Multi-waveband detection of quasi-periodic pulsations in a stellar flare on EK Draconis observed by XMM-Newton

A.E.L. Thomas; A.-M. Broomhall; C.E. Pugh; J.P. Pye; S.R. Rosen

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Multi-waveband detection of quasi-periodic pulsations in a stellar flare on EK Draconis observed by XMM-Newton

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stellar X-ray flare pulses every 76 minutes, with harder X-rays leading.

desk verdict Solid QPP detection on EK Dra, but the headline energy-dependent period and phase differences rest on a stationary-sinusoid fit to a signal the paper itself shows is drifting; the Neupert conclusion is a suggestion, not a result. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06033 v1 pith:B4PHOURG submitted 2019-08-16 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

A.-M. Broomhall , A.E.L. Thomas , C.E. Pugh , J.P. Pye , S.R. Rosen This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE

keywords quasi-periodicpulsationsstellarflaresEKDraconissolaranalogueX-raywaveletanalysisNeuperteffectXMM-Newton

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 reports quasi-periodic pulsations (QPPs) — periodic brightness variations during a flare — in the X-ray light curve of the young solar analogue EK Draconis. It finds a statistically significant ~76-minute periodicity in the full 0.2–12 keV band and, when the band is split, a ~73-minute period at low energies and an ~82-minute period at high energies. The high-energy signal leads the low-energy signal by a phase difference of 1.8±0.2 rad and a cross-correlation offset of more than 3σ, with the quoted offset being 4.1±1.3 min in the abstract and 4.7±1.3 min from the Monte Carlo median. The authors argue this energy-dependent lag is consistent with the Neupert effect, suggesting the QPPs arise from modulation of the propagation speeds or acceleration of charged particles rather than from direct modulation of the X-ray intensity. They also note that the wavelet ridge drifts in period with time, so the uncertainties from the stationary-sinusoid fits may be underestimated.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the detrended flare residuals, obtained by subtracting an exponential decay (Eq. 1), and the exponentially and Gaussian decaying sinusoids (Eqs. 2 and 3) that are fitted to those residuals to extract the QPP period, damping time, and phase. The Morlet wavelet transform, global wavelet spectrum, autocorrelation, and cross-correlation of the residuals in different energy bands supply the period and phase measurements and the assessment of significance. The paper's interpretive mechanism is the Neupert effect: the observed high-energy lead is what would be expected if hard X-ray pulses track the time derivative of the soft X-ray emission, implying that the QPP modulates charged-particle propagation speeds or acceleration rather than modulating the X-ray intensity directly.

What would settle it

Compute the QPP period separately in the first and second halves of the 190-minute window; if the periods differ by more than the quoted ±2-minute uncertainties, the stationary-sinusoid model is rejected and the reported low- and high-band period and phase differences become suspect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that EK Draconis, a young Sun-like star, exhibited quasi-periodic pulsations in a large X-ray flare, with a period of 76±2 min in the 0.2–12.0 keV band. When the data are split into congruent energy bands, the fitted period is 73±2 min in the low-energy band (0.2–1.0 keV) and 82±2 min in the high-energy band (1.0–12.0 keV); the paper quantifies the period difference as significant at more than 3σ and the phase difference as significant at 9σ, with the high-energy band leading. The first peak of the cross-correlation of the detrended residuals is offset from zero by more than 3σ. The paper interprets this energy-dependent lead as evidence for the Neupert effect: high-energy X-ray emission tracks the derivative of the lower-energy emission, which in the QPP context would mean the periodic modulation acts on charged-particle propagation or acceleration. The paper also acknowledges that the wavelet peaks are broad, that the ridge of maximum power drifts from about 70 min to 77–82 min over 190 minutes, and that the period difference obtained from the wavelet spectra alone is not significant.

