Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Total Power and Low-energy Cut-off Time Evolution of Solar Flare Accelerated Electrons Using X-Ray Observations and Warm-Target Model

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 During solar flare hard X-ray bursts, the low-energy cut-off of accelerated electrons dips while the injection rate peaks.

desk verdict A useful multi-flare application of the warm-target model, but the headline high-low-high Ec pattern rests on a sharp-cutoff assumption and interpolated peak values, so treat it as suggestive rather than settled. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08310 v1 pith:YHYOF3SR submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.SR

Debesh Bhattacharjee (1) , Eduard P. Kontar (1) , Yingjie Luo (1) ((1) School of Physics & Astronomy , University of Glasgow , Glasgow , UK) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarflareshardX-rayemissionwarm-targetmodellow-energycut-offnonthermalelectronsmeasureelectronaccelerationRHESSI
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

This paper uses the warm-target model of hard X-ray emission to track how flare-accelerated electrons change during three well-observed solar flares. It finds that the low-energy cut-off of the injected electron spectrum, $E_c$, drops just at the hard X-ray peaks and rises before and after, a high-low-high pattern, while the total rate of injected electrons $\dot{N}_0$ peaks at those same times. Although the inferred total power depends sensitively on $E_c$, its time profile follows $\dot{N}_0$, so the flare's nonthermal power traces the acceleration rate rather than the cut-off. The paper also shows that thermalization of injected electrons can contribute up to about 64% of the total soft X-ray emission measure near the first hard X-ray peak, with the largest contribution occurring when the injection rate is highest.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the warm-target model of Kontar et al. (2015, 2019), implemented as the `f_thick-warm` spectral function in OSPEX. Equation (1) gives the density-averaged mean electron flux as the sum of a thermalized Maxwellian component and a cold-target contribution, so electrons with energies of a few $k_B T$ are treated as thermalizing inside the warm coronal plasma instead of being lost instantly. The injected spectrum is assumed to be a power law with a sharp low-energy cut-off $E_c$ (Eq. 3), and imaging supplies the loop half-length $L$, source volume $V$, temperature $T$, and density $n$; the model then returns $E_c$, $\dot{N}_0$, $\delta$, power $P$, and the excess emission measure $\Delta\mathrm{EM}$. This machinery matters because the cold-target model leaves $E_c$ essentially undetermined, whereas the warm-target approach constrains it, allowing the energetics to be computed.

