pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20854 · v1 · pith:BCHACHP2new · submitted 2026-06-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Radio Spectral Imaging and MHD Modeling of a CME-Driven Shock: Connecting Solar Type II Radio Bursts with Shock-Surface Magnetic Geometry

Peijin Zhang , Weihao Liu , Bin Chen , Ward B. Manchester IV , Surajit Mondal , Sijie Yu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 15:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords type II radio burstsCME-driven shockssolar radio imagingMHD simulationcoronal magnetic geometrymulti-lane featuresshock Mach numberanisotropic scattering
0
0 comments X

The pith

Type II radio burst sources align with magnetic geometry on coronal shocks.

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

The paper examines a multi-lane, split-band type II radio burst linked to a coronal mass ejection. It pairs radio spectral imaging of the burst with a three-dimensional MHD simulation of the driven shock. Emission starts as fundamental-dominated near the Earth-facing side and shifts to harmonic-dominated at the limb, coinciding with quasi-perpendicular shock zones of higher Mach number. The offset between fundamental and harmonic source positions follows the projected direction of the magnetic field on the shock surface. This alignment points to anisotropic scattering and ties the burst's complex lanes directly to the shock's magnetic configuration.

Core claim

In this event, the burst intensity evolves from fundamental-emission dominated to harmonic-emission dominated. Meanwhile, the preferential emission source region moves from the Earth-facing side to the limb or far side, coinciding with quasi-perpendicular shock regions with enhanced Mach numbers. The observed spatial offset between the fundamental and harmonic sources is generally aligned with the projected shock-surface magnetic field from the simulation, consistent with anisotropic scattering in a magnetized turbulent plasma. These results establish a physical connection between type II radio sources and coronal shock magnetic geometry, providing new insight into the origin of the multi-la

What carries the argument

Alignment between observed radio source locations and the projected magnetic field on the simulated shock surface, which organizes emission regions and accounts for multi-lane structure via anisotropic scattering.

If this is right

  • Multi-lane features in type II bursts can diagnose the magnetic obliquity and Mach number distribution across a coronal shock.
  • Emission sources preferentially trace quasi-perpendicular regions where the shock is stronger.
  • Spatial offsets between fundamental and harmonic bands reflect the local magnetic field direction on the shock.
  • The shift from fundamental to harmonic dominance tracks the shock's propagation into different magnetic geometries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same mapping technique could be applied to additional events to test whether lane spacing scales with local field strength.
  • If the connection holds, radio data might supply remote estimates of shock obliquity that complement in-situ measurements.
  • This geometry link may help refine models of electron acceleration sites within CME-driven shocks.

Load-bearing premise

The three-dimensional global MHD simulation accurately reproduces the real shock morphology, magnetic field configuration, and Mach number distribution for this event.

