Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 103 references

Pre-flare processes, flux rope activation, large-scale eruption and associated X-class flare from the active region NOAA 11875

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents evidence that pre-flare activity near one footpoint of a stable magnetic flux rope can destabilize it into eruption, timing the transition between the precursor and impulsive phases of an X1.0 flare.

desk verdict A solid multi-wavelength case study of a pre-existing hot channel's slow rise and eruption, but the claim of a 'precise bifurcation' between precursor and impulsive phases leans harder on one slit measurement than it should. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04059 v1 pith:OLGZLAUF submitted 2019-08-12 astro-ph.SR

Prabir K. Mitra (USO/PRL) , Bhuwan Joshi (USO/PRL) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarflarescoronalmassejectionsmagneticfluxropeshotchannelspre-flareactivityactiveregionshardX-rayemissiontypeIIIradiobursts
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

The paper studies the X1.0 flare of 2013 October 28 in active region NOAA 11875 using AIA/SDO, HMI/SDO, RHESSI, and HiRAS observations, together with LASCO coronagraph images of the resulting halo CME. It argues that a hot coronal channel, interpreted as a pre-existing quasi-stable magnetic flux rope, was destabilized by a prolonged, localized pre-flare event beside one of its footpoints. The rope rose slowly at about 14 km s$^{-1}$ for roughly 16 minutes while soft X-ray flux gradually built up, then switched to an accelerating eruption (about 1.41 km s$^{-2}$, reaching about 183 km s$^{-1}$) exactly at the onset of the flare's impulsive phase. On that timing the paper builds a feedback relationship between early CME dynamics and large-scale magnetic reconnection, and it offers the slow-rise-to-eruption transition as a precise divider between the precursor and impulsive phases.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hot coronal channel, a coherent bright structure in AIA 94 Å and 131 Å images that the authors identify as the observational counterpart of a magnetic flux rope, a set of twisted magnetic field lines along a common axis. It is what makes the timing argument possible, because it is seen as a stable, pre-existing structure from about 67 minutes before activation. The key measurement is the time-slice diagram built along a narrow slit, which converts the channel's apparent rise into a height–time curve and reveals the sharp transition from slow rise to accelerated eruption. Around it, the paper uses GOES soft X-ray light curves to define the precursor and impulsive phases, RHESSI imaging and spectroscopy to locate thermal and non-thermal X-ray sources, HiRAS dynamic spectra to identify type III, type II, and type IV bursts, and LASCO C2/C3 images to establish the associated halo CME.