What would settle it

Fit the same three flares' hard X-ray spectra with an injected spectrum that has a smooth low-energy turnover rather than a sharp cutoff (for example a kappa distribution or a broken power law) and check whether $E_c$ still shows a high-low-high pattern around the hard X-ray peaks; if the inferred cutoff becomes flat or the pattern inverts, the reported behavior is an artifact of the sharp-cutoff assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working with the warm-target model, the paper's central result is empirical: in all three flares, the low-energy cut-off $E_c$ of the assumed power-law injected electron spectrum shows a high-low-high temporal pattern around each hard X-ray burst, the spectral index $\delta$ shows the familiar soft-hard-soft variation, and $\dot{N}_0$ shows the opposite low-high-low pattern. The total nonthermal power $P$ is proportional to $\dot{N}_0 E_c (\delta-1)/(\delta-2)$, but the observed time variation of $P$ is dominated by $\dot{N}_0$: on a log-log plot $P$ tracks $\dot{N}_0$ linearly. The excess emission measure $\Delta\mathrm{EM}$ from thermalized injected electrons, and its ratio $R$ to the total emission measure, reach their largest values near the first hard X-ray peak and then decay as the flare progresses.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the injected electron spectrum is a single power law with a sharp low-energy cutoff and that the plasma temperature and thermal emission measure measured in the 40 seconds before each burst stay unchanged during the burst itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The temporal variation of nonthermal power in a flare can be read directly from the acceleration rate, not from the low-energy cut-off.
  • Hard X-ray peaks correspond to periods of enhanced acceleration efficiency: electrons are injected at lower energies and at higher rates, with harder spectra.
  • The excess thermal emission measure from thermalized injected electrons is significant in the impulsive phase, so soft X-ray emission measure there is not purely chromospheric evaporation.
  • Warm-target determinations of $E_c$ allow flare energetics to be estimated with far better accuracy than cold-target fits, which leave $E_c$ effectively unconstrained.
  • The reported high-low-high pattern in $E_c$ resembles the energy dependence seen in stochastic acceleration simulations, linking the observations to acceleration models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pattern holds across a larger sample, the low-energy cut-off could serve as a direct observable proxy for acceleration efficiency, allowing time-resolved studies of the acceleration process without full spectral modeling.
  • The 40-second binning likely smooths the true cut-off variations; higher-cadence instruments like STIX could reveal sharper dips or lag times between $\dot{N}_0$ maxima and $E_c$ minima.
  • A testable extension is to compare the warm-target $\Delta\mathrm{EM}$ against soft X-ray observations of the same loops to see whether the predicted thermalization signature appears as an impulsive-phase emission measure enhancement.
  • The correlation between $\delta$ and $E_c$ suggests a single accelerator parameter controls both; modeling the acceleration region could predict a quantitative $\delta$-$E_c$ relation.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the warm-target electron transport model (Kontar et al. 2015, 2019) to hard X-ray observations of three solar flares (two with RHESSI, one with STIX/Solar Orbiter) and extracts time-resolved values of the injected electron rate Ndot0, spectral index delta, low-energy cut-off Ec, total nonthermal power P, excess thermal emission measure Delta-EM, and the ratio R = Delta-EM/(EM0+Delta-EM). The central empirical claims are that Ec shows a high-low-high pattern around hard X-ray peaks, that Ndot0 shows the opposite low-high-low pattern, and that the time evolution of P follows the time evolution of Ndot0 rather than the variations of Ec. The paper also reports that the thermalized-electron contribution to the total emission measure peaks near the first hard X-ray peak. The analysis uses 40 s spectral bins, with thermal parameters fixed from the preceding 40 s pre-burst interval, and assumes constant loop half-length L and source volume V for each event.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides one of the first systematic time-resolved determinations of the low-energy cut-off in flare-accelerated electron distributions, using a model that can in principle constrain Ec rather than treating it as an unknown. The combination of RHESSI and STIX events, the explicit reporting of uncertainties for most fitted points, and the comparison with stochastic-acceleration simulations are useful contributions. However, several load-bearing aspects need to be strengthened before the central temporal claims can be considered secure: the peak values of Ec that shape the high-low-high pattern are partly obtained by linear interpolation without error bars, the constant-L/V assumption is untested, and the reported correlations and P-Ndot0 relation require more careful statistical treatment. The paper would be a solid observational contribution after these points are addressed.