Load-bearing premise

The fit's quoted period, phase, and their uncertainties assume the pulsation is a stationary decaying sinusoid, yet the wavelet analysis itself shows the period drifts from about 70 to 77–82 minutes; if the signal is non-stationary, the small error bars and the claimed 3σ/9σ differences are not reliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If QPPs in stellar X-ray flares are governed by the same physics as solar flares, EK Draconis becomes a nearby laboratory for studying the solar–stellar connection in flare physics.
Energy-dependent period and phase lags can serve as a diagnostic for whether a flare's pulsations are driven by particle-beam modulation (Neupert-like) rather than by direct modulation of the emitting plasma.
The observed 76-minute period lies within the 9–90 minute range found in Kepler white-light stellar flares, supporting a common mechanism across wavelength regimes.
The period-damping relation from Pugh et al. (2016) predicts a damping time consistent with the measured Gaussian damping value, so the QPP decays no faster or slower than other stellar QPPs.
Observing more stellar X-ray flares in multiple energy bands should reveal whether EK Dra-like energy-dependent leads are common or unique.

Reading between the lines

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

My extension: if the period drift shown by the wavelet ridge is real, the reported period values and their small error bars should be treated with caution; a chirp model might absorb part of the apparent low- versus high-energy difference.
My extension: the Neupert interpretation predicts that a flare observed simultaneously in hard X-rays above 12 keV would show a high-energy pulse leading the soft-X-ray pulse by roughly the same ~4-minute offset, a testable prediction for future observations.
My extension: the fact that the high-energy band has both a longer period and a leading phase is not naturally explained by the Neupert effect alone; a sharper test would compare the shape of the low-energy pulse with the time derivative of the high-energy pulse.
My extension: reanalysing archival XMM-Newton flares of other young solar analogues with the same split-band procedure would show whether the ~76-minute period and energy-dependent lead are universal properties or specific to this flare.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the QPP detection itself is credible, and the multi-band comparison is new for this star, but the energy-dependent period and phase claims are softer than the abstract implies.

What the paper does well: the detection is supported by multiple independent methods — wavelet transforms with white- and red-noise significance, Fisher randomization, autocorrelation, and model fits. The periods are broadly consistent across methods for the total band. The authors also do the honest work of testing both exponential and Gaussian damping, reporting which is more stable, and they explicitly note when the wavelet periods are not significantly different between bands. The consistency with MOS data adds confidence.

The soft spot is the load-bearing one. The wavelet ridges drift from about 70 min at t=0 to 77–82 min at t=190 min, meaning the QPP period is not stationary over the fit window. The authors fit a stationary decaying sinusoid anyway (Eqs. 2 and 3), and their Monte Carlo uncertainties propagate only noise under that exact model, not the model misspecification. The 3σ period difference between the two bands collapses when you look at the global wavelet peaks: 74±16 min and 77±17 min are completely consistent. The 9σ phase difference may be similarly inflated, since phase and period are correlated in the fits. The low-energy full-flare period (73±2 min) versus the residual period (79±2 min) shows how much the answer depends on the detrending step. The authors acknowledge much of this in Section 5, which is to their credit, but the abstract still leads with the 3σ and 9σ claims.

One minor issue: the cross-correlation offset is 4.1±1.3 min in the abstract and 4.7±1.3 min in Section 4.2. Sloppy, but not damaging. The Neupert-effect interpretation is plausible but it is one step beyond what the data establish.

Who this is for: anyone working on stellar QPPs or coronal seismology. The detection on a young solar analogue is worth having; the phase-lag claim is a useful hypothesis-generating observation if framed as tentative.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. A competent referee can handle the over-claim by asking the authors to either soften the abstract or re-analyze with a time-varying period model. Worth engaging, not desk-reject material.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes an XMM-Newton EPIC-pn observation of a stellar flare on the young solar analogue EK Draconis and reports quasi-periodic pulsations (QPPs) in the X-ray light curve. The authors detect a significant QPP with period 76±2 min in the total 0.2–12.0 keV band, and, after splitting the data, periods of 73±2 min (0.2–1.0 keV) and 82±2 min (1.0–12.0 keV). They also report a significant phase difference of 1.8±0.2 rad and a cross-correlation peak offset of 4.7±1.3 min between the two bands, with the high-energy band leading, and interpret these as possible evidence for the Neupert effect. The detection methodology combines exponential background detrending, sinusoidal model fits, wavelet analysis, autocorrelation, Monte Carlo uncertainty estimation, Fisher randomization, and red-noise significance testing.