What would settle it

Track the same erupting structure with a second instrument viewpoint, or deproject the motion using the known disk position N07W66, and reconstruct its true three-dimensional height–time profile. If the sharp jump from about 14 km s$^{-1}$ to about 183 km s$^{-1}$ at 01:52–01:54 UT disappears, or if the structure turns out to be a sheared arcade rather than a coherent rope, the claimed precursor/impulsive bifurcation and the destabilization story would lose support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a two-phase kinematic profile of the erupting flux rope. A time-slice diagram along a single slit shows the hot channel rising steadily at about 14 km s$^{-1}$ during the precursor phase (about 01:37–01:53 UT), then undergoing a rapid acceleration of about 1.41 km s$^{-2}$ between about 01:52 and 01:54 UT as it reached about 183 km s$^{-1}$, exactly when hard X-ray and soft X-ray fluxes marked the impulsive phase. Because a site adjacent to one footpoint of the channel showed continuous EUV brightening, hard X-ray emission up to about 50 keV, and small-scale plasma ejections throughout the pre-flare and precursor phases, the authors conclude that ongoing small-scale reconnection progressively reduced the confinement of the pre-existing flux rope and eventually triggered its eruption. They also report coronal and footpoint hard X-ray sources up to about 50 keV and 100 keV, a series of type III radio bursts, and a halo CME with a linear speed of about 695 km s$^{-1}$ in the LASCO field of view.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions assume that the glowing structure tracked on the images is a single coherent magnetic rope, and that its motion along the chosen line is a true measure of the rope's rise rather than an illusion of angle or a mix of different structures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A hot channel visible in high-temperature EUV passbands can mark a pre-existing flux rope about an hour before it erupts, making it an early CME signature in the source active region.
  • Prolonged, localized reconnection near a footpoint of a flux rope can act as the destabilizing agent for a subsequent eruption, supporting tether-cutting-like triggering.
  • The onset of the impulsive phase of a flare can be identified with the moment a rising flux rope begins its fast acceleration, so flare-phase boundaries and CME initiation can be tied to one observable.
  • The near-simultaneous appearance of fast flux-rope acceleration, hard X-ray bursts above 25 keV, and type III radio bursts indicates a feedback between early CME dynamics and the rate of magnetic reconnection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-phase rise is a common feature, precursor phases in other eruptive flares could be identified by tracking hot channels in 94 Å and 131 Å images rather than relying only on GOES soft X-ray light curves.
  • A quantitative check would be to compare the observed onset of fast acceleration with the decay-index threshold for torus instability; pre-flare reconnection should lower the effective confinement so that eruption begins before an ideal instability criterion alone would predict.
  • The persistent hard X-ray source at the footpoint-adjacent pre-flare site suggests a localized magnetic restructuring that could be tested by nonlinear force-free field extrapolations before and after the precursor phase.
  • A stereo view of a similar event, using two vantage points, could determine whether the 14 km s$^{-1}$ to 183 km s$^{-1}$ transition is a true kinematic feature rather than a projection or feature-tracking artifact.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-wavelength study of the X1.0 flare of 2013 October 28 in active region NOAA 11875, combining AIA/SDO, HMI/SDO, RHESSI, HiRAS, and LASCO observations. The authors identify a pre-existing hot coronal channel that they interpret as a stable magnetic flux rope, document two localized pre-flare brightenings (P1 and P2), and describe a precursor phase (01:37–01:53 UT) during which the hot channel rises slowly at about 14 km/s. At the onset of the impulsive phase, the channel transitions to a fast eruption with a linear speed of about 183 km/s and a brief acceleration of about 1.41 km/s^2. The paper argues that the adjacent pre-flare activity destabilized the flux rope, and that the kinematic transition precisely separates the precursor and impulsive phases, implying a feedback relationship between early CME dynamics and flare reconnection. The eruption is accompanied by type III radio bursts, hard X-ray footpoint and looptop sources, and a halo CME.

Significance. If the central kinematic result is robust, the paper provides a valuable observational case of a pre-existing, quasi-stable flux rope whose slow-rise phase is temporally tied to a distinct precursor phase, and whose rapid acceleration coincides with the impulsive phase of an X-class flare. The multi-instrument combination (EUV imaging, RHESSI imaging/spectroscopy, radio spectrography, and coronagraph data) is a strength, and the phase definitions (Table 1) are internally consistent across GOES, AIA, RHESSI, and HiRAS. The analysis uses standard, well-established tools (PIXON imaging, OSPEX forward fitting), and the paper's claim that pre-flare reconnection near a footpoint can destabilize a stable flux rope is a testable and plausible scenario. However, the load-bearing timing measurement—the 'precise bifurcation' of precursor and impulsive phases—rests on a single straight-slit time-slice without reported uncertainties or a demonstrated identity of the tracked feature, which currently limits the strength of the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.2, Figure 7(b)] The quoted rise speed (≈14 km/s), eruption speed (≈183 km/s), and acceleration (≈1.41 km/s^2) are given without any uncertainties or fitting details. Since the paper's central claim of a 'precise bifurcation' between the precursor and impulsive phases rests on this time-slice, the authors should specify the fitting procedure, the number of independent measurements used for each linear segment, the estimated uncertainties on the slopes and on the break time, and preferably an objective two-slope fit that determines the transition time rather than an eye-judged boundary.
  2. [§3.2.2, Figure 7(a)] The slit S1S2 is a straight sky-plane line, and the active region is at N07W66, so the measured displacement is a projected quantity and no deprojection is applied. More importantly, during 01:52–01:54 UT the impulsive phase begins and flare loops and post-arcade emission fill the field of view; without multi-slit or running-difference tracking it is not demonstrated that the same physical structure (the flux rope axis) is followed throughout the entire interval. If the slit records an apparent front produced by newly brightening flare loops rather than the rising flux rope, the kinematic break would not provide independent evidence of a feedback relationship.
  3. [Abstract and §4, page 16] The claim that the kinematic transition 'precisely bifurcated' the precursor and impulsive phases is stronger than what the data support. The impulsive-phase onset is defined from GOES/RHESSI at ≈01:53 UT, while the acceleration transition is assigned to the 01:52–01:54 UT interval; with a quoted transition interval of about two minutes, the timing match is consistent but not shown to be precise at better than 1–2 minutes. The language should be moderated or supplemented with a quantitative comparison of the break time and the GOES/RHESSI onset, including estimated timing uncertainties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical artifacts (e.g., 'T able' at the start of the table caption, 'studied' where 'studies' is meant on page 6, and inconsistent spacing in 'RHESSI ;'). A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [§3.2.2, Figure 7] The figure caption states that the hot channel was 'found to be slowly elevating' and then 'underwent eruption with a linear speed of ≈183 km/s', but the reader is not told how these values were extracted from the time-slice (e.g., linear fits to the bright ridge over which time intervals). Please add this information to the caption or text.
  3. [§3.3, RHESSI spectroscopy] The spectroscopy section reports temperature, emission measure, spectral index, and break energy, but the time intervals used for the displayed spectra in Figure 9 are not explicitly stated in the text (only 'three selected intervals'). Please specify the intervals in the figure caption or text.
  4. [§4, CME speed] The LASCO CME linear speed (≈695 km/s) and deceleration (12.1 m/s^2) are quoted without uncertainties; adding the standard errors from the CME catalog fit would be helpful, though this is not central to the paper's main claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kinematic-flare timing comparison rests on independent multi-instrument measurements, not on definitions or fitted predictions.