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, §3.3, Figures 2 and 10] Several values at the hard X-ray peaks that support the central high-low-high Ec trend are linearly interpolated and presented without error bars. For the 2011 February 24 flare, the text states explicitly that no data points exist at the second and third HXR peaks and that the quoted Ndot0 and Ec values there are linearly interpolated; the same appears to be true for the third and fourth peaks of the 2022 March 28 flare (Ec = 14.8 and 15.1 keV without uncertainties). Because the temporal shape of Ec is the main claim of the paper, interpolated points cannot serve as evidence for that shape. The authors should either perform fits in intervals centered on the peak times, propagate the interpolation uncertainty, or explicitly base the qualitative trend only on directly fitted points.
  2. [§3.1-§3.3, Equations (1), (6)] The assumption that the half-loop length L and source volume V are constant in time is stated but never examined, even though the warm-target model depends on L through E_min and on V through n = sqrt(EM0/V). If the coronal source grows or the loop geometry changes during the flare, the inferred thermal density and the thermalization efficiency change, which can systematically shift Ec and Ndot0. A sensitivity test using image-derived L and V at several times, or a plausible range of V(t)/L(t), is needed to establish that the reported temporal patterns are not artifacts of this assumption.
  3. [Equation (5), Figures 3, 7, 11] The claimed linear relationship between P and Ndot0 on logarithmic scales is largely a structural consequence of Equation (5), P = ((delta-1)/(delta-2)) Ndot0 Ec, because P is computed from Ndot0 and the fitted delta and Ec. The paper does not quantify how much of the variance in P is driven by Ndot0 versus Ec and delta, so the conclusion that 'the temporal variation of the flare power follows the temporal variation of the acceleration rate' is not an independent empirical test. A variance decomposition or a comparison of the observed P/Ndot0 ratio with the fitted (delta-1)/(delta-2)*Ec factor would make the claim meaningful.
  4. [§3.1-§3.3, Figures 4, 8, 12] The Pearson correlation coefficients between Ec and delta (r about 0.39-0.53) are reported with p-values based on the number of time bins, but the 40 s time series are strongly autocorrelated, so the effective number of independent samples is far smaller than the nominal bin count. The p-values therefore overstate the statistical significance of the correlations. The authors should account for autocorrelation, for example by estimating the effective sample size, prewhitening, or using a block bootstrap, before claiming 95% confidence in the correlation.
  5. [Equation (3), §4] The physical interpretation that Ec(t) is the low-energy cutoff of the accelerated electron distribution rests on the assumed sharp power-law cutoff in Equation (3). If the true injection spectrum has a smooth low-energy rollover, as expected in several acceleration models, the fitted Ec may simply track local spectral curvature and become partially degenerate with delta. The reported r values around 0.4-0.5 are consistent with such a degeneracy. A forward-model test using a smooth-rollover injection spectrum (for example, a broken power law or a kappa-like distribution) would show whether the high-low-high Ec pattern is robust, and should be included or the interpretation should be explicitly softened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence beginning 'While hard X-Ray observation...' is grammatically incomplete and should be revised.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The units of excess thermal emission measure are printed as 'cm^-1' in the Figure 2 caption; this should almost certainly be 'cm^-3' as in the corresponding caption of Figure 6.
  3. [Figure 8 caption] The caption refers to the 'flare May 15, 2015'; this should be 2013.
  4. [§4] The phrase 'intriguingly resembling a the spectrum of acceleration electrons' contains a typo ('a the') and should be corrected.
  5. [§3.1, §3.2] The text says the second and third HXR peak values 'are estimated using the linear interpolation method' but does not state whether the quoted uncertainties for the first peak include systematic contributions from the fixed thermal parameters; a brief statement of how systematic uncertainties from EM0 and T were propagated would be helpful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The Ec(t) high-low-high trend is an empirical fitting result, but the companion claim that P follows Ndot0 is a direct algebraic consequence of Eq. (5), making that part of the abstract self-definitional.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2, Eq. (5); Sec. 3.1, P vs Ndot0; Abstract]
    "P= Z ∞ Ec E ˙N(E)dE= δ−1 δ−2 ˙N0Ec. ... The powerPshows a linear relationship with the time profile of ˙N0 on the log-log scale. ... Although the total power of nonthermal electrons is sensitive to the cut-off energy, the temporal variation of the flare power follows the temporal variation of the acceleration rate."

