Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Solar flares in the Solar Orbiter era: Short-exposure EUI/FSI observations of STIX flares

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Short-exposure EUV images of solar flares recover ribbon substructure that matches hard X-ray sources, and a RADYN forward model reproduces the observed 174 Å peak to roughly ten percent.

desk verdict New observation mode and a valuable dataset, but the headline RADYN agreement rests on a single unconstrained forward model, so treat the quantitative claim as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09319 v2 pith:EJZXN7JG submitted 2024-11-14 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Hannah Collier , Laura A. Hayes , Stefan Purkhart , Säm Krucker , Daniel F. Ryan , Vanessa Polito , Astrid M. Veronig , Louise K. Harra
show 5 more authors
David Berghmans Emil Kraaikamp Marie Dominique Laurent R. Dolla Cis Verbeeck
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords solarflaresextremeultravioletimagingshort-exposureobservationsOrbiterEUI/FSISTIXhardX-rayflareribbonsnon-thermalelectronsRADYNsimulations
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

Ordinary EUV images of solar flares saturate where the energy is released, so the brightest footpoints are usually invisible. This paper establishes that the short-exposure mode of the Full Sun Imager (FSI) on Solar Orbiter's EUI instrument recovers that information: the brightest pixels in 0.2 s 174 Å exposures trace fine substructure inside flare ribbons, and in the majority of the cases shown that substructure overlaps the hard X-ray footpoints seen by STIX. The paper goes further with the C1.4 flare of 2022 November 13, forward-modelling the chromospheric response to the electron beam inferred from STIX hard X-rays and finding that the predicted 174 Å flux of about 68,000 DN/s/pix matches the observed short-exposure peak of about 74,000 DN/s/pix. That agreement is what turns the observing mode from a saturation workaround into a quantitative diagnostic of flare energy deposition and a new constraint on the non-thermal electron energy flux in flare models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the short-exposure EUI/FSI frame: a 0.2 s exposure taken immediately before each 10 s synoptic exposure, with only the high-count pixels above 327 DN downloaded, so saturated pixels in the normal frame stay unsaturated. Composite maps then substitute the short-exposure pixels into the normal frame, apply a flux-correction factor of 1.33 to account for an instrument non-linearity whose cause is under investigation, and rotate and align the maps to STIX using a hand-selected shift of $(-10,35)$ arcsec. On the modelling side, the machinery is the RADYN chain: OSPEX spectral fitting derives the beam parameters, a one-dimensional radiative-hydrodynamic simulation evolves the atmosphere, and the resulting temperature and density grid is folded through the EUI/FSI 174 Å response function and integrated along the loop to produce a predicted DN/s/pix value for direct comparison with the short-exposure observation.