full rationale

This paper is an observational case study, not a first-principles derivation, so the circularity checks apply only to whether any stated result is forced by its own definitions, fitted inputs, or load-bearing self-citations. The central claims—pre-existence of a hot coronal channel, slow rise during the precursor phase, rapid acceleration at the impulsive onset, and a feedback relationship between CME dynamics and reconnection—are supported by independent measurements: GOES soft X-ray flux, RHESSI hard X-ray imaging and spectroscopy, AIA EUV imaging including the time-slice diagram, HiRAS radio spectra, and LASCO CME observations. No parameter is fitted to one quantity and then reported as a prediction of a closely related quantity; the quoted speeds and acceleration are direct kinematic measurements along a stated slit, and the phase boundaries are set by GOES/RHESSI temporal profiles rather than by the slit measurement itself. The paper does invoke some prior studies by the same authors (e.g., Joshi et al. 2013; Mitra et al. 2018), but these are contextual citations for the interpretation of pre-flare reconnection and hot channels as flux-rope signatures, and they are accompanied by numerous independent references from the wider literature (Chen 2011; Cheng et al. 2014a; Song et al. 2015b; Temmer et al. 2008; Zhang & Dere 2006). The identification of a hot channel with a magnetic flux rope is a standard observational consensus, not a uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own prior work. Although Table 1 labels the precursor phase partly by the hot channel's slow rise, the impulsive onset at about 01:53 UT is independently identified from the GOES flux enhancement and RHESSI hard X-ray onset, so the reported 'precise bifurcation' is a comparison of separate measurements rather than a tautology. No circular step meets the requirement of quoting a specific reduction of one result to another by construction or by a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

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

The paper performs no mathematical derivation; its central sequence claim rests on standard domain assumptions about how EUV hot channels, RHESSI sources, and radio bursts map to magnetic flux ropes and reconnection. These assumptions come from the cited prior literature and are not free parameters fitted here.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hot coronal channels observed in AIA 94 Å and 131 Å are the observational signature of coherent magnetic flux ropes.
    Invoked in Sec 3.1 and Sec 4 to identify the pre-existing structure as a flux rope, following Cheng et al. 2013, 2014a, etc.
  • domain assumption RHESSI hard X-ray footpoint sources are produced by thick-target bremsstrahlung from accelerated electrons, and looptop sources mark the reconnection or acceleration region.
    Used in Sec 3.3 and 4 to interpret the 25-100 keV sources; from Brown 1971 and RHESSI-era literature.
  • domain assumption Type III radio bursts indicate near-relativistic electron beams propagating along open or newly opened field lines, timed with reconnection episodes.
    Used in Sec 3.4 and 4 to tie the radio bursts to particle acceleration during the eruption.
  • domain assumption Line-of-sight HMI magnetograms and AIA EUV images close to the limb (N07W66) allow reliable co-registration of pre-flare locations with the flux rope footpoints.
    The P1-to-footpoint adjacency argument in Sec 3.2.1 and Figure 4(f) depends on this alignment; projection distortion is a real risk.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pre-flare processes, flux rope activation, large-scale eruption and associated X-class flare from the active region NOAA 11875." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OLGZLAUF

