Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 87 references

Using images from Earth, STEREO-A, and Solar Orbiter, the authors fit a torus-shaped flux rope model to the 2024 October 8 filament eruption and reconstruct its three-dimensional motion.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 22:26 UTC pith:N6UHV65Q

load-bearing objection A solid, honest multipoint reconstruction case study with a flexible 3DCORE-style model; the headline numbers are credible as fits, but the late-time speed and the 'two independent methods' claim are a bit stronger than the single-view, frozen-orientation support actually carried. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15759 v1 pith:N6UHV65Q submitted 2026-07-17 astro-ph.SR

Three-dimensional evolution of a solar filament with multipoint observations

Qingmin Zhang , Jun Dai , Beili Ying , Ye Qiu , Li Feng , Chuan Li , Hongqiang Song , Yue Zhou
show 1 more author
Zongyi Li
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords Sun: filamentsSun: flaresSun: coronal mass ejections3D reconstructiontorus flux rope modelmultipoint observationsfilament eruption
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.

This paper tries to show that a relatively simple geometric model—a torus-like flux rope anchored near the eruption source—can recover the true three-dimensional motion of an erupting solar filament from multipoint images. Applied to the 2024 October 8 eruption, the model yields a filament that deflects about 10 degrees east and 40 degrees south of the radial direction, moves at a true speed near 433 km/s, and rises from 1.68 to 2.94 solar radii in 35 minutes. The authors argue the reconstruction is reliable because the direction implied by the 3D model matches the direction implied by independent H-alpha Doppler observations. If correct, the result shows that even a single well-observed eruption can be strongly nonradial, which matters for predicting whether a CME will hit Earth or pass by.

Core claim

The paper reports a three-dimensional reconstruction of the 2024 October 8 filament eruption using simultaneous EUV/UV images from Earth (SUVI, SCIUV), STEREO-A (EUVI), and Solar Orbiter (EUI). By fitting a torus-like flux rope model to all three views every five minutes, the authors find the erupting filament was deflected roughly 10 degrees east and 40 degrees south of the radial direction from its source region, traveled at a true speed of about 433 km/s, and rose from about 1.68 to 2.94 solar radii in 35 minutes. They further estimate the associated CME's true leading-edge speed at 1046-1145 km/s and show the trajectory points toward STEREO-A in the ecliptic plane. They cross-check the 3

What carries the argument

The central object is a parametric torus (elliptical global shape, circular cross-sections) anchored near the source region, with a thinnest point at distance d from the Sun center, two deflection angles (φ1, θ1) relative to the local radial direction, and an inclination angle γ. The cross-section radius varies along the torus as Htor = H0 sin((φ+π/2)/2), and the model is projected onto images from three spacecraft via coordinate transforms. The authors adjust the parameters manually until the projected torus matches the observed filament in all available views; the fitted parameters then yield the leading-front height, direction, and true speed.

Load-bearing premise

The filament is treated as a single rigid, coplanar, self-similarly expanding torus whose direction angles are frozen after 05:35 UT, when only one spacecraft view remains; if the true filament writhes, bends, or changes direction during the final 20 minutes, the quoted deflection and speed inherit that error.

What would settle it

Re-fit the 05:45 and 05:55 UT frames with the direction angles (φ1, θ1, γ) left free, using a second viewpoint that still sees the filament (or, if none exists, using the observed position angle of the CME front in LASCO/COR2 at 06:08-07:08 UT); if the best-fit direction shifts by more than the 1-degree longitude step seen in Table 4, the frozen-direction assumption and the 40-degree southward deflection estimate are not robust.

