Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Spatiotemporal evolution of UV pulsations and their connection to 3D magnetic reconnection and particle acceleration

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This flare's 3.4-minute UV and hard X-ray pulsations came from discrete flare kernels moving along an expanding ribbon front, the footprint of 3D magnetic reconnection, including slipping reconnection.

desk verdict Solid, spatially resolved QPP case study with an interpretive slipping-reconnection layer that needs softening or a QSL calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03825 v1 pith:SKCEOFRC submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.SR

Stefan Purkhart , Hannah Collier , Laura A. Hayes , Astrid M. Veronig , Miho Janvier , Säm Krucker This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords quasi-periodicpulsationssolarflaresmagneticreconnectionslippingquasi-separatrixlayersflareribbonshardX-rayemissionkernels
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

Quasi-periodic pulsations are common in solar flare emissions, but their physical driver has been unclear because most observations cannot see where the pulsations actually come from. This paper analyzes a single well-observed M3.7 flare whose pulsation period of about 3.4 minutes was long enough and whose ribbons were large enough for the UV brightenings to be tracked in space and time. It finds that the pulsations in integrated light were actually a sequence of discrete flare kernels moving along an expanding southern ribbon front, with each hard X-ray peak coinciding with a new kernel at the moving front. The paper argues that this motion is the chromospheric footprint of 3D magnetic reconnection, specifically slipping reconnection along quasi-separatrix layers, and that only a subset of the reconnecting magnetic flux participated in the pulsation mechanism. If correct, this makes spatially resolved QPP observations a tool for tracing where and how reconnection-driven particle acceleration happens in three dimensions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the sequence of UV flare kernels tracked in AIA 1600 Å base-difference images and related, through time-distance plots, to hard X-ray pulsations from STIX. The interpretive mechanism is slipping reconnection: in 3D, magnetic field lines continuously change their connectivity in thin volumes called quasi-separatrix layers (regions where the field-line mapping changes drastically), so the chromospheric footpoints of newly reconnected field lines appear to slip along the flare ribbon. The paper reads the observed kernel motions, including the westward sweep of the ribbon front, the southward streaks along it, and the quiet second front that produced no pulsations, as the footprints of this connectivity change, with the speeds and locations set by the structure of the QSLs in the asymmetric field.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a magnetic field extrapolation of the active region: if the observed kernel paths and speeds do not line up with the footprints of the quasi-separatrix layers and do not scale with the QSL mapping norm as slipping reconnection predicts, the interpretation fails. A second check would be chromospheric Doppler or imaging observations showing the brightenings carried by bulk plasma flows instead of moving to new footpoints of reconnected field lines.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the February 24, 2023 M3.7 flare, the paper claims that the 3.4-minute quasi-periodic pulsations detected in 15-25 keV hard X-rays by STIX and in 1600 Å UV by AIA were not a stationary oscillation of the flare as a whole. Instead, the UV pulsations came from compact flare kernels that appeared one after another at the expanding front of the southern flare ribbon: the ribbon front first moved rapidly westward at about 80 km/s during the early hard X-ray peaks, then drifted back eastward at about 20 km/s, while individual kernels also moved southward along the front at 40-90 km/s with each later pulsation. The UV kernels coincided spatially with non-thermal hard X-ray sources, and the hard X-ray spectrum showed a soft-hard-soft evolution on the pulsation timescale, indicating that electron acceleration efficiency was being modulated with each pulse. The paper concludes that this spatiotemporal pattern is driven by the propagation of magnetic reconnection in an asymmetric 3D geometry, with slipping reconnection along quasi-separatrix layers generating and moving the UV kernels, possibly in combination with a separate time-varying reconnection process.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that the apparent motions of the UV brightenings, at about 20 to 90 km/s, are the chromospheric footprints of changing magnetic connectivity rather than moving heating fronts, pressure-driven flows, or projection effects that can also shift brightenings in base-difference images.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spatially resolved QPP studies can separate genuine reconnection-driven pulsations from unrelated emission, because integrated light curves in this event mixed footpoint kernels, quiet ribbon fronts, and plasma injected into a separate filament channel.
  • The UV kernel motions can serve as a tracer of the reconnection front in 3D, with apparent speeds and directions encoding the local connectivity change rate along the ribbon.
  • Only a subset of the reconnecting flux pulsates, so a ribbon front can expand smoothly without pulsations while another front pulsates, meaning the modulating mechanism is localized rather than global.
  • Pulsation mechanisms based on standing oscillations of a stationary loop are incompatible with the observed moving kernels and with the soft-hard-soft spectral evolution, which favors modulation of the energy release itself.
  • Long-period, large-scale flares are a natural laboratory for this kind of analysis, and future high-cadence UV, EUV, or X-ray imaging should extend the same methods to shorter-period pulsations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If slipping reconnection is the driver, kernel speed along the ribbon should correlate with the local squashing factor of the quasi-separatrix layers; checking this with data-driven magnetic field models would turn the paper's interpretation into a quantitative prediction.