What would settle it

Re-observe or re-process a flare for which an independent, unsaturated image of the same footpoints exists, derive the short-exposure correction factor pixel-by-pixel from that independent image rather than assuming 1.33, and recompute the STIX-EUI alignment without the hand-picked shift; if the corrected peak flux moves outside the RADYN prediction by more than the reported uncertainty, or if the EUV-HXR overlap disappears over a sample of a dozen events, the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed in the paper is that unsaturated short-exposure EUV emission is a direct tracer of the same energy-deposition sites as hard X-rays. In the events presented, the brightest elements of the 174 Å short-exposure frames are compact brightenings within flare ribbons, and the STIX hard X-ray sources (both non-thermal and thermal) overlap these brightenings in the majority of cases; in the April 2023 M1 flare, four non-thermal sources reconstructed by forward-fitting, including one at only the 5% contour level, coincide with the four brightest EUV structures. The quantitative centerpiece is the 2022 November 13 C1.4 flare: with the STIX-inferred beam parameters (electron rate $\alpha=(0.34\pm0.04)\times10^{35}$ s$^{-1}$, spectral index $\delta=4.97\pm0.09$, low-energy cutoff $E_c=13.37\pm0.57$ keV, energy flux $9\times10^9$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$) injected into a RADYN loop with a 17 Mm half-length, the predicted 174 Å flux is $\sim68{,}000$ DN/s/pix, while the observed short-exposure peak is $\sim74{,}000$ DN/s/pix. The model also places the emission in a thin layer 0.9--1.3 Mm above the photosphere, indicating that the impulsive-phase 174 Å flux comes from the chromosphere rather than the corona.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative comparison depends on applying a single flux-correction factor of 1.33 to all short-exposure images and on a manually chosen alignment shift of $(-10,35)$ arcsec between EUI and STIX; the paper notes the cause of the non-linearity is unknown and recommends case-by-case correction, so if the factor is not constant across flares, the predicted-versus-observed agreement and the claimed spatial overlap lose their footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 9,481-event STIX-EUI/FSI catalog (42% of STIX flares from November 2022 through November 2023) makes short-exposure ribbon imaging a routine resource, including for events not visible from Earth.
  • The overlap between short-exposure 174 Å substructure and STIX hard X-ray sources gives a spatial cross-check for STIX imaging, which can resolve only the brightest sources; the April 2023 four-source event is the paper's demonstration.
  • The RADYN match implies that impulsive-phase 174 Å flux is chromospheric, so unsaturated EUV peak fluxes can be used to constrain the injected electron energy flux in flare models.
  • Extending short exposures to EUI/HRIEUV at perihelion, with 2 s cadence and 0.04 s exposures, should localize the footpoint of rapidly varying hard X-ray emission at roughly 310 km resolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A stable 174 Å peak-flux-to-beam-power relationship would let short-exposure EUV serve as a continuous proxy for non-thermal power when STIX counting statistics are poor, effectively widening energy-partition studies to smaller flares.
  • The unexplained 1.33 correction factor is the main uncertainty; a systematic cross-calibration against unsaturated pixels from an independent EUV imager over many flares would settle whether the correction is constant or event-dependent, and therefore whether the reported agreement is calibration-independent.
  • Because the X9 flare displays roughly 10 s hard X-ray variability while synoptic EUI cadence is minutes, the observed ribbon brightness is time-averaged; a campaign of simultaneous high-cadence short-exposure EUV and STIX would test whether the EUV footpoints move on the same timescale, which the present data cannot test.
  • If the HRIEUV short-exposure data from the March 2024 perihelion campaign reproduce the FSI result at higher resolution, the combination could resolve individual chromospheric strands and measure the filling factor of the electron beam, which RADYN currently treats as uniform.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents short-exposure EUI/FSI 174 Å observations of solar flares observed simultaneously with STIX hard X-ray (HXR) emission, and argues that this new observing mode provides diagnostics of flare energy deposition that are usually lost to saturation. The authors introduce a list of 9481 STIX flares with at least one short-exposure EUI/FSI frame between November 2022 and December 2023, and discuss three case studies: an estimated X9 flare with rapid non-thermal pulsations, a C1.4 'standard' flare for which they run a RADYN forward model, and an M1 flare with four non-thermal HXR sources interpreted as flux-rope anchor points. The central claims are (1) that the brightest parts of short-exposure EUV images are substructure in flaring ribbons that spatially overlap with the STIX HXR emission 'in the majority of cases' (Abstract, Section 3.2), and (2) that for the C1.4 flare the RADYN-predicted 174 Å flux of ~68,000 DN/s/pix agrees with the observed short-exposure peak of ~74,000 DN/s/pix (Section 3.2, Figure 4a). The paper also describes the planned extension of short-exposure observing to EUI/HRIEUV and discusses the scientific potential for constraining non-thermal electron energy fluxes.

