Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Supra-arcade downflows in an extensive fan associated with a giant quiescent solar filament eruption

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read After a giant quiescent filament eruption, supra-arcade downflows in the resulting fan are at least three times wider than those seen in active-region flares, while moving at the same speeds.

desk verdict A worthwhile, careful study of a rare giant-filament SAD event that convincingly shows unusually wide SADs, though the headline width ratio needs a harder number before it's fully secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09944 v1 pith:TUH2MVJ7 submitted 2025-09-12 astro-ph.SR

Xiaoyan Xie , Katharine Reeves , Chengcai Shen , Nishu Karna , Yan Xu , Christopher Moore , Crisel Suarez , Ritesh Patel
show 1 more author
Daniel Seaton
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords supra-arcadedownflowssolarfilamenteruptionquiescentRayleigh-TaylorinstabilitymagneticreconnectioncoronaHinodeXRTactiveregionflares
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 investigates the aftermath of a December 24, 2023 giant quiescent solar filament eruption, which produced a supra-arcade fan about three times wider than typical active-region flare fans. Tracking the largest downward-moving plasma structures (SADs) inside this fan, the authors find their maximum width exceeds 80 Mm—at least three times the largest widths measured in a sample of over 600 active-region SADs—yet their velocities (25–200 km/s) fall in the normal range for flare SADs. They interpret this width–velocity combination as direct support for the Rayleigh–Taylor/Richtmyer–Meshkov instability origin of SADs: larger system size allows larger-scale instabilities, but instability velocities are scale-independent. This matters because it suggests the same reconnection-driven downflow physics operates across a broad range of eruption sizes, including quiet-Sun events with no detectable GOES X-ray flare.

What carries the argument

The central interpretive mechanism is the Rayleigh–Taylor/Richtmyer–Meshkov instability scaling prediction: in a multi-mode unstable interface, the largest unstable wavelength scales with the transverse size of the system, while the velocity of the developing structures does not. The paper uses the fan width as the system size and the measured SAD width as the instability length scale, comparing these across events of different sizes (active-region flares vs. this giant filament eruption). Widths are measured with an empirical standard—a cut line 6 pixels behind the SAD head, with the width taken as the FWHM of the intensity profile—and heights are deprojected to solar-surface coordinates.

What would settle it

Measure the width of SAD A along a cut that passes through its actual widest part (not the 6-pixel standard) and compare it to the largest width in the active-region SAD sample cited in this paper; if the ratio falls below three, the central scaling claim fails. Alternatively, finding a wide fan that hosts only narrow SADs would question the system-size dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors report observations of an extensive supra-arcade fan spanning over 0.85 solar radii above the arcade formed after a giant quiescent filament eruption. Within this fan, the two largest continuously observed supra-arcade downflows (SADs A and B) have velocities within the 20–400 km/s range typical of active-region flare SADs, but the maximum width of SAD A is at least three times the largest width found in a statistical sample of more than 600 active-region SADs. This width–velocity combination matches the nonlinear Rayleigh–Taylor/Richtmyer–Meshkov instability picture: the largest unstable mode scales with system size, while the velocity scale is independent of system size. The fa

