Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Polarization-ratio maps of CMEs can be turned into explicit 3D point clouds that match across spacecraft and line up with standard flux-rope geometry.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 05:11 UTC pith:FTD6KZXF

load-bearing objection Useful multi-mission packaging of existing PRT maps into heliocentric point clouds; solid single-event demo, not a new inversion, with transparent but selection-dependent filtering. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28506 v1 pith:FTD6KZXF submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.SR

PRICM3: A novel Polarization Ratio framework for three-dimensional CME reconstruction

Yara De Leo , Manuela Temmer , Fernando M. L\'opez , Sarah E. Gibson , Hebe Cremades , Leonardo Di Lorenzo , Roberto Susino , Marco Romoli
show 10 more authors
Lucia Abbo Aleksandr Burtovoi Chiara Casini Michele Fabi Federica Frassati Giovanna Jerse Federico Landini Maurizio Pancrazzi Giuliana Russano Clementina Sasso
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solar physicscoronal mass ejectionspolarimetryThomson scattering3D reconstructioncoronagraphspolarization ratio technique
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

White-light coronagraphs only see two-dimensional projections of coronal mass ejections, even though the eruptions are three-dimensional. The Polarization Ratio Technique already encodes a proxy for how far scattering plasma sits from the plane of the sky, but that information is usually left as color-coded 2D topographical maps that are hard to compare across viewpoints or against geometric models. This paper introduces PRICM3, a framework that converts those maps into filtered 3D point clouds in a shared heliocentric frame so independent reconstructions can be visualized together and checked against a Graduated Cylindrical Shell model. On a slow limb CME from 28 October 2021, reconstructions from three coronagraphs converge on a consistent volume whose centroids stay inside the model’s direction uncertainties and whose better-constrained epochs put most points inside the model shell. The result is meant to show that the depth already latent in polarimetric data can be recovered as usable 3D geometry for current and upcoming polarimetric missions.

Core claim

Independent Polarization Ratio Technique reconstructions of the 28 October 2021 limb CME, once converted by PRICM3 into a common heliocentric point-cloud frame, yield mutually consistent three-dimensional localizations that align with the corresponding Graduated Cylindrical Shell geometry, with cloud centroids inside the adopted direction uncertainties and volumetric overlap fractions reaching roughly 74–87 percent for the better-constrained epochs.

What carries the argument

PRICM3 (Polarization Ratio Integrated CME Mapper in 3D): a workflow that takes PRT topographical |z| maps, interactively selects the CME region, attaches each pixel’s plane-of-sky position to its line-of-sight distance, transforms the resulting points into a shared heliocentric frame, and overlays them with observing geometry and a GCS mesh for multi-viewpoint comparison.

Load-bearing premise

Each pixel’s polarization-ratio depth can be treated as one fair three-dimensional sample of the CME after interactive region selection and ad hoc filtering, rather than a selection-dependent average that mixes the eruption with other structures along the line of sight.

What would settle it

Apply the same PRICM3 pipeline without morphology-driven cutoffs to another multi-viewpoint limb CME with dense polarized cadences; if independent point-cloud centroids systematically leave the GCS direction uncertainty box or overlap fractions stay low even at later, well-resolved epochs, the claim that PRT maps recover a consistent CME volume fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • PRT topographical maps from different coronagraphs can be placed in one heliocentric frame and judged by shared centroid-offset and volume-overlap metrics.
  • Polarimetric sequences from Metis and similar instruments become routinely usable as 3D geometric products, not only as 2D depth-coded images.
  • Inner-corona joint views (for example high-resolution polarimetric pairs at similar heights) can be checked for fine CME substructure locations against a common shell.
  • Wide-field polarimetry out to large elongations can reuse the same mapper once the Thomson-scattering geometry is reformulated for non-parallel lines of sight and a point-like Sun.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the filtering step remains partly interactive, multi-event catalogs will need automated, reproducible ROI and outlier rules before PRICM3-style clouds can feed space-weather ensembles without human tuning.
  • Centroid and overlap scores could become a standard cross-check whenever GCS fits and single-view PRT disagree on propagation direction.
  • Extending the method to halo or backside events will stress the front/back ambiguity resolution that this limb case settled with EUV source location.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces PRICM3, a Python framework that lifts Polarization Ratio Technique (PRT) topographical maps into heliocentric 3D point clouds so that multi-spacecraft PRT reconstructions can be visualized together and compared to Graduated Cylindrical Shell (GCS) geometry. As a proof-of-concept, the authors apply independent PRT analyses of the 28 October 2021 slow limb CME from Solar Orbiter/Metis, SOHO/LASCO C2, and STEREO-A/COR2, transform the maps into a common frame, and report mutually consistent late-epoch clouds whose centroids lie within adopted GCS direction uncertainties and whose maximum GCS-volume overlap fractions reach ~74–87% (Table 1; §3). The paper argues that 3D information already present in PRT maps can be recovered in an intuitive spatial form and positions the tool for Metis, Proba-3/ASPIICS, and PUNCH polarimetry.