Significance. If the multi-waveband period and phase differences are real, this would be a rare stellar observation capable of linking QPP physics to energy-dependent emission mechanisms and the Neupert effect, with implications for the solar–stellar connection. The basic QPP detection is well supported: it is confirmed by wavelet significance under white- and red-noise assumptions, by Fisher randomization, by autocorrelation, and by consistent periods from model fits. However, the load-bearing energy-dependence claims rest on stationary-sinusoid fits whose uncertainties the authors themselves state may be underestimated because the wavelet ridge shows period drift. The paper contains a clear, acknowledged tension between the model-fit uncertainties and the broad, drifting wavelet peaks, and that tension must be resolved before the Neupert interpretation can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Sects. 4.1, 4.2, and 5, Eqs. (2)–(3)] The claimed 3σ period difference and 9σ phase difference between the two energy bands are extracted by fitting a stationary decaying sinusoid (Eqs. 2 and 3), but the paper's own wavelet analysis shows the instantaneous period drifts: from 70 to 77 min in the total band, from 68 to 79 min in the low-energy band, and from 70 to 82 min in the high-energy band. Section 4.1 explicitly states that the uncertainties on the fitted period may be underestimated, and Section 5 repeats this concern. The Monte Carlo uncertainties in Tables 3 and 5 propagate only random noise under the exact stationary model; they do not account for this model misspecification. The 3σ and 9σ claims are therefore not robust until a drifting-period model is fitted or the significance statements are revised to match the non-significant wavelet period difference.
[Sect. 4.2 and Table 5] The period difference between the low- and high-energy bands is presented as significant in the model fits (73±2 min versus 82±2 min), but the global wavelet periods are 74±16 min and 77±17 min, which the authors themselves state are not significantly different. Since the wavelet analysis is the method that explicitly tests period stability, and since it does not support a significant period difference, the abstract's presentation of the period difference as a headline result overstates the evidence. The conclusion should be reframed to emphasize that the period difference is a model-dependent, marginally supported effect rather than a robust multi-method detection.
[Sect. 4.2 and Table 5] The low-energy full-flare fit gives a period of 73±2 min, whereas the low-energy residual fit gives 79±2 min and the autocorrelation gives 79±2 min. This shows that the fitted period depends on the detrending step, which is not a minor detail: the same detrending step also differs between the energy bands because the flare parameters A0, t0, and C are fitted separately for each band. The possibility that the apparent period difference between bands is an artifact of different detrending is not excluded by the 2D histograms in Appendix C, since those histograms only sample noise under the same stationary model. A sensitivity test that varies the detrending function, or that fits both bands with a common flare-decay model, would be needed to support the claim that the period difference is physical.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Sect. 4.2] The abstract quotes a cross-correlation peak offset of 4.1±1.3 min, while Section 4.2 reports the median offset as 4.7±1.3 min. These values should be reconciled.
[Sect. 4.1 and Tables 3 and 5] The phrase "Histogram fit" in the tables is ambiguous; it should be clarified that this refers to the Gaussian fit to the Monte Carlo histogram of each parameter, as opposed to the median and quartile values.
[Sect. 2 and throughout] The term "congruent energy bands" is non-standard; since 0.2–1.0 keV and 1.0–12.0 keV are not equal in width, "contiguous" or "adjacent" would be a clearer description.
[Eqs. (2)–(4)] The phase convention in the cos(2πt/P + φ) terms should be stated explicitly, including the zero-time reference and the treatment of phase wrapping, because the reported phase difference of 1.8±0.2 rad is a key quantity and its interpretation depends on this convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the QPP detection is self-contained, and the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing external consistency check.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that QPPs are detected in the EK Dra flare and that the period and phase differ between energy bands—is derived directly from the XMM-Newton data using the paper's own analysis steps: detrending with Eq. 1, fitting the decaying sinusoids of Eqs. 2 and 3, wavelet and autocorrelation analysis, cross-correlation, and Monte Carlo uncertainty estimation. These steps are described and executed within the paper, so the derivation does not depend on any prior result for its content. The self-citations (Pugh et al. 2015, 2016) are used for methodology or as an external benchmark. In Sect. 5, the empirical period-damping relation from Pugh et al. (2016), Eq. 5, is used to predict a damping time from the flare's period, but that relation was fitted to an independent sample of Kepler QPP flares, not to EK Dra data, so this is a consistency check rather than a circular prediction. The paper also explicitly acknowledges a potential limitation: the wavelet ridge drifts in period with time, and fitting a stationary sinusoid (Eqs. 2 and 3) may underestimate period uncertainties (Sects. 4.1 and 5). This is a model-misspecification or statistical robustness concern, not circularity, because the fitted periods and phases are compared with independent wavelet and cross-correlation results rather than being defined as the target conclusion. No equation is defined in terms of the target result, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported via self-citation in a load-bearing way. The claimed significance levels may be inflated by the stationary-sinusoid assumption, but that does not make the derivation circular. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All parameters listed are fitted to the observed light curve by least squares; they are standard descriptive parameters of the flare and QPP, not free constants of a physical model. The central novelty, the energy-dependent phase and period difference, depends on the fitted Pe and φe values and on the stationary-sinusoid assumption.