Load-bearing premise

The 'at least three times wider' claim depends on a width measured 6 pixels behind a SAD head, multiplied by a visually estimated factor of 'at least two' to obtain the largest width, and compared with an active-region SAD maximum value that is not quoted in this paper; if the visual factor or the comparison value is wrong, the headline scaling result weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the instability scaling holds, wider supra-arcade fans should always host correspondingly wider downflows, so fan width can serve as a predictor for the largest SAD width in any eruption.
  • The existence of SADs in a quiet-Sun filament eruption with no GOES flare implies that SAD formation does not require flare-level heating or radiation; reconnection in gradual, cooler eruptions can drive the same downflow phenomenon.
  • The cooler, lower-emission-measure fan still shows underdense SADs and compression heating ahead of their heads, suggesting these processes operate even in low-density environments, not just in dense flare loops.
  • The maximum initial height of a SAD in this event (214.66 Mm) exceeds the ~200 Mm upper limit in active-region samples, indicating that current EUV instruments' field of view may miss the highest-altitude origins of some SADs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's headline width ratio relies on a visually estimated 'at least two' factor to convert the 6-pixel-cut width to the largest width; a direct measurement of SAD A's width at its actual widest location, rather than at the standard cut, would provide a harder test of the three-fold claim.
  • If system size controls SAD width, then upcoming wide-field EUV or soft-X-ray instruments with larger fields of view should reveal even wider SADs in very extended filament eruptions, a testable prediction of the scaling.
  • The similarity of SAD velocities across system sizes, despite order-of-magnitude differences in temperature and emission measure, suggests that the effective gravitational acceleration or reconnection electric field in the current sheet is comparable across these events; simulations varying only the transverse system size could test this.
  • The absence of a GOES flare but continued reconnection and downflow activity suggests that flare classification based solely on soft-X-ray flux may overlook a population of gradual, low-emission reconnection events that still participate in energy transfer.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports Hinode/XRT observations of an extensive supra-arcade fan and two large supra-arcade downflows (SADs) following a giant quiescent solar filament eruption on 2023 December 24. The fan spans roughly 0.85 R_sun, persists for more than eight hours, and contains numerous SADs. The authors measure the heights, plane-of-sky corrected velocities, and widths of the two best-observed SADs (A and B), and derive fan/SAD temperatures and emission measures from XRT filter ratios. Their headline claim is that the largest SAD width is greater than 80 Mm, at least three times the maximum widths of AR-flare SADs in Xie et al. (2022b), while the velocities of these large SADs remain within the typical AR-flare SAD velocity range. They interpret this as support for Rayleigh-Taylor/Richtmyer-Meshkov-type instability models in which the instability length scale grows with system size but the instability velocities do not. They also find a cooler fan (~5 MK), no GOES signature, and cooler SAD plasma relative to the surrounding fan.

Significance. If the width comparison holds, this is an important observational result: it would be one of the first direct indications that SAD dimensions are governed by the global reconnection-scale / fan width, while SAD velocities remain roughly independent of that scale. It would also broaden SAD observations beyond active-region flares and support the idea that quiescent filament eruptions involve reconnection processes similar to those in flares. The paper has clear strengths: off-limb deprojection, PSF deconvolution and saturation handling for XRT, a consistency check with AIA via synthetic images, and an explicit statement of the limitations of the dataset. The central quantitative claim, however, currently rests on a width measured along an empirical 6-pixel cut multiplied by a visual factor, so the scaling conclusion needs to be placed on a firmer measurement basis before it can carry the theoretical weight placed on it.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Figure 4(c)] The central claim that the maximum SAD width is >80 Mm and at least three times the AR-flare maximum depends on two unquantified choices: the SAD width is measured along a cut placed 6 pixels from the SAD head (an empirical standard), and the 'largest width' is then estimated by a visual factor of 'at least twice' (green line in Figure 3d). No uncertainty is attached to either step, and no independent measurement is made at the widest part of the SAD. Because the entire RTI/RMI scaling interpretation rests on this number, the authors should provide an objective width measurement (e.g., FWHM along multiple cuts through the SAD, or a reproducible largest-width criterion) with a stated uncertainty or a conservative lower bound. As written, the factor of two could be off by a substantial amount and the ratio to AR SADs is not robustly established.
  2. [§3.2, comparison with Xie et al. (2022b)] The manuscript states that the largest width is 'more than 3 times the largest widths measured in more than 600 AR flare SADs' but never quotes the comparison value from Xie et al. (2022b), nor states whether those widths were measured with the same 6-pixel/FWHM convention, the same PSF deconvolution, or the same projection treatment. Without that information the reader cannot verify the claimed 3x ratio. Please quote the relevant statistics from Xie et al. (2022b) (maximum, median, and distribution) and explicitly reconcile the width definitions.
  3. [Section 4] The theoretical interpretation is built on two SADs in a single event. The paper appropriately says in §1 that the dataset is not suitable for a statistical study, but the abstract and conclusions nonetheless state the width/velocity scaling as a general finding. Given that the key measurement is a single visual estimate, I recommend either adding a quantitative treatment that propagates the width uncertainty into the scaling claim or explicitly framing the conclusion as a case study requiring further events.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; §3.1] The statement that the fan is 'about three times as wide' as AR-flare fans is not supported by a quantitative comparison or a cited AR-fan width distribution. Please specify how the fan width is defined and what reference value is used.
  2. [Appendix B] The deprojection assumes the baseline lies on the solar surface and that the Sun is spherical. The resulting heights and velocities could be sensitive to the baseline position. A sensitivity estimate or a range of H and derived velocities for plausible baseline placements would increase confidence; the width comparison itself is not deprojected.
  3. [Figure 8 caption] Typo: 'adopted form' should likely be 'adopted from'.
  4. [General] The terms 'de-projection' and 'deprojection' are used inconsistently; please choose one and use it throughout.
  5. [Appendix C] The consistency test with AIA is qualitative and ignores cross-calibration and pixel-size differences. This is acceptable for the stated purpose, but the wording 'confirms the consistency' should be softened to 'is consistent with'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the observational measurements are independent of the RTI/RMI interpretation, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are based on direct XRT observations: SAD widths are measured along a defined cut, velocities from tracking SAD heads, and the largest width estimated with a visual factor. No parameter is fitted to force agreement with the RTI/RMI theory. The theory comparison is qualitative and cites both an external result (Alon et al. 1995) and the authors' own simulation (Shen et al. 2022); the simulation is not used to derive the measured quantities, so there is no reduction of a prediction to an input. The comparison to Xie et al. (2022b) relies on a self-citation, but that prior work provides an independent statistical sample of AR-flare SADs; the paper does not quote the comparison maximum, which is a transparency weakness rather than circularity. The 'largest width' estimate uses a visually applied factor of 'at least two' to the 6-pixel width; this is a measurement-uncertainty issue, not a circular derivation. No equation or definition links the output to the input by construction, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no new free parameters or invented entities. It relies on established observational assumptions: isothermal filter-ratio analysis, visual identification of SADs, and deprojection geometry. The theory comparison imports RTI/RMI scaling from literature (including the authors' own simulations) as an interpretive frame rather than a derivation. The main hand-chosen choices are the 6-pixel width offset and the visual factor for the largest width.