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

If this is right

  • The 2024 October 8 filament eruption was strongly nonradial, deflecting about 40 degrees south and 10 degrees east of the source radial, so forecasts based on the source position alone would misjudge the CME's trajectory.
  • The true filament speed is about 433 km/s while the CME leading edge moves at 1046-1145 km/s, a ratio near 2.5, consistent with simulations where the CME front expands faster than the embedded filament.
  • In the ecliptic plane the filament heads toward STEREO-A rather than Earth, and the paper notes this agrees with independent WSA-ENLIL simulations showing the CME was directed too far south to impact Earth.
  • The 3D reconstruction and the spectral Doppler measurement give the same line-of-sight angle (~72.5 degrees), offering a mutual check that the model's direction is not a projection artifact.
  • The model can track the filament continuously from the low corona out to nearly 3 solar radii, bridging the gap between disk EUV observations and white-light coronagraphs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not pursued in the paper is to apply the same torus model to several other multipoint filament eruptions and test whether the self-similar, fixed-direction assumption holds generally or only for this event.
  • The visible leg misfit (the authors note the filament is 'not exactly coplanar') suggests that adding a weak torsion or a second inclination parameter could improve the fit, though at the cost of more free parameters.
  • Because the direction angles φ1, θ1, and γ were frozen after 05:35 UT when only one viewpoint remained, the quoted 40-degree southward deflection carries an unquantified systematic uncertainty; automated fitting with error propagation would make the result better testable.
  • If nonradial deflections of this size are common for southern-hemisphere eruptions, space-weather forecasting at Earth may need to weight such deflections more heavily when a CME's source is away from disk center.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a geometric model of an erupting filament as a coplanar, self-similarly expanding, tapered elliptical torus based on 3DCORE, extended with source-anchored deflection angles and inclination. The model is manually fitted to extreme-ultraviolet and Ly-alpha images from Earth, STEREO-A, and Solar Orbiter for the 2024 October 8 filament eruption from AR 13847. The authors report a true filament speed of ~433 km/s, heliocentric front distances increasing from ~1.68 to ~2.94 R_sun over 35 minutes, a ~10-degree eastward and ~40-degree southward deflection, a propagation direction toward STEREO-A, and a CME true speed of 1046-1145 km/s. They claim mutual verification of the propagation direction using 3D reconstruction and CHASE/HIS Doppler observations.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful demonstration of multipoint 3D tracking of an erupting filament into the coronagraph regime, extending coverage to nearly 3 R_sun using ASO-S/SCIUV and SolO/EUI. The paper's strengths are the flexible geometric model, explicit fits at multiple perspectives, a reasonable internal consistency check between the reconstructed LOS angle and Doppler-derived angles, and external support from a WSA-ENLIL simulation. The manuscript also candidly lists limitations: coplanarity, symmetry, lack of writhing/skewing, no magnetic field, and subjective manual fitting. However, the central quantitative claims, especially the late-time height, true speed, and southward deflection, depend on single-view fits with frozen orientation parameters, and the quoted uncertainties do not account for this. The paper is therefore more convincing as an event study with a plausible reconstruction than as a validated method, and the headline claims need to be tempered or supplemented with sensitivity analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Table 4, Fig. 10(b)] The central kinematic result (hF reaching 2.94 R_sun and true speed ~433 km/s) depends on the 05:45 and 05:55 epochs, when the text states that only SCIUV is available and phi1, theta1, gamma, theta2, and d are fixed, with only H1, H2, H0, and phi2 adjusted. These are therefore single-view projections of an assumed coplanar symmetric torus, not triangulated positions. The paper itself notes at 05:35 (Fig. 8b3) that the legs are not exactly coplanar, and Section 4 lists writhing/skewing and manual fitting as limitations. A direction change or non-coplanarity after 05:35 would bias hF and the derived speed; the quoted ±0.15-0.35 R_sun errors do not include this systematic uncertainty. A sensitivity analysis varying theta1, phi1, and gamma at late epochs is needed before the 433 km/s value can be regarded as robust.
