Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 98 references

Temporal Variation of Flare Occurrence Rates via the Spot Evolution on the Sun and Solar-type Stars

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Flare occurrence rates collapse onto one spot-lifetime profile for the Sun and solar-type stars.

desk verdict A genuinely new solar-stellar comparison of flare timing relative to spot maximum, with a plausible common exponential profile, but the load-bearing lifetime normalization in Eq. (3) is admittedly unvalidated and needs a real sensitivity analysis before the claim is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12761 v1 pith:IJGWV6N7 submitted 2025-04-17 astro-ph.SR

Takato Tokuno , Kosuke Namekata , Hiroyuki Maehara , Shin Toriumi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarflaresstarspotsstellarsunspotsflareoccurrenceratespotlifetimescalingtimingsolar-typestars
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

Flares are most likely to erupt when their host spot is largest, and the paper argues that this timing is universal once measured in units of the spot's lifetime. Analyzing 24,124 solar flares with identified sunspot sources and 180 superflares from Kepler solar-type stars, it finds that the normalized flare-timing histograms overlap across spot sizes, flare energies, and stellar rotation periods. The common profile rises to a peak at $t_{\rm max}$ and falls roughly exponentially on the lifetime scale, with decay slower than emergence ($\alpha_e \sim 10$, $\alpha_d \sim 6$). The paper packages this as a per-spot flare rate proportional to $A_{\rm max} E_{\rm flare}^{-1}$ times that exponential, giving a single formula for when flares occur during spot evolution on the Sun and on much more active stars. If correct, it turns spot monitoring into a probabilistic flare-timing forecast.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the normalized flare timing $x=(t_{\rm flare}-t_{\rm max})/\tau_{\rm life}$, measured on a spot-lifetime clock: $t_{\rm max}$ is the time the source spot reaches maximum area $A_{\rm max}$, and $\tau_{\rm life}$ is estimated from the power-law scaling $\tau_{\rm life} = 0.5\,(A_{\rm max}/1\,{\rm MSH})^{0.7}(P_{\rm rot}/26\,{\rm d})^{0.8}\,{\rm d}$. All of the paper's collapse and fitting, including the $\alpha_{e,d}=6$--10 slopes and the emergence--decay asymmetry, is performed on this normalized time axis. A second normalized coordinate, $A(t_{\rm flare})/A_{\rm max}$, connects the same timing law to spot area through $N(t)/N_{\rm peak}\sim (A(t)/A_{\rm max})^\gamma$ with $\gamma\sim 1$--3, and the standard flare-energy power law $E_{\rm flare}^{-2}$ extends the formula to the energy dimension.

What would settle it

Track sunspot groups continuously across both disk passages so that individual lifetimes are measured rather than assumed, then rebuild the normalized flare-timing histogram; if the solar and stellar distributions stop overlapping or the peak shifts away from $t_{\rm max}$ when measured lifetimes replace Equation (3), the universal profile is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the distribution of flare occurrence times relative to spot maximum, normalized by the spot lifetime $\tau_{\rm life}$, is the same for the Sun and for solar-type stars, independent of spot size, flare energy, and stellar parameters. The shared profile is well described by $N(t)/N_{\rm peak} = \exp(-\alpha_e|t-t_{\rm max}|/\tau_{\rm life})$ for the emergence phase and $\exp(-\alpha_d|t-t_{\rm max}|/\tau_{\rm life})$ for the decay phase, with $\alpha_{e,d}$ in the range 6--10; the paper adopts $\alpha_e = 10$ and $\alpha_d = 6$ to capture a slight asymmetry favoring the decay phase. Combining this with the standard $dN/dE_{\rm flare}\propto E_{\rm flare}^{-2}$ power law and a flare-rate coefficient roughly proportional to spot area, the paper derives a per-spot formula $N(t,A_{\rm max},E_{\rm flare})\propto A_{\rm max} E_{\rm flare}^{-1}$ times the exponential factor, claimed to describe flare timing across roughly five decades of spot area. This is the first quantitative claim that the Sun and solar-type stars share the same spot-to-flare timing process.