free parameters (13)

A0 (flare amplitude) = 4.12±0.07 counts/s (total); 2.81±0.15 (low); 2.40±0.10 (high)
Amplitude of the exponential decay fit to the flare; fitted by least squares and Monte Carlo.
t0 (e-folding time) = 63.8±1.7 min (total); 56±4 (low); 51±3 (high)
Decay time of the exponential background fit; fitted to the data.
C (quiescent flux) = 3.60±0.02 counts/s (total); 3.30±0.03 (low); 1.08±0.01 (high)
Constant background level; fitted to the data.
Ae (QPP amplitude, exponential) = 0.748±0.011 counts/s (total full-flare fit)
Amplitude of the exponentially decaying sinusoid; fitted to the residuals.
Be (QPP time offset, exponential) = 17.9±6.5 min (total full-flare fit)
Phase offset in time for the exponential sinusoid; fitted.
τe (QPP damping time, exponential) = 88.3±9.4 min (total full-flare fit)
Exponential damping time of the QPP; fitted.
Pe (QPP period, exponential) = 76.1±1.0 min (total); 73±2 (low); 82±2 (high)
Central periodicity of the QPP; the detection and the claimed period difference rest on this fitted parameter.
φe (QPP phase, exponential) = 3.28±0.12 rad (total); 2.8±0.1 (low); 4.0±0.2 (high)
Phase of the decaying sinusoid; the claimed high-band lead rests on the difference in this fitted parameter.
Ag (QPP amplitude, Gaussian) = 0.74±0.15 counts/s (total full-flare fit)
Amplitude of the Gaussian decaying sinusoid; fitted.
τg (QPP damping time, Gaussian) = 110±44 min (total full-flare fit)
Gaussian damping time of the QPP; fitted.
Pg (QPP period, Gaussian) = 76.1±1.2 min (total); 73±2 (low); 82±2 (high)
Period from the Gaussian decaying sinusoid; fitted.
φg (QPP phase, Gaussian) = 3.31±0.10 rad (total); 2.9±0.2 (low); 4.0±0.2 (high)
Phase from the Gaussian decaying sinusoid; fitted.
Bg (QPP time offset, Gaussian) = -17±95 min (total full-flare fit)
Time offset for the Gaussian envelope; fitted.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The flare decay is adequately represented by a single exponential (Eq. 1), so the detrended residuals isolate the QPP plus noise.
Used throughout Sect. 3 to define residuals; if the true background is more complex, the fitted QPP period and phase could be biased.
standard math The wavelet significance tests use a white-noise null hypothesis, with a red-noise hypothesis as an additional check (Torrence & Compo 1998).
Sect. 3; significance levels depend on this assumption, though Fisher randomisation and red-noise tests corroborate.
domain assumption The QPP can be modelled as a stationary exponentially or Gaussian damped sinusoid (Eqs. 2 and 3).
Sect. 4.1; the wavelet ridge shows the period drifts in time, so the stationary-sinusoid assumption is violated and uncertainties may be underestimated.
domain assumption Monte Carlo perturbation of the count rates by Gaussian noise with the formal errors characterizes the parameter uncertainties.
Sect. 3; assumes formal error bars on the count rates are correct and that the least-squares fits converge for simulated data.
ad hoc to paper The cross-correlation of the two energy-band residuals is well described by a Gaussian-damped sinusoid for estimating the peak offset.
Sect. 4.2 and Fig. 5; a modeling choice used to convert the cross-correlation into a peak-lag measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-waveband detection of quasi-periodic pulsations in a stellar flare on EK Draconis observed by XMM-Newton." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B4PHOURG

