Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Multi-Instrument Observations and Tracking of a Coronal Mass Ejection Front From Low to Middle Corona

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For the May 7, 2021 eruption, the EUV wave and the white-light CME front are the same pile-up compression region, with no detached shock by 3 solar radii.

desk verdict A genuine multi-instrument tracking product and public tool, but the pile-up conclusion rests on a visual overlay and needs quantitative support. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18867 v1 pith:7PE5PBGN submitted 2025-08-26 astro-ph.SR

Oleg Stepanyuk , Kamen Kozarev This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords coronalmassejectionEUVwavewhite-lightcoronagraphpile-upcompressionregionCMEshockfrontK-CorLASCOWavetrackfeaturetracking
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

Tracking the May 7, 2021 eastern-limb eruption with four instruments — SDO/AIA in the low corona, K-Cor in the gap region, and LASCO C2/C3 in the middle corona — this paper tries to establish what the white-light CME front actually is. The authors use their multi-instrument Wavetrack segmentation to compare front shapes across instruments and conclude that the white-light front in K-Cor and LASCO C2 is the CME's pile-up compression region, the same compressive structure seen as the EUV wave in AIA. If correct, this event shows the EUV wave and the white-light CME front are one physical feature rather than two separate phenomena, and that a leading shock had not yet detached from the CME by roughly 3 solar radii. The work matters because it bridges the observational gap between EUV imagers and white-light coronagraphs, where CME definitions have long been disputed, and because the tracking method can produce whole-front masks useful for building machine-learning training sets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is Wavetrack, a modular wavelet-based feature-detection pipeline. For each instrument it builds base-difference images, decomposes them with an à trous wavelet transform, recomposes selected scales (3 and 4 for AIA), thresholds by pixel-intensity statistics, and segments feature masks; the masks are then multiplied by the original data so intensity variation is preserved. Overlaying these masks across AIA, K-Cor, and LASCO C2 is what lets the authors compare the front's shape and claim co-spatiality. Velocity fields are estimated with Fourier Local Correlation Tracking, Lucas-Kanade, and Horn-Schunck optical flow, with the Horn-Schunck results for C2 matching catalog sp

What would settle it

Measure the separation between the AIA EUV front and the K-Cor/LASCO C2 white-light front with a quantitative co-location metric (for example, median contour distance) across the overlap interval from 18:57 to 19:24 UT, and check whether a detached shock front appears ahead of the pile-up region above 3 solar radii in higher-cadence or multi-viewpoint data; if the fronts separate, or a distinct shock detaches before that height, the claim for this event fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for the May 7, 2021 CME, the front seen in white light by K-Cor and LASCO C2 is the pile-up compression region of the CME, located behind a compressive or shock wave that has not yet detached from the eruption. The authors find an excellent morphological match between the AIA EUV wave front and the white-light fronts, both in the low corona and when the K-Cor flanks line up with the LASCO C2 flanks. They interpret this as evidence that the EUV wave and the white-light front are the same compressive structure, which supports the wave nature of coronal bright EUV fronts and implies that a leading shock may not have formed or decoupled by about 3 solar radii i