What would settle it

Radio source positions in high-resolution imaging that fail to coincide with the simulated quasi-perpendicular zones or magnetic field projections on the shock surface.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20854 by Bin Chen, Peijin Zhang, Sijie Yu, Surajit Mondal, Ward B. Manchester IV, Weihao Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the beamformed dynamic spectrum of the type II radio burst together with integrated flux light curves. The event exhibits clear fundamental–harmonic pairs and band splitting features throughout most of its duration and can be divided into four distinct phases, marked as P1–P4 in the figure. The upper panel tracks the flux of the fundamental (F) and harmonic (H) bands, allowing a direct comparison of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: OVRO–LWA radio sources comparing with the SUVI EUV image at 19:03 UT on 2024 November 18. The EUV emission (in blue) presents a CME core and a fainter CME bubble; the radio source markers (colored from purple to red to yellow) show where the type II emission of L5 is located relative to the CME. • Phase 1 (P1) represents the initial bright phase of the burst, with peak flux densities reaching approximately… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time evolution of radio source positions during Phases 1 and 2 for lanes L1, L2 (fundamental), and L5, L6 (harmonic). The spatial separation between fundamental and harmonic sources, as well as between split-band lanes, provides constraints on the 3D shock geometry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radio imaging during Phase 3, the period when type II emission temporarily disappears. Left panel: fundamental frequency imaging; middle panel: quiet Sun reference; right panel: harmonic frequency imaging. Note that the color bar range is different in each panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radio imaging during Phase 4, when type II emission brightens again. A plotting style similar to that in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Sun and the 3D shock front identified by the shock-capturing tool in the AWSoM-R simulation. From left to right, the columns correspond to 19:08:00 UT, 19:09:00 UT, and 19:10:00 UT, representing Phase 1, the Phase 1–2 transition, and Phase 2, respectively. In each column, the upper and lower panels show the Earth-side and far-side views, respectively. Each panel shows the radial magnetic field strength… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Sun and the 3D shock front in the AWSoM-R simulation, shown with the same panel layout and plotting style as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The Sun, the captured shock front, and the 3D magnetic field projected onto the plane of the sky as viewed from Earth. Panels (a)–(h) show snapshots from 19:07:40 to 19:10:00 UT at a cadence of 20 seconds during Phases 1 and 2. Each panel covers the plane-of-sky region of [−2.1 R⊙, −0.4 R⊙] × [−1.0 R⊙, 1.0 R⊙]. The right side of each panel shows part of the Br distribution on the r = 1.1 R⊙ sphere, while t… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Sun, the captured shock front, and the 3D magnetic field projected onto the plane of the sky as viewed from Earth, shown with the same panel layout and plotting style as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Schematic illustrating how differences in emission directivity can affect the observed fundamental-to-harmonic brightness ratio. In Scenario A (left), the observer lies near the fundamental (F) main emission direction, yielding F > H. In Scenario B (right), the observer is outside the main direction of the fundamental; the harmonic (H), with weaker directivity, is more readily observed and can dominate, y… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic illustrating how anisotropic scattering of radio waves in the turbulent coronal plasma shifts the apparent radio source position. The offset between the fundamental and harmonic sources reflects the magnetic field direction in the emission region, as the scattering is preferentially enhanced along the field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Solar type II radio bursts are widely regarded as signatures of shock waves propagating in the solar corona and are of particular importance for understanding shock-driven particle acceleration processes. Type II radio bursts often exhibit complex multi-lane and split-band features. The detailed spectral, temporal, and spatial structures carry key information about the shock properties and evolution. However, the physical origin of the multi-lane and split-band features remains unclear, largely due to a lack of spatially resolved data and understanding of the concurrent shock morphology and its magnetic-field context. In this work, we combine radio imaging spectroscopy of a multi-lane, split-band type II burst event with a three-dimensional global magnetohydrodynamic simulation of the associated coronal mass ejection-driven shock using the Alfv\'en Wave Solar atmosphere Model-Realtime. In this event, the burst intensity evolves from fundamental-emission dominated to harmonic-emission dominated. Meanwhile, the preferential emission source region moves from the Earth-facing side to the limb or far side, coinciding with quasi-perpendicular shock regions with enhanced Mach numbers. The observed spatial offset between the fundamental and harmonic sources is generally aligned with the projected shock-surface magnetic field from the simulation, consistent with anisotropic scattering in a magnetized turbulent plasma. These results establish a physical connection between type II radio sources and coronal shock magnetic geometry, providing new insight into the origin of the multi-lane features and their diagnostics of coronal shocks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript combines radio spectral imaging spectroscopy of a multi-lane, split-band type II solar radio burst with a 3D global MHD simulation of the associated CME-driven shock using the AWSoM-R model. It reports that the burst evolves from fundamental- to harmonic-emission dominated, with the source region shifting toward quasi-perpendicular shock areas of enhanced Mach number; the observed fundamental-harmonic spatial offset aligns with the projected shock-surface magnetic field in the simulation, which the authors interpret as evidence for anisotropic scattering. The central claim is that these alignments establish a direct physical connection between type II radio sources and coronal shock magnetic geometry, offering diagnostics for the origin of multi-lane features.