  2. [Abstract, §3, Figs. 6 and 10] The statement that the true direction of the eruptive filament is 'the same using two independent methods' overstates the Doppler check. The CHASE/HIS data at 04:18 and 04:32 UT give v_D ~8-12 km/s, which combined with v_app yields an angle to the LOS of ~70-72 degrees. This validates only the LOS component of the 3D model direction (72.5 degrees), not the azimuth, so it does not independently confirm the ~10-degree eastward or ~40-degree southward deflection. Additionally, the Doppler measurements are made ~50 minutes before the 3D reconstruction interval. I recommend rephrasing this as a consistency check on the LOS angle rather than a full mutual verification of the direction vector.
  3. [§2, Eqs. (5)-(6), Table 4] The model has many free parameters, but uncertainties are reported only for H1, H2, H0, and phi2. The deflection angles theta1 and phi1, the inclination gamma, and the thinnest-point distance d are fixed without error bars, even though the 40-degree southward deflection and direction toward STA are headline results. The lack of an identifiability or sensitivity analysis for these parameters means the precision of the direction claims is unknown. A simple manual-fit range or a scan over plausible values with the resulting change in hF and speed would strengthen the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] The reference 'Micha/suppress lek, G., Gopalswamy, N., & Yashiro, S. 2003, ApJ, 584, 472' appears corrupted by a LaTeX/PDF artifact ('Micha/suppress lek'). The intended author name should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 5(d)] The apparent speeds v_app of 24.6 and 32.4 km/s are quoted without uncertainties. Since these values are used in the Doppler-based angle consistency check, a brief error propagation would make the comparison more quantitative.
  3. [§3, Fig. 5(e), Table 5] The CME true speeds of 1046-1145 km/s are obtained by assuming the CME direction is identical to the filament direction, which the text notes is only approximately true. The linear fits to LASCO and COR2 heights also appear to have no quoted fit errors; adding them would clarify the comparison.
  4. [General] The paper would benefit from a data/code availability statement. Since the fitting is manual, making the model projection code and the final fitted parameters publicly available would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 3D reconstruction is a forward fit to independent multi-view images, the spectral check was not used in the fit, and the paper explicitly acknowledges its modeling assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's central results are obtained by manually fitting a parametrized torus model to simultaneous EUV/UV images from Earth, STA, and SolO. The deflection angles, heights, and speeds are fit outputs, not predictions generated from the same fitted quantities. The independent spectral check at 04:18–04:32 UT uses CHASE/HIS Doppler velocities and GONG plane-of-sky speeds, neither of which enters the 3D reconstruction at 05:20–05:55 UT; hence comparing the inferred LOS angle (70–72°) with the model's 72.5° is a genuine external consistency test, even though it only constrains the angle to the LOS rather than the full 3D direction. The paper's self-citations to the revised cone and revised GCS models are used only to motivate a coordinate parametrization, whose equations are fully stated in the paper, so no load-bearing result is imported solely by citation. The late-time single-view fits that fix direction parameters are an acknowledged modeling assumption (Section 4), creating model-dependence and robustness concerns, but not circularity by construction. An external WSA-ENLIL simulation (Wang et al. 2026) independently supports the southward deflection. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central reconstruction is a 9-parameter-per-epoch forward-model fit (H1, H2, H0, φ2, θ2, φ1, θ1, γ, d) constrained by at most three viewpoints, resting on the 3DCORE-derived shape law and the assumption of self-similar, constant-direction expansion. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are postulated. The independent anchors are the Doppler-derived LOS angle and the external WSA-ENLIL result.