  • The polarity asymmetry seen here, with strong pulsations in the compact negative-polarity southern ribbon and weak or absent ones in the more extended positive-polarity fronts, suggests that the visibility of pulsational energy release depends on how concentrated the chromospheric footpoint imprint is, which could explain why some flares show QPPs and others do not.
  • The pulsating plasma injections into the separate filament channel imply that QPP signatures can be physically transported away from the acceleration site, so multiregion light curves may mislocate the driver even when the timing matches.
  • A testable extension would be to survey several eruptive flares with known ribbon geometry from magnetograms, comparing whether QPP amplitude in each ribbon branch scales with the compactness of the QSL footprint and the presence of a bend or asymmetry in the polarity inversion line.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the M3.7 flare of 2023 February 24, which exhibited long-period (≈3.4 min) quasi-periodic pulsations (QPPs) in STIX hard X-ray and SDO/AIA 1600 Å ultraviolet emission. The authors divide the flare into four subregions, extract light curves, construct time-distance plots of flare kernels, and compare the UV and HXR spatial and spectral evolution. They find that the strongest UV pulsations occur in a sequence of kernels at the expanding front of the southern ribbon, that the UV kernels are spatially consistent with non-thermal HXR sources for two of the seven HXR peaks, and that the HXR spectrum shows a soft-hard-soft evolution on the pulsation timescale. They interpret the spatiotemporal evolution as the chromospheric imprint of 3D magnetic reconnection, including slipping reconnection along quasi-separatrix layers (QSLs), possibly modulated by an additional time-varying process.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper provides one of the more detailed spatially resolved links between QPPs and 3D reconnection geometry, showing that integrated light curves mix multiple emission sources and that pulsating kernels can move along a ribbon front. The authors are commendably candid about limitations: robust non-thermal STIX images were obtained only for peaks 2 and 3 (§3.4), the exact modulation mechanism is declared beyond the dataset (§4.3), and the mask-threshold sensitivity is explicitly demonstrated in Appendix A. The analysis is careful in its descriptive core and the multi-instrument methodology is appropriate. The main significance is moderate: it strengthens the case that QPPs should be studied with spatial resolution, but the central interpretive step—slipping reconnection as the cause of the kernel motion—is not uniquely established by the data presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3 and §4.1] The central claim that the UV kernel tracks in the southern ribbon are the chromospheric footprint of slipping reconnection is not uniquely supported by the presented data. The manuscript does not compute QSL maps or a magnetic extrapolation for this event, and the 20–90 km/s speeds are read from 24 s cadence maximum-value time-distance plots by eye. A thermal conduction front propagating along the ribbon, sequential activation of independent reconnection sites, or projection effects from non-radial loop motion could in principle produce similar tracks. In §4.1 the statement that the motion 'confirms that this is an apparent motion driven by subsequent heating of adjacent parts of the chromosphere' is the conclusion to be demonstrated. Please add a concrete discriminating test, such as comparing the observed kernel paths with QSL footprints from a model or extrapolation for this event, or identify an observational signature that would falsify the slipping-reconnection interpretation.
  2. [§2.1 and §3.4] The STIX-to-AIA coalignment is performed by manually shifting the STIX non-thermal sources onto the AIA 1600 Å ribbons by (-12, -6) arcsec. Consequently, the subsequent statement that UV kernels and HXR sources spatially coincide is not an independent test of their cospatiality. Please quantify the uncertainty of this shift (e.g., by exploring the range of shifts over which the main sources remain consistent) and discuss how the conclusions would change for shifts at the edge of that range. Without this, the claim of a common non-thermal driver based on spatial coincidence is weakened.
  3. [§3.1] The 3.4 min QPP period is obtained from a linear fit to Gaussian peak times, but the peak-time uncertainties, the number of Gaussians used, and the fit residuals are not reported. Since the periodicity is central to the paper—it defines the analyzed pulsations and motivates the 'long-period' claim—please provide a robustness assessment, for example a wavelet or Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the HXR light curve, and report the uncertainty on the period.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'red start' should be 'red star'.
  2. [§4.3] The phrases 'group ii in Zimovets et al. (2021)' and 'group iii' refer to a classification that is not introduced in this paper; please briefly define the groups when first referenced.
  3. [§3.3.1] The correlations between UV light curves and HXR pulsations are described verbally throughout Section 3.3.1; reporting quantitative correlation coefficients (e.g., Pearson or Spearman with significance) would strengthen the results and allow comparison among subregions.
  4. [§3.3.3] The mask boxes in the time-distance plots are described as 'placed around each peak'; please state whether the mask boundaries were determined using an objective criterion or by eye, and note the sensitivity of the extracted light curves to the mask choices.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One partial circularity: the STIX-to-AIA manual shift pre-sets the global HXR-UV co-location claim; the core QPP spatiotemporal analysis is otherwise self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1 (manual STIX-AIA alignment); Sections 3.4 and 4.1 (spatial correlation claim)]
    "To achieve proper alignment, we apply an additional manual shift (∆x=−12 arcsec,∆y=−6 arcsec) to the images by aligning the STIX non-thermal sources with the AIA 1600 Å ribbons (reprojected to a Solar Orbiter view). This can be done since HXR and UV footpoints are usually the same and is the standard procedure performed in multipoint flare studies involving STIX (e.g., Collier et al. 2024b; Purkhart et al. 2023)."