    P is not an independent observable; it is evaluated from the same best-fit parameters (Ndot0, δ, Ec) using Eq. (5). Since Eq. (5) is the definition of P for the assumed sharp-cutoff power law, log P = log Ndot0 + log[(δ−1)/(δ−2)] + log Ec; hence the reported log-log linear relationship with slope 1 and the temporal tracking are algebraic identities. The only non-tautological content is that the time-dependent coefficient varies more slowly than Ndot0, but the paper does not test this separately from the fit. The abstract's statement that 'the temporal variation of the flare power follows the temporal variation of the acceleration rate' is therefore a restatement of the model's definition rather than an independent empirical discovery.

full rationale

The paper's main novel claim is the high-low-high time dependence of the fitted low-energy cutoff Ec and the opposite low-high-low behavior of Ndot0. This is an empirical pattern in the best-fit parameters of the assumed sharp-cutoff power-law injection model (Eq. 3); it is not forced by the model because the parameters are free and the pattern could have been otherwise. The warm-target model (Kontar et al. 2015, 2019) is prior work by the authors, but it is implemented in OSPEX, externally used, and not invoked as a uniqueness theorem; the cited '7% uncertainty' is a simulation-based result, so those self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The one genuinely definitional element is the reported linear relation between P and Ndot0: P is computed from the same fitted Ndot0, δ, Ec via Eq. (5), so log P = log Ndot0 + log c(t) is an identity rather than an independent observed relation. This reduces part of the abstract's conclusion to a restatement of the model's definitions, but the central Ec(t) trend remains an independent empirical result. Hence partial circularity, score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the warm-target model from the authors' own group, a single power-law injection spectrum, and the assumption that thermal parameters and loop geometry are constant over 40 s intervals. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • low-energy cutoff Ec = 5.6-15.1 keV across flares
    Fitted to each 40 s spectrum; the paper's main claim is its time trend.
  • spectral index delta = approximately 3.5-5.5
    Fitted power-law index; used to compute P and to correlate with Ec.
  • total injected electron rate Ndot0 = 10^34 to 10^37 s^-1
    Fitted normalization; drives P and Delta EM peaks.
  • thermal emission measure EM0 = of order 10^48 cm^-3
    Fitted from pre-burst spectra; the denominator in R.
  • plasma temperature T = keV range
    Fitted from pre-burst spectra; enters Eq. 6 and Emin.
  • plasma density n = derived from EM0/V
    Derived quantity; enters Emin in Eq. 6.
  • half-loop length L = 13.9-18.6 Mm
    Measured from images; enters Emin and assumed constant.
  • source volume V = 0.9-3.1 x 10^27 cm^3
    Estimated from 50% contours; used to convert EM0 to density.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Warm-target model formula (Eq. 1) for the mean electron flux spectrum, including the thermalization term and the integral term.
    Taken from Kontar et al. 2015, 2019; not derived in this paper. It is the basis for all inferred quantities.
  • domain assumption The injected electron spectrum is a single power law with a sharp low-energy cutoff (Eq. 3).
    Assumed throughout; if the spectrum deviates, Ec and Ndot0 lose meaning.
  • domain assumption Thermal parameters EM0 and T measured in the 40 s pre-burst interval are constant during the following 40 s burst interval.
    Stated in Section 3; introduces smoothing and potential bias if the plasma evolves rapidly.
  • domain assumption L and V are constant during the flare.
    Stated in Sections 3.1-3.3; ignores possible loop expansion or contraction.
  • domain assumption Elemental abundances are coronal (default OSPEX value).
    Assumed for all flares; affects the thermal continuum fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Total Power and Low-energy Cut-off Time Evolution of Solar Flare Accelerated Electrons Using X-Ray Observations and Warm-Target Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHYOF3SR

@misc{pith2026250608310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Total Power and Low-energy Cut-off Time Evolution of Solar Flare Accelerated Electrons Using X-Ray Observations and Warm-Target Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHYOF3SR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08310}
}
read the original abstract

