Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Probing the Turbulent Corona and Heliosphere Using Radio Spectral Imaging Observation during the Solar Conjunction of Crab Nebula

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 The paper claims that multi-frequency radio imaging of the Crab Nebula during solar conjunction shows coronal plasma turbulence becomes more anisotropic as the line of sight approaches the Sun, with an anisotropy that varies with…

desk verdict Solid new low-frequency observations, but the radial-alpha trend is a plausible interpretation, not a measurement—the paper needs a proper fit or joint parameter variation before that claim lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01632 v2 pith:ZSHNSXYO submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.SR

Peijin Zhang , Surajit Mondal , Bin Chen , Sijie Yu , Dale Gary , Marin M. Anderson , Judd D. Bowman , Ruby Byrne
show 36 more authors
Morgan Catha Xingyao Chen Sherry Chhabra Larry D'Addario Ivey Davis Jayce Dowell Katherine Elder Greg Hellbourg Jack Hickish Rick Hobbs David Hodge Mark Hodges Yuping Huang Andrea Isella Daniel C. Jacobs Ghislain Kemby John T. Klinefelter Matthew Kolopanis Nikita Kosogorov James Lamb Casey J. Law Nivedita Mahesh Brian O'Donnell Kathryn Plant Corey Posner Travis Powell Vinand Prayag Andres Rizo Andrew Romero-Wolf Jun Shi Greg Taylor Jordan Trim Mike Virgin Akshatha Vydula Sandy Weinreb David Woody
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarcoronaangularbroadeningradiospectralimagingconjunctionCrabNebulaplasmaturbulenceanisotropycoronalstreamersinterplanetaryscintillation
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 reports multi-frequency radio spectral imaging of the Crab Nebula during its June 2024 solar conjunction, when the line of sight passed from about 27 down to 5 solar radii from the Sun. As the line of sight approaches the Sun, the deconvolved source becomes larger, more elongated, and its major axis stays perpendicular to the Sun-source radial direction. The measured axial ratio increases from roughly 1.7-2.5 and departs systematically from the baseline ray-tracing scattering model, which assumes a fixed turbulence anisotropy parameter of 0.25 and predicts a nearly constant axial ratio of about 2.0. The paper interprets this as direct evidence that coronal density turbulence becomes more anisotropic closer to the Sun, with fluctuations increasingly guided by the magnetic field in the inner corona.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the axial ratio (major-to-minor axis) of the angularly broadened, beam-deconvolved source image, derived from 2D elliptical Gaussian fits to the Crab at four frequencies. The interpretation is carried by a ray-tracing scattering model of radio-wave propagation through anisotropic turbulent density fluctuations, parameterized by the anisotropy ratio alpha = q_parallel / q_perpendicular (the ratio of parallel to perpendicular wavenumbers of the density fluctuations); alpha = 1 is isotropic turbulence, alpha near 0 is strongly field-aligned anisotropy. The model translates an assumed alpha into predicted angular sizes along the major and minor axes, and the comparison of those predictions with the measured frequency-normalized sizes is what converts observed shape changes into a radial profile of turbulence anisotropy.

What would settle it

Measure the deconvolved axial ratio of a compact source far from the Sun with the same array and pipeline on the same days: if that control source shows similar elongation or the Crab's axial-ratio trend disappears in ionospherically quiet intervals, the coronal-anisotropy interpretation fails. A quantitative forward model that includes a measured ionospheric electron-density profile should reproduce the observations with a constant alpha; if it cannot and alpha must still be varied, the claim survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the anisotropy of plasma density fluctuations in the solar corona varies with heliocentric distance, being stronger (smaller anisotropy parameter) in the inner corona near 5-10 solar radii and weaker farther out. This is established by fitting 2D elliptical Gaussians to the angularly broadened Crab images at 36, 55, 73, and 82 MHz on 14 consecutive days and comparing the axial ratio along the major and minor axes with ray-tracing predictions of angular broadening from turbulent density fluctuations. The baseline model with a constant anisotropy parameter alpha = 0.25 predicts an axial ratio near 2.0 independent of distance, whereas the observations show a systematic rise in the ratio as the line of sight approaches the Sun, crossing the model value near roughly 10 solar radii. The same dataset reveals arc-shaped source deformation near 6 solar radii, source substructures anti-correlated with white-light brightness when the line of sight crosses a coronal streamer, and strong low-frequency flux attenuation (more than an order of magnitude below 40 MHz at 6.4 solar radii).