Significance. If substantiated, the claim that short-exposure EUV observations resolve flaring-ribbon substructure that spatially matches HXR footpoints would provide a new and widely applicable diagnostic for flare energy deposition, particularly for far-side events where Earth-based context is unavailable. The public release of the flare list and analysis code is a concrete strength, and the qualitative image-level correspondences in Figures 2, 3, and 5 are visually compelling and should be of immediate use to the STIX and EUI communities. The RADYN comparison is an ambitious attempt to turn these observations into a quantitative constraint on the non-thermal electron energy flux, and the order-of-magnitude agreement with the observed peak is encouraging. However, that quantitative comparison currently rests on several manually chosen or unvalidated inputs, and the 'majority of cases' statement in the abstract is not supported by the three examples in the text, so the paper's strongest conclusions outrun the evidence presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3] The abstract states that the brightest parts of the short-exposure images 'spatially overlap with the hard X-ray emission observed by STIX in the majority of cases', but the paper presents only three case studies and performs no statistical analysis of the 9481-flare list. No metric of overlap is defined or measured, and no sample selection criteria beyond the three illustrative events are described. The wording should be softened to 'in the presented cases' or supported by a systematic survey of the full list.
  2. [Section 3.1] The spatial-overlap claim in Section 3.1 depends on a manually chosen alignment shift of (-10, 35) arcsec between the STIX maps and the EUI/FSI short-exposure frame. Because the shift is chosen to make the sources coincide, the resulting overlap in Figure 2d is at least partly by construction. The paper gives no uncertainty on this shift and no test of whether small changes in the shift preserve the claimed correspondence, so the strength of the spatial correlation is not assessed. An independent coalignment method or a sensitivity range would be needed to make the overlap claim quantitatively robust.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 4a] The quantitative RADYN comparison is not yet robust because the predicted flux of ~68,000 DN/s/pix depends on several inputs that the paper itself flags as uncertain. The footpoint area A ≈ 10^17 cm^2 is derived from the 30% AIA contour level, described as 'somewhat arbitrary'; the starting atmosphere is VAL3C with a 3 MK apex and the paper cites Polito et al. (2018) to note that higher starting temperatures substantially change EUV emission; the loop length is a rough half-distance estimate; and the beam is represented as a triangular 45 s pulse. No sensitivity analysis is provided, and the OSPEX parameter uncertainties (α, δ, Ec) are not propagated into the predicted flux. With the observed peak of ~74,000 DN/s/pix also depending on the unvalidated 1.33 flux-correction factor of Section 3.1, the 9% agreement may be fortuitous. The authors should either provide a sensitivity study showing that the predicted flux is stable under reasonable variations of these inputs, or explicitly present the RADYN comparison as a demonstration of the method rather than as a constraint on the electron energy flux.
  4. [Section 3.1; Section 3.2] The flux-correction factor of 1.33 is used to convert short-exposure counts into normal-exposure-equivalent values. Section 3.1 states that this factor was obtained by matching non-saturated pixels for 'a selection of flares' and that 'the cause of the non-linearity is currently being investigated', and it recommends case-by-case correction. The same factor is nevertheless applied without further justification to the C1.4 flare in Section 3.2, and no uncertainty or event-to-event scatter is given. Since the observed peak of 74,000 DN/s/pix scales directly with this factor, the claimed agreement with the RADYN prediction is contingent on an uncalibrated instrumental correction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The text reads 'takes about 2.6 s seconds'; 'seconds' should be removed.
  2. [Section 3] The date range 'November 9 2022 to November 31 2023' includes a nonexistent day; November has only 30 days.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'composite maps of the short- and normal-exposure exposure observations'; the repeated 'exposure' should be removed.
  4. [Section 3.2] The text has 'V AL3C' with a space; this should read 'VAL3C'.