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the independently segmented Wavetrack features from AIA, K-Cor, and LASCO C2 are the same physical front; the match is established by visual overlay in Figure 5 rather than a quantitative co-location metric, and each detector's settings were hand-chosen by visual inspection, so a segmentation that latched onto the dimming region, the driver blob, or streamer material would make the apparent co-spatiality an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For this event, the EUV wave and the white-light CME front are the same compressive feature, so treating them as separate phenomena in the low-to-middle corona would misidentify the leading edge.
  • A leading shock had not yet detached from the CME by roughly 3 solar radii; the observed white-light front is a pile-up of plasma behind that compressive wave.
  • K-Cor observations can bridge the gap between EUV imagers and coronagraphs, allowing a single front to be followed continuously from the low corona out to 20 solar radii.
  • Wavetrack segments and tracks whole evolving features, not just the leading edge, which is a step toward automated generation of training sets for image-segmentation models.
  • Plane-of-sky speeds from AIA and K-Cor show consistent temporal behavior, while high-end C2 speeds determined with Horn-Schunck agree with published CME catalog speeds of 625–754 km/s.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the white-light front is a compression region rather than the ejected CME body, then plane-of-sky speed measurements of 'the CME front' below about 3 solar radii are measuring the wave front, not plasma motion; height-time profiles in that regime may need to be reinterpreted.
  • A quantitative co-location metric applied over many events could turn the visual-overlay conclusion into a statistical map of when and where the EUV wave and white-light front separate — effectively measuring shock detachment height per eruption.
  • Because Wavetrack outputs full feature masks, the same pipeline could generate labeled training data for supervised segmentation models, letting them learn to distinguish fronts from dimming regions without hand-drawn labels.
  • If the K-Cor front marks the compression region that accelerates solar energetic particles, near-real-time Wavetrack tracking on K-Cor could yield an earlier SEP warning signal than current catalog-based speed fits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-instrument observational study of a CME on 2021 May 7, tracked continuously from the low corona (SDO/AIA 193 Å), through the gap region (COSMO K-Cor), to the middle/outer corona (LASCO C2 and C3). Using the authors' Wavetrack code, they segment and track the evolving eruptive front in each instrument, overlay the detected features across instruments (Fig. 5), and measure plane-of-sky velocity fields with FLCT, Lucas-Kanade, and Horn-Schunck methods. The central physical claim is that the white-light front seen in K-Cor and LASCO C2 is the CME's pile-up compression region, that this front is co-spatial with the EUV wave observed in AIA, and that a leading shock had not yet detached by roughly 3 solar radii. Secondary claims concern the tool's utility for building machine-learning training sets and the existence of a continuous observational link across the low-to-middle corona gap.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides rare, continuous observations that directly connect an EUV wave, a white-light pile-up front, and the early CME in the difficult 1–3 Rsun height range. The Wavetrack extension to multiple instruments is a useful methodological contribution with potential for automated training-set generation. The paper also makes an honest effort to compare velocity estimates against external catalogs (CACTus, CDAW) and to report the spread among optical-flow methods. However, the main interpretive conclusion rests on a qualitative visual overlay rather than a quantitative co-location test, and the velocity analysis shows order-of-magnitude disagreements that are resolved by choosing the method that agrees with catalogs rather than by independent validation. These issues need to be addressed before the physical interpretation can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Fig. 5] The central claim that the K-Cor/C2 white-light front is the same physical structure as the AIA EUV front is supported only by the visual overlay in Fig. 5 and qualitative statements ('excellent match', 'match well'). The segmentation parameters (base images, wavelet scales, thresholds) are hand-selected (§2.1), and for a near-limb eruption any large expanding quasi-circular feature centered near the source will overlap substantially in projection. Please provide a quantitative co-location metric—e.g., overlap fraction of the Wavetrack masks as a function of time, mean separation between detected front contours, or angular cross-correlation—and demonstrate that the segmentation does not latch onto the dimming region, the driver blob, or streamer material. Without this, the pile-up interpretation is not uniquely established.
  2. [§4.3, Figs. 8–9] The LASCO C2 plane-of-sky speeds reported by the three methods differ by a factor of roughly 5: FLCT and Lucas-Kanade give ~100–200 km/s, Horn-Schunck gives 470–850 km/s, and the center-of-mass estimate gives 900–1100 km/s. The text states that HS is preferred because it agrees with the CACTus and CDAW catalogs. This is not an independent validation of the method, and the large spread is left unexplained. Please report formal uncertainties, investigate the sensitivity to cadence and missing timesteps, validate the methods on synthetic data with known velocities, or at least quantify how the choice of method affects the conclusion that the K-Cor and C2 fronts are kinematically consistent.
  3. [§4.2, Fig. 2] One of the two observational supports for the pile-up compression interpretation is that the K-Cor front 'becomes thicker in time', but no width measurement is presented. This is a qualitative impression. Please measure the radial thickness of the front as a function of position angle and time (e.g., from base-difference intensity profiles), and compare its evolution with simple expectations for a pile-up region versus an expanding loop. As written, this supporting argument cannot be independently assessed.
  4. [§4.3, §5] The event originates at N17E78, close to the limb. The paper acknowledges projection effects as a general problem (§1) but does not estimate their impact on the co-location or speed measurements for this specific event. For a dome-shaped front seen near the limb, line-of-sight integration can broaden or shift the apparent front, which directly affects both the thickness claim and the cross-instrument overlay. Please include a quantitative assessment of projection effects (e.g., a simple forward model or comparison with a 3D reconstruction) or justify why they are negligible for this event.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1, §2.2] Typos: 'Originaly' should be 'Originally'; 'Lukas-Kanade' should be 'Lucas-Kanade'; 'Horn-Schunk' should be 'Horn-Schunck' (including in the abstract and §2.2).
  2. [§2.1] The choice of base-image averaging windows and threshold intervals is said to be 'determined by visual inspection'. Please state whether the results are sensitive to these choices, or add a robustness test for at least the AIA and K-Cor segmentations.
  3. [§4.3] The 'significant gap between the third and fourth LASCO C2 observation' due to an observing-mode switch is mentioned but not clearly marked in Fig. 8. Please indicate the gap in the figure or in the corresponding time axis.
  4. [References] Several references contain formatting typos, e.g., 'Astron. Astrophys.p' (Hutton & Morgan, Tripathi & Raouafi). Please proofread the reference list.
  5. [Fig. 5 and §4.2] The color labels in the caption of Fig. 5 use inconsistent hyphenation ('AIA, yellow - K-Cor, Purple - LASCO C2'), and the text in §4.2 refers to 'magenta' while the figure caption says 'purple'. Please harmonize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the white-light compression-region conclusion is an interpretive inference from independent Wavetrack segmentations and external velocity checks, not a reduction to fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational rather than parametric. Wavetrack segmentation produces feature masks in each instrument using wavelet decomposition and thresholding (§2.1); the masks are overlaid in Fig. 5 and compared morphologically (§4.2); velocities are estimated with FLCT/HS/LK and a center-of-mass method, then cross-checked against the independent CACTus and CDAW catalogs (§4.3). The central claim—that the K-Cor/LASCO C2 white-light front is the pile-up compression region behind a compressive/shock wave—is supported by the reported overlap and the qualitative thickening of the K-Cor front, not by any equation that defines the conclusion in terms of the inputs. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then renamed a prediction. The self-citations (Stepanyuk et al. 2022 for Wavetrack; prior Kozarev studies) supply the tracking software and context, not the load-bearing physical result, and the software is publicly available. The possible weakness that cross-instrument identity is established by visual overlay rather than a quantitative co-location metric is an evidentiary/correctness concern, not circularity. Hence no circular step can be quoted and score 0.