Load-bearing premise

The measured source elongation and its trend with distance are attributed entirely to coronal scattering along the line of sight; if ionospheric refraction is significant or the Crab's intrinsic structure contributes asymmetry, the inferred change in the turbulence anisotropy parameter would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the radial variation in anisotropy is real, models of coronal and solar-wind turbulence that currently assume a constant anisotropy ratio will need to incorporate alpha decreasing toward the Sun, at least in the 5-30 solar radius range.
  • Multi-frequency spectral imaging of background radio sources during conjunction becomes a tool for measuring turbulence parameters along many lines of sight, complementing white-light coronagraph and in situ measurements in a region that is otherwise hard to probe.
  • Substructures in the broadened source, anti-correlated with white-light brightness, indicate that radio observations can reveal density structure in coronal streamers on scales of 0.1-1 degree.
  • The frequency-dependent flux attenuation law measured here (for example, more than an order of magnitude below 40 MHz on June 13) can serve as a reference for diagnosing absorption and scattering in the inner corona.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to use the observed white-light streamer geometry to build a 3D scattering model for each day; if the ingress-egress asymmetry in the power-law size indices persists after such modeling, it would confirm that streamer geometry, not just radial distance, controls the apparent anisotropy.
  • Observations of several compact background sources at different heliocentric latitudes during the same conjunction could turn this single-source study into a tomographic map of turbulence anisotropy across the inner heliosphere.
  • The anti-correlation between radio and white-light brightness suggests that radio absorption/redistribution could be inverted to estimate streamer densities; verifying this would require combining the radio images with simultaneous multi-wavelength white-light reconstructions.
  • Because ionospheric refraction can mimic coronal anisotropy at these low frequencies, a decisive control experiment would be to measure the axial ratio of a source far from the Sun on the same nights; the paper does not report such a control.
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. This paper reports OVRO-LWA radio imaging observations of the Crab Nebula (Tau A) during its 2024 June solar conjunction, covering 30-80 MHz and projected heliocentric distances of about 5-27 solar radii. The authors measure the deconvolved source size, orientation, axial ratio, and total flux as functions of frequency and distance. Their principal claim is that the axial ratio of the angularly broadened source increases as the line of sight approaches the Sun, suggesting that the coronal density turbulence is more anisotropic (smaller alpha in the Kontar et al. 2023 parameterization) at smaller heliocentric distances. The paper also reports arc-shaped source morphology near closest approach and brightness substructures that appear to anticorrelate with white-light streamer brightness, as well as frequency-dependent flux attenuation at small heliocentric distances.