free parameters (10)
  • H1 (torus minor radius) = 217.5–304.5 Mm (Table 4)
    Fitted by eye at each epoch; controls the global torus shape.
  • H2 (torus major radius) = 304.5–732.3 Mm (Table 4)
    Fitted by eye; dominates the apparent size and expansion.
  • H0 (apex cross-section radius) = 36.3–90.6 Mm (Table 4)
    Fitted by eye; sets the tube thickness at the apex.
  • φ2 (source longitude) = 30°–37° (Table 4)
    Fitted with ±1°; close to the AR 13847 position W30.
  • θ2 (source colatitude) = 120° (fixed, β2=−30°)
    Set from the source region latitude and not varied in the fit.
  • φ1 (longitudinal deflection) = −10° (Table 4)
    Headline result; fitted by eye, no reported uncertainty.
  • θ1 (latitudinal deflection) = 40° (Table 4)
    Headline result; fitted by eye, no reported uncertainty.
  • γ (inclination to EW) = −30° (Table 4)
    Fitted by eye; cross-checked against observed ribbon angles of 26–34°.
  • d (thinnest-point offset) = 0.85 R⊙ (Table 4)
    Fitted by eye, fixed at all epochs; generalizes the Sun-anchored 3DCORE geometry.
  • CME 3DCORE fit parameters = H1=1196/2356 Mm, H2=1776/3516 Mm, H0=580/1305 Mm, φ2=32°, θ2=140°/150°, γ=−30° (Table 5)
    Separate manual forward-model fit to the CME front at 06:10 and 07:07 UT.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The erupting filament is a coplanar, symmetric, tapered torus with circular cross-sections and radius law Htor = H0 sin((φ+π/2)/2) (Eqs. 5–6).
    Borrowed from 3DCORE; writhing, skewing, and non-circular cross-sections are excluded, and the authors admit the filament 'is not exactly coplanar' when explaining leg misfits.
  • domain assumption The filament expands self-similarly with constant direction: φ1, θ1, γ, θ2, d are frozen after 05:35 UT, and only H1, H2, H0, φ2 vary.
    Required to extend the reconstruction to 05:45/05:55 UT when only SolO/SCIUV observes the filament; if the direction changes in the last 20 minutes, the derived trajectory and speeds inherit that error.
  • domain assumption The visible leading front of the filament maps to the torus apex, so hF is the apex heliocentric distance.
    All heights and velocities (Fig. 5b, Table 4) depend on identifying the same physical feature across instruments and perspectives.
  • domain assumption The CME leading-edge direction equals the filament propagation direction when deprojecting CME speeds.
    Section 3: 'Assuming that the true direction of CME leading edge is consistent with that of filament...'; the authors acknowledge the CME and filament are 'not exactly homodromous.'
  • standard math Standard Euclidean coordinate transforms (Eqs. 1–4, 7–8) and the HEE system accurately map the model to the observer views.
    Rotation matrices and projection geometry; no derivation gaps identified.
  • domain assumption Rescaling STA and SolO images to Earth's heliocentric distance with scale_map.pro preserves the geometric mapping used for the fits.
    Standard SSW practice; if the rescaling misrepresents observer geometry, fits from the affected perspectives are biased.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18963 in / 29659 out tokens · 227240 ms · 2026-08-01T22:26:59.324809+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we first devise a geometrical model, featuring a torus-like flux rope based on the shape of 3DCORE model. The global shape of the torus is an ellipse, while the cross sections are circular along the torus. The thinnest point is located between the Sun center and photosphere. Deflections and inclination are considered as well. Using multiwavelength observations from perspectives of Earth, Ahead-STEREO (STA), and Solar Orbiter, we apply the model to three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions and tracking of the filament eruption, which was associated with a flare and a coronal mass ejection (CME) on 2024 October 8. The morphology, direction, and true velocity ($\sim$433 km/s) of the eruptive filament are obtained. It is found that the filament propagates nonradially, deflecting slightly eastward by $\sim$10 degrees and significantly southward by $\sim$40 degrees. Trajectory of the filament in the ecliptic plane reveals that the filament moves toward STA. The true direction of the eruptive filament using imaging and spectral observations is mutually verified by 3D reconstructions. The heliocentric distance of the filament increases from $\sim$1.68 to $\sim$2.94 solar radii within 35 minutes. Based on the results of 3D reconstructions, the true speed of the CME leading edge is evaluated to be 1046$-$1145 km/s.