Load-bearing premise

Every step puts flare timing on the spot-lifetime clock set by Equation (3), $\tau_{\rm life}=0.5\,(A_{\rm max}/1\,{\rm MSH})^{0.7}(P_{\rm rot}/26\,{\rm d})^{0.8}$ d, and the paper states that there is currently no clear support for those specific exponents.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Flaring activity peaks at spot maximum, so a spot observed to be growing has a rising flare hazard that peaks when the spot peaks and then decays on the spot-lifetime timescale.
  • A single per-spot formula, roughly proportional to $A_{\rm max} E_{\rm flare}^{-1}$ with the exponential lifetime factor, gives a common benchmark for flare rates on the Sun, on superflaring stars, and on other solar-type stars.
  • The absence of an emergence-phase excess implies that decay-phase processes such as flux cancellation and diffusion are at least as important as flux emergence for producing flares, contrary to earlier solar results.
  • The flare-energy distribution keeps its $E_{\rm flare}^{-2}$ form in every phase of spot evolution, so spot evolution changes the overall rate but not the relative share of large versus small flares.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if the lifetime normalization holds, photometric spot tracking alone could provide probabilistic flare forecasts for solar-type stars, since the same profile predicts a window of elevated flare risk around spot maximum.
  • Beyond the paper, the admitted free exponents in the lifetime scaling make the next decisive test a direct measurement of individual starspot lifetimes, which would sharpen or overturn the fitted $\alpha_{e,d}$ values.
  • Beyond the paper, the claimed $\alpha_e > \alpha_d$ asymmetry gives magnetohydrodynamic models of spot emergence and decay a quantitative target to reproduce, connecting the statistical law to a physical mechanism.
  • Beyond the paper, the stellar sample is limited to slowly rotating stars with $P_{\rm rot}\ge 10$ d, so the untested prediction is that faster rotators follow the same normalized curve only if the rotation exponent in the lifetime law is correct.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates when flares occur relative to the time evolution of their source spots, using 24,124 solar flares with sunspot identifications from NOAA/GOES data (1996–2024) and 180 stellar flares from 89 solar-type stars observed by Kepler. For each flare, the authors compute t_flare - t_max, the time relative to the maximum area of the source spot, and normalize this by a spot lifetime tau_life taken from a power-law scaling with maximum spot area and rotation period (Eq. 3). They find that the normalized flare-timing histograms are similar across solar flare energy, spot size, and between the Sun and solar-type stars, and they propose an exponential profile (Eq. 4) with alpha_e ~ 10 (emergence) and alpha_d ~ 6 (decay), leading to a per-spot formula N(t, Amax, Eflare) ∝ Amax E_flare^{-1} exp(-alpha |t - t_max|/tau_life) (Eqs. 6 and 8). They also examine the relation between flare occurrence rate and normalized spot area, and the energy distribution of flares in different spot-evolution phases.