free parameters (3)
  • 6-pixel offset = 6 pixels
    Widths measured along a cut 6 pixels from the SAD head; this offset is chosen empirically after testing and affects all reported widths.
  • largest-width visual factor = at least 2x measured width
    To estimate the largest width of SAD A, the authors multiply the measured width by a visual factor of at least 2; this factor is not measured or error-bounded.
  • baseline position for height/deprojection = central arcade region parallel to ribbons
    Heights and de-projected distances are measured from a hand-defined baseline; different choices change heights and velocities.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Fan and SADs are viewed through a single dominant temperature plasma (isothermal) for filter-ratio analysis
    XRT filter-ratio temperature/EM derivation assumes isothermal plasma; the authors verify consistency with AIA in Appendix C but this remains an approximation.
  • domain assumption SAD heads identified visually as low-intensity features moving sunward; the features are genuine plasma voids rather than artifacts of projection/filter
    The interpretation of the observed dark structures as supra-arcade downflows follows prior literature; no independent density measurement is made.
  • domain assumption The RTI/RMI model predictions (Shen et al. 2022; Alon et al. 1995) apply to this quiescent-filament fan
    The size-speed relationship is interpreted using external simulation/theory; the paper does not derive this scaling for this event.
  • domain assumption Deprojection geometry assumes the baseline lies on the solar surface and the Sun is spherical
    Appendix B uses P on solar surface and rho = R_sun; small-scale nonsphericity or baseline error affects heights.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supra-arcade downflows in an extensive fan associated with a giant quiescent solar filament eruption." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUH2MVJ7