Significance. If the demonstration holds under clearer selection control, PRICM3 is a practically useful contribution: it does not invent a new inversion, but it removes a real barrier to interpreting PRT products by placing independent single-viewpoint depth maps in one heliocentric frame with GCS meshes and simple consistency estimators. The multi-instrument application (Metis, LASCO, COR2) and the explicit quantitative checks (centroid Δlon/Δlat; overlap fractions with stated PRT and GCS uncertainties) are strengths relative to purely visual PRT papers. Timeliness for PUNCH and ASPIICS is genuine, and the discussion of large-elongation Thomson geometry (§4) correctly flags where the framework must be extended. Code-release intent (GitHub upon acceptance) would further raise the work’s value if the selection pipeline is made reproducible.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3–§3, Fig. 4, Table 1] §2.3–§3 and Fig. 4: The quantitative claims in Table 1 (centroid offsets and max. GCS overlap) rest on interactive ROI selection plus free filtering choices (brightness thresholds before Rm; 95% CI on |z| for every map; an extra morphology cutoff |z|≥2.1 R⊙ for LASCO 14:58 UT). Because PRT |z| is already a LOS-weighted center-of-mass proxy (acknowledged via Mierla et al. 2009 and Gibson et al. 2026), these steps can preferentially retain points near the GCS envelope. The early COR2-A 15:08 UT row (16.2% overlap) already shows strong sensitivity to evolutionary stage and constraints. For the central multi-view/GCS-consistency claim to be attributable to the PRT signal rather than selection, please add a brief sensitivity analysis: report how Δlon/Δlat and overlap change under documented alternate ROIs and under CI cuts (e.g. 90/95/99%) and with/without the morphology cutoff, or replace ad
  2. [§3, Table 1] §3 and Table 1: The overlap estimator is interpreted as geometrical agreement with the GCS shell, yet the text correctly states that PRT cannot recover CME depth extent and only samples an average LOS location. High enclosed fractions are therefore a weaker test than they appear (points can sit inside a thick shell without tracing the flux-rope surface). Please reframe the metric explicitly as a consistency check against an independent large-scale envelope—not volumetric recovery—and, if feasible, add a simple null comparison (e.g. overlap of the same clouds with a moderately mispointed or resized GCS shell) so the reported 74–87% figures can be judged against chance enclosure under your uncertainty model.
  3. [Abstract, §4] Abstract and §4: Language such as “prove that the 3D information… can be successfully recovered” and “aligned remarkably well” overstates a single favorable limb event with mixed epoch quality (LASCO/early-COR2 vs later Metis/COR2). Please temper the abstract and conclusions to “demonstrate for this event” / “support recovery under these conditions,” and state clearly that generalization to halo/complex LOS events remains untested.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2] §2.2: Front/back ambiguity is resolved from EUV source location; a one-sentence note on residual ambiguity risk for non-limb or multi-source events would help readers applying PRICM3 more broadly.
  2. [§3] §3: GCS apex heights are linearly interpolated in time under self-similar expansion between clear-filter/double-exposure times and polarized times. State the time offsets and fitted speed (or apex vs time) so the interpolation uncertainty can be assessed alongside the adopted ±5% height error.
  3. [Fig. 5] Fig. 5 caption: Only a random subset of points is shown for visualization while analyses use full clouds—good—but please state the approximate fraction retained in the figure so readers do not misread apparent density.
  4. [Fig. 6] Fig. 6: Axes are intentionally wide; a zoomed inset around the cluster of centroids would make the “within uncertainty” statement easier to verify by eye.
  5. [§2.3] §2.3 fn. 16: Repository “upon acceptance” is fine; please commit to releasing the exact ROI masks/filter parameters used for Table 1 with the paper’s data products.
  6. [Front matter / §2.1] Minor text: “F abi” spacing in the author list; ensure consistent pB/tB/uB italicization; “De Leo et al., 2026b, in preparation” should be cited uniformly when used to justify event selection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation circularity: PRICM3 is a coordinate transform plus multi-view/GCS cross-check, not a claim that reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing claim is empirical and methodological: independent PRT |z| maps from Metis, LASCO C2, and COR2-A, after interactive ROI isolation and filtering, become mutually consistent heliocentric point clouds that largely fall inside a separately fitted GCS shell (centroids within GCS direction uncertainties; overlaps up to ~86–87% for better-constrained epochs). PRT |z| is obtained from measured pB/uB versus Thomson-scattering theory (eltheory.pro); GCS is a forward geometric fit to multi-view tB morphology with parameters and uncertainties taken from the literature (Verbeke et al. 2023). PRICM3 only lifts already-derived topographical maps into a common frame and does not modify the underlying PRT inversion. Agreement between independent techniques and viewpoints is therefore an external consistency test, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction, nor a quantity defined in terms of the quantity being ‘derived.’ Self-citations (Metis calibration, event context, Gibson et al. 2026 on LOS averaging) supply context or known limitations; none is a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the reported overlaps. Interactive ROI and morphology cutoffs (e.g. |z|≥2.1 R⊙ streamer rejection) are selection choices that can affect correctness and reproducibility, but they do not make the multi-view/GCS comparison true by definition. Score 0; steps empty.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on classical Thomson-scattering PRT, standard heliocentric coordinate transforms, and GCS as an external geometric prior. Load-bearing analysis choices are hand/interactive filters and a self-similar height interpolation—not new physical entities. No new particles or forces; the invented piece is the software product and its consistency estimators.