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15759 by Beili Ying, Chuan Li, Hongqiang Song, Jun Dai, Li Feng, Qingmin Zhang, Ye Qiu, Yue Zhou, Zongyi Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Geometrical model and the transformations of three coordinate systems. See text for details. 2. GEOMETRICAL MODEL As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Sun and four artificial flux ropes (Case1-Case4) observed from four perspectives: Earth (a1)-(a4), L5 (b1)-(b4), STA (c1)-(c4), and solar north pole (d1)-(d4). In the left panels, the deep red stars represent source regions of the flux ropes. The deep blue pluses denote footpoints of the flux ropes in the photosphere. In Case1 and Case2, there are no deflection or inclination. The thinnest point is 0.2… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The Solar-MACH plot at 04:30 UT on 2024 October 8, illustrating the positions and connectivities to the Sun of Earth (green circle), STA (red circle), and SolO (blue circle). The position of L5 point is indicated by the pink line. The orange arrow indicates the direction of CME toward STA in the ecliptic plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a1)-(a4) STA/EUVI 304 ˚A images showing the filament eruption during 03:25−04:55 UT. (b1) SUVI 304 ˚A image at 05:50:59 UT showing the flare ribbons. (b2) XRT Be med image at 05:57:26 UT showing the bright post-flare loops connecting the ribbons. (c1)-(c2) HMI LOS magnetograms of the photosphere at 03:11:45 UT and 05:50:45 UT. In panel (c1), outlines of the filament observed by GONG at 03:11:42 UT are sup… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Light curves of the flare observed by SolO/STIX at 4−10 keV (red line), 10−15 keV (orange line), and 15−25 keV (green line). (b) Heliocentric distances of the filament leading front using 3D reconstructions. (c) Trajectory of the filament in the field of view (FOV) of GONG. A cubic fitting is conducted for the trajectory and drawn with a brown dashed line. (d) Apparent speeds (vapp) of the filament in … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) GONG Hα image at 03:11:42 UT. The slice S1 is along the direction of filament eruption. (b) Time-slice diagram of S1 in Hα during 03:00−05:10 UT. The green pluses represent the trajectory of the filament leading front along S1. (c)-(d) Intensity map and Dopplergram observed by CHASE/HIS at 04:18:18 UT. The black box denotes the quiet region (QS). (e)-(f) The same maps taken at 04:32:30 UT. ∼34.5 km s−1… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The eruptive filament observed by SUVI 304 ˚A, SCIUV Lyα, and EUI 304 ˚A at 05:20 UT (a1)-(a3), 05:30 UT (b1)-(b3), 05:40 UT (c1)-(c2), and 05:50 UT (d1)-(d2). The reconstructed tori (flux ropes) are superposed with turquoise dots. times and project the modeled flux ropes onto the SUVI, SCIUV, EUI, and EUVI images when the fittings are still satisfactory. The standard deviations are considered as errors of… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The eruptive filament observed by SUVI 304 ˚A, SCIUV Lyα, and EUVI 304 ˚A at 05:25 UT (a1)-(a3), 05:35 UT (b1)-(b3), 05:45 UT (c), and 05:55 UT (d). The reconstructed tori (flux ropes) are superposed with turquoise dots. Earth view L5 view STA view Top view(a) (b) (c) (d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The 3D visualization of the Sun and reconstructed torus at 05:55 UT viewed from Earth (a), L5 point (b), STA (c), and solar north pole (d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Trajectory of the filament leading front viewed from Earth (a), L5 point (b), STA (c), and solar north pole (d) during 05:20−05:55 UT. Apparent velocities of filament are labeled in the left panels. In panel (d), the trajectory shows that the filament heads for STA instead of Earth in the ecliptic plane. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The related CME observed by SOHO/LASCO (upper panels) and STA/COR2 (lower panels) around 06:10 UT and 07:07 UT. The blue dots represent 3D reconstruction of the CME front with 3DCORE model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.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