A primary characteristic of solar flares is the efficient acceleration of electrons to nonthermal deka-keV energies. While hard X-Ray (HXR) observation of bremsstrahlung emission serves as the key diagnostic of these electrons. In this study, we investigate the time evolution of flare-accelerated electrons using the warm-target model. This model, unlike the commonly used cold-target model, can determine the low-energy cut-off in the nonthermal electron distribution, so that the energetics of nonthermal electrons can be deduced more accurately. Here, we examine the time-evolution of nonthermal electrons in flares well-observed by the RHESSI and the Solar Orbiter (SolO, using the STIX instrument) spacecrafts. Using spectroscopic and imaging HXR observations, the time evolution of the low-energy cut-off of the accelerated electron distribution, the total power of nonthermal electrons, total rate of nonthermal electrons, and excess thermal emission measure from the nonthermal electrons, are investigated. We find that the time profile of the low-energy cut-off of the accelerated electron distribution shows a high-low-high trend around the HXR bursts of flares, while the time evolution of the total rate of injected electrons shows a low-high-low behavior. Although the total power of nonthermal electrons is sensitive to the cut-off energy, the temporal variation of the flare power follows the temporal variation of the acceleration rate. We further find that the highest contribution of the excess thermal emission measure coming from thermalization of injected electrons takes place around the hard X-ray peak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08310 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The left panel shows the RHESSI light curve of the solar flare February 24, 2011. Four energy windows (6-12, 12-25, 25-50, and 50-100 keV) of our interest are shown in this light curve. The region between the two solid black vertical line represent the time window of our study for this flare. The dark blue region before the left black solid vertical line shows the chosen background. The three black dotted vertical l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The top left panel shows the light curve of the RHESSI flare February 24, 2011 as a reference. The region between two solid black vertical lines represents the full window where we perform the time evolution for this flare. The top right panel shows the temporal evolution of thermal parameters derived by fitting the fvth function in the pre-burst X-ray spectrum. The thermal parameters include: thermal emission measu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The power of nonthermal electrons (P) vs the total rate of nonthermal electrons (N˙ 0) from the Hard X-ray fits for the flare February 24, 2011. The legend describes the chosen intervals for this flare. et al. 2006) are included in the fit. These three flares are selected because they are close to the limb events (Battaglia & Kontar 2011; Kontar et al. 2017; Purkhart et al. 2023; Luo et al. 2024) and show clear sign… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The low-energy cut off of nonthermal electron distribution (Ec) vs the spectral index (δ) from the Hard X-ray fits for the flare February 24, 2011. The legend describes the chosen intervals for this flare. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) between these two par…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The left panel shows the RHESSI light curve of the solar flare May 15, 2013. Four energy windows (6-12, 12-25, 25-50, and 50-100 keV) of our interest are shown in this light curve. The region between the two black solid vertical lines represent the time window of our s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The top left panel shows the light curve of the RHESSI flare May 15, 2013 as a reference. The region between two black solid vertical lines represents the full window where we perform the time evolution for this flare. The top right panel shows the temporal evolution o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The power of nonthermal electrons (P) vs the total rate of nonthermal electrons (N˙ 0) from the Hard X-ray fits for the flare May 15, 2013. The legend shows the selected intervals between 01:35:16 UT and 01:45:28 UT for this flare. The last few intervals (01:46:08 UT t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The low-energy cut off of nonthermal electron distribution (Ec) vs the spectral index (δ) from the Hard X-ray fits for the flare May 15, 2015. The legend describes the chosen intervals for this flare. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) between these two paramete…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The left panel shows the STIX light curve of the solar flare March 28, 2022. Four energy windows (6-12, 12-25, 25-50, and 50-100 keV) of our interest are shown in this light curve. The region between two black solid vertical lines represent the time window of our study…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The top left panel shows the light curve of the STIX flare March 28, 2022 as a reference. The region between two black solid vertical lines represents the full window where we perform the time evolution for this flare. The top right panel shows the temporal evolution …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The power of nonthermal electrons (P) vs the total rate of nonthermal electrons (N˙ 0) from the Hard X-ray fits for the flare March 28, 2022. The legend of this plot shows the selected intervals of this flare. vertical lines within the chosen time window (see the left…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The low-energy cut off of nonthermal electron distribution (Ec) vs the spectral index (δ) from the Hard X-ray fits for the flare March 28, 2022. The legend describes the chosen intervals for this flare. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) between these two param…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Lx H. n O N .w u G 7'IHc6ztݑ7jb ; / `s5` H UB8DwB !>0 )>^B jQL瑆& Aq3 #q n b 2jm`

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    D., & Swisdak , M

    Alaoui , M., Holman , G. D., & Swisdak , M. 2024, , 974, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad71cb 2024

  5. [5]