free parameters (5)
  • 95% CI filter on reconstructed |z| = 95% CI
    Applied uniformly to retain the 'statistically representative' portion of each cloud before comparison; choice of 95% is conventional, not derived from CME physics.
  • Morphology-based |z| cutoff (LASCO 14:58 UT) = |z| ≥ 2.1 R⊙
    Streamer-through-cavity component removed at |z| ≥ 2.1 R⊙ after visual interpretation; directly changes which points enter the CME cloud and overlap scores.
  • Brightness thresholds on pB/tB before Rm
    Low-S/N pixels discarded prior to ratio maps; thresholds not numerically specified as a universal rule.
  • GCS uncertainty envelope used in overlap = ±22° lon, ±4° lat, ±5% height
    Adopted from Verbeke et al. 2023 (±22° lon, ±4° lat, ±5% apex) and propagated into 'maximum overlap'; values affect how strongly agreement is claimed.
  • Linear self-similar GCS apex interpolation in time = linear fit of apex height vs time
    GCS fit times differ from polarized PRT times; apex height is linearly interpolated assuming self-similar expansion to match PRT epochs.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Thomson-scattering polarization ratio Rm = pB/uB maps to a unique average |z| from the plane of the sky via theoretical Rt (eltheory.pro).
    Core of PRT as used in §2.2; standard in the field since Moran & Davila 2004 / Dere et al. 2005.
  • domain assumption For sufficiently compact sources, |z| is a usable center-of-mass proxy; LOS extent relative to POS radius can bias that average (Gibson et al. 2026 §2.5).
    Explicitly flagged in §2.2; underpins treating each pixel as one 3D point.
  • domain assumption Front/back LOS ambiguity is resolved by the known source region from EUV (SDO/AIA and STEREO-A/EUVI 304 Å).
    §2.2; required to place points on the correct side of the POS.
  • domain assumption Pre-event (and for COR2, monthly-minimum plus pre-event) background subtraction isolates CME electrons without large residual streamer contamination.
    §2.2 data preparation; residual contamination motivates the later morphology cutoff.
  • domain assumption GCS hollow-croissant mesh is a valid large-scale geometric reference for overlap and direction comparison.
    §2.3–§3; standard forward model, not re-derived here.
  • standard math HEEQ (or equivalent) transforms correctly map local POS + z into a common heliocentric frame for multi-spacecraft overlay.
    §2.3 coordinate workflow; routine spacecraft geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper Interactive ROI selection plus optional |z| morphology cuts define the CME point set used in all quantitative estimators.
    §2.3 and §3 / Fig. 4; analysis choice that is not uniquely determined by the data.
invented entities (1)
  • PRICM3 framework (point-cloud CME mapper + consistency estimators) no independent evidence
    purpose: Convert PRT topographical maps into filtered 3D point clouds in a shared frame and score them against multi-view PRT and GCS.
    Software/methods product; not a physical entity. Independent use is possible once code and inputs are public.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 18144 in / 3900 out tokens · 76690 ms · 2026-07-31T05:11:16.537925+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are inherently three-dimensional (3D), but traditional white-light coronagraphs provide only two-dimensional (2D) projections. While the Polarization Ratio Technique (PRT) utilizes Thomson scattering to infer proxy 3D plasma locations, its results are typically limited to 2D topographical maps, hindering geometric interpretation. To address this, we introduce PRICM3 (Polarization Ratio Integrated CME Mapper in 3D), a framework that converts PRT-derived maps into explicit 3D point-cloud reconstructions. This