Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Statistical Study of Solar Prominence Plumes Based on NVST H$\alpha$ Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Solar prominence plumes show coupled lifetime, height, and width, and fast-starting plumes tend to follow precursor brightening—evidence that no single mechanism drives them.

desk verdict First real statistical catalog of prominence plumes with deposited data; the descriptive part is solid, but the headline correlations and triggering claims need cluster-aware re-analysis before they can carry the interpretation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03726 v1 pith:ESAOC25N submitted 2026-08-04 astro-ph.SR

Yangrui Chen , Yijun Hou , Jincheng Wang , Ting Li , Shuo Yang , Yilin Guo , Junyi Zhang , Haitang Li
show 4 more authors
Feiyang Sha Qing Zhou Yu Liu Xiaoli Yan
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarprominencesprominenceplumesH-alphaobservationsplumekinematicsmagneticreconnectionRayleigh-Taylorinstabilitytrajectorycurvatureprecursorbrightening
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

Using a uniform automated pipeline on 34 limb H-alpha plumes observed between 2013 and 2025, this paper tries to establish that prominence plumes—dark finger-like upflows in solar prominences—have intrinsic scale coupling and diverse triggers rather than a single physical driver. It finds that plume lifetime, vertical displacement, and mean width are positively correlated, with the strongest link between lifetime and ascent height (r=0.80), while trajectory curvature is negatively correlated with lifetime, height, and velocity. It also reports that plumes with higher initial velocity are more likely to show localized precursor brightening (62.5% versus 25% in extreme groups), which the authors read as a sign of magnetic reconnection or mini-filament eruption at the trigger site. If correct, plume morphology and kinematics encode information about the local magnetic environment and triggering process, and models of prominence mass transport must accommodate at least two classes of plume initiation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the automated image-processing and parameter-extraction pipeline applied to NVST H-alpha images: BM3D denoising, Difference-of-Gaussian boundary enhancement, threshold binarization and connected-component analysis to isolate the plume, contour extraction, segmentation of the front and flanks, and time-series measurements of intensity, width, velocity, and Savitzky-Golay-smoothed trajectory curvature. All correlation results and trigger classifications rest on this uniform extraction.

What would settle it

Take an unbiased sample that includes small, faint, partially obscured, or merging plumes and track them with the same automated pipeline; if the lifetime-height-width correlations and the brightening-initial-velocity association disappear or reverse, the reported relations are artifacts of selecting only clear, complete events.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the 34 plume events form a statistical picture in which temporal and spatial scales are coupled: lifetime, vertical displacement, and mean width correlate pairwise, and trajectory curvature anticorrelates with lifetime, height, and velocity. The strongest correlation, lifetime versus height (r=0.80), says longer-lived plumes climb farther. Low-curvature trajectories belong to plumes that accelerate and contract in width, interpreted as less environmental resistance or more stable internal magnetic structure. Plumes that begin fast are more often accompanied by precursor brightening, interpreted as magnetic reconnection or mini-filament eruption; the same bri

Load-bearing premise

The 34 plumes chosen for clear, complete, unobscured evolution are a representative sample, so the measured correlations and trigger associations reflect real plume physics rather than selection bias or measurement artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the lifetime-height-width coupling is real, plume extent can be predicted from lifetime or vice versa, giving a proxy for upward mass transport in prominences.
  • If curvature anticorrelates with lifetime, height, and velocity, curvature becomes an observable diagnostic of how much resistance a plume meets and how stable its internal magnetic structure is.
  • If fast-starting plumes preferentially show precursor brightening, early brightening can serve as a marker for reconnection-driven or mini-filament-eruption-driven plumes in future observations.
  • If plume initiation is independent of bubble geometry, theoretical models must allow local triggers anywhere beneath a prominence, not only at bubble boundaries.
  • If parameter evolution is non-monotonic and widely distributed, single-mechanism models such as Rayleigh-Taylor instability alone are insufficient; coupled instability and reconnection scenarios are needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because several plumes come from the same prominence and are treated as independent, a mixed-effects or cluster-bootstrap reanalysis would test how much of the reported correlations is between-prominence versus within-prominence sharing of environment.
  • The curvature-lifetime anticorrelation suggests a testable scaling: high-resolution MHD simulations with varying background magnetic tension should reproduce a quantitative curvature-lifetime relation matching the reported fit slopes.
  • The precursor-brightening criterion (I_peak > μ + 2σ, Δt ≤ 2 min) could be applied to EUV or UV observations to determine whether the brightening is thermal (emission-measure increase) or nonthermal (line broadening), distinguishing reconnection from simple plasma compression.
  • If some non-bubble plumes are Type-II transient bubbles seen edge-on, multi-viewpoint observations should reveal some of these 'plumes' as expanding cavities when viewed from another angle.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a statistical analysis of 34 prominence plumes observed by NVST Hα between 2013 and 2025. After manually identifying 137 plume events in 36 prominences and applying strict morphological/continuity filters, the authors use an automated pipeline (BM3D denoising, DoG boundary detection, contour segmentation) to extract lifetimes, vertical displacements, widths, velocities, and trajectory curvature. The main claims are: (i) plume lifetimes are typically 300–700 s, heights 3–7 Mm, widths 0.5–1.5 Mm, velocities 10–20 km/s; (ii) lifetime, height, and mean width are positively correlated, with the strongest correlation r=0.80 between lifetime and height; (iii) trajectory curvature is negatively correlated with lifetime (r=-0.39), height (r=-0.59), and velocity; and (iv) plumes with high initial velocity more often show precursor brightening (62.5% vs 25% in extreme groups), interpreted as evidence for magnetic-reconnection or mini-filament triggering. The authors conclude that plumes are not driven by a single mechanism.