@misc{pith2026190804059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pre-flare processes, flux rope activation, large-scale eruption and associated X-class flare from the active region NOAA 11875},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OLGZLAUF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04059}
}
abstract

We present a multi-wavelength analysis of the eruption of a hot coronal channel associated with an X1.0 flare (SOL2013-10-28T02:03) from the active region NOAA 11875 by combining observations from AIA/SDO, HMI/SDO, RHESSI, and HiRAS. EUV images at high coronal temperatures indicated the presence of a hot channel at the core of the active region from the early pre-flare phase evidencing the pre-existence of a quasi-stable magnetic flux rope. The hot channel underwent an activation phase after a localized and prolonged pre-flare event occurring adjacent to one of its footpoints. Subsequently, the flux rope continued to rise slowly for $\approx$16 min during which soft X-ray flux gradually built-up characterizing a distinct precursor phase. The flux rope transitioned from the state of slow rise to the eruptive motion with the onset of the impulsive phase of the X1.0 flare. The eruptive expansion of the hot channel is accompanied by a series of type III radio bursts in association with impulsive rise of strong hard X-ray non-thermal emissions that included explicit hard X-ray sources of energies up to $\approx$50 keV from the coronal loops and $\approx$100 keV from their footpoint locations. Our study contains evidence that pre-flare activity occurring within the spatial extent of a stable flux rope can destabilize it toward eruption. Moreover, sudden transition of the flux rope from the state of slow rise to fast acceleration precisely bifurcated the precursor and the impulsive phases of the flare which points toward a feedback relationship between early CME dynamics and the strength of the large-scale magnetic reconnection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04059 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panel (a): HMI white light image of the active region NOAA 11875 prior to the eruptive flare. Panel (b): Co￾temporal HMI LOS magnetogram of AR 11875. Panels (c)–(d): AIA EUV images of the AR in 171 ˚A and 94 ˚A , respectively. FOV of panels (a) and (b) is indicated by the sky colored boxes in panels (c) and (d). The black arrows in panel (c) indicate few open coronal lines. The brown arrow indicate the filament duri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panel (a): GOES SXR flux variation in 1–8 ˚A (red curve) and 0.5–4 ˚A (green curve) channels on 2013 October 28 from 00:30 UT to 04:30 UT that includes different phases prior to and during the X1.0 flare. The pre-flare phase was characterized by two episodes of SXR flux enhancements with peaks ‘P1’ and ‘P2’ which are indicated by the dashed lines. The sky colored shaded area indicates the precursor phase when the ac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panel (a): AIA lightcurves on 2013 October 28 during 00:30–04:30 UT normalized by the corresponding peak fluxes. For clear visualization, AIA lightcurves have been further normalized by 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, and 0.5 for 304 ˚A, 94 ˚A, 171 ˚A, and 1600 ˚A, respectively. Panel (b): Temporal evolution of RHESSI and GOES X-ray fluxes in the same interval as in panel (a). RHESSI did not observe during ≈01:14 UT– ≈01:45 UT and … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Panels (a)–(c): AIA 94 ˚A images showing evolution during the pre-flare event P1. During pre-flare event P1, activities were observed from a complex structure situated at the northern end of the hot channel which is outlined by the white boxes. Insets in panels (b) and…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative AIA 94 ˚A images showing various evolutionary phases (precursor, impulsive, and gradual) during the X1.0 flare. The red arrows in panels (c)–(d) indicate the slow rise of the hot channel during the precursor phase which erupted during the subsequent impu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative AIA 131 ˚A direct (panels (a)–(d)) and running difference (panels (e)–(f)) images showing the hot channel eruption during the X1.0 flare. White arrows in panels (b)–(d) and pink arrow in panel (e) indicate the erupting the hot channel. In panel (f), the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel (a): An AIA 94 ˚A image of AR11875 during the precursor phase showing a straight line along which time-slice diagram was constructed. Panel (b): Time-slice diagram showing two phase acceleration of the erupting hot channel along the slit indicated in panel (a). ‘…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Running difference images obtained from LASCO C2 (panels (a), (b)) and C3 (panels (c), (d)) showing the propagation of the halo CME originated during the X1.0 flare from AR11875. The linear speed of the CME calculated within the LASCO field of view is 695 km s−1 . aspe…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Representative RHESSI X-ray spectra during the impulsive phase of the X1.0 flare along with their respective residuals. These spectra were fitted with a combination of an isothermal component (blue line) and a thick-target bremsstrahlung model (green line). The red lin…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dynamic radio spectrum recorded by the HiRAS spectrograph on 2013 October 28 from 01:35 UT– 02:20 UT within the frequency range 50–500 MHz, showing many discrete type III bursts between ≈01:37 UT–01:55 UT, a split-band harmonic of type II burst between ≈01:58 UT–02:04…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Acton, L. W. 1968, ApJ, 152, 305