87 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.09738, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.09738

    Amerstorfer, T., Le Lou¨ edec, J., Barnes, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.09738, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.09738

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.09738 2025

  2. [2]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1199-8

    Antolin, P., Pagano, P., Testa, P., Petralia, A., & Reale, F. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1199-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1199-8 2021

  3. [3]

    1998, A&A, 335, 309

    Aulanier, G., Demoulin, P., van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., Mein, P., & Deforest, C. 1998, A&A, 335, 309

    1998

  4. [4]

    2009, ApJ, 701, 298, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/298

    Bemporad, A. 2009, ApJ, 701, 298, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/298

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/1/298 2009

  5. [5]

    2013, ApJ, 773, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/162

    Bi, Y., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/162

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/2/162 2013

  6. [6]

    E., Howard, R

    Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J., et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 357, doi: 10.1007/BF00733434

    doi:10.1007/bf00733434 1995

  7. [7]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c25

    Chen, H., Fletcher, L., Zhou, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c25

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c25 2024

  8. [8]

    2025a, ApJ, 994, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0ad4

    Chen, H., Xia, C., Ma, S., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 994, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0ad4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0ad4

  9. [9]

    2025b, ApJ, 983, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc12a

    Chen, H., Tian, H., Zhang, Q., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 983, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc12a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc12a

  10. [10]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac73ef

    Chen, Y., Ye, J., Mei, Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac73ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac73ef 2022

  11. [11]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab886a

    Cheng, X., Zhang, J., Kliem, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab886a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab886a 2020

  12. [12]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d97

    Dai, J., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d97 2021

  13. [13]

    M., Seaton, D

    Darnel, J. M., Seaton, D. B., Bethge, C., et al. 2022, Space Weather, 20, e2022SW003044, doi: 10.1029/2022SW00304410.1002/essoar.10510311.1

    arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    E., Gibson, S

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

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

  15. [15]

    2025, Chinese Journal of Space Science, 45, 913, doi: 10.11728/cjss2025.04.2025-0054

    Deng, Y., Tian, H., Jiang, J., et al. 2025, Chinese Journal of Space Science, 45, 913, doi: 10.11728/cjss2025.04.2025-0054

    doi:10.11728/cjss2025.04.2025-0054 2025

  16. [16]

    2026, A&A, 706, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557158

    Duan, Y., Yan, X., Hong, J., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557158

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557158 2026

  17. [17]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/18

    Feng, L., Inhester, B., Wei, Y., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/1/18 2012

  18. [18]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 162, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/162

    Feng, L., Li, H., Chen, B., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 162, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/162

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/162 2019

  19. [19]

    G., Linker, J

    Forbes, T. G., Linker, J. A., Chen, J., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 251, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9019-8

    doi:10.1007/s11214-006-9019-8 2006

  20. [20]

    2023, SoPh, 298, 68, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02166-x

    Gan, W., Zhu, C., Deng, Y., et al. 2023, SoPh, 298, 68, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02166-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-023-02166-x 2023

  21. [21]

    2025, ApJL, 985, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add33a

    Gao, Y., Tian, H., Berghmans, D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 985, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add33a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add33a 2025

  22. [22]

    2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 384, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1058810

    Gieseler, J., Dresing, N., Palmroos, C., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 384, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1058810

    arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    2007, SoPh, 243, 63, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-0182-1

    Golub, L., DeLuca, E., Austin, G., et al. 2007, SoPh, 243, 63, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-0182-1

    doi:10.1007/s11207-007-0182-1 2007

  24. [24]

    2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11038-008-9282-7

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Michalek, G., et al. 2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11038-008-9282-7

    doi:10.1007/s11038-008-9282-7 2009

  25. [25]

    F., et al

    Gopalswamy, N., Christe, S., Fung, S. F., et al. 2024, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 254, 106165, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2023.106165

    arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    A., Moses, J

    Howard, R. A., Moses, J. D., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 67, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9341-4

    doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9341-4 2008

  27. [27]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 303, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae267e

    Hu, H., Chen, C., Jiao, Y., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 303, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae267e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae267e 2026

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/267

    Isavnin, A. 2016, ApJ, 833, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/267

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/267 2016

  30. [30]

    2015, SoPh, 290, 3425, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0710-3

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., & D´ emoulin, P. 2015, SoPh, 290, 3425, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0710-3

    doi:10.1007/s11207-015-0710-3 2015

  31. [31]

    Modeling of Coronal Mass Ejection Originated from a Sheared Arcade of Realistic Active-Region Scale and Its Propagation in the Heliosphere: Methodology

    Jiang, C., Feng, X., Yang, L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.05883, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.05883

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.05883 2026

  32. [32]

    L., Kucera, T

    Kaiser, M. L., Kucera, T. A., Davila, J. M., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0

    doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0 2008

  33. [33]

    2024, Space Weather, 22, e2023SW003796, doi: 10.1029/2023SW003796

    Kay, C., & Palmerio, E. 2024, Space Weather, 22, e2023SW003796, doi: 10.1029/2023SW003796

    doi:10.1029/2023sw003796 2024

  34. [34]

    2007, SoPh, 243, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6

    Kosugi, T., Matsuzaki, K., Sakao, T., et al. 2007, SoPh, 243, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6

    doi:10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6 2007

  35. [35]