    The shift is not an independent calibration: it is chosen by placing STIX non-thermal sources onto the AIA 1600 Å ribbons, and the text justifies this by assuming the thing later 'found' ('HXR and UV footpoints are usually the same'). The later assertion that the positions of the UV kernels are consistent with the non-thermal HXR source positions, and that there is a strong spatial correlation between the two, is therefore at least partly true by construction. What remains informative is the source morphology (extended versus compact, single versus multiple kernels at peak 3), so the claim is not wholly circular. But the global co-location used to argue for a common non-thermal driver is an echo of the alignment input rather than an independent measurement.

full rationale

This is an observational flare study, not a derivation, so most claims do not reduce by construction to fitted inputs. The central results—the 3.4 min period identified from Gaussian fits, the UV light curves in four subregions, the time-distance kernel tracks and derived speeds, the soft-hard-soft HXR spectral evolution, and the different behavior of the southern ribbon fronts—are obtained from independent light curves, spectral fits, and image stacks that do not assume the conclusions. The single partial exception is the STIX/AIA co-alignment: the manual (-12, -6) arcsec shift is chosen by aligning non-thermal STIX sources to AIA 1600 Å ribbons, and the later 'spatial correlation' between HXR and UV sources is therefore partly a restatement of that alignment choice. Only the shape and compactness comparisons of the sources carry independent evidential weight. The slipping-reconnection interpretation is imported from prior published work (Janvier et al. 2013; Dudík et al. 2014), including a co-author, and no QSL or magnetic extrapolation is computed for this event; however, the paper explicitly frames this as a hypothesis ('can be a signature', 'we hypothesize') and does not invoke a uniqueness theorem to exclude alternatives. That is scientific under-determination rather than constructional circularity. Overall, the main observational finding stands independently, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by standard solar-flare domain assumptions (thick-target emission, ribbons as reconnection footprints) rather than by invented constants, which is appropriate for an observational case study. The 3.4 min period is a measured quantity, but the analysis also depends on hand choices: per-region brightness thresholds, the manual STIX-to-AIA shift, and by-eye mask boxes around kernels. The interpretive layer imports the QSL/slipping-reconnection framework from prior work by largely the same community, and the modulation mechanism needed to complete the picture is an explicitly unidentified entity without independent evidence.