Significance. If the claimed common normalized profile is real, it offers a scale-independent, time-resolved description of spot-to-flare activity across roughly five decades of spot area, connecting solar and stellar data in a novel way. The solar sample is large and the authors are transparent about many uncertainties, including an explicit acknowledgment that the lifetime normalization has no clear physical support and a robustness test that perturbs spot parameters (Fig. 11). However, the central claim depends critically on the unvalidated lifetime scaling of Eq. (3), and the stellar analysis contains a procedure that biases t_flare - t_max toward zero for unclustered spots. The result is potentially important but needs stronger validation before the universality claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3) and Appendix A] The lifetime scaling tau_life = 0.5 (Amax/1 MSH)^0.7 (Prot/26 d)^0.8 d is load-bearing: it sets the x-axis of every histogram in Figs. 6 and 7, and the same tau_life,std is used in the recurrent-spot matching of Appendix A, so changing p or q would also change which sunspots are merged and hence tmax and Amax. The paper itself states that 'there is currently no clear support for specific values of p and q.' The existing robustness test (Fig. 11) perturbs Amax and tmax but does not vary p or q, so it cannot detect a normalization-driven collapse of the histograms. Please provide an explicit sensitivity sweep over p and q (e.g., p in 0.4-1.0, q in 0-1.2) and show whether the resemblance of the histograms and the fitted alpha_e,d = 6-10 survive.
  2. [Section 2.2 (unclustered local minima)] For unclustered local minima, the paper sets tmax equal to the observed local minimum and associates flares within +/- Prot/4 of that minimum. This mechanically places those events near (t_flare - t_max)/tau_life = 0, inflating the peak in Fig. 7(a) and biasing the comparison toward the proposed exponential profile. The perturbation test in Fig. 11 does not remove this bias because it preserves the assumption that the observed minimum is the maximum. Please report how many of the 180 stellar flares come from unclustered spots and repeat the analysis using only clustered recurrent spots, or with a simulated prior on tmax, to assess the robustness of the stellar histogram.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Eq. (4)] The range alpha_e,d = 6-10 is presented as a fitting result, but the dotted and dashed lines in Fig. 6 are eyeballed and no goodness-of-fit, likelihood, or parameter uncertainties are given. Moreover, the paper notes that the small-spot bins (Amax < 100 MSH) show 'moderate profiles' that deviate from the exponential shape; this is directly relevant to the claimed universality across spot size. Please provide a quantitative fitting procedure (e.g., Poisson maximum likelihood on the binned counts) and report parameter uncertainties, and explicitly quantify the deviation for the small-spot bins.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (8)] The proposed per-spot formula relies on N(t_max, Amax, Eflare) proportional to Amax E_flare^{-1}, which is imported from Maehara et al. (2017). The consistency check in Section 3.4 and Fig. 9 is therefore not an independent test of Eq. (8), since the E^{-2} slope is taken from earlier work. In addition, the step from the per-star histogram shape to a per-spot rate assumes that the shape is independent of Amax and Eflare; this is stated but not tested. Please clarify which parts of Eqs. (6)-(8) are measured here and which are assumed or carried over from previous publications.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4] The phase intervals are listed as [−1.0,−0.3], [−0.3,−0.1], [−0.3,−0.1], [−0.1,0.0], [0.0,0.1], [0.1,0.3], and [0.3,1.0] and are called 'phases 1-67'; the duplicate [−0.3,−0.1] is a typo and the phases should be the six intervals ending at 1.0, labeled 1-6.
  2. [Figure 8 caption] The caption says 'showing the blue ones are the results of solar flares and the blue ones are the results of stellar flare'; the colors are mixed up, since the figure uses orange for solar and blue for stellar.
  3. [Figure 6 caption] The caption describing the panel layout is garbled: 'each row, column, and color of panels represent the condition to divide sample... each row represents Amax ... from left to right ... and each row and color represent the GOES X-ray classes ... from top to bottom.' Please rewrite to unambiguously state which axis is Amax and which is flare class.
  4. [Section 2.1] The sentence 'we analyzed flares equal to or greater than the C1 class, which is not considered to be masked by background flux' should include a reference or a justification for this threshold.
  5. [Figure 3] The color bar is labeled 'log Prot [d]' and the symbol colors are said to correspond to Prot, but the caption should state explicitly that the colored lines for Eq. (3) follow the same color scale.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: unclustered stellar flares are assigned tmax so that they land at the peak by construction, and the Section 4.1 E^-2 consistency check re-derives an E-dependence imported from prior co-authored work.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2, Stellar Analysis (flare-productive starspot candidate selection and tmax assignment)]
    "For the unclustered local minima, Amax and tmax were obtained, assuming that the observed point represents the maximum spot area. ... we label a starspot where there is only one local minimum that satisfies |tlm− tflare| < Prot/4 as the flare-productive starspot candidates."

    For every unclustered stellar event, the selection requires the flare to lie within Prot/4 of the single observed local minimum, and the analysis then sets tmax equal to that minimum. Therefore |tflare−tmax| < Prot/4 is guaranteed by construction, not measured from spot evolution. After normalization by tau_life, these events are forced into the central bins, so part of the stellar histogram's peak at tmax—and the claimed common 'maximum at spot maximum' behavior—is an artifact of how tmax was defined rather than an independent empirical finding.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4.1, Temporal Variation of Flare Occurrence Rate per Spot (Equations 6 and 8, and the consistency check against Figure 9)]
    "Maehara et al. (2017) ... shows that the relation dN/dEflare∝E−2 flare holds regardless of A(tflare) and its coefficient is roughly proportional to A(tflare). On this basis, we roughly derive the relation as N (t =tmax,A max,E flare)∝AmaxE−1 flare. (8) ... Thus, using Equations (6) and (8), it is easy to see that dN/dEflare maintains the dependence of∝E−2 flare for any time-integral range. This result is consistent with the result in Figure 9."