    2019, , 294, 105, 10.1007/s11207-019-1495-6

    Alaoui , M., Krucker , S., & Saint-Hilaire , P. 2019, , 294, 105, 10.1007/s11207-019-1495-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-019-1495-6 2019

  6. [6]

    H., Acton , L

    Antonucci , E., Gabriel , A. H., Acton , L. W., et al. 1982, , 78, 107, 10.1007/BF00151147

    doi:10.1007/bf00151147 1982

  7. [7]

    F., Swisdak , M., et al

    Arnold , H., Drake , J. F., Swisdak , M., et al. 2021, , 126, 135101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.135101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.135101 2021

  8. [8]

    L., Kane , S

    Arnoldy , R. L., Kane , S. R., & Winckler , J. R. 1967, , 2, 171, 10.1007/BF00155917

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00155917 1967

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    J., Brown , J

    Aschwanden , M. J., Brown , J. C., & Kontar , E. P. 2002, , 210, 383, 10.1023/A:1022472319619

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Kontar , E

    Aschwanden , M. J., Kontar , E. P., & Jeffrey , N. L. S. 2019, , 881, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2cd4

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Caspi , A., Cohen , C

    Aschwanden , M. J., Caspi , A., Cohen , C. M. S., et al. 2017, , 836, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/17

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Ashfield , W., Polito , V., Yu , S., Collier , H., & Hayes , L. A. 2024, , 973, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64ca

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    1978, , 219, 705, 10.1086/155830

    Bai , T., & Ramaty , R. 1978, , 219, 705, 10.1086/155830

    1978 doi

  6. [14]

    Battaglia , M., & Kontar , E. P. 2011, , 533, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117605

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    Benz , A. O. 1977, , 211, 270, 10.1086/154928

    1977 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 2, 10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3

    ---. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 2, 10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    H., Kontar , E

    Bian , N. H., Kontar , E. P., & Emslie , A. G. 2016, , 824, 78, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/78

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Brown , J. C. 1971, , 18, 489, 10.1007/BF00149070

    1971 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Aschwanden , M

    Brown , J. C., Aschwanden , M. J., & Kontar , E. P. 2002, , 210, 373, 10.1023/A:1022469402781

    2002 doi

  12. [20]

    Dennis , B. R. 1985, , 100, 465, 10.1007/BF00158441

    1985 doi

  13. [21]

    1988, , 118, 49, 10.1007/BF00148588

    ---. 1988, , 118, 49, 10.1007/BF00148588

    1988 doi

  14. [22]

    Dickson , E. C. M., & Kontar , E. P. 2013, , 284, 405, 10.1007/s11207-012-0178-3

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Emslie , A. G. 1978, , 224, 241, 10.1086/156371

    1978 doi

  16. [24]

    G., Allred , J

    Emslie , A. G., Allred , J. C., & Alaoui , M. 2024, , 977, 246, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad919c

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    G., Kontar , E

    Emslie , A. G., Kontar , E. P., Krucker , S., & Lin , R. P. 2003, , 595, L107, 10.1086/378931

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    G., Dennis , B

    Emslie , A. G., Dennis , B. R., Shih , A. Y., et al. 2012, , 759, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/71

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Hudson , H

    Fletcher , L., Dennis , B. R., Hudson , H. S., et al. 2011, , 159, 19, 10.1007/s11214-010-9701-8

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    1998, Solar Physics, 182, 497

    Freeland, S., & Handy, B. 1998, Solar Physics, 182, 497

    1998

  21. [29]

    Gordovskyy , M., & Browning , P. K. 2011, , 729, 101, 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/101

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    K., Kusano , K., Inoue , S., & Vekstein , G

    Gordovskyy , M., Browning , P. K., Kusano , K., Inoue , S., & Vekstein , G. E. 2023, , 952, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4d

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    C., & Benz , A

    Grigis , P. C., & Benz , A. O. 2004, , 426, 1093, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041367

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    G., Kontar , E

    Hannah , I. G., Kontar , E. P., & Reid , H. A. S. 2013, , 550, A51, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220462