Significance. The paper addresses an important and under-studied question: the statistical relationship between the morphology, kinematics, and triggering of prominence plumes. Its strengths are the construction of a catalog with 34 well-observed events (larger than previous case studies), the use of a uniform automated extraction pipeline, the public data deposit in ScienceDB, and the explicit discussion of selection and projection limitations. If the correlations are robust, they would provide useful constraints on plume models and support a diversity of triggering mechanisms. However, the current statistical treatment does not yet establish these quantitative conclusions: the analysis ignores clustering of plumes within the same prominence, reports no significance tests or uncertainties on the correlation coefficients, and uses post-hoc extreme-group comparisons without sensitivity analysis. These issues are correctable, but they are load-bearing for the paper's central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Table 1, §3.2] Section 2.2 states that multiple plumes occurring successively or simultaneously within one prominence were 'treated as independent samples.' Table 1 shows strong clustering: cases 1–3 share 2016-11-11, cases 22–27 share 2021-04-14, cases 28–31 share 2022-11-08, and cases 32–34 share 2023-09-06. Plumes from the same prominence share a magnetic environment, viewing geometry, and data-quality conditions, so their measured parameters are not independent. The Pearson correlations and ordinary least-squares error bands in Figure 4 therefore likely overstate precision and may inflate significance. This affects the headline r=0.80 (lifetime–height) and r=-0.59 (curvature–height). Please provide cluster-aware inference (e.g., mixed-effects models with a random intercept for prominence/date, cluster bootstrap, or at least a within-prominence vs between-prominence decomposition), and state how the
  2. [§3.2, Figure 4] Section 3.2 reports correlation coefficients (r=0.80, r=-0.39, r=-0.59, etc.) and calls relationships 'significant' and 'intrinsic,' but no p-values, confidence intervals, or multiple-comparison corrections are given anywhere. The same issue affects the extreme-group comparisons in Section 3.3 and Figures 8–9: with 8 events per group, the 62.5% vs 25% precursor-brightening difference (5/8 vs 2/8) is not statistically significant by a two-sided Fisher exact test (p≈0.31), so the abstract's 'more likely' wording is unsupported. Please report effect sizes and uncertainties (e.g., bootstrap or permutation tests clustered by prominence/date) for all correlation and categorical claims.
  3. [§2.2, §4] Section 2.2 applies four restrictive selection criteria to go from 137 to 34 plumes, and Section 4 acknowledges that this may exclude smaller or fainter plumes ('survival biases'). Because the filtering explicitly favors clear boundaries and complete evolution, the selected sample is likely biased toward longer-lived, larger, higher-contrast events. Truncation of the low-lifetime/low-height/low-width corner can by itself induce positive correlations among these variables, so the 'intrinsic coupling' claim in Section 3.2 is not yet established. Please quantify the selection effect (e.g., report parameters for the full 137-event sample where measurable, or perform a selection-model/simulation study) and discuss the expected direction of bias on each reported correlation.
  4. [§3.3, Figures 8–9] Section 3.3 defines precursor brightening via an objective-looking but hand-tuned rule: I_peak>μ+2σ, Δt≤2 min, with specific windows (3.5 min before appearance, 3 min before peak, 6 min background) and a light-curve extraction region of ~0.3–0.4 Mm. No sensitivity analysis is provided for these thresholds, the excluded cases (12, 14, 32), or the choice of the trigger-location area. The claim that high-initial-velocity plumes are more likely to show brightening therefore rests on a single arbitrary classification. Please show that the proportions (47.1% vs 42.9%; 62.5% vs 25%) are robust to reasonable variations of these parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3] Percentages such as 17.6% increasing vs decreasing trends are quoted as evidence of directional asymmetry without uncertainty or a test; a sign-test or binomial confidence interval would help.
  2. [Abstract and §4] The phrases 'plumes with higher initial velocities were more likely to be accompanied by precursor brightening' and 'significant pairwise positive correlations' should be qualified by the lack of significance tests and cluster-robust errors.
  3. [General] There are minor proofreading issues: 'Since the DoG-processed data' after a period, 'the vertical displacement (Height) was then defined' repeated construction, capital 'Plumes' mid-sentence in Section 3.2, and several figure captions with garbled axis labels in the provided text that should be checked in the production version.
  4. [§3.3] The inference that some non-bubble plumes 'may inherently be such transient bubbles' leans heavily on Y. Guo et al. (2024), involving a co-author of the present paper; the citation is appropriate, but the inference should be more clearly framed as a hypothesis that the current data cannot independently test.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the statistical measurements are self-contained; self-citations are used as external interpretive context, not as derivation inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central results are direct measurements from NVST Hα images: plume lifetime, height, widths, velocities, and curvature are extracted through an explicit image-processing pipeline (§2.2) and then correlated (§3.2). No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then relabeled as a prediction; the correlation coefficients are computed from the measured values themselves. The lifetime–height correlation (r=0.80) reflects a kinematic relationship (height ≈ mean velocity × lifetime) and both quantities are measured independently from image sequences; the paper does not derive height from lifetime or vice versa by definition. The interpretation of non-bubble plumes as possible Type-II bubbles driven by mini-filament eruptions leans on Y. Guo et al. (2024), a separate published study by overlapping authors. This is self-citation, but it is used as an external, falsifiable hypothesis and is explicitly framed as speculation ('we speculate that some of the non-bubble region plumes... may inherently be such transient bubbles'), not as a forced mathematical consequence of the present data. The acknowledged limitations (survival bias from stringent selection, LOS projection effects, automated boundary errors) are real statistical concerns but do not constitute circular reasoning. The treatment of multiple plumes from the same prominence as independent is a clustering/robustness issue, not a circular derivation. No equation in the paper equates a fitted parameter to the reported result, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain. The analysis is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are methodological thresholds and filter choices that affect the measured statistics. The axioms are domain assumptions about boundary definition, sample independence, projection effects, and brightening interpretation. The most consequential is the independence assumption, since multiple plumes from the same prominence are treated as independent, and the selection criteria that produced the 34-event sample.