tool enables intuitive visualization, multi-viewpoint comparison, and direct validation against geometric models such as the Graduated Cylindrical Shell (GCS). As a proof-of-concept, we analyzed a limb CME observed on 28 October 2021 using data from Solar Orbiter/Metis, SOHO/LASCO, and STEREO-A/COR2. The independent reconstructions converged into a consistent 3D volume that aligned remarkably well with the corresponding GCS geometry. These results prove that the 3D information embedded in PRT topographical maps can be successfully recovered through spatial reconstruction. PRICM3 offers a powerful, intuitive method for interpreting polarimetric coronagraph observations, providing a vital tool for current and future solar missions such as Proba-3/ASPIICS and PUNCH.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28506 by Aleksandr Burtovoi, Chiara Casini, Clementina Sasso, Federica Frassati, Federico Landini, Fernando M. L\'opez, Giovanna Jerse, Giuliana Russano, Hebe Cremades, Leonardo Di Lorenzo, Lucia Abbo, Manuela Temmer, Marco Romoli, Maurizio Pancrazzi, Michele Fabi, Roberto Susino, Sarah E. Gibson, Yara De Leo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Observational overview of the 28 October 2021 limb CME and viewing geometry. Top: The left panel represents the Spacecraft constellation obtained in Stonyhurst coordinates, adapted from Solar-MACH (J. Gieseler et al. 2022), showing the relative positions of Solar Orbiter, Earth, and STEREO-A. The black arrow indicates the propagation direction of the limb CME. The other two panels show the event in a Metis… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Topographical maps derived from the PRT for different observing geometries and times. The left panel of each pair shows the pre-event-subtracted tB image, while the corresponding right panel displays the associated topographical map obtained from the PRT. The color scale encodes the absolute distance, |z|, from the observer’s POS, expressed in solar radii. The top row shows the limb CME observed by LASCO C… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The Polarization Ratio Integrated CME Mapper in 3D. Top: PRICM3 workflow. Bottom: main methodology adopted by the framework, such as the selection of the ROI (delimited by the magenta line) from the input topographical map, creation of the point cloud, plot in a common heliocentric system, and comparison with the CME propagation direction and forward modelling. The bottom panels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Filtering procedure adopted to isolate the CME plasma from the LASCO C2 reconstruction at 14:58 UT. The upper panels illustrate the statistical and morphology-based filtering applied to the reconstructed |z| distribution and topographical map, while the lower panels show the corresponding three-dimensional point clouds before and after filtering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between independent PRT point-cloud reconstructions of the 28 October 2021 CME and the corre￾sponding GCS forward-model reconstruction. The left panel compares the LASCO C2 (14:58 UT) and COR2-A (15:08 UT) reconstructions, while the right panel shows the COR2-A (16:08 UT) and Metis (16:19 UT) reconstructions. In both panels, only the GCS mesh corresponding to the latest observation is displayed … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between the reconstructed PRT cloud centroids and the CME propagation directions inferred from the GCS model. The longitude and latitude axes are intentionally shown over a broad range to provide geometrical context, although the reconstructed centroids occupy only a small region of the plot (see the main text for details) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