  5. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'This will be especially revolutionary given the unprecedented spatial resolution of EUI/HRIEUV (200 km 2-pixel resolution on the surface of the Sun) at perihelion' would benefit from a citation to the EUI instrument paper for the HRIEUV resolution value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RADYN 174 Å prediction is derived from STIX-fitted beam parameters and compared against an independent EUI/FSI observable.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is the agreement between the RADYN-predicted 174 Å flux (∼68,000 DN/s/pix) and the observed short-exposure EUI/FSI peak (∼74,000 DN/s/pix). This is not circular: the electron beam parameters (α, δ, Ec) are fitted to STIX hard X-ray spectra via OSPEX, and the 174 Å flux is then predicted from a RADYN simulation of the atmospheric response. The observed 174 Å emission is a separate observable, not an input to the fit. The 1.33 flux-correction factor and the manual (-10, 35)" alignment shift are calibration and registration choices; they do not make the predicted flux equivalent to the observed flux by construction. The footpoint area derived from the 30% AIA contour is described as 'somewhat arbitrary,' and the starting atmosphere and loop length are model inputs, but these introduce parametric uncertainty rather than circularity. The paper's citation of Polito et al. (2018) to caution that the starting temperature changes EUV intensity is a genuine external sensitivity result and is used as a limitation, not as load-bearing justification. Self-citations to Collier et al. (2023, 2024) appear only as context for quasi-periodic pulsation studies and do not support the derivation. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's text.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on a set of fitted parameters (flux correction, alignment, beam parameters, footpoint area) and on the assumed validity of RADYN, the EUI response function, and the CSHKP model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Flux correction factor = 1.33
    Derived by matching fluxes in non-saturated pixels between normal and short exposures for a selection of flares. Used to convert short-exposure counts to DN/s/pix for comparison with the RADYN prediction.
  • STIX alignment shift = (-10, 35) arcsec
    Manually applied to align STIX maps with the short-exposure frame. Affects the spatial overlap assessment between EUV and HXR sources.
  • AIA contour level for footpoint area = 30%
    Chosen as a middle ground to estimate the footpoint area (about 1e17 cm^2). Directly affects the derived electron energy flux of 9e9 erg/s/cm^2 used in RADYN.
  • RADYN beam electron rate = 0.34e35 electrons/s
    Fitted to the STIX hard X-ray spectrum with OSPEX. Input to the RADYN simulation.
  • RADYN beam spectral index = 4.97
    Fitted to the STIX hard X-ray spectrum. Input to the RADYN simulation.
  • RADYN beam low-energy cutoff = 13.37 keV
    Fitted to the STIX hard X-ray spectrum. Input to the RADYN simulation.
  • RADYN beam duration = 45 s (triangular)
    Chosen by hand as an input to the RADYN model; not directly measured.
  • Starting loop apex temperature = 3 MK
    Chosen for the VAL3C starting atmosphere in the RADYN run; the paper notes sensitivity of EUV intensity to this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption RADYN correctly models the 1D hydrodynamic response of the solar atmosphere to an injected electron beam.
    Used throughout Section 3.2; the code is established but its specific applicability here is assumed.
  • domain assumption The EUI/FSI 174 Å response function provided by private communication is accurate.
    Used to fold the simulated atmosphere into predicted DN/s/pix (Section 3.2).
  • ad hoc to paper The flux correction factor of 1.33 is constant across the analyzed flares.
    The paper says the non-linearity is not understood and recommends case-by-case correction, yet uses a single factor for the quantitative comparison.
  • domain assumption The standard CSHKP flare model applies to the C1.4 flare.
    Interpretation of the two footpoints and loop in Section 3.2 relies on this model.
  • standard math 174 Å emission is optically thin and can be integrated along the line of sight.
    Explicitly stated in Section 3.2 before integrating the simulated emission.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solar flares in the Solar Orbiter era: Short-exposure EUI/FSI observations of STIX flares." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EJZXN7JG