    J., Grimm, O., et al

    Krucker, S., Hurford, G. J., Grimm, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937362

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937362 2020

  36. [36]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/148

    Kwon, R.-Y., Zhang, J., & Olmedo, O. 2014, ApJ, 794, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/148

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/148 2014

  37. [37]

    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

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

  38. [38]

    P., Jones, J

    Lepping, R. P., Jones, J. A., & Burlaga, L. F. 1990, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 11957, doi: 10.1029/JA095iA08p11957

    doi:10.1029/ja095ia08p11957 1990

  39. [39]

    2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 289602, doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1893-3 Three-dimensional evolution of a solar filament 17

    Li, C., Fang, C., Li, Z., et al. 2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 289602, doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1893-3 Three-dimensional evolution of a solar filament 17

    doi:10.1007/s11433-022-1893-3 2022

  40. [40]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 158, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/158

    Li, H., Chen, B., Feng, L., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 158, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/158

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/158 2019

  41. [41]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a53

    Li, S., Zhang, Q., Ji, H., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a53

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a53 2025

  42. [42]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 015006, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad9a33

    Li, S.-Y., Zhang, Q.-M., Ying, B.-L., et al. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 015006, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad9a33

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad9a33 2025

  43. [43]

    K., Wiegelmann, T., et al

    Li, X., Solanki, S. K., Wiegelmann, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555972

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555972 2025

  44. [44]

    2025, SoPh, 300, 147, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02552-7

    Liakh, V., & Jenkins, J. 2025, SoPh, 300, 147, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02552-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02552-7 2025

  45. [45]

    C., De Jong, E

    Liewer, P. C., De Jong, E. M., Hall, J. R., et al. 2009, SoPh, 256, 57, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9363-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9363-4 2009

  46. [46]

    C., Hall, J

    Liewer, P. C., Hall, J. R., Howard, R. A., et al. 2011, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 73, 1173, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2010.09.004

    doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.09.004 2011

  47. [47]

    Lin, J., & Forbes, T. G. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 2375, doi: 10.1029/1999JA900477

    doi:10.1029/1999ja900477 2000

  48. [48]

    Liu, R., Alexander, D., & Gilbert, H. R. 2007, ApJ, 661, 1260, doi: 10.1086/513269

    work page doi:10.1086/513269 2007

  49. [49]

    E., & Low, B

    Liu, W., Berger, T. E., & Low, B. C. 2012, ApJL, 745, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L21

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/l21 2012

  50. [50]

    J., Antiochos, S

    Lynch, B. J., Antiochos, S. K., MacNeice, P. J., Zurbuchen, T. H., & Fisk, L. A. 2004, ApJ, 617, 589, doi: 10.1086/424564

    doi:10.1086/424564 2004

  51. [51]

    2006, SoPh, 237, 101, doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0075-8 Micha/suppress lek, G., Gopalswamy, N., & Yashiro, S

    Michalek, G. 2006, SoPh, 237, 101, doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0075-8 Micha/suppress lek, G., Gopalswamy, N., & Yashiro, S. 2003, ApJ, 584, 472, doi: 10.1086/345526

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0075-8 2006

  52. [52]

    2010, Annales Geophysicae, 28, 203, doi: 10.5194/angeo-28-203-2010

    Mierla, M., Inhester, B., Antunes, A., et al. 2010, Annales Geophysicae, 28, 203, doi: 10.5194/angeo-28-203-2010

    doi:10.5194/angeo-28-203-2010 2010

  53. [53]

    N., Berghmans, D., et al

    Mierla, M., Zhukov, A. N., Berghmans, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244020 M¨ ostl, C., Amla, K., Hall, J. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/119 M¨ ostl, C., Rollett, T., Frahm, R. A., et al. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7135, doi: 10.1038/ncomms8135 M¨ ostl, C., Amerstorfer, T., Palmerio, E., et al...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244020 2022

  54. [54]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02687-4 M¨ uller, D., St

    Fleck, B. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02687-4 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:10.1038/s41550-025-02687-4 2025

  55. [55]

    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

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2014-1 2014

  56. [56]