    Equation (8) is not derived from the new flare-timing data; its energy dependence is transcribed from the E^-2 scaling and A-proportionality reported in Maehara et al. (2017), a paper sharing a co-author (H. Maehara). The subsequent consistency check then integrates or differentiates Equation (8) and recovers E^-2, so the check is an algebraic restatement of the assumed input rather than an independent confirmation of Figure 9. The proposed formula's energy dependence is thus imported from prior work by construction, not validated by the consistency exercise presented here.

full rationale

The core solar observational result—the collapse of (tflare−tmax)/tau_life histograms across spot size and flare energy—is not circular: tflare, tmax, Amax, and tau_life are separate observables, and the alpha_e,d = 6-10 values are openly fitted to those histograms rather than presented as independent predictions. The stellar comparison, however, is partially compromised by the unclustered-local-minimum rule: selecting flares within Prot/4 of the sole local minimum and then setting tmax to that minimum mechanically concentrates those events near zero. This definitional step inflates the peak and can also affect the emergence/decay symmetry claim. Separately, the energy dependence of the final formula (Eq. 8) is taken from Maehara et al. (2017), which shares a co-author, and the Section 4.1 'consistency check' merely re-derives the E^-2 scaling that was put into Equation (8), so it is a closed loop rather than independent evidence. The normalization exponents p and q in Equation (3) are explicitly admitted to lack clear physical support; that is a serious model-dependence and robustness risk, but not itself circular because the flare-timing collapse is not used to fit those exponents. Overall, the solar-only data and the shape away from the central bin retain independent content, so the circularity is partial rather than total, giving a score of 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical law rests on a fitted lifetime scaling, imported area-flare relations, and an unverified per-star to per-spot identification. No new physical entity is introduced; the paper's contribution is statistical and empirical.

free parameters (7)
  • Spot lifetime normalization coefficient in Equation (3) = 0.5 d
    Calibrates tau_life = 0.5 (Amax/1 MSH)^p (Prot/26 d)^q so that the model matches sunspot and starspot lifetime data in Figure 3; no theoretical derivation is given.
  • Amax exponent p in tau_life scaling = 0.7
    Adopted from Namekata et al. (2019, 2020); the paper states that the physical basis of this value remains uncertain.
  • Prot exponent q in tau_life scaling = 0.8
    Chosen as a value that roughly explains the dispersion in Figure 3; the paper admits there is no clear theoretical support.
  • alpha_e, exponential index in the emergence phase = 6 to 10, with best value near 10
    Fitted by eye to the histograms in Figure 6; the value depends directly on the tau_life model.
  • alpha_d, exponential index in the decaying phase = 6 to 10, with best value near 6
    Fitted by eye to the histograms in Figure 6; the asymmetry alpha_e greater than alpha_d drives the emergence and decay claim.
  • gamma, power-law index in Equation (5) = Solar: 1.8 (emergence) and 1.3 (decay); stellar: 4.0 and 1.9, each with large 1-sigma ranges
    Fitted to scatter plots in Figure 8; large dispersion means the paper only claims gamma of about 1 to 3.
  • beta in spot evolution model dA/dt proportional to A^beta = 0.3
    Used in Appendices A and C to identify recurrent spots and estimate tau_life; adopted from Namekata et al. (2019, 2020), while literature values range from 0 to 0.5.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Spot evolution is self-similar and follows dA/dt proportional to A^beta with beta = 0.3.
    Used in Appendices A and C to connect observed area profiles to tau_life; if beta is wrong, recurrent spot identification and lifetime estimates shift. The paper notes that beta = 0 to 0.5 alternatives yield up to 30 percent lifetime errors.
  • domain assumption The local-minima tracing method isolates the dominant spot and estimates its area via Equations (1) and (2).
    Validated by the sun-as-a-star analysis in Appendix D, but with factor-of-four Amax scatter and plus or minus Prot/4 tmax shifts, so individual stellar spot tracks are uncertain.
  • ad hoc to paper The per-star flare occurrence rate can be treated as a per-spot rate because the normalized distribution is independent of Amax and Eflare.
    Section 4.1 asserts this without direct evidence; multiple spots per star could dilute or distort the per-spot profile.
  • domain assumption Stellar flare association via a local minimum within Prot/4 of the flare time is correct, and unresolved or polar spots are rare.
    Section 2.2 relies on this to identify flare-productive starspots; if flares often come from unresolved spots, tmax and tflare-tmax for stars are biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Temporal Variation of Flare Occurrence Rates via the Spot Evolution on the Sun and Solar-type Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJGWV6N7