Significance. If the central claim is quantitatively established, the paper would provide one of the first multi-frequency imaging constraints on the radial dependence of turbulence anisotropy in the 5-30 Rs region, complementing earlier single-frequency and interferometric measurements. The observational strengths are real: continuous wideband coverage over a full conjunction, high-dynamic-range imaging, and use of an open-source processing pipeline. The streamer-related brightness substructures are a novel and interesting observational result. However, the main interpretive step -- mapping the observed axial-ratio trend to a radial variation of alpha -- is not yet uniquely supported because the comparison uses a single fixed-alpha model and does not break degeneracies with other turbulence parameters or account fully for ionospheric and intrinsic source contributions. The significance is therefore conditional on the additional modeling and statistical analysis recommended below.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 7(e)] The inference that the axial-ratio trend indicates a radial change in alpha is not uniquely determined by the presented comparison. The predicted axial ratio of the broadened image is a line-of-sight integral over the scattering measure, so its dependence on impact parameter is sensitive to the radial profiles of the turbulence amplitude, the outer scale, and the spectral index, not only to alpha. The paper compares the data only to a single fixed-alpha=0.25 model (Kontar et al. 2023) and does not fit alpha(r) or jointly vary other model parameters; a constant-alpha model with a different amplitude normalization or outer-scale profile could, in principle, reproduce a distance-dependent axial ratio. To make the central claim quantitative, please fit a forward model that varies alpha together with the amplitude and/or outer-scale parameters, and show explicitly that the observed trend cannot be reproduced with constant alpha.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 2.2] The quantitative support for the statement that the axial ratio increases as the line of sight approaches the Sun is weakened by the exclusion of the two closest days (June 13 and 15 at 6.4 and 5.6 Rs) from the statistics, because they were fitted with a different angular Gaussian model, and by the large uncertainty of one egress measurement (82 MHz axial ratio 1.94 +/- 4.33 in Table 1). With those days excluded, the 'closer to the Sun' part of the trend rests on data at about 9 Rs and beyond, where the scatter in Fig. 2(c) is substantial and the deviation from the constant model is modest. Please either include the June 13/15 points under a unified fitting scheme or report a significance estimate for the trend using only the included days; the current presentation overstates the statistical strength of the close-approach trend.
  3. [Sections 2.1 and 3] The interpretation attributes the entire deconvolved source shape to coronal scattering, but no quantitative check is given for the two other contributors that could affect the deconvolved axial ratio: ionospheric refraction/scintillation at 30-80 MHz and the intrinsic brightness asymmetry of the Crab Nebula. The paper states that Tau A is unresolved, yet also notes that at higher frequencies the source size is comparable to the synthesized beam and that the intrinsic size includes a bright compact core. Please provide an estimate of the ionospheric contribution (via a calibrator source or phase-screen analysis) and a test of how the intrinsic Crab structure alters the fitted axial ratio; without these, the mapping of observed shape deviations to coronal turbulence parameters is not fully closed.
  4. [Section 3, Eqs. (1)-(4)] The power-law fits in Eqs. (1)-(4) are performed separately for the major and minor axes in ingress and egress, and the axial-ratio trend in Fig. 7(e) appears to be derived from the ratio of these fitted power laws. The uncertainty on that ratio must propagate the covariance between the major- and minor-axis fits, and the current 'Fit uncertainty' band in Fig. 7(e) does not indicate whether this was done. Please state explicitly how the ratio and its uncertainty were computed from the two separate fits.
  5. [Section 2.3, Fig. 6] The empirical attenuation model S_obs(f) = S_0(f)(1 - a f^b) is fitted to only two days (June 12 and 13), and the fitted parameters are quoted without uncertainties or the number of frequency points used. Since the attenuation is presented as a reference for future studies, the fit uncertainties should be reported and the empirical versus physical nature of the model should be stated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and running text] There are typographical artifacts such as 'T urbulent' in the title and 'V ar' in the running text; these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.2, Fig. 3] The figure labels 'imfit:deconv' and 'imfit:conv' are not defined in the caption; please clarify which quantities (convolved or deconvolved source sizes) are shown and how they were obtained.
  3. [Section 3, Eqs. (1)-(4) and Section 4] The power-law fits use (r/R_sun - 1) as the independent variable, while the comparison with Hewish & Wyndham (1963) in Section 4 appears to reference power laws in (R/R_sun); please use the same convention when comparing power-law indices, since the two forms are not directly comparable.
  4. [Section 4, second bullet] The claim that substructures within the angularly broadened source were observed 'for the first time' should be qualified (e.g., first time at these frequencies with this imaging capability), because the paper does not include a systematic literature survey for prior reports of such features.