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

The central morphological claim rests on the Wavetrack segmentation pipeline, which has hand-selected thresholds and reference images, and on the interpretation of EUV and pB white-light signatures as the same compressive structure. The kinematic claims rest on optical-flow assumptions (brightness constancy) that the authors themselves note are violated by LASCO C2 cadence. No new physical entities are introduced; all support comes from standard coronal diagnostics.

free parameters (4)
  • AIA intensity threshold interval = (-50, 150)
    Hand-selected in Section 2.1 to narrow the dynamic range of AIA base-difference images; determines which pixels enter the segmentation.
  • AIA recomposition wavelet scales = scales 3 and 4
    Chosen in Section 2.1 for AIA image recomposition; a tunable setting that affects the shape and extent of the tracked front.
  • Base-image averaging window = 3-5 consecutive timesteps, 2-5 min before event onset
    Chosen 'by visual inspection' separately for each instrument (Section 2.1); the difference reference controls what is enhanced as moving signal.
  • Velocity estimator for LASCO C2 = Horn-Schunck selected over FLCT and Lucas-Kanade
    Section 4.3 adopts Horn-Schunck because it agrees with CACTus (754 km/s) and CDAW (625 km/s) catalog speeds; a hand-made method choice that sets the reported C2 speeds.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Wavelet decomposition and base-difference subtraction enhance the true eruptive front relative to the static background.
    Core premise of the Wavetrack pipeline (Section 2.1); if the processed signature is not the physical front, all cross-instrument feature comparisons are compromised.
  • domain assumption Plane-of-sky projection adequately represents CME kinematics for this near-limb (N17E78) event.
    All velocities are projected onto the plane of the sky (Section 4.3); projection is cited as a general problem in Section 1 but is not corrected or quantified here.
  • standard math Bright K-Cor pB signal traces electron density compression via Thomson scattering.
    Standard coronagraph physics assumed when interpreting the white-light front as a pile-up of compressed plasma (Sections 2.1, 4.2).
  • standard math Brightness constancy holds between consecutive images for the optical-flow estimators.
    FLCT, Lucas-Kanade, and Horn-Schunck rely on brightness-pattern persistence (Section 2.2); the authors note variable cadence and missing timesteps violate this for LASCO C2 (Section 4.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Instrument Observations and Tracking of a Coronal Mass Ejection Front From Low to Middle Corona." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PE5PBGN