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

39 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, A&A, 656, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142407

    Andretta, V., Bemporad, A., De Leo, Y., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142407

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142407 2021

  2. [2]

    2020, A&A, 642, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935338

    Antonucci, E., Romoli, M., Andretta, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935338

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935338 2020

  3. [3]

    2022, A&A, 665, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243162

    Bemporad, A., Andretta, V., Susino, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243162

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243162 2022

  4. [4]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2516

    Bemporad, A., Shi, G., Li, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2516

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2516 2024

  5. [5]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7ff

    Bemporad, A., Abbo, L., Albert, K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc7ff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc7ff 2025

  6. [6]

    Billings, D. E. 1966, A guide to the solar corona

    1966

  7. [7]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 de Koning, C. A., & Pizzo, V. J. 2011, Space Weather, 9, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2010SW000595 De Leo, Y., Burtovoi, A., Teriaca, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345979 De Leo, Y., Burtovoi, A., Teriaca, L., et al. 2025a, A&A, 697, A73, doi: 10...

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 2011

  8. [8]

    E., Howard, T

    DeForest, C. E., Howard, T. A., & Tappin, S. J. 2013, ApJ, 765, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/44

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/44 2013

  9. [9]

    E., Gibson, S

    DeForest, C. E., Gibson, S. E., Killough, R., et al. 2026, SoPh, 301, 16, doi: 10.1007/s11207-026-02608-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-026-02608-2 2026

  10. [10]

    P., Wang, D., & Howard, R

    Dere, K. P., Wang, D., & Howard, R. 2005, ApJL, 620, L119, doi: 10.1086/428834

    work page doi:10.1086/428834 2005

  11. [11]

    2020, Experimental Astronomy, 49, 239, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09662-z Fr¨ anz, M., & Harper, D

    Fineschi, S., Naletto, G., Romoli, M., et al. 2020, Experimental Astronomy, 49, 239, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09662-z Fr¨ anz, M., & Harper, D. 2002, Planet. Space Sci., 50, 217, doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(01)00119-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-020-09662-z 2020

  12. [12]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad26fb

    Frassati, F., Bemporad, A., Mancuso, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad26fb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad26fb 2024

  13. [13]

    L., & Handy, B

    Freeland, S. L., & Handy, B. N. 1998, Solar Physics, 182, 497, doi: 10.1023/A:1005038224881 12

    doi:10.1023/a:1005038224881 1998

  14. [14]

    E., DeForest, C

    Gibson, S. E., DeForest, C. E., de Koning, C. A., et al. 2026, SoPh, 301, 33, doi: 10.1007/s11207-026-02620-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-026-02620-6 2026

  15. [15]

    2022, Solar-MACH: Multi-spacecraft longitudinal configuration plotter,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2210.015 http://ascl.net/2210.015

    Gieseler, J., Dresing, N., Palmroos, C., et al. 2022, Solar-MACH: Multi-spacecraft longitudinal configuration plotter,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2210.015 http://ascl.net/2210.015

    2022

  16. [16]

    2022, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Xie, H. 2022, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 2214, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012021, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2214/1/012021