free parameters (5)
  • QPP period from Gaussian peak-time fit = 3.4 min
    Period derived from a linear fit to Gaussian peak times of the STIX 15-25 keV light curve (§3.1); this timescale anchors the entire analysis.
  • AIA 1600 Å mask thresholds per subregion = 100, 75, 25, 25 DN/s (south, north, east, west)
    Hand-set per region (§3.3.2); all derived parameters (A_inst, A_cumu, Phi, B, COM) depend on them, and Appendix A shows that 300 DN/s changes the pulsation correlation.
  • STIX-to-AIA manual coalignment shift = (-12, -6) arcsec
    Hand-applied in §2.1 to force non-thermal STIX sources onto AIA 1600 Å ribbons; the reported HXR-UV spatial coincidence inherits this choice.
  • Kernel mask boxes in time-distance plots = manual (per figure)
    Boxes defining which UV kernel belongs to which HXR pulsation are placed by eye (§3.3.3); kernel speeds of 20 to 90 km/s derive from these boundaries.
  • Electron spectral index delta from thick2 fits = about 5.3 to 6.1 (examples in Figs. 2 and 13)
    30 s spectral fits assuming vth + thick2 + albedo; the soft-hard-soft claim rests on these fits (§3.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Non-thermal electrons deposit energy in the chromosphere and produce both HXR bremsstrahlung and the UV 1600 Å brightenings (thick-target model)
    Invoked throughout §3.4 and §4.1 as the common-driver link; the coincidence claim depends on this mapping.
  • domain assumption Flare ribbon fronts and kernels trace the chromospheric footpoints of field lines that are reconnecting, so ribbon motion maps the progression of reconnection (CSHKP framework)
    Used in §4.1 to read kernel motion at the ribbon front as directly related to instantaneous magnetic reconnection.
  • domain assumption QSLs host strong connectivity gradients and currents, and apparent footpoint/kernel motion of the observed type is the signature of slipping or slip-running reconnection
    Imported from Janvier et al. 2013, Dudík et al. 2014, and Lörinčík et al. 2019 in §4.3; this is the interpretive step named in weakest_assumption.
  • domain assumption Base-difference 1600 Å brightness tracks chromospheric heating by accelerated electrons monotonically
    Used in §3.3 to equate brightening patterns with energy deposition; no radiative-transfer calibration is given.
  • domain assumption The 3D standard flare model with an asymmetric PIL bend and overlying loops describes this event's magnetic geometry
    Adopted in §4.2 to organize the ribbon evolution narrative.
  • ad hoc to paper The manual coalignment shift (-12, -6) arcsec places STIX and AIA sources in a common frame within uncertainties
    Chosen by eye in §2.1 with no independent aspect validation for this offset; the coincidence claim is partially set by it.
invented entities (1)
  • Unidentified time-varying modulation mechanism (possibly plasmoid instability, termination-shock instability, or an MHD oscillation)
    purpose: To supply the regular 3.4 min quasi-periodic modulation that the authors argue slipping reconnection alone cannot produce for pulsations 4 to 7, superimposed on the moving ribbon fronts.
    Introduced hypothetically in §4.3: 'it may still be necessary that some additional feedback mechanism or oscillation was active in tandem with the evolving 3D reconnection.' No parameters, no falsifiable prediction, and the authors state that identifying it is beyond the available data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatiotemporal evolution of UV pulsations and their connection to 3D magnetic reconnection and particle acceleration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SKCEOFRC