Significance. If the simulation is demonstrated to reproduce the actual event morphology and Mach-number distribution, the work would offer a useful framework for interpreting complex type II burst structures in terms of shock geometry and scattering, advancing diagnostics of coronal shocks and particle acceleration. The integration of spatially resolved radio data with global MHD modeling is a constructive approach, though its impact depends on establishing the model's fidelity to observations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claimed alignments between radio sources and simulation features (quasi-perpendicular regions, Mach-number enhancements, and magnetic-field projections) are presented without quantitative metrics, error bars, or statistical measures of agreement. This absence directly undermines the central claim that the observations establish a physical connection, as the reported spatial offsets could arise from model mismatch.
  2. [Results] Simulation and results sections: No quantitative validation is provided comparing simulated shock properties (e.g., CME leading-edge height, shock speed, or standoff distance) against coronagraph or EUV observations at the precise times of the radio bursts. Because the interpretation of source locations, multi-lane features, and scattering relies on the simulated magnetic geometry and Mach-number distribution matching reality, this validation gap is load-bearing for the conclusions.
  3. [Methods] Methods: The simulation is described as independent of the radio data, yet the absence of any cross-check against independent observables leaves open the possibility that the reported coincidences reflect tuning or selection rather than a genuine physical link.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Notation for the model (Alfvén Wave Solar atmosphere Model-Realtime) should be standardized on first use and used consistently thereafter.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important areas for strengthening the manuscript. We agree that quantitative metrics and validation against independent observations are needed to support the central claims and will revise the paper accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claimed alignments between radio sources and simulation features (quasi-perpendicular regions, Mach-number enhancements, and magnetic-field projections) are presented without quantitative metrics, error bars, or statistical measures of agreement. This absence directly undermines the central claim that the observations establish a physical connection, as the reported spatial offsets could arise from model mismatch.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of quantitative metrics limits the strength of the presented alignments. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit measures, including the angular offset (with uncertainty) between the observed fundamental-harmonic source separation vector and the projected shock-surface magnetic-field direction, as well as the fractional overlap between radio source contours and regions of quasi-perpendicular geometry with Mach number above a stated threshold. These additions will allow a statistical evaluation of the reported spatial correspondences. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Simulation and results sections: No quantitative validation is provided comparing simulated shock properties (e.g., CME leading-edge height, shock speed, or standoff distance) against coronagraph or EUV observations at the precise times of the radio bursts. Because the interpretation of source locations, multi-lane features, and scattering relies on the simulated magnetic geometry and Mach-number distribution matching reality, this validation gap is load-bearing for the conclusions.

    Authors: We acknowledge that direct, time-specific validation of the simulated shock against coronagraph and EUV data is required. We will add a dedicated comparison subsection that reports the simulated CME leading-edge height, shock speed, and standoff distance at the epochs of the radio bursts and contrasts these quantities with measurements from LASCO C2/C3 and SDO/AIA EUV imaging. This will demonstrate that the modeled magnetic geometry and Mach-number distribution are consistent with the observed event morphology. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods: The simulation is described as independent of the radio data, yet the absence of any cross-check against independent observables leaves open the possibility that the reported coincidences reflect tuning or selection rather than a genuine physical link.

    Authors: The AWSoM-R run was initialized with standard event-specific parameters (CME speed, direction, and background solar wind) taken from white-light and EUV observations and was not adjusted to reproduce the radio source locations. To close the validation gap we will include explicit cross-checks of the simulated shock front against independent EUV and coronagraph data, thereby showing that the reported alignments arise from the model physics rather than post-hoc selection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central derivation combines radio imaging spectroscopy of an observed type II burst with an independent 3D global MHD simulation (AWSoM-R) of the associated CME-driven shock. The simulation is not fitted or tuned to the radio data; radio source locations are instead compared post hoc to simulated shock morphology, magnetic geometry, and Mach-number distributions. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work appear in the abstract or described chain. The result is a correlative physical interpretation rather than a closed logical loop, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the MHD simulation and standard radio emission physics; no free parameters or new entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard MHD equations and boundary conditions govern coronal plasma dynamics in the Alfvén Wave Solar atmosphere Model-Realtime
    Invoked by use of the global simulation for shock modeling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5807 in / 1110 out tokens · 28621 ms · 2026-06-26T15:14:18.845161+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    P., Pesses, M