@misc{pith2026250412761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Temporal Variation of Flare Occurrence Rates via the Spot Evolution on the Sun and Solar-type Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJGWV6N7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12761}
}
abstract

The spot evolution on the Sun and solar-type stars is important for understanding the nature of consequential flaring activity. This study statistically investigates the variance of flare occurrence rate through the time evolution of spots on the Sun and solar-type stars. We have compiled the 28-year catalogs of solar flares and their source sunspots obtained from solar surface observations by NOAA and GOES for the Sun. Also, we combined the cataloged stellar flares with the time evolution of starspots estimated by light curves obtained by the 4-year Kepler mission for solar-type stars. For the obtained 24124 solar flares and 180 stellar flares, we calculate the flare occurrence distribution with respect to $t_\mathrm{flare}-t_\mathrm{max}$, which represents the timing of flare through the spot evolution, where $t_\mathrm{flare}$ is the flare occurrence time, and $t_\mathrm{max}$ is the time when the source spot takes its maximum area. When normalized by the spot lifetime, we found that the flare occurrence distribution for $t_\mathrm{flare}-t_\mathrm{max}$ shows a similar distribution regardless of spot size or flare energy, suggesting that the Sun and the solar-type star share the same physical process in the spot-to-flare activity. On this basis, we propose a formula for the time variation of the flare occurrence rate per spot. Also, the correlation between the temporal variation of flare occurrence rate and the time evolution of spot area and the lack of difference in flare occurrence rate between the emergence and decaying phases provide a milestone for the nature of flare-productive spots.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12761 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic picture to explain the parameters we deal with. The black circles with lines are the spot area (ordinate) at each time (abscissa) to show the time evolution of spot area, A(t). The black dotted lines correspond to the time when the spot area takes the maximum, tmax, and the maximum spot area, Amax ≡ A(tmax). The red symbol and red dotted lines indicate the time when the flare occurred (see inset), tflare a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Successfully analyzed examples of the time evolution of flare-productive starspot candidates and the timing of flare. We note that we adopt ε = 0.10 and Prot = 21.20 d for the clustering analysis of this star, KIC 5695732. (Upper panel) Kepler light curve for Barycentric Julian Date (BJD) subtracting 2450000 d. The background yellow line is the observed Kepler light curve, and the black line is the smoothed one. The… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between maximum spot area and lifetime of sunspots and starspots with scaling laws. The col￾ored circles and triangles represent the value of the starspots used in our study and Namekata et al. (2019), respectively. The colors of symbols correspond to Prot, as shown in the color bar. Also, the gray squares and the black crosses are the values of sunspots in Petrovay & van Driel-Gesztelyi (1997) and Henwoo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scatter plot of the occurrence time of solar flare tflare − tmax with sunspot area at that time A(tflare). While the left panel shows the observed value, the right panel shows the normalized value, where the spot area and the timing of flare are normalized by maximum s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The same figure as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Frequency distributions of occurrence time on the solar flares with different sunspot sizes and flare magnitudes. For all panels, we use the same axes: the abscissas represent the normalized flare timing (tflare −tmax)/τlife (see Section 2.3), and the ordinates represe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same figure as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Emergence Phase Decaying Phase Solar Flare γ = 1.8 +1.0 −0.7 γ = 1.3 +0.6 −0.4 Stellar Flare γ = 4.0 +2.4 −1.6 γ = 1.9 +1.3 −0.3 Note—The power-law indexes are obtained by the median and 1-σ range of the frequency distribution of log(N(t)/Npeak)/ log(A(t)/Amax). large …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Occurrence frequency distribution per energy of solar flares and stellar flares on solar-type stars with different spot evolutionary phases. Panels (a)-(f) show the result of the sample for each stage of spot evolution, respectively showing (tflare − tmax)/τlife = [−1.…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scatter plot of the flare energy (Eflare) and spot area at the flare occurrence (A(tflare)) of solar flares and stellar flare with different spot evolutionary phases. The criterion for sample extraction and panel arrangement are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between the histogram using the observed stellar data (blue line, same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Upper) Direct comparison between the Amax of the solar analysis and Amax estimated by the sun-as-a￾star analysis. The black dashed line marks 1:1 ratio. The blue areas separated by dotted lines indicate areas within a factor of 4. (Lower) The same figure as upper pan…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2719