@misc{pith2026250603825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatiotemporal evolution of UV pulsations and their connection to 3D magnetic reconnection and particle acceleration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SKCEOFRC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03825}
}
read the original abstract

Quasi-periodic pulsations (QPPs) are a common feature of impulsive solar flare emissions, yet their driving mechanism(s) remain unresolved. We study long-period (3.4 min) QPPs in the M3.7 flare on Feb 24, 2023, using SDO/AIA and Solar Orbiter/STIX to pinpoint their source and driver. We analyzed UV and HXR emissions from four subregions covering the flare ribbons and footpoints of the erupting filament. We find the QPP characteristics varied significantly across these regions. The strongest UV pulsations, which correlated strongly with HXR emissions, originated from a sequence of flare kernels at the expanding front of the southern flare ribbon. In contrast, another expanding ribbon front showed no pulsations. The spatial coincidence of UV and HXR sources points to non-thermal electrons as a common driver, with the HXR spectrum showing a soft-hard-soft evolution matching the pulsation timescale. We also observed UV pulsations from plasma injections into a separate filament channel, distinct from the main flare kernels. Our results suggest that the spatiotemporal evolution of the pulsations is driven by the propagation of magnetic reconnection in an asymmetric geometry. We propose that slipping reconnection along quasi-separatrix layers is key to generating and moving the UV kernels, potentially modulated by another time-varying process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03825 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Event overview. Panel a: GOES/XRS and STIX X-ray light curves in multiple energy bands during the flare. Panel b: Shorter time interval, focusing on the pulsations in the STIX 15-25 keV energy band (blue). The observations are fitted by the linear combination (blue) of a series of individual Gaussians (dotted, gray). Right: Spacecraft positions during the event in heliographic stonyhurst coordinates. The position of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: STIX spectrum (blue) fitted with a thermal (vth; green) and a non-thermal (thick2; red) model and an albedo component. Right: Time evolution of the electron spectral index (δ; magenta) derived from a sequence of STIX spectra binned to 30 second intervals and counts in the STIX 18-28 keV energy band (blue). Time interval corresponding to the spectrum (left panel) is marked. ing images of the sequence. During th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Image sequence of the event in selected SDO/AIA wavelength channels and GONG Hα filtergrams. Important features of the event are labeled. The time of the AIA observations is given in the top of each column, while the time of the GONG observations is given separately in each Hα image. The associated movie is available online. 3.3. AIA 1600 Å analysis In this section, we present the results of our analysis of the tem￾… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of AIA 1600 Å base difference light curves in different subregions. Top left: Map showing the maximum pixel values in AIA 1600 Å base difference maps during the given time interval with four subregions marked. Bottom left: HMI LOS magnetogram with contours (25…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The magnetic flux density peaks just before the second [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spatiotemporal evolution of the AIA 1600 Å emission in the southern flare ribbon subarea introduced in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time-distance plots of the maximum/summed pixel values along rows/columns of a AIA 1600 Å base difference image sequence of the southern flare ribbon. Upper panel: The maximum pixel values along each row as a function of time. Colored boxes indicate the extent and dura…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: It is immediately apparent that the kernel evolution in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: STIX observations for HXR pulsations 2 and 3. From top to bottom: 1) STIX light curves in different energy bands, with two time intervals marked. 2) STIX spectrum during each time interval fitted with a thermal (vth; green) and non-thermal (thick2; yellow) model. 3) T…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 557

    Asai, A., Yokoyama, T., Shimojo, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 557

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    & Dudík, J

    Aulanier, G. & Dudík, J. 2019, A&A, 621, A72

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    2012, A&A, 543, A110

    Aulanier, G., Janvier, M., & Schmieder, B. 2012, A&A, 543, A110

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    2005, A&A, 444, 961

    Aulanier, G., Pariat, E., & Démoulin, P. 2005, A&A, 444, 961

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

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

    2017

  6. [6]