@misc{pith2026190806033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-waveband detection of quasi-periodic pulsations in a stellar flare on EK Draconis observed by XMM-Newton},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B4PHOURG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06033}
}

read the original abstract

Context. Quasi-periodic pulsations (QPPs) are time variations in the energy emission during a flare that are observed on both the Sun and other stars and thus have the potential to link the physics of solar and stellar flares. Aims. To characterise the QPPs detected in an X-ray flare on the solar analogue, EK Draconis, which was observed by XMM-Newton. Methods. We use wavelet and autocorrelation techniques to identify the QPPs in a detrended version of the flare. We also fit a model to the flare based on an exponential decay combined with a decaying sinusoid. The flare is examined in multiple energy bands. Results. A statistically significant QPP is observed in the X-ray energy band of 0.2-12.0 keV with a periodicity of 76+/-2 min. When this energy band is split, a statistically significant QPP is observed in the low-energy band (0.2-1.0 keV) with a periodicity of 73+/-2 min and in the high-energy band (1.0-12.0 keV) with a periodicity of 82+/-2 min. When fitting a model to the time series the phases of the signals are also found to be significantly different in the two energy bands (with a difference of 1.8+/-0.2 rad) and the high-energy band is found to lead the low-energy band. Furthermore, the first peak in the cross-correlation between the detrended residuals of the low- and high-energy bands is offset from zero by more than 3{\sigma} (4.1+/-1.3 min). Both energy bands produce statistically significant regions in the wavelet spectrum, whose periods are consistent with those listed above. However, the peaks are broad in both the wavelet and global power spectra, with the wavelet showing evidence for a drift in period with time, and the difference in period obtained is not significant. etc...

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06033 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Panel (a): Flare lightcurve (black, solid) and fit to exponential decay (red, dashed). The green, dotted curve shows the exponential-decay component of the combined fit of exponentially decaying QPP and exponential decay (‘full-flare exponential’ fit), while the blue dot-dashed curve shows the exponential-decay component of the combined fit of Gaussian-decaying QPP and exponential decay (‘full-flare Gaussian’ fit). … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Wavelet transform of residuals for total energy band. Black solid contours indicate the standard 99% significance levels, while red dashed contours indicate 99% significance levels modified by the recommendations of Auchère et al. (2016). The white line indicates the ridge of maximum power, which evolves from 70 min at t = 0 min to 77 min at t = 190 min. Black hatching and associated arcs indicate the cone of influe… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Panel (a): Flare lightcurve (black, solid) for low-energy-band data (0.2-1.0 keV). Panel (b): Flare lightcurve (black, solid) for high-energyband data (1.0-12.0 keV). Also plotted in both panels are fits to the lightcurves consisting of the sum of an exponential decay term and a decaying sinusoid. The red, dashed line shows the fit when the decay of the sinusoid was described by an exponential, while the blue, dot-… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Left: Wavelet and global wavelet spectrum of detrended lightcuve for low-energy-band data (0.2-1.0 keV). Right: Wavelet and global wavelet spectrum of detrended lightcurve for high-energy-band data (1.0-12.0 keV). Contours are as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Cross correlation between residuals observed in low- and highenergy bands (0.2-1.0 kev and 1.0-12.0 kev). The red-dashed line is a sinusoidal fit to the data with a Gaussian decay. The black dotted line indicates the lag of the peak of this fit i.e. 4.7 ± 1.3 min. are…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Panel (a): Flare lightcurve (black, solid) for data observed between 0.5 and 1.0 keV. The red, dashed line shows the fit when the decay of the sinusoid was described by an exponential, while the blue, dot-dashed curved shows the fit when the decay of the sinusoid was d…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Left: Wavelet and global wavelet spectrum of detrended lightcurve for data in 0.5-1.0 keV energy range. Right: Wavelet and global wavelet spectrum of detrended lightcurve for data in 4.5-12.0 keV energy range. In both panels, contours and lines are as described in [PI…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Cross-correlation between detrended flares observed in two different energy bands (0.5-1.0 kev and 4.5-12.0 kev). The red-dashed line is a sinusoidal fit to data with a Gaussian decay. The black dotted line indicates the lag of the peak of this fit i.e. 10 ± 3 min. By…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