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    G., Kontar , E

    Hannah , I. G., Kontar , E. P., & Sirenko , O. K. 2009, , 707, L45, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/L45

    2009 doi

  26. [34]

    D., Sui , L., Schwartz , R

    Holman , G. D., Sui , L., Schwartz , R. A., & Emslie , A. G. 2003, , 595, L97, 10.1086/378488

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Aschwanden , M

    Holman , G. D., Aschwanden , M. J., Aurass , H., et al. 2011, , 159, 107, 10.1007/s11214-010-9680-9

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    Hung, H. M. J., O'Neill, R. T., Bauer, P., & Köhne, K. 1997, Biometrics, 53, 11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2533093

    1997

  29. [37]

    J., Schmahl , E

    Hurford , G. J., Schmahl , E. J., Schwartz , R. A., et al. 2002, , 210, 61, 10.1023/A:1022436213688

    2002 doi

  30. [38]

    K., Schwartz , R

    Ireland , J., Tolbert , A. K., Schwartz , R. A., Holman , G. D., & Dennis , B. R. 2013, , 769, 89, 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/89

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    Jeffrey , N. L. S., Saint-Hilaire , P., & Kontar , E. P. 2020, , 642, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038626

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Jeffrey , N. L. S., Krucker , S., Stores , M., et al. 2024, , 964, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad236f

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    R., & Donnelly , R

    Kane , S. R., & Donnelly , R. F. 1971, , 164, 151, 10.1086/150826

    1971 doi

  34. [42]

    Karlick \'y , M., & Kontar , E. P. 2012, , 544, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219400

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    W., & Sturrock , P

    Knight , J. W., & Sturrock , P. A. 1977, , 218, 306, 10.1086/155683

    1977 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Hannah , I

    Kontar , E. P., Hannah , I. G., & MacKinnon , A. L. 2008, , 489, L57, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810719

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Jeffrey , N

    Kontar , E. P., Jeffrey , N. L. S., & Emslie , A. G. 2019, , 871, 225, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad3

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    P., Jeffrey , N

    Kontar , E. P., Jeffrey , N. L. S., Emslie , A. G., & Bian , N. H. 2015, , 809, 35, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/35

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    P., MacKinnon , A

    Kontar , E. P., MacKinnon , A. L., Schwartz , R. A., & Brown , J. C. 2006, , 446, 1157, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053672

    2006 doi

  40. [48]

    P., Perez , J

    Kontar , E. P., Perez , J. E., Harra , L. K., et al. 2017, , 118, 155101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.155101

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    P., Ratcliffe , H., & Bian , N

    Kontar , E. P., Ratcliffe , H., & Bian , N. H. 2012, , 539, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118216

    2012 doi

  42. [50]

    P., Brown , J

    Kontar , E. P., Brown , J. C., Emslie , A. G., et al. 2011, , 159, 301, 10.1007/s11214-011-9804-x

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    R., & Kai , K

    Kosugi , T., Dennis , B. R., & Kai , K. 1988, , 324, 1118, 10.1086/165967

    1988 doi

  44. [52]

    Kowalski , A. F. 2023, , 943, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb144

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Grimm, O., et al

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

    2020

  46. [54]

    2020, Astrophysics and Space Science, 365, 18

    Kumar, P., Choudhary, R., Sampathkumaran, P., & Mandal, S. 2020, Astrophysics and Space Science, 365, 18

    2020

  47. [55]

    R., Dere , K

    Landi , E., Young , P. R., Dere , K. P., Del Zanna , G., & Mason , H. E. 2013, , 763, 86, 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/86

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    T., Petrosian , V., & McTiernan , J

    Lee , T. T., Petrosian , V., & McTiernan , J. M. 1995, , 448, 915, 10.1086/176020

    1995 doi

  49. [57]

    R., Title , A

    Lemen , J. R., Title , A. M., Akin , D. J., et al. 2012, , 275, 17, 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    P., & Hudson , H