    Danchi, W. 2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2719

    doi:10.1038/ngeo2719 2016

  2. [2]

    S., Barnes, R., Cohen, O., et al

    Airapetian, V. S., Barnes, R., Cohen, O., et al. 2020, International Journal of Astrobiology, 19, 136, doi: 10.1017/S1473550419000132 Araújo, A., & Valio, A. 2023, MNRAS, 522, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad034

    doi:10.1017/s1473550419000132 2020

  3. [3]

    2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A03S04, doi: 10.1029/2007JA012422

    Archontis, V. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A03S04, doi: 10.1029/2007JA012422

    doi:10.1029/2007ja012422 2008

  4. [4]

    A., & Abedigamba, O

    Balona, L. A., & Abedigamba, O. P. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1443

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1443 2016

  5. [5]

    B., et al

    Benomar, O., Bazot, M., Nielsen, M. B., et al. 2018, Science, 361, 1231, doi: 10.1126/science.aao6571

    doi:10.1126/science.aao6571 2018

  6. [6]

    Berdyugina, S. V. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 8, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2005-8

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2005-8 2005

  7. [7]

    A., Huber, D., Gaidos, E., & van Saders, J

    Berger, T. A., Huber, D., Gaidos, E., & van Saders, J. L. 2018, ApJ, 866, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada83

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aada83 2018

  8. [8]

    L., & Shaw, D

    Bornmann, P. L., & Shaw, D. 1994, SoPh, 150, 127, doi: 10.1007/BF00712882

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00712882 1994

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    J., & Hartigan, P

    Bradshaw, S. J., & Hartigan, P. 2014, ApJ, 795, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/79

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    N., Lanza, A

    Breton, S. N., Lanza, A. F., Messina, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449893

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Strugarek, A., Noraz, Q., et al

    Brun, A. S., Strugarek, A., Noraz, Q., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac469b

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    Cheung, M. C. M., & Isobe, H. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2014-3 9 ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/virgo/TSI/

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    W., Schrijver, C

    Cliver, E. W., Schrijver, C. J., Shibata, K., & Usoskin, I. G. 2022, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 19, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41116-022-00033-8

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2006, PASP, 118, 1351, doi: 10.1086/507773

    Croll, B. 2006, PASP, 118, 1351, doi: 10.1086/507773

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    B., Aschwanden, M

    Crosby, N. B., Aschwanden, M. J., & Dennis, B. R. 1993, SoPh, 143, 275, doi: 10.1007/BF00646488

    1993 doi

  10. [18]

    2015, PhD thesis, University of Washington, Seattle

    Davenport, J. 2015, PhD thesis, University of Washington, Seattle

    2015

  11. [19]

    F., Howarth, I

    Donati, J. F., Howarth, I. D., Jardine, M. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 629, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10558.x

    2006

  12. [20]

    Doyle, L., Ramsay, G., & Doyle, J. G. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa923

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Wu, K., & Scullion, E

    Doyle, L., Ramsay, G., Doyle, J. G., Wu, K., & Scullion, E. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2153, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1963

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Dennis, B

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

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    D., Montet, B

    Feinstein, A. D., Montet, B. T., Ansdell, M., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abac0a

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Schmutz, W., et al

    Finsterle, W., Montillet, J. P., Schmutz, W., et al. 2021, Scientific reports, 11, 7835 Fröhlich, C., Romero, J., Roth, H., et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 101, doi: 10.1007/BF00733428 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-636...