@misc{pith2026250818867,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Instrument Observations and Tracking of a Coronal Mass Ejection Front From Low to Middle Corona},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PE5PBGN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18867}
}
read the original abstract

The shape and dynamics of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) vary significantly based on the instrument and wavelength used. This has led to significant debate about the proper definitions of CME/shock fronts, pile-up/compression regions, and cores observations in projection in optically thin vs. optically thick emission. Here we present an observational analysis of the evolving shape and kinematics of a large-scale CME that occurred on May 7, 2021 on the eastern limb of the Sun as seen from 1 au. The eruption was observed continuously, consecutively by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) telescope suite on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), the ground-based COronal Solar Magnetism Observatory (COSMO) K-coronagraph (K-Cor) on Mauna Loa, and the C2 and C3 telescopes of the Large Angle Solar Coronagraph (LASCO) on the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SoHO). We apply the updated multi-instument version of the recently developed Wavetrack Python suite for automated detection and tracking of coronal eruptive features to evaluate and compare the evolving shape of the CME front as it propagated from the solar surface out to 20 solar radii. Our tool allows tracking features beyond just the leading edge and is an important step towards semi-automatic manufacturing of training sets for training data-driven image segmentation models for solar imaging. Our findings confirm the expected strong connection between EUV waves and CMEs. Our novel, detailed analysis sheds observational light on the details of EUV wave-shock-CME relations that is lacking for the gap region between the low and middle corona.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18867 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Six split panels showing the development of the EUV wave in base difference AIA images (left sides) and the Wavetrack-detected features (right sides). the corresponding integral 193-channel images with inverted greyscale color map at the same time. The middle panels show K-Cor features (in yellow) added to the AIA features, again overlaid on integral AIA images. The bottom two panels also show the C2 features, while… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison of the feature morphologies from the different instruments. Green is AIA, yellow - K-Cor, Purple - LASCO C2. feature show lower speeds of up to 400 km/s. The directions of motion within the feature (left half-panels) confirm the extensive southward expansi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For the same times as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Velocity field as calculated by Horn-Schunk algorithm for the LASCO C2 coronagraph observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spectrogram plots showing the plane-of-sky speed distributions for the Wavetrack features estimated with the FLCT method in the four instruments. Time is on the X-axis, speed on the Y-axis, and the color coding represents the logarithm of the histogram density values.…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key month note number numpages organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or or or or FUNCTION n.separate 't := "" #0 'numnames := t empty not t #-1 #1 subs...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Attrill , G. D. R., L. K. Harra , L. van Driel-Gesztelyi , and P. D \'e moulin , 2007. Coronal ``Wave'': Magnetic Footprint of a Coronal Mass Ejection? The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 656, L101--L104. 10.1086/512854

    doi:10.1086/512854 2007

  4. [4]

    Balmaceda , L. A., A. Vourlidas , G. Stenborg , and A. Dal Lago , 2018. How Reliable Are the Properties of Coronal Mass Ejections Measured from a Single iewpoint? Astrophys. J., 863(1), 57. 10.3847/1538-4357/aacff8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacff8 2018

  5. [5]

    Barnes, W. T., M. C. M. Cheung, M. G. Bobra, P. F. Boerner, G. Chintzoglou, et al., 2020. aiapy: A Python Package for Analyzing Solar EUV Image Data from AIA. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(55), 2801. 10.21105/joss.02801, ://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02801

    doi:10.21105/joss.02801 2020

  6. [6]

    Biesecker , D. A., D. C. Myers , B. J. Thompson , D. M. Hammer , and A. Vourlidas , 2002. Solar Phenomena Associated with ``EIT Waves'' . Astrophys. J., 569(2), 1009--1015. 10.1086/339402

    doi:10.1086/339402 2002

  7. [7]