    Armstrong, T. P., Pesses, M. E., & Decker, R. B. 1985, Collisionless Shocks in the Heliosphere: Reviews of Current Research, 35, 271, doi: 10.1029/GM035p0271

    work page doi:10.1029/gm035p0271 1985

  2. [2]

    Gombosi, T. I. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 7979, doi: 10.1002/2017JA024304

    work page doi:10.1002/2017ja024304 2017

  3. [3]

    2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1

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

    work page doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 2011

  4. [4]

    2025, ApJL, 990, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa71

    Chen, X., Chen, B., Yu, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa71

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfa71 2025

  5. [5]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1227

    Chen, X., Zhao, L., Giacalone, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1227

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1227 2025

  6. [6]

    L., & Kontar, E

    Clarkson, D. L., & Kontar, E. P. 2025, ApJ, 978, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad969c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad969c 2025

  7. [7]

    M., Reiss, M., et al

    Corti, C., Kuznetsova, M. M., Reiss, M., et al. 2026, ESS Open Archive, doi: 10.22541/essoar.176824639.92354528/v1

    work page doi:10.22541/essoar.176824639.92354528/v1 2026

  8. [8]

    M., Seaton, D

    Darnel, J. M., Seaton, D. B., Bethge, C., et al. 2022, Space Weather, 20, e2022SW003044, doi: 10.1029/2022SW003044

    work page doi:10.1029/2022sw003044 2022

  9. [9]

    E., & Low, B

    Gibson, S. E., & Low, B. 1998, ApJ, 493, 460, doi: 10.1086/305107

    work page doi:10.1086/305107 1998

  10. [10]

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Michalek, G., et al. 2009,

    2009

  11. [11]

    Earth, Moon, and Planets, 104, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11038-008-9282-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11038-008-9282-7

  12. [12]

    1996, Science, 272, 1284, doi: 10.1126/science.272.5266.1284

    Harvey, J., Hill, F., Hubbard, R., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 1284, doi: 10.1126/science.272.5266.1284

    work page doi:10.1126/science.272.5266.1284 1996

  13. [13]

    M., Manchester IV, W

    Hegedus, A. M., Manchester IV, W. B., & Kasper, J. C. 2021, ApJ, 922, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2361

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2361 2021

  14. [14]

    2018, Space Weather, 16, 1488, doi: 10.1029/2018SW002001

    Hill, F. 2018, Space Weather, 16, 1488, doi: 10.1029/2018SW002001

    work page doi:10.1029/2018sw002001 2018

  15. [15]

    D., & Pesses, M

    Holman, G. D., & Pesses, M. E. 1983, ApJ, 267, 837, doi: 10.1086/160918 6 https://www.nas.nasa.gov/hecc/ 7 https://tacc.utexas.edu/

    work page doi:10.1086/160918 1983

  16. [16]

    2025, SoPh, 300, 168, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02589-8

    Monstein, C. 2025, SoPh, 300, 168, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02589-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02589-8 2025

  17. [17]

    B., van der Holst, B., et al

    Jin, M., Manchester, W., van der Holst, B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/173

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/173 2017

  18. [18]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e32

    Kong, F.-J., & Qin, G. 2020, ApJ, 896, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e32

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e32 2020

  19. [19]

    P., Yu, S., Kuznetsov, A

    Kontar, E. P., Yu, S., Kuznetsov, A. A., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01597-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01597-8 2017

  20. [20]

    Counterintuitive Magnetic Connectivity and Energetic Particle Flux Differences among Nearby Spacecraft During the 2023 February 24 Solar Energetic Particle Event

    Liu, W., Liu, X., Lario, D., et al. 2026a, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.02445, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.02445

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.02445

  21. [21]

    V., Zhao, L., et al

    Liu, W., Sokolov, I. V., Zhao, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc4e3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc4e3 2025

  22. [22]

    V., et al

    Liu, W., Zhao, L., Sokolov, I. V., et al. 2026b, Space Weather, 24, e2025SW004811, doi: 10.1029/2025SW004811

    work page doi:10.1029/2025sw004811

  23. [23]

    B., et al

    Liu, X., Liu, W., Manchester IV, W. B., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae290f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae290f 2026