    2009, Physics of Plas- mas, 16, 112102

    Bhattacharjee, A., Huang, Y .-M., Yang, H., & Rogers, B. 2009, Physics of Plas- mas, 16, 112102

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Bogdan, T. J. & Judge, P. G. 2006, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal So- ciety of London Series A, 364, 313

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Brown, J. C. 1971, Sol. Phys., 18, 489

    work page 1971

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    1964, in NASA Special Publication, ed

    Carmichael, H. 1964, in NASA Special Publication, ed. W. N. Hess, V ol. 50, 451

    1964

  2. [10]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 118

    Chen, H., Yang, J., Ji, K., & Duan, Y . 2019, ApJ, 887, 118

    2019

  3. [11]

    P., Hayes, L

    Clarke, B. P., Hayes, L. A., Gallagher, P. T., Maloney, S. A., & Carley, E. P. 2021, ApJ, 910, 123

    2021

  4. [12]

    A., Battaglia, A

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

    2023

  5. [13]

    A., Yu, S., et al

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

    2014

  6. [14]

    C., Priest, E

    Demoulin, P., Henoux, J. C., Priest, E. R., & Mandrini, C. H. 1996, A&A, 308, 643 Démoulin, P., Priest, E. R., & Lonie, D. P. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 7631 Dudík, J., Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 144

    1996

  7. [15]

    R., Hudson, H

    Fletcher, L., Dennis, B. R., Hudson, H. S., et al. 2011, Space Sci. Rev., 159, 19

    2011

  8. [16]

    J., Hayes, L

    French, R. J., Hayes, L. A., Kazachenko, M. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 207

    2024

  9. [17]

    Grigis, P. C. & Benz, A. O. 2004, A&A, 426, 1093

    2004

  10. [18]

    W., Hill, F., Hubbard, R

    Harvey, J. W., Hill, F., Hubbard, R. P., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 1284

    1996

  11. [19]

    A., Gallagher, P

    Hayes, L. A., Gallagher, P. T., Dennis, B. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 33

    2019

  12. [20]

    A., Inglis, A

    Hayes, L. A., Inglis, A. R., Christe, S., Dennis, B., & Gallagher, P. T. 2020, ApJ, 895, 50

    2020

  13. [21]

    1974, Sol

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

    1974

  14. [22]

    D., Aschwanden, M

    Holman, G. D., Aschwanden, M. J., Aurass, H., et al. 2011, Space Sci. Rev., 159, 107

    2011

  15. [23]

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

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

    2023

  16. [24]

    2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 535830101

    Janvier, M. 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 535830101

    2017

  17. [25]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 60

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., Bommier, V ., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 60

    2014

  18. [26]

    2013, A&A, 555, A77

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., Pariat, E., & Démoulin, P. 2013, A&A, 555, A77

    2013

  19. [27]

    R., et al

    Janvier, M., Mzerguat, S., Young, P. R., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A130

    2023

  20. [28]

    2016, A&A, 591, A141

    Janvier, M., Savcheva, A., Pariat, E., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A141

    2016

  21. [29]

    & Magun, A

    Kaempfer, N. & Magun, A. 1983, ApJ, 274, 910

    1983

  22. [30]

    N., van Ballegooijen, A

    Kliem, B., Su, Y . N., van Ballegooijen, A. A., & DeLuca, E. E. 2013, ApJ, 779, 129

    2013

  23. [31]

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

    1976

  24. [32]

    J., Grimm, O., et al

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

    2020

  25. [33]

    M., & Cho, K.-S

    Kumar, P., Nakariakov, V . M., & Cho, K.-S. 2016, ApJ, 822, 7

    2016

  26. [34]

    2020, Solar- Terrestrial Physics, 6, 3

    Kupriyanova, E., Kolotkov, D., Nakariakov, V ., & Kaufman, A. 2020, Solar- Terrestrial Physics, 6, 3

    2020

  27. [35]