    Brueckner , G. E., R. A. Howard , M. J. Koomen , C. M. Korendyke , D. J. Michels , et al., 1995. The Large Angle Spectroscopic Coronagraph (LASCO) . Sol. Phys., 162(1-2), 357--402. 10.1007/BF00733434

    doi:10.1007/bf00733434 1995

  8. [8]

    Byrne, J., D. Long, P. Gallagher, D. Bloomfield, S. Maloney, R. McAteer, H. Morgan, and S. R. Habbal, 2013. Improved methods for determining the kinematics of coronal mass ejections and coronal waves. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 557, A96

    work page 2013

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Cane , H. V., W. C. Erickson , R. J. Hanisch , and P. J. Turner , 1981. Observations of rich clusters of galaxies at metre wavelengths. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 196, 409--415. 10.1093/mnras/196.3.409

    1981 doi

  2. [10]

    F., 2006

    Chen , P. F., 2006. The Relation between EIT Waves and Solar Flares . The Astrophysical Journal, Letters, 641(2), L153--L156. 10.1086/503868

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    F., 2009

    Chen , P. F., 2009. The Relation Between EIT Waves and Coronal Mass Ejections . The Astrophysical Journal, Letters, 698(2), L112--L115. 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/L112, 0905.3272

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chen , P. F., S. T. Wu , K. Shibata , and C. Fang , 2002. Evidence of EIT and Moreton Waves in Numerical Simulations . The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 572, L99--L102. 10.1086/341486

    2002 doi

  5. [13]

    Zhang , B

    Cheng , X., J. Zhang , B. Kliem , T. T \"o r \"o k , C. Xing , Z. J. Zhou , B. Inhester , and M. D. Ding , 2020. Initiation and Early Kinematic Evolution of Solar Eruptions . Astrophys. J., 894(2), 85. 10.3847/1538-4357/ab886a, 2004.03790

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Auch \`e re , J

    Dai , Y., F. Auch \`e re , J. C. Vial , Y. H. Tang , and W. G. Zong , 2010. Large-scale Extreme-Ultraviolet Disturbances Associated with a Limb Coronal Mass Ejection . Astrophys. J., 708(2), 913--919. 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/913

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    Delaboudini \`e re , J. P., G. E. Artzner , J. Brunaud , A. H. Gabriel , J. F. Hochedez , et al., 1995. EIT: Extreme-Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope for the SOHO Mission . Sol. Phys., 162(1-2), 291--312. 10.1007/BF00733432

    1995 doi

  8. [16]

    H., and B

    Fisher , G. H., and B. T. Welsch , 2008. FLCT: A Fast, Efficient Method for Performing Local Correlation Tracking . In R. Howe , R. W. Komm , K. S. Balasubramaniam , and G. J. D. Petrie , eds., Subsurface and Atmospheric Influences on Solar Activity, vol. 383 of Astronomical S...

    2008

  9. [17]

    T., and D

    Gallagher , P. T., and D. M. Long , 2010. Large-scale Bright Fronts in the Solar Corona: A Review of ''EIT waves'' . Space Sci. Rev., 135--+. 10.1007/s11214-010-9710-7

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Hanaoka , and H

    Gopalswamy , N., Y. Hanaoka , and H. S. Hudson , 2000. Structure and Dynamics of the Corona Surrounding an Eruptive Prominence . Advances in Space Research, 25(9), 1851--1854. 10.1016/S0273-1177(99)00597-9

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    K., and B

    Horn, B. K., and B. G. Schunck, 1981. Determining optical flow. Artificial Intelligence, 17(1), 185--203. Https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(81)90024-2, ://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004370281900242

    1981

  12. [20]

    Cheung , C

    Hurlburt , N., M. Cheung , C. Schrijver , L. Chang , S. Freeland , et al., 2012. Heliophysics Event Knowledgebase for the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) and Beyond . Sol. Phys., 275(1-2), 67--78. 10.1007/s11207-010-9624-2, 1008.1291

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Morgan , 2017

    Hutton , J., and H. Morgan , 2017. Automated detection of coronal mass ejections in three-dimensions using multi-viewpoint observations . Astron. Astrophys.p, 599, A68. 10.1051/0004-6361/201629516, 1612.04560