  24. [24]

    A., Carley, E

    Maguire, C. A., Carley, E. P., McCauley, J., & Gallagher, P. T. 2020, A&A, 633, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936449

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936449 2020

  25. [25]

    2005, ApJ, 622, 1225, doi: 10.1086/427768

    Manchester, W., Gombosi, T., De Zeeuw, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1225, doi: 10.1086/427768

    work page doi:10.1086/427768 2005

  26. [26]

    2025, ApJ, 992, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf855

    Manchester, W., Sachdeva, N., Kilpua, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf855

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf855 2025

  27. [27]

    1994, in Fragmented Energy Release in Sun and Stars, ed

    Mann, G. 1994, in Fragmented Energy Release in Sun and Stars, ed. G. H. J. van den Oord (Dordrecht: Springer), 199–203, doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-1014-3 27

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-011-1014-3 1994

  28. [28]

    Carley, E. P. 2019, A&A, 623, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834078

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834078 2019

  29. [29]

    E., Jebaraj, I

    Morosan, D. E., Jebaraj, I. C., Zhang, P., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452775

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452775 2025

  30. [30]

    J., & Melrose, D

    Nelson, G. J., & Melrose, D. B. 1985, Solar Radiophysics: Studies of Emission from the Sun at Metre Wavelengths, 333 15

    1985

  31. [31]

    E., Zhang, P., Zucca, P., & Vainio, R

    Normo, S., Morosan, D. E., Zhang, P., Zucca, P., & Vainio, R. 2025, A&A, 698, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553702

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553702 2025

  32. [32]

    Reid, H. A. S., & Ratcliffe, H. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 773, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/7/003

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/7/003 2014

  33. [33]

    A., Arge, C

    Reiss, M. A., Arge, C. N., Henney, C. J., et al. 2023, Advances in Space Research, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.08.039

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2023.08.039 2023

  34. [34]

    A., & Cairns, I

    Robinson, P. A., & Cairns, I. H. 2000, Geophysical Monograph Series, 119, 37, doi: 10.1029/GM119p0037

    work page doi:10.1029/gm119p0037 2000

  35. [35]

    B., et al

    Sachdeva, N., van Der Holst, B., Manchester, W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f5e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f5e 2019

  36. [36]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac52ab

    Shi, T., Manchester, W., Landi, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac52ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac52ab 2022

  37. [37]

    F., Sheridan, K

    Smerd, S. F., Sheridan, K. V., & Stewart, R. T. 1974, Astrophysics and Space Science, 27, 243, doi: 10.1007/BF00645163

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00645163 1974

  38. [38]

    V ., van der Holst, B., Oran, R., et al

    Sokolov, I. V., van der Holst, B., Oran, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/23 2013

  39. [39]

    V., Holst, B

    Sokolov, I. V., van der Holst, B., Manchester, W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc000

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc000 2021

  40. [40]

    T., et al

    Stanzione, D., West, J., Evans, R. T., et al. 2020, in Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2020: Catch the Wave (Association for Computing Machinery), 106–111, doi: 10.1145/3311790.3396656 van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I. V., Meng, X., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/81 Vrˇ snak, B., Magdaleni´ c, J., & Aurass, H. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3311790.3396656 2020

  41. [41]

    E., Zucca, P., et al

    Zhang, P., Morosan, D. E., Zucca, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, L22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449365

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449365 2024

  42. [42]

    Zhang, P., Wang, C., & Kontar, E. P. 2021, ApJ, 909, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd8c5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd8c5 2021

  43. [43]

    2024, Space Weather, 22, e2023SW003729, doi: 10.1029/2023SW003729

    Zhao, L., Sokolov, I., Gombosi, T., et al. 2024, Space Weather, 22, e2023SW003729, doi: 10.1029/2023SW003729

    work page doi:10.1029/2023sw003729 2024

  44. [44]

    2014, ApJ, 795, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/68

    Zucca, P., Pick, M., D´ emoulin, P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/68

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/1/68 2014

  45. [45]

    2025, A&A, 703, A271, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554348

    Zucca, P., Zhang, P., Kozarev, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A271, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554348

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554348 2025