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Giovanelli, R. G. 1939, ApJ, 89, 555, doi: 10.1086/144081

    1939 doi

  18. [26]

    Gizon, L., & Solanki, S. K. 2003, ApJ, 589, 1009, doi: 10.1086/374715 —. 2004, SoPh, 220, 169, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000031378.29215.0c

    2003

  19. [27]

    Gnevyshev, M. N. 1938, Izvestiya Glavnoj Astronomicheskoj Observatorii v Pulkove, 16, 36

    1938

  20. [28]

    Greatrix, G. R. 1963, MNRAS, 126, 123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/126.2.123

    1963 doi

  21. [29]

    S., & Henry, G

    Hall, D. S., & Henry, G. W. 1994, International Amateur-Professional Photoelectric Photometry Communications, 55, 51 20

    1994

  22. [30]

    Hathaway, D. H. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 4, doi: 10.1007/lrsp-2015-4

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Davenport, J

    Hawley, S. L., Davenport, J. R. A., Kowalski, A. F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/121

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    W., Eaton, J

    Henry, G. W., Eaton, J. A., Hamer, J., & Hall, D. S. 1995, ApJS, 97, 513, doi: 10.1086/192149

    1995 doi

  25. [33]

    C., & Willis, D

    Henwood, R., Chapman, S. C., & Willis, D. M. 2010, SoPh, 262, 299, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9419-5

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/12 Işik, E., Schüssler, M., & Solanki, S

    Hotta, H., & Yokoyama, T. 2011, ApJ, 740, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/12 Işik, E., Schüssler, M., & Solanki, S. K. 2007, A&A, 464, 1049, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066623

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd36

    Ikuta, K., Namekata, K., Notsu, Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd36

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    2020, ApJ, 902, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5f

    Ikuta, K., Maehara, H., Notsu, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5f

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1358

    Kamiaka, S., Benomar, O., & Suto, Y. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1358

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    1975, SoPh, 42, 107, doi: 10.1007/BF00153288

    Krause, F., & Ruediger, G. 1975, SoPh, 42, 107, doi: 10.1007/BF00153288

    1975 doi

  31. [39]

    W., Shimizu, T., & Ichimoto, K

    Kubo, M., Lites, B. W., Shimizu, T., & Ichimoto, K. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1447, doi: 10.1086/592064 Künzel, H. 1960, Astronomische Nachrichten, 285, 271, doi: 10.1002/asna.19592850516

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Lee, J.-Y., Lee, K.-S., & Na, H

    Lee, K., Moon, Y. J., Lee, J.-Y., Lee, K.-S., & Na, H. 2012, SoPh, 281, 639, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-0091-9

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    J., & Nakariakov, V

    Lee, K., Moon, Y. J., & Nakariakov, V. M. 2016, ApJ, 831, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/131

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, ApJL, 976, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8c37

    Li, F., Rao, C., Wang, H., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8c37

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 41, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx013

    Maehara, H., Notsu, Y., Notsu, S., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 41, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx013

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    2015, Earth, Planets and Space, 67, 59, doi: 10.1186/s40623-015-0217-z

    Maehara, H., Shibayama, T., Notsu, Y., et al. 2015, Earth, Planets and Space, 67, 59, doi: 10.1186/s40623-015-0217-z

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    2012, Nature, 485, 478, doi: 10.1038/nature11063

    Maehara, H., Shibayama, T., Notsu, S., et al. 2012, Nature, 485, 478, doi: 10.1038/nature11063

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    F., Livi, S

    Martin, S. F., Livi, S. H. B., & Wang, J. 1985, Australian Journal of Physics, 38, 929, doi: 10.1071/PH850929 Martinez Pillet, V., Moreno-Insertis, F., & Vazquez, M. 1993, A&A, 274, 521

    1985 doi

  39. [47]