free parameters (5)
  • Precursor brightening significance threshold = I_peak > mu + 2 sigma, delta-t <= 2 min
    Ad hoc thresholds used to classify plumes into brightening/non-brightening groups in Section 3.3. The key result (62.5% vs 25% brightening for high/low initial velocity) depends on these choices.
  • Extreme group size = 8 samples per group
    The paper selects the 8 largest and 8 smallest values for initial width and velocity comparisons in Figures 8-9. This post-hoc choice affects the reported proportions.
  • Savitzky-Golay filter parameters = window length 7, polynomial order 2
    Applied to trajectories before curvature calculation in Section 2.2; changes the measured curvature values.
  • Curvature classification threshold = 0.4 Mm^-1 (median)
    Used to label trajectories as curved (C) or straight (S) in Table 1. The threshold is the sample median, a data-derived choice.
  • Light-curve extraction region size = 0.3-0.4 Mm
    Guided by the lower limit of observed plume scales in Section 3.3. Affects the precursor brightening light curves.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Plume boundary corresponds to the maximum local radiation intensity gradient.
    Stated in Section 2.2 as the definition of plume boundary. All morphological parameters (width, height, trajectory) derive from this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Multiple plumes from the same prominence are statistically independent samples.
    The catalog treats 137 plumes from 36 prominences as independent events. Plumes from the same prominence share a common environment, which can inflate correlations. No cluster analysis or correction is applied.
  • domain assumption Line-of-sight projection effects do not significantly alter the statistical trends.
    The paper states in Section 3.2 that a LOS projection analysis showed modest effects for most angles, but the detailed analysis is not shown. This underlies the use of 2D plane-of-sky measurements for width and curvature.
  • domain assumption Precursor brightening is an indicator of magnetic reconnection or localized energy release.
    Used in Section 3.3 to link brightening to triggering mechanisms. The authors acknowledge alternative interpretations such as plasma piling, so this is an interpretive assumption, not a proven relation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Statistical Study of Solar Prominence Plumes Based on NVST H$\alpha$ Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ESAOC25N

