su, Y., Zhou, T., et al. 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    P., Dennis , B

    Lin , R. P., Dennis , B. R., Hurford , G. J., et al. 2002, , 210, 3

    2002

  26. [34]

    2009, Astrophysical Journal, 703, 757

    Liu, C., Lee, J., Karlicky, M., et al. 2009, Astrophysical Journal, 703, 757

    2009

  27. [35]

    Lynch , B. J. & Edmondson , J. K. 2013, , 764, 87

    2013

  28. [36]

    Martres , M. J. 1989, , 119, 357

    1989

  29. [37]

    I., et al

    Massa, P., Felix, S., Etesi, L. I., et al. 2024, A machine learning approach for computing solar flare locations in X-rays on-board Solar Orbiter/STIX

    2024

  30. [38]

    & Moussas, X

    Mawad, R. & Moussas, X. 2022, Astrophysics and Space Science, 367, 1

    2022

  31. [39]

    S., Park, Y

    Moon, Y., Choe, G. S., Park, Y. D., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 574, 434

    2002

  32. [40]

    J., Choe, G

    Moon, Y. J., Choe, G. S., Wang, H., et al. 2003, ApJ, 588, 1176

    2003

  33. [41]

    J., Choe, G

    Moon, Y. J., Choe, G. S., Yun, H. S., & Park, Y. D. 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 106, 29951

    2001

  34. [42]

    2017, , 606, A10

    M \"u ller , D., Nicula , B., Felix , S., et al. 2017, , 606, A10

    2017

  35. [43]

    M \"u ller , D., St. Cyr , O. C., Zouganelis , I., et al. 2020, , 642, A1

    2020

  36. [44]

    Nitta, N. G. . N. N. . P. K. M. . A. R. . M. P. . N. G. . N. & Pick, P. K. M. . A. R. . M. 1999, A&A, 347, 684

    1999

  37. [45]

    Peng, Z. & Hu, Y. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 513

    2007

  38. [46]

    D., Thompson , B

    Pesnell , W. D., Thompson , B. J., & Chamberlin , P. C. 2012, , 275, 3

    2012

  39. [47]

    Poland , A. I. & Domingo , V. 1990, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 166, IAU Colloq. 123: Observatories in Earth Orbit and Beyond, ed. Y. Kondo , 277

    1990

  40. [48]

    C., & Romoli, M

    Pucci, S., Poletto, G., Sterling, A. C., & Romoli, M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 745, 31

    2012

  41. [49]

    S., Wilson, M., & Observatories, P

    Richardson, R. S., Wilson, M., & Observatories, P. 1951

    1951

  42. [50]

    K., Erdelyi, R., et al

    Sanjay, Y., Prasad, S. K., Erdelyi, R., et al. 2024, On the formation height of low-corona and chromospheric channels of the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) on board the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO)

    2024

  43. [51]

    H., Schou , J., Bush , R

    Scherrer , P. H., Schou , J., Bush , R. I., et al. 2012, , 275, 207

    2012

  44. [52]

    J., Higgins, P

    Schrijver, C. J., Higgins, P. A., & Springer, C. 2015

    2015

  45. [53]

    Schrijver, C. J. & Title, A. M. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116, 4108

    2011

  46. [54]

    Shen, Y., Liu, Y., & Su, J. 2012

    2012

  47. [55]

    2000-2024, International Sunspot Number Monthly Bulletin and online catalogue

    SILSO World Data Center . 2000-2024, International Sunspot Number Monthly Bulletin and online catalogue

    2000

  48. [56]

    2020, , 892, 79

    Song , Z., Hou , Y., Zhang , J., & Wang , P. 2020, , 892, 79

    2020

  49. [57]

    Stansby, D., Yeates, A., & Badman, S. T. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2732

    2020

  50. [58]

    & Charbonneau , P

    Strugarek , A. & Charbonneau , P. 2014, , 289, 4137

    2014

  51. [59]

    2022, Solar Physics, 297, 125

    Thibeault, C., Strugarek, A., Charbonneau, P., & Tremblay, B. 2022, Solar Physics, 297, 125

    2022

  52. [60]

    S., Mikic, Z., Török, T., Linker, J

    Titov, V. S., Mikic, Z., Török, T., Linker, J. A., & Panasenco, O. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 759

    2012

  53. [61]

    S., Mikić, Z., Török, T., Linker, J

    Titov, V. S., Mikić, Z., Török, T., Linker, J. A., & Panasenco, O. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 141

    2017

  54. [62]

    2008, , 249, 167

    Tsuneta , S., Ichimoto , K., Katsukawa , Y., et al. 2008, , 249, 167

    2008

  55. [63]

    S., et al

    Török, T., Panasenco, O., Titov, V. S., et al. 2011, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 739, L63

    2011

  56. [64]

    E., & Gagnon , R

    van der Sande , K., Flyer , N., Berger , T. E., & Gagnon , R. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 354

    2022

  57. [65]

    M., Jain , S., Podladchikova , T., P \"o tzi , W., & Clette , F

    Veronig , A. M., Jain , S., Podladchikova , T., P \"o tzi , W., & Clette , F. 2021, , 652, A56

    2021

  58. [66]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 177

    Wang, D., Liu, R., Wang, Y., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 177

    2018

  59. [67]

    2001, THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 559, 1171

    Wang, H., Chae, J., Yurchyshyn, V., et al. 2001, THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 559, 1171

    2001

  60. [68]

    D., Zimovets, I., et al

    Wang, R., Liu, Y. D., Zimovets, I., et al. 2016

    2016

  61. [69]

    & Mann , G

    Warmuth , A. & Mann , G. 2005, , 435, 1123

    2005

  62. [70]

    & Mann , G

    Warmuth , A. & Mann , G. 2011, , 532, A151

    2011

  63. [71]

    Wheatland, M. S. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 536, 109

    2000

  64. [72]

    Wheatland, M. S. & Craig, I. J. 2006, Solar Physics, 238, 73

    2006

  65. [73]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745

    Yang, J., Jiang, Y., Zheng, R., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745

    2012

  66. [74]

    Zhang, Q. M. & Ji, H. S. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 557

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.