@misc{pith2026250909944,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supra-arcade downflows in an extensive fan associated with a giant quiescent solar filament eruption},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUH2MVJ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09944}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the aftermath of a giant quiescent solar filament eruption on December 24, 2023. One feature of the eruption is an extensive fan above the filament channel that is about three times as wide as similar structures that appear above active regions (ARs) during solar flares. The fan contains numerous supra-arcade downflows (SADs), and we investigate the largest SADs with continuous Hinode X-ray Telescope (XRT) observations. The measured maximum width of the SADs in this event is at least three times the maximum width of SADs observed in AR flares, whereas the velocities of the largest SADs are similar to the typical values of AR SADs. The kinetic characteristics of the largest SADs observed in this event align with previous model predictions, where SADs originate from the non-linear development of Rayleigh-Taylor type instabilities. In this scenario, the larger system size allows the existence of larger-scale instabilities, while the development of the velocities of these instabilities is expected to be independent of the system size. Compared to AR flares, the temperature and emission measure in this event are lower, and there is less overall radiation, resulting in no evident Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) signature. Similar to those in AR flares, SADs show lower temperatures compared to the surrounding fan plasma. Our observations show that SADs are present in a wide variety of eruptions. The reconnection mechanisms present in quiescent filament eruptions are similar to those driving more compact eruptions originating from ARs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09944 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A snapshot (made by JHelioviewer, M¨uller et al. 2017) displaying the general context of supra-arcade fan, quiescent filament, and the accompanied coronal mass ejection (CME) at 14:30 UT. The channels used anti￾sunwards are STEREO A/304 ˚A (gray), XRT/Be-thin (or￾ange), LASCO/C2 (red), and LASCO/C3, respectively. The corresponding animation from 10:00 UT to 20:05 UT is avail￾able online. tion assumes an isothermal t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the supra-arcade fan and downflows observed in XRT/Be-thin and Be-med where the arrow in panel (c) indicates the color change for intensity increase. The corresponding animation from 13:10 UT to 21:59 UT is available online [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of SADs A and B where dot and cross indicates the head of SADs observed in XRT/Be-thin (a-k). White and black solid lines indicate the corresponding SAD widths shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Height, velocity, and width as a function of time for SADs A and B where we set the moment when we start tracking SAD A (i.e., 14:54:02 UT, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observations of supra-arcade fan in AIA channels and XRT filters at 2023-12-24 15:20 UT where the arrow in each panel indicates the color change for intensity increase. The locations of SADs A and B’s heads identified from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temperature (a) and emission measure (EM) (d) distributions at 15:20 UT derived form XRT/Be-thin and Al-poly, where dots and cross indicate the heads of SADs A and B, respectively. (b, c, e, f): Temperature and EM variations as a function of distance along the correspo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Intensity versus distance along the extended cuts indicated in Figures 3(b)-(i) for SAD A. The dashed lines indicate the SAD A widths that correspond to white lines in Figures 3(b)-(i) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of projection effects where solar-X and solar-Y indicate the solar image coordinate (adopted form https://math.etsu.edu/multicalc/prealpha/Chap3/Chap3-5/part2.htm). image coordinate is xsolar = ρsinϕsinθ ysolar = ρcosϕ (B1) Since P is on the solar surface,…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a): Temperature responses of AIA/94 ˚A, AIA/193 ˚A, AIA/94 ˚A due to Fe XVIII line (94 ˚A/Fe XVIII), and AIA/193 ˚A due to Fe XII lines (193 ˚A/Fe XII). (b): Intensity distribution of 94 ˚A/Fe XVIII. (c): Intensity distribution of 193 ˚A/Fe XII [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Synthetic images from XRT-derived EMs. In addition, we use XRT-derived temperature and EM to perform synthetic AIA intensity by employing the formula I = R R(T)×DEM(T)dT (Boerner et al. 2012) where R(T) is the temperature response for AIA channels. In our case with is…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Snapshot of the giant arches event showing the SAD that has the largest width therein. Arrow indicates the direction of distance increment. (b): intensity as a function of distance along the path (white line) marked in panel (a). Orange lines indicate the range of…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., et al

    Afshari, M., Peres, G., Jibben, P. R., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 107, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/107

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/107 2016

  2. [2]

    1995, PhRvL, 74, 534, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.534

    Alon, U., Hecht, J., Ofer, D., & Shvarts, D. 1995, PhRvL, 74, 534, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.534

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.74.534 1995

  3. [3]

    Anderson, M., & Martin, S. F. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 346, Large-scale Structures and their Role in Solar Activity, ed. K. Sankarasubramanian, M. Penn, & A. Pevtsov, 201

    2005

  4. [4]

    2004, ApJL, 605, L77, doi: 10.1086/420768

    Asai, A., Yokoyama, T., Shimojo, M., & Shibata, K. 2004, ApJL, 605, L77, doi: 10.1086/420768

    doi:10.1086/420768 2004

  5. [5]

    2012, SoPh, 275, 41, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9804-8

    Boerner, P., Edwards, C., Lemen, J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 41, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9804-8

    doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9804-8 2012

  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]