  5. [Section 2.2] The sentence describing the source on June 13 and 15 says the radial and tangential directions are defined using a coordinate center of the Sun 'obtained from the image with the method introduced in' but the sentence is incomplete; the referenced method should be identified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the axial-ratio trend is measured independently and compared with a fixed-parameter external model; only minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is against the Kontar et al. (2023) scattering model with a fixed value alpha = 0.25. That model predicts a constant axial ratio of approximately 2.0, independent of heliocentric distance. The paper measures the axial ratio from its own 2D Gaussian fits to the OVRO-LWA images (Figure 2 and Table 1) and compares the observed distance-dependent ratio to this fixed model curve (Figure 7(e)). The observed trend is therefore not generated by the model and is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: no alpha(r) is fitted, and the model parameters are not adjusted to the Crab data. The power-law fits in Equations (1)-(4) are fits to the measured major and minor axes, and the ratio shown in Figure 7(e) is a direct derived observed quantity, not a model output forced by the assumptions. The paper uses self-citations (e.g., Kontar et al. 2019/2023 with coauthor X. Chen, and Zhang et al. 2021 with first author P. Zhang) to justify the choice of alpha = 0.25 and the interpretive framework, but the cited model is parameter-fixed, externally formulated, and does not incorporate the present observations; hence the citation is real evidence rather than a circular reduction. The legitimate scientific weakness, namely that a radial change in turbulence amplitude or outer scale could mimic the axial-ratio trend, is a degeneracy or identifiability concern, not a circularity. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to its own input, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. Accordingly, no circular step meets the quoted-equation reduction test, and the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the measured size and shape data.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's empirical fits to source size and flux attenuation introduce the free parameters listed. The interpretation rests on domain assumptions about the scattering model, the absence of ionospheric contamination, the unresolved nature of Tau A, and the equivalence of white-light and radio structure tracers. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (12)
  • Normalization constant for ingress major-axis size power law = 436.15
    Equation (1): theta = 436.15 (r/R_sun - 1)^-2.39, fitted to observed source sizes along ingress for the major axis.
  • Power-law index for ingress major-axis size = -2.39
    Equation (1), fitted to observed source sizes along ingress for the major axis.
  • Normalization constant for egress major-axis size power law = 86.55
    Equation (2): theta = 86.55 (r/R_sun - 1)^-1.71, fitted to egress major-axis sizes.
  • Power-law index for egress major-axis size = -1.71
    Equation (2), fitted to egress major-axis sizes.
  • Normalization constant for ingress minor-axis size power law = 45.04
    Equation (3): theta = 45.04 (r/R_sun - 1)^-1.77, fitted to ingress minor-axis sizes.
  • Power-law index for ingress minor-axis size = -1.77
    Equation (3), fitted to ingress minor-axis sizes.
  • Normalization constant for egress minor-axis size power law = 14.17
    Equation (4): theta = 14.17 (r/R_sun - 1)^-1.27, fitted to egress minor-axis sizes.
  • Power-law index for egress minor-axis size = -1.27
    Equation (4), fitted to egress minor-axis sizes.
  • Flux attenuation coefficient a for June 12 = 2.32e4
    S_obs = S0 (1 - a f^b) fit to Jun 12 spectrum with b=-3.11.
  • Flux attenuation power-law index b for June 12 = -3.11
    From the S06/12 fit in Section 2.3.
  • Flux attenuation coefficient a for June 13 = 67.2
    From the S06/13 fit in Section 2.3 with b=-1.18.
  • Flux attenuation power-law index b for June 13 = -1.18
    From the S06/13 fit in Section 2.3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Kontar et al. (2023) ray-tracing scattering model accurately describes radio-wave propagation through the corona along this line of sight.
    The paper uses this model to predict the angular broadening baseline (alpha=0.25) and interprets observed axial ratio deviations as variations in alpha. Section 3.
  • domain assumption Ionospheric effects are negligible compared to coronal scattering in the observed source shape and size.
    No ionospheric correction or quantification is provided; the paper notes ionosphere activity only below 23 MHz. Section 2.
  • domain assumption Tau A is an unresolved point source at 30-80 MHz, meaning its intrinsic structure does not contribute to the measured shape.
    The paper states this in Section 2.1: 'Tau A is treated as an unresolved source throughout this work.'
  • domain assumption A 2D elliptical Gaussian is an adequate model for the deconvolved source shape except on June 13 and 15, when an angular Gaussian is used.
    Section 2.1 and 2.2 describe the Gaussian fitting; the switch in model for the closest days is a modeling choice that affects comparability.
  • domain assumption The white-light brightness distribution from LASCO maps the same plasma density fluctuations that cause the radio sub-structures.
    Section 2.2 discusses the anti-correlation between white-light and radio brightness but does not prove a causal link.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the Turbulent Corona and Heliosphere Using Radio Spectral Imaging Observation during the Solar Conjunction of Crab Nebula." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSHNSXYO

@misc{pith2026250601632,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the Turbulent Corona and Heliosphere Using Radio Spectral Imaging Observation during the Solar Conjunction of Crab Nebula},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSHNSXYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01632}
}
read the original abstract

Measuring plasma parameters in the upper solar corona and inner heliosphere is challenging because of the region's weakly emissive nature and inaccessibility for most in situ observations. Radio imaging of broadened and distorted background astronomical radio sources during solar conjunction can provide unique constraints for the coronal material along the line of sight. In this study, we present radio spectral imaging observations of the Crab Nebula (Tau A) from June 9 to June 22, 2024 when it was near the Sun with a projected heliocentric distance of 5 to 27 solar radii, using the Owens Valley Radio Observatory's Long Wavelength Array (OVRO-LWA) at multiple frequencies in the 30--80 MHz range. The imaging data reveal frequency-dependent broadening and distortion effects caused by anisotropic wave propagation through the turbulent solar corona at different distances. We analyze the brightness, size, and anisotropy of the broadened images. Our results provide detailed observations showing that the eccentricity of the unresolved source increases as the line of sight approaches the Sun, suggesting a higher anisotropic ratio of the plasma turbulence closer to the Sun. In addition, the major axis of the elongated source is consistently oriented in the direction perpendicular to the radial direction, suggesting that the turbulence-induced scattering effect is more pronounced in the direction transverse to the coronal magnetic field. Lastly, when the source undergoes large-scale refraction as the line of sight passes through a streamer, the apparent source exhibits substructures at lower frequencies. This study demonstrates that observations of celestial radio sources with lines of sight near the Sun provide a promising method for measuring turbulence parameters in the inner heliosphere.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01632 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time-lapse overlap of the Crab Nebula during the solar transit from 2024 June 9 to June 22. Each panel shows the radio image observed at 20:30:05 UT ± 5s (near local noon at OVRO) on the respective days. The corresponding date is indicated by the red bars on top of each panel. The image of the Sun shown in all panels is from 2024 June 12th. The FWHM size of the synthesized beam at each frequency and the intrinsic si… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Deconvolved 2D elliptical Gaussian source shape statistics of Crab (Tau-A) during the transit, the bottom x-axis is the date of the observation, the observation time is 20:30 UT of each day, the top x-axis shows the distance of the Crab to the Sun as solar radius. Panels (a*) show the angular distance of the minor axis and radial direction of different frequencies. Panels (b*) present the source size measured as Maj… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The source shape modeled as 2D elliptical Gaussian and angular Gaussian, for the Crab imaging of 82MHz on 2024 June 15th. The left panel is the 2D Gaussian, and the blue and red dotted line shows the direction of the major and minor axes. The right panel is the angular Gaussian fitted result, the red and blue line indicates the θ direction and R radius. On June 13th and 15th, when Tau A was during its ingress and eg… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The imaging result of the source on June 13th and 15th, overlapped with the fitted result of Angular Gaussian Distribution as green-solid-line for the contour of 0.5 and 0.9 of the peak. The white star indicates the intrinsic coordinate of the Crab Nebula. 150 100 50 A…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Brightness angular distribution of the Crab on June 13 and June 15. Panels (a 1-3) and (b 1-3) present the brightness temperature distribution sampled at a heliocentric distance of the Crab on different position angles (anti-clockwise from the East direction). The blac…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Flux spectrum of the Crab compared with the model from De Gasperin et al. (2020) in the frequency range of 30-85MHz. The purple curve shows the model spectrum. The colored points with error-bars present the flux spectrum of the Crab on Jun 10,11,12,13 respectively. The…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the observed source size and the modeled angular broadening size from the model (both normalized to 1.5 GHz). The panels (a) and (c) present the observation from Ingress, and (b) and (d) present that from Egress. The panels (a) and (b) present the measure…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W., Coles, W

    Armstrong, J. W., Coles, W. A., Kojima, M., & Rickett, B. J. 1990, ApJ, 358, 685, doi: 10.1086/169022

    doi:10.1086/169022 1990

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820602

    Chen, C. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820602

    2016

  4. [4]

    L., & Kontar, E

    Clarkson, D. L., & Kontar, E. P. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 978, 73

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    1991, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 96, 1745 De Gasperin, F., Vink, J., McKean, J., et al

    Coles, W., Liu, W., Harmon, J., & Martin, C. 1991, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 96, 1745 De Gasperin, F., Vink, J., McKean, J., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, A150

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    N., & Van Doorsselaere, T

    Decraemer, B., Zhukov, A. N., & Van Doorsselaere, T. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 152

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    1997, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 102, 263

    Grall, R., Coles, W., Spangler, S., Sakurai, T., & Harmon, J. 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 102, 263

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    1955, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 228, 238, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1955.0046 —

    Hewish, A. 1955, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 228, 238, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1955.0046 —. 1958, MNRAS, 118, 534, doi: 10.1093/mnras/118.6.534 13

    arXiv 1955

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    F., & Wills, D

    Hewish, A., Scott, P. F., & Wills, D. 1964, Nature, 203, 1214, doi: 10.1038/2031214a0

    1964 doi

  2. [10]

    Hewish, A., & Wyndham, J. D. 1963, MNRAS, 126, 469, doi: 10.1093/mnras/126.5.469

    1963 doi

  3. [11]

    1984, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Higdon, J. 1984, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 285, Oct. 1, 1984, p. 109-123., 285, 109

    1984

  4. [12]

    P., Emslie, A

    Kontar, E. P., Emslie, A. G., Clarkson, D. L., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 112

    2023

  5. [13]

    P., Chen, X., Chrysaphi, N., et al

    Kontar, E. P., Chen, X., Chrysaphi, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40bb

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 606

    Offringa, A., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 606

    2014

  7. [15]

    Ramesh, R., Kathiravan, C., & Sastry, C. V. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 548, L229 Sasikumar Raja, K., Ingale, M., Ramesh, R., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 11,605, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023254 Sasikumar Raja, K., Subramanian, P., Ingale, M., &

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd33 Sasikumar Raja, K., Subramanian, P., Ramesh, R.,

    Ramesh, R. 2019, ApJ, 872, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd33 Sasikumar Raja, K., Subramanian, P., Ramesh, R.,

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa94cd

    Vourlidas, A., & Ingale, M. 2017, ApJ, 850, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa94cd

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Zhang, P., Wang, C., & Kontar, E. P. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 195

    2021

Pith tools

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