M., Mathioudakis, M., Van Doorsselaere, T., & Kowalski, A

Anﬁnogentov, S., Nakariakov, V . M., Mathioudakis, M., Van Doorsselaere, T., & Kowalski, A. F. 2013, ApJ, 773, 156 Auchère, F., Froment, C., Bocchialini, K., Buchlin, E., & Solomon, J. 2016, ApJ, 825, 110

work page 2013
[2]

Audard, M., Güdel, M., & Guinan, E. F. 1999, ApJ, 513, L53

work page 1999
[3]

& France, K

Ayres, T. & France, K. 2010, ApJ, 723, L38

work page 2010
[4]

M., Kim, S., & Kumar, P

Cho, I.-H., Cho, K.-S., Nakariakov, V . M., Kim, S., & Kumar, P. 2016, ApJ, 830, 110

work page 2016
[5]

B., et al

Dolla, L., Marqué, C., Seaton, D. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, L16

work page 2012
[6]

Dorren, J. D. & Guinan, E. F. 1994, ApJ, 428, 805

work page 1994
[7]

G., Shetye, J., Antonova, A

Doyle, J. G., Shetye, J., Antonova, A. E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2842

work page 2018
[8]

& Dorren, J

Elias, Nicholas M., I. & Dorren, J. D. 1990, AJ, 100, 818

work page 1990

Show all 43 references

[9]

W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al

Evans, D. W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A4

2018
[10]

L., et al

Fichtinger, B., Güdel, M., Mutel, R. L., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A127

2017
[11]

1935, The design of experiments

Fisher, R. 1935, The design of experiments. 1935 (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd) Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1

1935
[12]

Guedel, M., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., Benz, A. O., & Elias, II, N. M. 1995, A&A, 301, 201

1995
[13]

F., Ribas, I., & Harper, G

Guinan, E. F., Ribas, I., & Harper, G. M. 2003, ApJ, 594, 561

2003
[14]

D., Aschwanden, M

Holman, G. D., Aschwanden, M. J., Aurass, H., et al. 2011, Space Sci. Rev., 159, 107

2011
[15]

W., Ruderman, M., Pascoe, D

Hood, A. W., Ruderman, M., Pascoe, D. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A39

2013
[16]

Hudson, H. S. 2015, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 632, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012058

2015
[17]

R., Ireland, J., Dennis, B

Inglis, A. R., Ireland, J., Dennis, B. R., Hayes, L., & Gallagher, P. 2016, ApJ, 833, 284

2016
[18]

Y ., Pugh, C

Kolotkov, D. Y ., Pugh, C. E., Broomhall, A.-M., & Nakariakov, V . M. 2018, ApJ, 858, L3

2018
[19]

G., Melnikov, V

Kupriyanova, E. G., Melnikov, V . F., Nakariakov, V . M., & Shibasaki, K. 2010, Sol. Phys., 267, 329

2010
[20]

L., Bushinsky, R., Ayres, T., Fontenla, J., & France, K

Linsky, J. L., Bushinsky, R., Ayres, T., Fontenla, J., & France, K. 2012, ApJ, 745, 25

2012
[21]

2012, Nature, 485, 478

Maehara, H., Shibayama, T., Notsu, S., et al. 2012, Nature, 485, 478

2012
[22]

2015, Earth, Planets, and Space, 67, 59

Maehara, H., Shibayama, T., Notsu, Y ., et al. 2015, Earth, Planets, and Space, 67, 59

2015
[23]

A., Nakariakov, V

McLaughlin, J. A., Nakariakov, V . M., Dominique, M., Jelínek, P., & Takasao, S. 2018, Space Sci. Rev., 214, 45

2018
[24]

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

Nakariakov, V . M., Foullon, C., Verwichte, E., & Young, N. P. 2006, A&A, 452, 343

2006
[25]

Neupert, W. M. 1968, ApJ, 153, L59

1968
[26]

& Behar, E

Nordon, R. & Behar, E. 2008, A&A, 482, 639

2008
[27]

J., Anﬁnogentov, S., Nisticò, G., Goddard, C

Pascoe, D. J., Anﬁnogentov, S., Nisticò, G., Goddard, C. R., & Nakariakov, V . M. 2017, A&A, 600, A78

2017
[28]