    C., et al

    Cai, Q., Shen, C., Raymond, J. C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3183, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2167

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2167 2019

  8. [8]

    2017, A&A, 606, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629893 Del Zanna, G

    Chen, X., Liu, R., Deng, N., & Wang, H. 2017, A&A, 606, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629893 Del Zanna, G. 2013, A&A, 558, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321653

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629893 2017

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    R., Antiochos, S

    DeVore, C. R., Antiochos, S. K., & Aulanier, G. 2005, ApJ, 629, 1122, doi: 10.1086/431721

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, A&A, 611, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730536 Dud ´ ık, J., Aulanier, G., Kaˇ sparov´ a, J., et al

    Diercke, A., Kuckein, C., Verma, M., & Denker, C. 2018, A&A, 611, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730536 Dud ´ ık, J., Aulanier, G., Kaˇ sparov´ a, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8eaf

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Webb, D

    Emery, B. A., Webb, D. F., Gibson, S. E., et al. 2021, SoPh, 296, 119, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01857-7

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    S., & McKenzie, D

    Freed, M. S., & McKenzie, D. E. 2018, ApJ, 866, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadee4

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Reeves, K. K. 2025, ApJL, 986, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adde59

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    Gibson, S. E. 2018, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 15, 7, doi: 10.1007/s41116-018-0016-2

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    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

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & Reeves, K

    Hanneman, W. J., & Reeves, K. K. 2014, ApJ, 786, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/95

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Hao, Q., Fang, C., Cao, W., & Chen, P. F. 2015, ApJS, 221, 33, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/2/33

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    J., & Sime, D

    Hiei, E., Hundhausen, A. J., & Sime, D. G. 1993, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20, 2785, doi: 10.1029/93GL01449

    1993 doi

  11. [19]

    1985, SoPh, 100, 415, doi: 10.1007/BF00158439

    Hirayama, T. 1985, SoPh, 100, 415, doi: 10.1007/BF00158439

    1985 doi

  12. [20]

    Hudson, H., Haisch, B., & Strong, K. T. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 3473, doi: 10.1029/94JA02710 12Xie et al

    1995 doi

  13. [21]

    E., McKenzie, D

    Innes, D. E., McKenzie, D. E., & Wang, T. 2003, SoPh, 217, 247, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000006899.12788.22

    2003

  14. [22]

    2006, A&A, 449, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064942

    Isobe, H., & Tripathi, D. 2006, A&A, 449, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064942

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    I., Bain, H

    Khan, J. I., Bain, H. M., & Fletcher, L. 2007, A&A, 475, 333, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077894

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    I., Uchida, Y., McAllister, A

    Khan, J. I., Uchida, Y., McAllister, A. H., et al. 1998, A&A, 336, 753

    1998

  17. [25]

    2016, A&A, 589, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526636

    Kuckein, C., Verma, M., & Denker, C. 2016, A&A, 589, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526636

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    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

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.12990, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.12990

    Li, X., Shen, C., Xie, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.12990, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.12990

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    F., Cheng, X., Ding, M

    Li, Z. F., Cheng, X., Ding, M. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac043e

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    K., Sui, L., et al

    Lin, J., Ko, Y. K., Sui, L., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1251, doi: 10.1086/428110

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    2021, A&A, 653, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140847

    Liu, R., & Wang, Y. 2021, A&A, 653, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140847

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/168

    Liu, W., Chen, Q., & Petrosian, V. 2013, ApJ, 767, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/168

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    H., Karpen, J

    Mackay, D. H., Karpen, J. T., Ballester, J. L., Schmieder, B., & Aulanier, G. 2010, SSRv, 151, 333, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9628-0

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    I., Su, Y

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

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    McKenzie, D. E. 2000, SoPh, 195, 381, doi: 10.1023/A:1005220604894 —. 2013, ApJ, 766, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/39

    2000 doi

  27. [35]

    E., & Hudson, H

    McKenzie, D. E., & Hudson, H. S. 1999, ApJL, 519, L93, doi: 10.1086/312110

    1999 doi

  28. [36]

    X., Keppens, R., Roussev, I

    Mei, Z. X., Keppens, R., Roussev, I. I., & Lin, J. 2017, A&A, 604, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731146 M¨ uller, D., Nicula, B., Felix, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730893

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    2011, SoPh, 269, 169, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9685-2