    1968

  2. [2]

    F., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J

    Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. 1999, ApJL, 518, L57 —. 2000, ApJL, 529, L49

    1999

  3. [3]

    K., Dahlburg, R

    Antiochos, S. K., Dahlburg, R. B., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1994, ApJL, 420, L41

    1994

  4. [4]

    K., DeVore, C

    Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 510, 485

    1999

  5. [5]

    2004, A&A, 426, 1047

    Archontis, V., Moreno-Insertis, F., Galsgaard, K., Hood, A., & O’Shea, E. 2004, A&A, 426, 1047

    2004

  6. [6]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 57

    Aurass, H., Mann, G., Zlobec, P., & Karlick´ y, M. 2011, ApJ, 730, 57

    2011

  7. [7]

    S., Benz, A

    Bastian, T. S., Benz, A. O., & Gary, D. E. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 131

    1998

  8. [8]

    Benz, A. O. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 2

    2017

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Brown, J. C. 1971, SoPh, 18, 489

    1971

  2. [10]

    C., Aschwanden, M

    Brown, J. C., Aschwanden, M. J., & Kontar, E. P. 2002, Solar Physics, 210, 373

    2002

  3. [11]

    E., Howard, R

    Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J., et al. 1995, Solar Physics, 162, 357

    1995

  4. [12]

    H., Knock, S., Robinson, P., & Kuncic, Z

    Cairns, I. H., Knock, S., Robinson, P., & Kuncic, Z. 2003, Space Science Reviews, 107, 27

    2003

  5. [13]

    1995, ApJ, 441, 886 Canfield, R

    Caligari, P., Moreno-Insertis, F., & Schussler, M. 1995, ApJ, 441, 886 Canfield, R. C., Hudson, H. S., & McKenzie, D. E. 1999, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 627

    1995

  6. [14]

    1964, NASA Special Publication, 50, 451

    Carmichael, H. 1964, NASA Special Publication, 50, 451

    1964

  7. [15]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1

    2011

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJL, 820, L37 Eruption of hot coronal channel 19

    Chen, Y., Du, G., Zhao, D., et al. 2016, ApJL, 820, L37 Eruption of hot coronal channel 19

    2016

  9. [17]

    Cheng, X., & Ding, M. D. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 225, 16

    2016

  10. [18]

    D., Liu, Y., & Poomvises, W

    Cheng, X., Zhang, J., Ding, M. D., Liu, Y., & Poomvises, W. 2013, ApJ, 763, 43

    2013

  11. [19]

    Cheng, X., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., & Ding, M. D. 2011, ApJ, 732, L25

    2011

  12. [20]

    E., Tripathi, D., Isobe, H., & Asai, A

    Chifor, C., Mason, H. E., Tripathi, D., Isobe, H., & Asai, A. 2006, A&A, 458, 965

    2006

  13. [21]

    E., & Dennis, B

    Chifor, C., Tripathi, D., Mason, H. E., & Dennis, B. R. 2007, A&A, 472, 967

    2007

  14. [22]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 34

    Chintzoglou, G., Patsourakos, S., & Vourlidas, A. 2015, ApJ, 809, 34

    2015

  15. [23]