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2214/1/012021 2022

  17. [17]

    Hundhausen, A. J. 1993, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 13177, doi: 10.1029/93JA00157

    work page doi:10.1029/93ja00157 1993

  18. [18]

    Illing, R. M. E., & Hundhausen, A. J. 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 275, doi: 10.1029/JA090iA01p00275

    work page doi:10.1029/ja090ia01p00275 1985

  19. [19]

    2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612649

    Inhester, B. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612649

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0612649 2006

  20. [20]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8 L´ opez, F. M. 2012, Extensi´ on Espacial de CMEs Seg´ un Im´ agenes Polarizadas de STEREO/COR1 (Bachelor

    doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8 2012

  21. [21]

    J., Gosling, J

    McComas, D. J., Gosling, J. T., Winterhalter, D., & Smith, E. J. 1988, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 93, 2519, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JA093iA04p02519

    work page doi:10.1029/ja093ia04p02519 1988

  22. [22]

    2011, A&A, 530, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016295

    Zhukov, A. 2011, A&A, 530, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016295

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016295 2011

  23. [23]

    2009, SoPh, 259, 123, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9416-8

    Mierla, M., Inhester, B., Marqu´ e, C., et al. 2009, SoPh, 259, 123, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9416-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9416-8 2009

  24. [24]

    N., et al

    Mierla, M., Inhester, B., Zhukov, A. N., et al. 2022, SoPh, 297, 78, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-02018-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-022-02018-0 2022

  25. [25]

    G., & Davila, J

    Moran, T. G., & Davila, J. M. 2004, Science, 305, 66, doi: 10.1126/science.1098937

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1098937 2004

  26. [26]

    G., Davila, J

    Moran, T. G., Davila, J. M., & Thompson, W. T. 2010, ApJ, 712, 453, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/453 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/453 2010

  27. [27]

    2024, A&A, 683, A191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347741

    Russano, G., Andretta, V., De Leo, Y., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347741

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347741 2024

  28. [28]

    2026, A&A, 710, A181, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556665

    Russano, G., De Leo, Y., Frassati, F., et al. 2026, A&A, 710, A181, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556665

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556665 2026

  29. [29]

    2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3

    Temmer, M. 2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3

    doi:10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3 2021

  30. [30]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/57 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W

    Temmer, M., Vrˇ snak, B., Rollett, T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/57 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W. T., Bobra, M. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f7a

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/57 2012

  31. [31]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 33, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/33

    Thernisien, A. 2011, ApJS, 194, 33, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/33

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/33 2011

  32. [32]

    Thernisien, A., Vourlidas, A., & Howard, R. A. 2009, SoPh, 256, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9346-5

    doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9346-5 2009

  33. [33]

    Thernisien, A. F. R., Howard, R. A., & Vourlidas, A. 2006, ApJ, 652, 763, doi: 10.1086/508254

    doi:10.1086/508254 2006

  34. [34]

    L., Kay, C., et al

    Verbeke, C., Mays, M. L., Kay, C., et al. 2023, Advances in Space Research, 72, 5243, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2022.08.056

    doi:10.1016/j.asr.2022.08.056 2023

  35. [35]

    F., & Howard, T

    Webb, D. F., & Howard, T. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2012-3

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2012-3 2012

  36. [36]

    2021, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 8, 56, doi: 10.1186/s40645-021-00426-7

    Zhang, J., Temmer, M., Gopalswamy, N., et al. 2021, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 8, 56, doi: 10.1186/s40645-021-00426-7

    work page doi:10.1186/s40645-021-00426-7 2021

  37. [37]

    N., Thizy, C., Galano, D., et al

    Zhukov, A. N., Thizy, C., Galano, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.00253, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.00253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.00253 2025

  38. [38]

    2023, A&A, 676, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346011

    Zimbardo, G., Ying, B., Nistic` o, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346011

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346011 2023

  39. [39]

    2013, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 3, A18, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2013039

    Zuccarello, F., Balmaceda, L., Cessateur, G., et al. 2013, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 3, A18, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2013039

    arXiv 2013