@misc{pith2026241109319,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solar flares in the Solar Orbiter era: Short-exposure EUI/FSI observations of STIX flares},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EJZXN7JG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09319}
}
read the original abstract

Aims: This paper aims to demonstrate the importance of short-exposure extreme ultraviolet (EUV) observations of solar flares in the study of particle acceleration, heating and energy partition in flares. This work highlights the observations now available from the Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUI) instrument suite on board Solar Orbiter while operating in short-exposure mode. Methods: A selection of noteworthy flares observed simultaneously by the Spectrometer Telescope for Imaging X-rays (STIX) and the Full Sun Imager of EUI (EUI/FSI) are detailed. New insights are highlighted and potential avenues of investigation are demonstrated, including forward-modelling the atmospheric response to a non-thermal beam of electrons using the RADYN 1D hydrodynamic code, in order to compare the predicted and observed EUV emission. Results: The examples given in this work demonstrate that short-exposure EUI/FSI observations are providing important diagnostics during flares. A dataset of more than 9000 flares observed by STIX (from November 2022 until December 2023) with at least one short-exposure EUI/FSI 174 \r{A} image is currently available. The observations reveal that the brightest parts of short-exposure observations consist of substructure in flaring ribbons that spatially overlap with the hard X-ray emission observed by STIX in the majority of cases. We show that these observations provide an opportunity to further constrain the electron energy flux required for flare modelling, among other potential applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09319 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Typical time sequence of EUI/FSI synoptic imaging in between the filter wheel motions (orange boxes). Exposure times of the dummy image (0.2 s), the short-exposure image (0.2 s), and the regular image (10 s) are indicated in blue. Reading out a full sensor FSI frame (3072x3072 pixels) takes about 2.6 s seconds for any of the 3 exposures. The duration of the filter motions depends on the start and ending position (ty… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the STX2023-07-16T04:32 (estimated X9 GOES class) flare. Panel a) shows the STIX light curves. The non-thermal emission (45-76 keV) shows rapid variation on a timescale of ∼ 10 s. The thermal (4-9 keV) light curve is shown for the background detector only, as this detector is unaffected by attenuator motion (the attenuator was inserted during this flare). Panels b) and c) show the normal- and short-expos… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of STX2022-11-13T06:18. Panel a) shows the STIX light curves. The times of EUI/FSI short-exposure frames are denoted by dashed lines, and the time intervals used to create the STIX images shown in panels b) and c) are shaded in blue. Panels b) & c) show FSI/EUI 174 Å composite maps of the short- and normal-exposure exposure observations for the early and late frame, respectively. Panels b) and c) also show … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predicted EUI/FSI 174 Å response to a non-thermal beam of electrons whose impact on the solar atmosphere was modelled by 1D RADYN simulations. Panel a) shows the predicted EUI/FSI 174 Å flux integrated over the entire loop. At the time of the short-exposure ob￾servatio…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of STX2023-04-22T22:21 showing STIX light curves (panel a) and two EUI/FSI short-exposure frames (panels b and c). The first short-exposure frame shows four non-thermal sources both in HXR (blue contours, 18-50 keV) and EUV 174 Å emission. The red contours sho…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbett, W. P. & Hawley, S. L. 1999, ApJ, 521, 906

    1999

  2. [2]

    C., Hawley, S

    Allred, J. C., Hawley, S. L., Abbett, W. P., & Carlsson, M. 2005, ApJ, 630, 573

    2005

  3. [3]

    C., Kowalski, A

    Allred, J. C., Kowalski, A. F., & Carlsson, M. 2015, ApJ, 809, 104

    2015

  4. [4]

    2023, A&A, 675, A110

    Berghmans, D., Antolin, P., Auchère, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A110

    2023

  5. [5]

    2023, A&A, 673, A150

    Carlsson, M., Fletcher, L., Allred, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A150

    2023

  6. [6]

    & Stein, R

    Carlsson, M. & Stein, R. F. 1992, ApJ, 397, L59

    1992

  7. [7]

    & Stein, R

    Carlsson, M. & Stein, R. F. 1995, ApJ, 440, L29

    1995

  8. [8]

    & Stein, R

    Carlsson, M. & Stein, R. F. 1997, ApJ, 481, 500

    1997

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    & Stein, R

    Carlsson, M. & Stein, R. F. 2002, ApJ, 572, 626

    2002

  2. [10]

    1964, in NASA Special Publication, V ol

    Carmichael, H. 1964, in NASA Special Publication, V ol. 50, 451

    1964

  3. [11]

    K., & Gary, D

    Chen, B., Yu, S., Reeves, K. K., & Gary, D. E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 895, L50

    2020

  4. [12]

    A., Battaglia, A

    Collier, H., Hayes, L. A., Battaglia, A. F., Harra, L. K., & Krucker, S. 2023, A&A, 671, A79

    2023

  5. [13]