J., Goddard, C

Pascoe, D. J., Goddard, C. R., Nisticò, G., Anﬁnogentov, S., & Nakariakov, V . M. 2016, A&A, 585, L6

2016
[29]

J., Hood, A

Pascoe, D. J., Hood, A. W., de Moortel, I., & Wright, A. N. 2012, A&A, 539, A37

2012
[30]

E., Armstrong, D

Pugh, C. E., Armstrong, D. J., Nakariakov, V . M., & Broomhall, A.-M. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3659

2016
[31]

E., Nakariakov, V

Pugh, C. E., Nakariakov, V . M., & Broomhall, A.-M. 2015, ApJ, 813, L5 Article number, page 10 of 19 Broomhall et al.: QPPs in a ﬂare on EK Dra

2015
[32]

Myagkova, I. N. 2017, A&A, 608, A101

2017
[33]

P., Rosen, S., Fyfe, D., & Schröder, A

Pye, J. P., Rosen, S., Fyfe, D., & Schröder, A. C. 2015, A&A, 581, A28

2015
[34]

F., Güdel, M., & Audard, M

Ribas, I., Guinan, E. F., Güdel, M., & Audard, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 680 Rosén, L., Kochukhov, O., Hackman, T., & Lehtinen, J. 2016, A&A, 593, A35

2005
[35]

2005, A&A, 432, 671 Simões, P

Scelsi, L., Maggio, A., Peres, G., & Pallavicini, R. 2005, A&A, 432, 671 Simões, P. J. A., Fletcher, L., Hudson, H. S., & Russell, A. J. B. 2013, ApJ, 777, 152

2005
[36]

Soderblom, D. R. & Clements, S. D. 1987, AJ, 93, 920 Strüder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L18

1987
[37]

2005, ApJ, 622, 653

Telleschi, A., Güdel, M., Briggs, K., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 653

2005
[38]

& Compo, G

Torrence, C. & Compo, G. P. 1998, A Practical Guide to Wavelet Analysis

1998
[39]

Turner, M. J. L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L27 Van Doorsselaere, T., De Groof, A., Zender, J., Berghmans, D., & Goossens, M. 2011, ApJ, 740, 90

2001
[40]

S., & Antolin, P

Verwichte, E., Van Doorsselaere, T., White, R. S., & Antolin, P. 2013, A&A, 552, A138

2013
[41]

A., Gregory, S

Vidotto, A. A., Gregory, S. G., Jardine, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2361

2014
[42]

A., Marsden, S

Waite, I. A., Marsden, S. C., Carter, B. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2076

2017
[43]

V ., Melnik, V

Zaqarashvili, T. V ., Melnik, V . N., Brazhenko, A. I., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A55 Article number, page 11 of 19 A&A proofs: manuscript no. ekdra_arxiv Appendix A: Histograms for ﬁts to total-energy band To determine both the quality of the ﬁt to the data and to pro- duce reli...

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M., Mathioudakis, M., Van Doorsselaere, T., & Kowalski, A

Anﬁnogentov, S., Nakariakov, V . M., Mathioudakis, M., Van Doorsselaere, T., & Kowalski, A. F. 2013, ApJ, 773, 156 Auchère, F., Froment, C., Bocchialini, K., Buchlin, E., & Solomon, J. 2016, ApJ, 825, 110

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Audard, M., Güdel, M., & Guinan, E. F. 1999, ApJ, 513, L53

work page 1999

[3] [3]

& France, K

Ayres, T. & France, K. 2010, ApJ, 723, L38

work page 2010

[4] [4]

M., Kim, S., & Kumar, P

Cho, I.-H., Cho, K.-S., Nakariakov, V . M., Kim, S., & Kumar, P. 2016, ApJ, 830, 110

work page 2016

[5] [5]

B., et al

Dolla, L., Marqué, C., Seaton, D. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, L16

work page 2012

[6] [6]

Dorren, J. D. & Guinan, E. F. 1994, ApJ, 428, 805

work page 1994

[7] [7]

G., Shetye, J., Antonova, A

Doyle, J. G., Shetye, J., Antonova, A. E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2842

work page 2018

[8] [8]

& Dorren, J

Elias, Nicholas M., I. & Dorren, J. D. 1990, AJ, 100, 818

work page 1990