@misc{pith2026260803726,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Statistical Study of Solar Prominence Plumes Based on NVST H$\alpha$ Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ESAOC25N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03726}
}
abstract

Plumes are one of the most representative dynamic features observed in prominences and play a key role in mass and magnetic transport within them. However, their physical nature and triggering processes remain actively debated. Based on limb H$\alpha$ observations from the New Vacuum Solar Telescope (NVST) during 2013--2025, we statistically investigated 34 plumes with clear and complete evolutions by developing an automated image-processing pipeline. It is revealed that plume lifetimes mainly range from 300 s to 700 s, with vertical displacements between 3--7 Mm. The mean widths and velocities are concentrated in the range of 0.5--1.5 Mm and 10--20 km s$^{-1}$, respectively. Besides wide distribution ranges, plume parameters exhibit irregular evolution fluctuations, indicating that the formation and evolution of various plumes may exhibit different physical patterns. Correlation analysis among the parameters further reveals that: (1) Positive correlations were found among lifetime, vertical displacement, and mean width, indicating an intrinsic coupling between the temporal and spatial scales of plumes. (2) Trajectory curvature is negatively correlated with lifetime, vertical displacement, and velocity. Accelerating and width-contracting plumes typically have lower curvature, suggesting that curvature may reflect environmental influences and the stability of plumes. (3) Plumes with higher initial velocities were more likely to be accompanied by precursor brightening, suggesting that these plumes may be triggered by magnetic reconnection. Furthermore, we infer that some plumes in non-bubble regions may be inherently driven by mini-filament eruptions. These results establish a statistical framework for prominence plumes and reveal diversity in their dynamical evolution and triggering mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03726 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Identification results of two representative plumes. Left panels (a–c4) shows a non-bubble plume, and Right panels (d–f4) shows a bubble plume. (a, d) Large-scale context views. The white boxes outline the plume regions, while the cyan dashed box in (d) indicates the underlying bubble. (b, e) Zoomed-in views of the plumes (as indicated by white arrows). (c1–c4, f1–f4) Temporal evolution tracking of the plumes. Color… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Statistical distributions of plume dynamical and geometrical parameters, including lifetime(a), vertical displacement (b), width (c–e), and velocity (f–h). The histograms represent the distributions of the overall sample. The median values and parameter ranges are marked in each panel. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized temporal evolution of plume physical parameters. Evolutionary characteristics are shown for the radiation intensity time series in the plume-front (a), right flank (b), and left flank (c) regions, as well as the frame mean width time series, frame maximum width time series, and velocity time series (d–f). All parameters are normalized to their respective initial values and aligned onto a common normalized… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlation analysis and linear regression fits among the key parameters of plumes.Upper panels: (a) Height vs. Lifetime, (b) Widthmean vs. Lifetime, and (c) Widthmean vs. Height. Lower panels: (d) Curvature vs. Lifetime, (e) Curvature vs. Height, and (f) Curvature vs.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relationship between plume trajectory curvature and plume lifetime (a), vertical displacement (b), mean velocity (c), and maximum velocity (d). The upper panels use trajectory curvature as the selection criterion and compare the distributions of lifetime (a), vertical …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized temporal evolution and curvature distributions of two special plume categories. Panels (a) and (c) show the normalized temporal evolution of plumes exhibiting continuously increasing velocity and gradually decreasing frame mean width, respectively. Panels (b…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized radiation intensity curves of the trigger location for bubble and non-bubble plumes. The upper panels show bubble plumes, while the lower panels show non-bubble plumes. The blue curves denote plume events exhibiting brightening behavior. Red and blue points …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95b6

    Berger, T., Hillier, A., & Liu, W. 2017, ApJ, 850, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95b6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa95b6 2017

  2. [2]

    2011, Nature, 472, 197, doi: 10.1038/nature09925

    Berger, T., Testa, P., Hillier, A., et al. 2011, Nature, 472, 197, doi: 10.1038/nature09925

    work page doi:10.1038/nature09925 2011

  3. [3]

    E., Shine, R

    Berger, T. E., Shine, R. A., Slater, G. L., et al. 2008, ApJL, 676, L89, doi: 10.1086/587171

    work page doi:10.1086/587171 2008

  4. [4]

    E., Slater, G., Hurlburt, N., et al

    Berger, T. E., Slater, G., Hurlburt, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1288, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1288

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/1288 2010

  5. [5]

    2021, ApJL, 923, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3bd0

    Chen, C., Su, Y., Xue, J., Gan, W., & Huang, Y. 2021, ApJL, 923, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3bd0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3bd0 2021

  6. [6]

    2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 249611, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2858-5