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D., and N

    Joshi , A. D., and N. Srivastava , 2011. Acceleration of Coronal Mass Ejections from Three-dimensional Reconstruction of STEREO Images . Astrophys. J., 739(1), 8. 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/8, 1107.1769

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Park , H

    Kim , T., E. Park , H. Lee , Y.-J. Moon , S.-H. Bae , et al., 2019. Solar farside magnetograms from deep learning analysis of STEREO/EUVI data . Nature Astronomy, 3, 397--400. 10.1038/s41550-019-0711-5

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Aurass , G

    Klassen , A., H. Aurass , G. Mann , and B. J. Thompson , 2000. Catalogue of the 1997 SOHO-EIT coronal transient waves and associated type II radio burst spectra . Astronomy & Astrophysics, Supplement, 141, 357--369. 10.1051/aas:2000125

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    Kozarev , K. A., A. Davey , A. Kendrick , M. Hammer , and C. Keith , 2017. The Coronal Analysis of SHocks and Waves (CASHeW) framework. J. Space Weather Space Clim., 7, A32. 10.1051/swsc/2017028, ://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2017028

    2017

  18. [26]

    Kozarev , K. A., M. A. Dayeh , and A. Farahat , 2019. Early-stage Solar Energetic Particle Acceleration by Coronal Mass Ejection-driven Shocks with Realistic Seed Spectra. I. Low Corona . The Astrophysical Journal, 871(1), 65. 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1ce

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Kozarev , K. A., K. E. Korreck , V. V. Lobzin , M. A. Weber , and N. A. Schwadron , 2011. Off-limb Solar Coronal Wavefronts from SDO/AIA Extreme-ultraviolet Observations --- Implications for Particle Production . The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 733, L25. 10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L25

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Kozarev , K. A., J. C. Raymond , V. V. Lobzin , and M. Hammer , 2015. Properties of a Coronal Shock Wave as A Driver of Early SEP Acceleration . The Astrophysical Journal, 799(2), 167. 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/167

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    A., and N

    Kozarev , K. A., and N. A. Schwadron , 2016. A Data-driven Analytic Model for Proton Acceleration by Large-scale Solar Coronal Shocks . The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 120. 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/120

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Lemen , J. R., A. M. Title , D. J. Akin , P. F. Boerner , C. Chou , et al., 2012. The Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) . Solar Physics, 275, 17--40. 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Zhu , 2013

    Li , R., and J. Zhu , 2013. Solar flare forecasting based on sequential sunspot data . Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13(9), 1118-1126. 10.1088/1674-4527/13/9/010

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    Long , D. M., D. S. Bloomfield , P. F. Chen , C. Downs , P. T. Gallagher , et al., 2017. Understanding the Physical Nature of Coronal ``EIT Waves'' . Sol. Phys., 292(1), 7. 10.1007/s11207-016-1030-y, 1611.05505

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Long , D. M., D. S. Bloomfield , P. T. Gallagher , and D. P \'e rez-Su \'a rez , 2014. CorPITA: An Automated Algorithm for the Identification and Analysis of Coronal ''EIT Waves'' . Solar Physics, 289, 3279--3295. 10.1007/s11207-014-0527-5

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    L \"o ptien, B., A. C. Birch, T. L. Duvall, L. Gizon, and J. Schou, 2016. Data compression for local correlation tracking of solar granulation. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 587, A9

    2016

  27. [35]

    D., and T

    Lucas, B. D., and T. Kanade, 1981. An iterative image registration technique with an application to stereo vision. In IJCAI'81: 7th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, vol. 2, 674--679

    1981

  28. [36]

    Patel , V

    Majumdar , S., R. Patel , V. Pant , and D. Banerjee , 2021. An Insight into the Coupling of CME Kinematics in Inner and Outer Corona and the Imprint of Source Regions . Astrophys. J., 919(2), 115. 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1592, 2107.08198

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Turbulent dynamics in solar flare sheet structures measured with local correlation tracking

    McKenzie, D., 2013. Turbulent dynamics in solar flare sheet structures measured with local correlation tracking. The Astrophysical Journal, 766(1), 39

    2013

  30. [38]

    Davila , W

    Mierla , M., J. Davila , W. Thompson , B. Inhester , N. Srivastava , M. Kramar , O. C. St. Cyr , G. Stenborg , and R. A. Howard , 2008. A Quick Method for Estimating the Propagation Direction of Coronal Mass Ejections Using STEREO-COR1 Images . Sol. Phys., 252(2), 385--396. 10...