    Narukage, N., Sakao, T., Kano, R., et al. 2011, SoPh, 269, 169, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9685-2

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

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

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

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    K., & Forbes, T

    Reeves, K. K., & Forbes, T. G. 2005, ApJ, 630, 1133, doi: 10.1086/432047

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    K., Freed, M

    Reeves, K. K., Freed, M. S., McKenzie, D. E., & Savage, S. L. 2017, ApJ, 836, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/55

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    K., & Golub, L

    Reeves, K. K., & Golub, L. 2011, ApJL, 727, L52, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L52

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    K., T¨ or¨ ok, T., Miki´ c, Z., Linker, J., & Murphy, N

    Reeves, K. K., T¨ or¨ ok, T., Miki´ c, Z., Linker, J., & Murphy, N. A. 2019, ApJ, 887, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ce8

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b4e

    Ruan, W., Yan, L., & Keppens, R. 2023, ApJ, 947, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b4e

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    L., & McKenzie, D

    Savage, S. L., & McKenzie, D. E. 2011, ApJ, 730, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/98

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    L., McKenzie, D

    Savage, S. L., McKenzie, D. E., & Reeves, K. K. 2012, ApJL, 747, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L40

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    R., J., & Wang, Y

    Sheeley, N. R., J., & Wang, Y. M. 2002, ApJ, 579, 874, doi: 10.1086/342923

    2002 doi

  39. [47]

    K., et al

    Shen, C., Chen, B., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 317, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01570-2

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Shibata, K., Takasao, S., & Reeves, K. K. 2023, ApJ, 943, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa9c

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/144

    Su, Y., van Ballegooijen, A., McCauley, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/144

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad738d

    Sun, Z., Tian, H., Li, T., Liu, R., & Duan, Y. 2024, ApJ, 974, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad738d

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 4468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1228 van Ballegooijen, A

    Tan, G., Hou, Y., & Tian, H. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1228 van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2004, ApJ, 612, 519, doi: 10.1086/422512

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6396, doi: 10.21105/joss.06396

    Velasquez, J., Murphy, N., Reeves, K., et al. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6396, doi: 10.21105/joss.06396

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Brooks, D

    Warren, H. P., Brooks, D. H., Ugarte-Urra, I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa9b8

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    P., O’Brien, C

    Warren, H. P., O’Brien, C. M., & Sheeley, Neil R., J. 2011, ApJ, 742, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/92

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Golub, L., et al

    Weber, M., Deluca, E. E., Golub, L., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, S853, doi: 10.1093/pasj/59.sp3.S853

    2007 doi

  48. [56]

    J., & Seaton, D

    West, M. J., & Seaton, D. B. 2015, ApJL, 801, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L6

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    K., & Gou, T

    Xie, X., Li, G., Reeves, K. K., & Gou, T. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1383746, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1383746

    2024

  50. [58]

    2022a, MNRAS, 509, 406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2954

    Xie, X., Mei, Z., Shen, C., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 509, 406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2954

    doi

  51. [59]

    Xie, X., & Reeves, K. K. 2023, ApJ, 942, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f47

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    K., Shen, C., & Ingram, J

    Xie, X., Reeves, K. K., Shen, C., & Ingram, J. D. 2022b, ApJ, 933, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac695d

    doi

  53. [61]

    K., et al

    Xie, X., Shen, C., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc91b

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    2018, ApJL, 862, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad40d

    Xu, Y., P¨ otzi, W., Zhang, H., et al. 2018, ApJL, 862, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad40d

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a3d

    Xue, J., Su, Y., Li, H., & Zhao, X. 2020, ApJ, 898, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a3d

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    T., Shiota, D., Sakajiri, T., et al

    Yamamoto, T. T., Shiota, D., Sakajiri, T., et al. 2002, ApJL, 579, L45, doi: 10.1086/345076

    2002 doi

  57. [65]

    C., Mei, Z., et al

    Ye, J., Raymond, J. C., Mei, Z., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf129 SADs in an extensive fan13

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 466, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.03.110

    Zhou, G., Wang, Y., & Wang, J. 2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 466, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.03.110

    2006 doi

  59. [67]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4355

    Zou, P., Jiang, C., Wei, F., Zuo, P., & Wang, Y. 2019, ApJ, 884, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4355

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.