    R., Title, A

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

    2012

  28. [36]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 77 Lörinˇcík, J., Aulanier, G., Dudík, J., Zemanová, A., & Dzifˇcáková, E

    Li, D., Hong, Z., Hou, Z., & Su, Y . 2024, ApJ, 970, 77 Lörinˇcík, J., Aulanier, G., Dudík, J., Zemanová, A., & Dzifˇcáková, E. 2019, ApJ, 881, 68 Lörinˇcík, J., Dudík, J., Sainz Dalda, A., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 45

    2024

  29. [37]

    F., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 100703

    2007

  30. [38]

    J., V olpara, A., et al

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

    2023

  31. [39]

    K., et al

    Massa, P., Schwartz, R., Tolbert, A. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 46

    2020

  32. [40]

    A., Nakariakov, V

    McLaughlin, J. A., Nakariakov, V . M., Dominique, M., Jelínek, P., & Takasao, S. 2018, Space Sci. Rev., 214, 45

    2018

  33. [41]

    J., Freij, N., Stansby, D., et al

    Mumford, S. J., Freij, N., Stansby, D., et al. 2023, SunPy

    2023

  34. [42]

    2015, A&A, 580, A106

    Musset, S., Vilmer, N., & Bommier, V . 2015, A&A, 580, A106

    2015

  35. [43]

    Nakariakov, V . M. & Melnikov, V . F. 2009, Space Sci. Rev., 149, 119

    2009

  36. [44]

    & Démoulin, P

    Pariat, E. & Démoulin, P. 2012, A&A, 541, A78

    2012

  37. [45]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 3

    2012

  38. [46]

    Priest, E. R. & Forbes, T. G. 1992, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 1521

    1992

  39. [47]

    Priest, E. R. & Forbes, T. G. 2002, A&A Rev., 10, 313

    2002

  40. [48]

    M., Dickson, E

    Purkhart, S., Veronig, A. M., Dickson, E. C. M., et al. 2023, A&A

    2023

  41. [49]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8

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

    2020

  42. [50]

    F., Hayes, L

    Ryan, D. F., Hayes, L. A., Collier, H., et al. 2025, Sol. Phys., submitted

    2025

  43. [51]

    1973, Sol

    Santangelo, N., Horstman, H., & Horstman-Moretti, E. 1973, Sol. Phys., 29, 143

    1973

  44. [52]

    Sterling, A. C. & Hudson, H. S. 1997, ApJ, 491, L55

    1997

  45. [53]

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

    1966

  46. [54]

    M., Karlicky, M., & Anfinogentov, S

    Sych, R., Nakariakov, V . M., Karlicky, M., & Anfinogentov, S. 2009, A&A, 505, 791

    2009

  47. [55]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 102 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W

    Takahashi, T., Qiu, J., & Shibata, K. 2017, ApJ, 848, 102 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W. T., Bobra, M. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 890, 68

    2017

  48. [56]

    Tomblin, F. F. 1972, ApJ, 171, 377

    1972

  49. [57]

    M., Gömöry, P., Dissauer, K., Temmer, M., & Vanninathan, K

    Veronig, A. M., Gömöry, P., Dissauer, K., Temmer, M., & Vanninathan, K. 2019, ApJ, 879, 85

    2019

  50. [58]

    2020, Sol

    Warmuth, A., Önel, H., Mann, G., et al. 2020, Sol. Phys., 295, 90

    2020

  51. [59]

    2023, A&A, 673, A142

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

    2023

  52. [60]

    K., et al

    Yu, S., Chen, B., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 17 Zemanová, A., Dudík, J., Aulanier, G., Thalmann, J. K., & Gömöry, P. 2019, ApJ, 883, 96

    2020

  53. [61]

    V ., McLaughlin, J

    Zimovets, I. V ., McLaughlin, J. A., Srivastava, A. K., et al. 2021, Space Sci. Rev., 217, 66 Article number, page 17 of 18 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa54475-25corr Appendix A: Mask evolution with higher threshold Figure A.1 complements the results of the mask evolution and ex...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.