    2010, A&A, 522, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913599

    Patsourakos, S., Vourlidas, A., & Kliem, B. 2010, A&A, 522, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913599

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913599 2010

  57. [57]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3 2012

  58. [58]

    2016, Journ al of Space Weather and Space Climate, 6, A31, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2016024

    Plainaki, C., Lilensten, J., Radioti, A., et al. 2016, Journ al of Space Weather and Space Climate, 6, A31, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2016024

    arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    2024, ApJL, 961, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1e4f

    Qiu, Y., Li, C., Guo, Y., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1e4f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1e4f 2024

  60. [60]

    2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 289603, doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1900-5

    Qiu, Y., Rao, S., Li, C., et al. 2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 289603, doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1900-5

    doi:10.1007/s11433-022-1900-5 2022

  61. [61]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663 R¨ udisser, H

    Rochus, P., Auch` ere, F., Berghmans, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663 R¨ udisser, H. T., Weiss, A. J., Le Lou¨ edec, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad660a

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936663 2020

  62. [62]

    P., Owens, M

    Savani, N. P., Owens, M. J., Rouillard, A. P., Forsyth, R. J., & Davies, J. A. 2010, ApJL, 714, L128, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L128

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/l128 2010

  63. [63]

    H., Bush, R

    Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 229, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9842-2

    doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9842-2 2012

  64. [64]

    1995, ApJL, 451, L83, doi: 10.1086/309688

    Shibata, K., Masuda, S., Shimojo, M., et al. 1995, ApJL, 451, L83, doi: 10.1086/309688

    doi:10.1086/309688 1995

  65. [65]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7239

    Song, H., Li, L., & Chen, Y. 2022, ApJ, 933, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7239

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7239 2022

  66. [66]

    C., Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., Falconer, D. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 100, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/100

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/100 2016

  67. [67]

    2024, Nature Communications, 15, 9198, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53538-1

    Teng, W., Su, Y., Ji, H., & Zhang, Q. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 9198, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53538-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53538-1 2024

  68. [68]

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

    doi:10.1086/508254 2006

  69. [69]

    Thompson, W. T. 2006, A&A, 449, 791, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054262

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054262 2006

  70. [70]

    T., Kliem, B., & T¨ or¨ ok, T

    Thompson, W. T., Kliem, B., & T¨ or¨ ok, T. 2012, SoPh, 276, 241, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9868-5 T¨ or¨ ok, T., & Kliem, B. 2005, ApJL, 630, L97, doi: 10.1086/462412

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9868-5 2012

  71. [71]

    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

  72. [72]

    2026, ApJL, 1002, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae5801

    Wang, R., Hu, H., Zhao, X., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1002, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae5801

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae5801 2026

  73. [73]

    J., M¨ ostl, C., Amerstorfer, T., et al

    Weiss, A. J., M¨ ostl, C., Amerstorfer, T., et al. 2021a, ApJS, 252, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc9bd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abc9bd

  74. [74]

    J., M¨ ostl, C., Davies, E

    Weiss, A. J., M¨ ostl, C., Davies, E. E., et al. 2021b, A&A, 656, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140919

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140919

  75. [75]

    2014, ApJL, 792, L38, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/2/L38

    Xia, C., Keppens, R., Antolin, P., & Porth, O. 2014, ApJL, 792, L38, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/2/L38

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/792/2/l38 2014

  76. [76]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1615

    Xie, X., Chen, A., Suarez, C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1615

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1615 2025

  77. [77]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb5 18 Zhang et al

    Xing, C., Cheng, X., Aulanier, G., & Ding, M. 2025, ApJ, 986, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb5 18 Zhang et al

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adceb5 2025

  78. [78]

    2026, ApJ, 999, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4024

    Zhang, Q., Ning, Z., Chen, X., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4024

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4024 2026

  79. [79]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bad

    Zhang, Q., Ou, Y., Huang, Z., Song, Y., & Ma, S. 2024, ApJ, 977, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bad

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bad 2024

  80. [80]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add328

    Zhang, Q., Pan, W., Ying, B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add328

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add328 2025

Showing first 80 references.