    A., Yu, S., et al

    Collier, H., Hayes, L. A., Yu, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A215 De Pontieu, B., Polito, V ., Hansteen, V ., et al. 2021, Sol. Phys., 296, 84 De Pontieu, B., Title, A. M., Lemen, J. R., et al. 2014, Sol. Phys., 289, 2733

    2024

  6. [14]

    J., Matthews, S

    French, R. J., Matthews, S. A., Jonathan Rae, I., & Smith, A. W. 2021, ApJ, 922, 117

    2021

  7. [15]

    M., Schwartz, R., & Benvenuto, F

    Guastavino, S., Piana, M., Massone, A. M., Schwartz, R., & Benvenuto, F. 2019, ApJ, 882, 109

    2019

  8. [16]

    1974, Sol

    Hirayama, T. 1974, Sol. Phys., 34, 323

    1974

  9. [17]

    J., Schmahl, E

    Hurford, G. J., Schmahl, E. J., Schwartz, R. A., et al. 2002, Sol. Phys., 210, 61

    2002

  10. [18]

    2023, in Bulletin of the American Astro- nomical Society, V ol

    Inglis, A., Hayes, L., Guidoni, S., et al. 2023, in Bulletin of the American Astro- nomical Society, V ol. 55, 181

    2023

  11. [19]

    Jeffrey, N. L. S., Fletcher, L., Labrosse, N., & Simões, P. J. A. 2018, Science Advances, 4, 2794

    2018

  12. [20]

    D., Lynch, B

    Kazachenko, M. D., Lynch, B. J., Welsch, B. T., & Sun, X. 2017, ApJ, 845, 49

    2017

  13. [21]

    Kopp, R. A. & Pneuman, G. W. 1976, Sol. Phys., 50, 85

    1976

  14. [22]

    J., Grimm, O., et al

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

    2020

  15. [23]

    L., & Hudson, H

    Krucker, S., Raftery, C. L., & Hudson, H. S. 2011, ApJ, 734, 34

    2011

  16. [24]

    Krucker, S., Torre, G., & Schwartz, R. A. 2021, ApJ, 909, 43

    2021

  17. [25]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 17 Lörinˇcík, J., Polito, V ., De Pontieu, B., Yu, S., & Freij, N. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 334

    2012

  18. [26]

    J., V olpara, A., et al

    Massa, P., Hurford, G. J., V olpara, A., et al. 2023, Sol. Phys., 298, 114

    2023

  19. [27]

    K., et al

    Massa, P., Schwartz, R., Tolbert, A. K., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 894, 46 Müller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1

    2020

  20. [28]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 178

    Polito, V ., Testa, P., Allred, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 178

    2018

  21. [29]

    L., Krucker, S., & Lin, R

    Raftery, C. L., Krucker, S., & Lin, R. P. 2011, ApJ, 743, L27

    2011

  22. [30]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8

    Rochus, P., Auchère, F., Berghmans, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8

    2020

  23. [31]

    A., Torre, G., & Piana, M

    Schwartz, R. A., Torre, G., & Piana, M. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 793, L23

    2014

  24. [32]

    Z., Battaglia, A

    Stiefel, M. Z., Battaglia, A. F., Barczynski, K., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A89

    2023

  25. [33]

    Sturrock, P. A. 1966, Nature, 211, 695 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W. T., Bobra, M. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 890, 68

    1966

  26. [34]

    A., Benvenuto, F., Massone, A

    Torre, G., Schwartz, R. A., Benvenuto, F., Massone, A. M., & Piana, M. 2015, Inverse Problems, 31, 095006 V olpara, A., Massa, P., Perracchione, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A145

    2015

  27. [35]

    2023, A&A, 673, A142

    Xiao, H., Maloney, S., Krucker, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A142

    2023

  28. [36]

    V ., McLaughlin, J

    Zimovets, I. V ., McLaughlin, J. A., Srivastava, A. K., et al. 2021, Space Sci. Rev., 217, 66 Article number, page 8 of 9 Hannah Collier et al.: Solar flares in the Solar Orbiter era: Short-exposure EUI /FSI observations of STIX flares Appendix A: STX2022-11-13T06:18: AIA obse...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.