    Chen, H., Xia, C., & Chen, H. 2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 249611, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2858-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2858-5 2026

  7. [7]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 166, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/166

    Chen, P.-F., Xu, A.-A., & Ding, M.-D. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 166, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/166

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/166 2020

  8. [8]

    2007, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 16, 2080, doi: 10.1109/TIP.2007.901238 Dud ´ ık, J., Aulanier, G., Schmieder, B., Zapi´ or, M., &

    Dabov, K., Foi, A., Katkovnik, V., & Egiazarian, K. 2007, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 16, 2080, doi: 10.1109/TIP.2007.901238 Dud ´ ık, J., Aulanier, G., Schmieder, B., Zapi´ or, M., &

    work page arXiv 2007

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/9 Gun´ ar, S., Schwartz, P., Dud ´ ık, J., et al

    Heinzel, P. 2012, ApJ, 761, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/9 Gun´ ar, S., Schwartz, P., Dud ´ ık, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322777

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    2021, ApJL, 911, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abee92

    Guo, Y., Hou, Y., Li, T., & Zhang, J. 2021, ApJL, 911, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abee92

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad54b8

    Guo, Y., Hou, Y., Li, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad54b8

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 2, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41614-017-0013-2

    Hillier, A. 2018, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 2, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41614-017-0013-2

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2012a, ApJ, 746, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/120

    Hillier, A., Berger, T., Isobe, H., & Shibata, K. 2012a, ApJ, 746, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/120

    doi

  6. [14]

    2012b, ApJ, 756, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/110

    Hillier, A., Isobe, H., Shibata, K., & Berger, T. 2012b, ApJ, 756, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/110

    doi

  7. [15]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad08bd

    Hou, Y., Li, C., Li, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad08bd

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Li, T., Song, Z

    Hou, Y. J., Li, T., Song, Z. P., & Zhang, J. 2020, A&A, 640, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038348

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2010, SSRv, 151, 243, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9630-6

    Labrosse, N., Heinzel, P., Vial, J.-C., et al. 2010, SSRv, 151, 243, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9630-6

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad33f

    Li, D., Shen, Y., Ning, Z., Zhang, Q., & Zhou, T. 2018, ApJ, 863, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad33f

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, Science China

    Li, D., Xue, J., Yuan, D., & Ning, Z. 2022, Science China

    2022

  12. [20]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 239611, doi: 10.1007/s11433-021-1836-y

    doi

  13. [21]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0743

    Liu, X., Hou, Y., Li, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0743

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 705, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/009

    Liu, Z., Xu, J., Gu, B.-Z., et al. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 705, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/009

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    1980, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 207, 187, doi: 10.1098/rspb.1980.0020

    Marr, D., & Hildreth, E. 1980, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 207, 187, doi: 10.1098/rspb.1980.0020

    1980

  16. [24]

    I., Su, Y

    McCauley, P. I., Su, Y. N., Schanche, N., et al. 2015, SoPh, 290, 1703, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0699-7

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2014-1

    Parenti, S. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2014-1

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    2010, SoPh, 267, 75, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9638-9

    Ryutova, M., Berger, T., Frank, Z., Tarbell, T., & Title, A. 2010, SoPh, 267, 75, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9638-9

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    D., et al

    Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Y. D., et al. 2015, ApJL, 814, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/814/1/L17

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Chen, P

    Shen, Y., Liu, Y. D., Chen, P. F., & Ichimoto, K. 2014, ApJ, 795, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/130

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, ApJL, 965, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3af8

    Wang, J., Li, D., Li, C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3af8

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, A&A, 659, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142584

    Wang, J., Yan, X., Xue, Z., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142584

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2025, ApJL, 990, L64, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfecf

    Wang, W., Liu, R., Luo, R., & Yan, X. 2025, ApJL, 990, L64, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfecf

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 222, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/222

    Xue, J.-C., Vial, J.-C., Su, Y., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 222, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/222

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    2020, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 63, 1656, doi: 10.1007/s11431-019-1463-6

    Yan, X., Liu, Z., Zhang, J., & Xu, Z. 2020, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 63, 1656, doi: 10.1007/s11431-019-1463-6

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb39e

    Yan, X., Xue, Z., Wang, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb39e

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, ApJL, 884, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4bcd

    Yuan, D., Shen, Y., Liu, Y., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4bcd

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2026, ApJ, 1004, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6c22

    Zhang, J., Hou, Y., Liu, X., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6c22

    2026 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Chen, P

    Zhang, Q. M., Chen, P. F., Xia, C., & Keppens, R. 2012, A&A, 542, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218786

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add32f

    Zhou, C., Shen, Y., Xia, C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add32f

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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