    L., Holt, S

    Cline, T. L., Holt, S. S., & Hones, Jr., E. W. 1968, J. Geophys. Res., 73, 434

    1968

  16. [24]

    2015, A&A, 574, A37 D´ emoulin, P., & Aulanier, G

    Dalmasse, K., Chandra, R., Schmieder, B., & Aulanier, G. 2015, A&A, 574, A37 D´ emoulin, P., & Aulanier, G. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1388

    2015

  17. [25]

    Domingo, V., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, SoPh, 162, 1

    1995

  18. [26]

    Emslie, A. G. 1983, ApJ, 271, 367

    1983

  19. [27]

    1997, Filament Channels in the Corona, ed

    Engvold, O. 1997, Filament Channels in the Corona, ed. Z. Mouradian & M. Stavinschi (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 125–130

    1997

  20. [28]

    2001, ApJ, 554, L111 F´ arn´ ık, F., Hudson, H., & Watanabe, T

    Fan, Y. 2001, ApJ, 554, L111 F´ arn´ ık, F., Hudson, H., & Watanabe, T. 1996, SoPh, 165, 169 F´ arn´ ık, F., Hudson, H. S., Karlick´ y, M., & Kosugi, T. 2003, A&A, 399, 1159 F´ arn´ ık, F., & Savy, S. K. 1998, SoPh, 183, 339

    2001

  21. [29]

    R., Hudson, H

    Fletcher, L., Dennis, B. R., Hudson, H. S., et al. 2011, SSRv, 159, 19

    2011

  22. [30]

    J., Bothmer, V., Cid, C., et al

    Forsyth, R. J., Bothmer, V., Cid, C., et al. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 383

    2006

  23. [31]

    B., Sweetland, C., & Kovacs, A

    Gaizauskas, V., Zirker, J. B., Sweetland, C., & Kovacs, A. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 479, 448

    1997

  24. [32]

    A., & Moore, R

    Gary, G. A., & Moore, R. L. 2004, ApJ, 611, 545

    2004

  25. [33]

    E., & Fan, Y

    Gibson, S. E., & Fan, Y. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A12103

    2006

  26. [34]

    2004, ApJ, 617, 600

    Demoulin, P. 2004, ApJ, 617, 600

    2004

  27. [35]

    E., Fan, Y., T¨ or¨ ok, T., & Kliem, B

    Gibson, S. E., Fan, Y., T¨ or¨ ok, T., & Kliem, B. 2006, SSRv, 124, 131

    2006

  28. [36]

    2013, Type II Solar Radio Bursts (American Geophysical Union (AGU)), 123–135

    Gopalswamy, N. 2013, Type II Solar Radio Bursts (American Geophysical Union (AGU)), 123–135

    2013

  29. [37]

    M., et al

    Hernandez-Perez, A., Su, Y., Veronig, A. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 122

    2019

  30. [38]

    1974, Solar Physics, 34, 323

    Hirayama, T. 1974, Solar Physics, 34, 323

    1974

  31. [39]

    D., Sui, L., Schwartz, R

    Holman, G. D., Sui, L., Schwartz, R. A., & Emslie, A. G. 2003, ApJL, 595, L97

    2003

  32. [40]

    D., Aschwanden, M

    Holman, G. D., Aschwanden, M. J., Aurass, H., et al. 2011, SSRv, 159, 107

    2011

  33. [41]

    Hudson, H. S. 1972, SoPh, 24, 414

    1972

  34. [42]

    2010, ApJ, 713, 440

    Jing, J., Tan, C., Yuan, Y., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 440

    2010

  35. [43]

    2018, SoPh, 293, 107

    Chakrabarty, D. 2018, SoPh, 293, 107

    2018

  36. [44]

    Joshi, B., Kushwaha, U., Cho, K.-S., & Veronig, A. M. 2013, ApJ, 771, 1

    2013

  37. [45]

    M., & Cho, K.-S

    Joshi, B., Kushwaha, U., Veronig, A. M., & Cho, K.-S. 2016, ApJ, 832, 130

    2016

  38. [46]

    M., et al

    Joshi, B., Kushwaha, U., Veronig, A. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 42