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    E., 1960

    Moreton , G. E., 1960. H Observations of Flare-Initiated Disturbances with Velocities \ 1000 km/sec. Astron. J., 65, 494. 10.1086/108346

    1960 doi

  32. [40]

    E., and H

    Moreton , G. E., and H. E. Ramsey , 1960. Recent Observations of Dynamical Phenomena Associated with Solar Flares . Pub. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 72(428), 357. 10.1086/127549

    1960 doi

  33. [41]

    Morgan , H., S. R. Habbal , and R. Woo , 2006. The Depiction of Coronal Structure in White-Light Images . Sol. Phys., 236(2), 263--272. 10.1007/s11207-006-0113-6, astro-ph/0602174

    2006 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Pant , P

    Patel , R., V. Pant , P. Iyer , D. Banerjee , M. Mierla , and M. J. West , 2021. Automated Detection of Accelerating Solar Eruptions Using Parabolic Hough Transform . Sol. Phys., 296(2), 31. 10.1007/s11207-021-01770-z, 2010.14786

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Vourlidas , Y

    Patsourakos , S., A. Vourlidas , Y. M. Wang , G. Stenborg , and A. Thernisien , 2009. What Is the Nature of EUV Waves? First STEREO 3D Observations and Comparison with Theoretical Models . Solar Physics, 259, 49--71. 10.1007/s11207-009-9386-x

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    Pesnell , W. D., B. J. Thompson , and P. C. Chamberlin , 2012. The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) . Sol. Phys., 275(1-2), 3--15. 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    Reiner , M. J., M. L. Kaiser , J. Fainberg , and R. G. Stone , 1999. Remote radio tracking of CMEs in the solar corona and interplanetary medium . In S. R. Habbal , R. Esser , J. V. Hollweg , and P. A. Isenberg , eds., Solar Wind Nine, vol. 471 of American Institute of Physics...

    1999 doi

  38. [46]

    Warren, J

    Sheeley Jr, N., H. Warren, J. Lee, S. Chung, J. Katz, and M. Namkung, 2014. Using running difference images to track proper motions of XUV coronal intensity on the Sun. The Astrophysical Journal, 797(2), 131

    2014

  39. [47]

    St. Cyr , O. C., A. Posner , and J. T. Burkepile , 2017. Solar energetic particle warnings from a coronagraph . Space Weather, 15(1), 240--257. 10.1002/2016SW001545

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    Kozarev , and M

    Stepanyuk , O., K. Kozarev , and M. Nedal , 2022. Multi-scale image preprocessing and feature tracking for remote CME characterization . Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 12, 20. 10.1051/swsc/2022020, 2205.15088

    2022

  41. [49]

    Su, Y., A. M. Veronig, G. D. Holman, B. R. Dennis, T. Wang, M. Temmer, and W. Gan, 2013. Imaging coronal magnetic-field reconnection in a solar flare. Nature Physics, 9(8), 489--493

    2013

  42. [50]

    Szenicer , A., D. F. Fouhey , A. Munoz-Jaramillo , P. J. Wright , R. Thomas , R. Galvez , M. Jin , and M. C. M. Cheung , 2019. A deep learning virtual instrument for monitoring extreme UV solar spectral irradiance . Science Advances, 5(10), eaaw6548. 10.1126/sciadv.aaw6548

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    Telloni , D., G. P. Zank , M. Stangalini , C. Downs , H. Liang , et al., 2022. Observation of a Magnetic Switchback in the Solar Corona . Astrophys. J. Lett., 936(2), L25. 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8104, 2206.03090

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Temmer , M., A. M. Veronig , B. Vr s nak , J. Ryb \'a k , P. G \"o m \"o ry , S. Stoiser , and D. Mari c i \'c , 2008. Acceleration in Fast Halo CMEs and Synchronized Flare HXR Bursts . The Astrophysical Journal, Letters, 673(1), L95. 10.1086/527414

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    The SunPy Community , W. T. Barnes, M. G. Bobra, S. D. Christe, N. Freij, et al., 2020. The SunPy Project: Open Source Development and Status of the Version 1.0 Core Package. The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 68--. 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f7a, ://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/...