    Lin , R. P., & Hudson , H. S. 1976, , 50, 153, 10.1007/BF00206199

    1976 doi

  51. [59]

    P., Dennis , B

    Lin , R. P., Dennis , B. R., Hurford , G. J., et al. 2002, , 210, 3, 10.1023/A:1022428818870

    2002 doi

  52. [60]

    P., & Bhattacharjee , D

    Luo , Y., Kontar , E. P., & Bhattacharjee , D. 2024, , 974, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a59

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    E., Duijveman, A., & Dennis, B

    Machado, M. E., Duijveman, A., & Dennis, B. R. 1982, Solar Physics, 79, 85

    1982

  54. [62]

    A., Larosa , T

    Miller , J. A., Larosa , T. N., & Moore , R. L. 1996, , 461, 445, 10.1086/177072

    1996 doi

  55. [63]

    2022, , 659, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039598

    Mrozek , T., Falewicz , R., Ko oma \'n ski , S., & Litwicka , M. 2022, , 659, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039598

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    M \"u ller , D., St. Cyr , O. C., Zouganelis , I., et al. 2020, , 642, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    Pallister , R., & Jeffrey , N. L. S. 2023, , 958, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0035

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    Pallister , R., Jeffrey , N. L. S., & Stores , M. 2025, , 983, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/adbaf4

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    Phillips , K. J. H., & Dennis , B. R. 2012, , 748, 52, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/52

    2012 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Dickson , E

    Purkhart , S., Veronig , A. M., Dickson , E. C. M., et al. 2023, , 679, A99, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346354

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    2020, , 642, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663

    Rochus , P., Auch \`e re , F., Berghmans , D., et al. 2020, , 642, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    Schwartz , R. A. 2020, SPEX: Spectral Executive , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2007.017. https://www.ascl.net/2007.017

    2020

  63. [71]

    1996, Advances in Space Research, 17, 9, 10.1016/0273-1177(95)00534-L

    Shibata , K. 1996, Advances in Space Research, 17, 9, 10.1016/0273-1177(95)00534-L

    1996 doi

  64. [72]

    2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6, 10.12942/lrsp-2011-6

    Shibata , K., & Magara , T. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6, 10.12942/lrsp-2011-6

    2011 doi

  65. [73]

    M., Lin , R

    Smith , D. M., Lin , R. P., Turin , P., et al. 2002, , 210, 33, 10.1023/A:1022400716414

    2002 doi

  66. [74]

    Stores , M., Jeffrey , N. L. S., & Kontar , E. P. 2021, , 923, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c65

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    Stores , M., Jeffrey , N. L. S., & McLaughlin , J. A. 2023, , 946, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7dc

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    Sylwester , J., Sylwester , B., Phillips , K. J. H., & Kepa , A. 2022, , 930, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5b0d

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    I., & Shmeleva , O

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

    1972

  70. [78]

    M., Brown , J

    Thompson , A. M., Brown , J. C., Craig , I. J. D., & Fulber , C. 1992, , 265, 278

    1992

  71. [79]

    2020, OSPEX: Object Spectral Executive , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2007.018

    Tolbert , K., & Schwartz , R. 2020, OSPEX: Object Spectral Executive , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2007.018. https://www.ascl.net/2007.018

    2020

  72. [80]

    2020, , 644, A172, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039529

    Warmuth , A., & Mann , G. 2020, , 644, A172, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039529

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    P., & Doschek , G

    Warren , H. P., & Doschek , G. A. 2005, , 618, L157, 10.1086/427749

    2005 doi

  74. [82]

    2021, , 908, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/abce5c

    Xia , F., Su , Y., Wang , W., et al. 2021, , 908, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/abce5c

    2021 doi

  75. [83]

    V., & Gordovskyy , M

    Zharkova , V. V., & Gordovskyy , M. 2005, , 432, 1033, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041102

    2005 doi

  76. [84]

    2006, , 651, 553, 10.1086/506423

    ---. 2006, , 651, 553, 10.1086/506423

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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