    2017

  39. [47]

    2007, SoPh, 242, 143

    Pandey, K. 2007, SoPh, 242, 143

    2007

  40. [48]

    K., & Somov, B

    Joshi, B., Veronig, A., Manoharan, P. K., & Somov, B. V. 2012, in Multi-scale Dynamical Processes in Space and Astrophysical Plasmas, ed. M. P. Leubner & Z. V¨ or¨ os (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 29–41

    2012

  41. [49]

    M., Lee, J., et al

    Joshi, B., Veronig, A. M., Lee, J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 195

    2011

  42. [50]

    S., et al

    Joshi, B., Veronig, A., Cho, K. S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1438

    2009

  43. [51]

    C., Zhu, X., Schmieder, B., et al

    Joshi, N. C., Zhu, X., Schmieder, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 165

    2019

  44. [52]

    R., & Anderson, K

    Kane, S. R., & Anderson, K. A. 1970, ApJ, 162, 1003

    1970

  45. [53]

    2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 255002

    Kliem, B., & T¨ or¨ ok, T. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 255002

    2006

  46. [54]

    Kondo, T., Isobe, T., Igi, S., Watari, S., & Tokimura, M. 1995, J. Commun. Res. Lab., Vol. 42, No. 1, p. 111 - 119, 42, 111

    1995

  47. [55]

    A., & Pneuman, G

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

    1976

  48. [56]

    J., & Lin, R

    Krucker, S., Hurford, G. J., & Lin, R. P. 2003, ApJ, 595, L103

    2003

  49. [57]

    J., et al

    Krucker, S., Battaglia, M., Cargill, P. J., et al. 2008, A&A Rv, 16, 155

    2008

  50. [58]

    Kumar, S., Bhattacharyya, R., Joshi, B., & Smolarkiewicz, P. K. 2016, ApJ, 830, 80

    2016

  51. [59]

    Kundu, M. R. 1963, SSRv, 2, 438

    1963

  52. [60]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17

    2012

  53. [61]

    P., Dennis, B

    Lin, R. P., Dennis, B. R., Hurford, G. J., et al. 2002, SoPh, 210, 3

    2002

  54. [62]

    2013, ApJL, 778, L36

    Liu, C., Deng, N., Lee, J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 778, L36

    2013

  55. [63]

    2010, ApJ, 725, L84

    Liu, R., Liu, C., Wang, S., Deng, N., & Wang, H. 2010, ApJ, 725, L84

    2010

  56. [64]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 59

    Liu, T., Su, Y., Cheng, X., van Ballegooijen, A., & Ji, H. 2018, ApJ, 868, 59

    2018

  57. [65]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 679, L151

    Liu, Y. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 679, L151

    2008

  58. [66]

    K., & Kundu, M

    Manoharan, P. K., & Kundu, M. R. 2003, ApJ, 592, 597 Mart´ ınez-Sykora, J., Hansteen, V., & Carlsson, M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 871

    2003

  59. [67]

    1994, Nature, 371, 495

    Masuda, S., Kosugi, T., Hara, H., Tsuneta, S., & Ogawara, Y. 1994, Nature, 371, 495

    1994

  60. [68]

    R., Hudson, H

    Metcalf, T. R., Hudson, H. S., Kosugi, T., Puetter, R. C., & Pina, R. K. 1996, ApJ, 466, 585

    1996

  61. [69]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 69

    Bhattacharyya, R. 2018, ApJ, 869, 69

    2018

  62. [70]

    L., & Roumeliotis, G

    Moore, R. L., & Roumeliotis, G. 1992, in Lecture Notes in

    1992

  63. [71]

    L., Sterling, A

    Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., & Lemen, J. R. 2001, ApJ, 552, 833

    2001

  64. [72]

    L., Koul, P

    Moza, K. L., Koul, P. K., Rausaria, R. R., & Khosa, P. N. 1986, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 7, 39

    1986

  65. [73]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 117 O’Flannagain, A

    Nindos, A., Patsourakos, S., Vourlidas, A., & Tagikas, C. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 117 O’Flannagain, A. M., Brown, J. C., & Gallagher, P. T. 2015, ApJ, 799, 127

    2015

  66. [74]