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    Vourlidas , and R

    Thernisien , A., A. Vourlidas , and R. A. Howard , 2009. Forward Modeling of Coronal Mass Ejections Using STEREO/SECCHI Data . Sol. Phys., 256(1-2), 111--130. 10.1007/s11207-009-9346-5

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    Thompson , B. J., S. P. Plunkett , J. B. Gurman , J. S. Newmark , O. C. St. Cyr , and D. J. Michels , 1998. SOHO/EIT observations of an Earth-directed coronal mass ejection on May 12, 1997 . Geophysical Review Letters, 25, 2465--2468. 10.1029/98GL50429

    1998 doi

  48. [56]

    Burkepile , A

    Tomczyk , S., J. Burkepile , A. De Wijn , S. Gibson , H. Gilbert , et al., 2022. The Coronal Solar Magnetism Observatory . In The Third Triennial Earth-Sun Summit (TESS, vol. 54, 2022n7i121p01

    2022

  49. [57]

    Tripathi , D., and N. E. Raouafi , 2007. On the relationship between coronal waves associated with a CME on 5 March 2000 . Astron. Astrophys.p, 473(3), 951--957. 10.1051/0004-6361:20077255

    2007 doi

  50. [58]

    Propagation of Hydromagnetic Disturbances in the Solar Corona and Moreton's Wave Phenomenon

    Uchida , Y., 1968. Propagation of Hydromagnetic Disturbances in the Solar Corona and Moreton's Wave Phenomenon . Sol. Phys., 4(1), 30--44. 10.1007/BF00146996

    1968 doi

  51. [59]

    Behaviour of the Flare-Produced Coronal MHD Wavefront and the Occurrence of Type II Radio Bursts

    Uchida , Y., 1974. Behaviour of the Flare-Produced Coronal MHD Wavefront and the Occurrence of Type II Radio Bursts . Sol. Phys., 39(2), 431--449. 10.1007/BF00162436

    1974 doi

  52. [60]

    Veronig , A. M., N. Muhr , I. W. Kienreich , M. Temmer , and B. Vr s nak , 2010. First Observations of a Dome-shaped Large-scale Coronal Extreme-ultraviolet Wave . The Astrophysical Journal, Letters, 716(1), L57--L62. 10.1088/2041-8205/716/1/L57, 1005.2060

    2010 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Vourlidas, A., B. J. Lynch, R. A. Howard, and Y. Li, 2013. How many CMEs have flux ropes? Deciphering the signatures of shocks, flux ropes, and prominences in coronagraph observations of CMEs. Solar Physics, 284(1), 179--201

    2013

  54. [62]

    Ruzdjak , P

    Vrsnak , B., V. Ruzdjak , P. Zlobec , and H. Aurass , 1995. Ignition of MHD Shocks Associated with Solar Flares . Sol. Phys., 158(2), 331--351. 10.1007/BF00795667

    1995 doi

  55. [63]

    Vahala , and L

    Wang , T., G. Vahala , and L. Vahala , 2009. Scalar Magnetic Field Distribution Function Approach to MHD Turbulence . In APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Abstracts, vol. 51 of APS Meeting Abstracts, BP8.057

    2009

  56. [64]

    F., and T

    Webb , D. F., and T. A. Howard , 2012. Coronal Mass Ejections: Observations . Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 3

    2012

  57. [65]

    Welsch , B. T., G. H. Fisher , W. P. Abbett , and S. Regnier , 2004. ILCT: Recovering Photospheric Velocities from Magnetograms by Combining the Induction Equation with Local Correlation Tracking . The Astrophysical Journal, 610(2), 1148--1156. 10.1086/421767

    2004 doi

  58. [66]

    P., and L

    Wild , J. P., and L. L. McCready , 1950. Observations of the Spectrum of High-Intensity Solar Radiation at Metre Wavelengths. I. The Apparatus and Spectral Types of Solar Burst Observed . Australian Journal of Scientific Research A Physical Sciences, 3, 387. 10.1071/CH9500387

    1950 doi

  59. [67]

    Zhang , J., and K. P. Dere , 2006. A Statistical Study of Main and Residual Accelerations of Coronal Mass Ejections . Astrophys. J., 649(2), 1100--1109. 10.1086/506903

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.