    2010, ApJ, 718, 433

    Olmedo, O., & Zhang, J. 2010, ApJ, 718, 433

    2010

  67. [75]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, Solar Physics, 275, 3

    2012

  68. [76]

    Pevtsov, A. A. 2002, SoPh, 207, 111

    2002

  69. [77]

    R., Hood, A

    Priest, E. R., Hood, A. W., & Anzer, U. 1989, ApJ, 344, 1010

    1989

  70. [78]

    W., Bradshaw, S

    Reep, J. W., Bradshaw, S. J., & Holman, G. D. 2016, ApJ, 818, 44

    2016

  71. [79]

    Reid, H. A. S., & Ratcliffe, H. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 773

    2014

  72. [80]

    H., Bush, R

    Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 229

    2012

  73. [81]

    A., Csillaghy, A., Tolbert, A

    Schwartz, R. A., Csillaghy, A., Tolbert, A. K., et al. 2002, SoPh, 210, 165

    2002

  74. [82]

    2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6

    Shibata, K., & Magara, T. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6

    2011

  75. [83]

    M., Lin, R

    Smith, D. M., Lin, R. P., Turin, P., et al. 2002, SoPh, 210, 33

    2002

  76. [84]

    Q., Zhang, J., Chen, Y., & Cheng, X

    Song, H. Q., Zhang, J., Chen, Y., & Cheng, X. 2014, ApJL, 792, L40

    2014

  77. [85]

    Q., Zhang, J., Cheng, X., et al

    Song, H. Q., Zhang, J., Cheng, X., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 48

    2014

  78. [86]

    Sturrock, P. A. 1966, Nature, 211, 695

    1966

  79. [87]

    Sui, L., & Holman, G. D. 2003, ApJL, 596, L251

    2003

  80. [88]

    I., & Shmeleva, O

    Syrovatskii, S. I., & Shmeleva, O. P. 1972, Soviet Ast., 16, 273

    1972

  81. [89]

    1966, PASJ, 18, 57

    Takakura, T., & Kai, K. 1966, PASJ, 18, 57

    1966

  82. [90]

    M., Vrˇ snak, B., et al

    Temmer, M., Veronig, A. M., Vrˇ snak, B., et al. 2008, ApJL, 673, L95 T¨ or¨ ok, T., Kliem, B., & Titov, V. S. 2004, A&A, 413, L27 van Ballegooijen, A. A., & Martens, P. C. H. 1989, ApJ, 343, 971

    2008

  83. [91]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 80

    Vemareddy, P., & Zhang, J. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 80

    2014

  84. [92]

    M., Karlick´ y, M., Vrˇ snak, B., et al

    Veronig, A. M., Karlick´ y, M., Vrˇ snak, B., et al. 2006, A&A, 446, 675

    2006

  85. [93]

    2017, Nature Communications, 8, 1330

    Wang, W., Liu, R., Wang, Y., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 1330

    2017

  86. [94]

    F., & Howard, T

    Webb, D. F., & Howard, T. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 3

    2012

  87. [95]

    M., Benz, A

    White, S. M., Benz, A. O., Christe, S., et al. 2011, SSRv, 159, 225

    2011

  88. [96]

    Wild, J. P. 1950, Australian Journal of Scientific Research A Physical Sciences, 3, 541

    1950

  89. [97]

    2017, ApJL, 840, L23

    Xue, Z., Yan, X., Yang, L., Wang, J., & Zhao, L. 2017, ApJL, 840, L23

    2017

  90. [98]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 135

    Yang, B., Yang, J., Bi, Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 135

    2018

  91. [99]

    2012, Nature Communications, 3, 747

    Zhang, J., Cheng, X., & Ding, M.-D. 2012, Nature Communications, 3, 747

    2012

  92. [100]

    Zhang, J., & Dere, K. P. 2006, ApJ, 649, 1100

    2006

  93. [101]

    White, S. M. 2001, ApJ, 559, 452

    2001

  94. [102]

    P., Howard, R

    Zhang, J., Dere, K. P., Howard, R. A., & Vourlidas, A. 2004, ApJ, 604, 420

    2004

  95. [103]

    P., Zhang, J., & Wang, J

    Zhou, G. P., Zhang, J., & Wang, J. X. 2016, ApJL, 823, L19

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.