    M., et al

    Mathur, S., Huber, D., Batalha, N. M., et al. 2017, ApJS, 229, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/229/2/30

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    U., Weiss, N

    Meyer, F., Schmidt, H. U., Weiss, N. O., & Wilson, P. R. 1974, MNRAS, 169, 35, doi: 10.1093/mnras/169.1.35

    1974 doi

  42. [50]

    2012, Nature, 486, 240, doi: 10.1038/nature11123

    Miyake, F., Nagaya, K., Masuda, K., & Nakamura, T. 2012, Nature, 486, 240, doi: 10.1038/nature11123

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Pevtsov, A

    Nagovitsyn, Y. A., Pevtsov, A. A., & Osipova, A. A. 2018, Astronomy Letters, 44, 202, doi: 10.1134/S1063773718020056

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b34

    Namekata, K., Sakaue, T., Watanabe, K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b34

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf471

    Namekata, K., Maehara, H., Notsu, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf471

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Namekata, K., Davenport, J. R. A., Morris, B. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7384

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    S., Petit, P., et al

    Namekata, K., Airapetian, V. S., Petit, P., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 961, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7c

    doi

  48. [56]

    2024b, ApJ, 976, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad85df

    Namekata, K., Ikuta, K., Petit, P., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 976, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad85df

    doi

  49. [57]

    2015, PASJ, 67, 33, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv002

    Notsu, Y., Honda, S., Maehara, H., et al. 2015, PASJ, 67, 33, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv002

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/127

    Notsu, Y., Shibayama, T., Maehara, H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/127

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e6

    Notsu, Y., Maehara, H., Honda, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e6

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9919

    Obase, T., Bajo, K.-i., Otsuki, Y., & Yurimoto, H. 2025, ApJ, 978, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9919

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc8f5

    Okamoto, S., Notsu, Y., Maehara, H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc8f5

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    Parker, E. N. 1955, ApJ, 121, 491, doi: 10.1086/146010

    1955 doi

  55. [63]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490

    2011 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    1997, SoPh, 176, 249, doi: 10.1023/A:1004988123265

    Petrovay, K., & van Driel-Gesztelyi, L. 1997, SoPh, 176, 249, doi: 10.1023/A:1004988123265

    1997 doi

  57. [65]

    H., An, D., Molenda-Żakowicz, J., et al

    Pinsonneault, M. H., An, D., Molenda-Żakowicz, J., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 30, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/30

    2012 doi

  58. [66]

    R., & Forbes, T

    Priest, E. R., & Forbes, T. G. 2002, A&A Rv, 10, 313, doi: 10.1007/s001590100013

    2002 doi

  59. [67]

    2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, doi: 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    Rauer, H., Catala, C., Aerts, C., et al. 2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, doi: 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447

    Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    2015, A&A, 583, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526216

    Reinhold, T., & Gizon, L. 2015, A&A, 583, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526216

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    I., Solanki, S

    Reinhold, T., Shapiro, A. I., Solanki, S. K., et al. 2020, Science, 368, 518, doi: 10.1126/science.aay3821

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/125

    Rempel, M. 2015, ApJ, 814, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/125

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    Rempel, M., & Cheung, M. C. M. 2014, ApJ, 785, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/90 21

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clampin, G. G....

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    M., & Vida, K

    Roettenbacher, R. M., & Vida, K. 2018, ApJ, 868, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae77e

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    2000, ApJ, 540, 583, doi: 10.1086/309303

    Sammis, I., Tang, F., & Zirin, H. 2000, ApJ, 540, 583, doi: 10.1086/309303

    2000 doi

  68. [76]

    J., Title, A

    Schrijver, C. J., Title, A. M., Harvey, K. L., et al. 1998, Nature, 394, 152, doi: 10.1038/28108

    1998 doi

  69. [77]

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

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

    2011 doi

  70. [78]

    2013, PASJ, 65, 49, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.3.49

    Shibata, K., Isobe, H., Hillier, A., et al. 2013, PASJ, 65, 49, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.3.49

    2013 doi

  71. [79]

    2013, ApJS, 209, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5

    Shibayama, T., Maehara, H., Notsu, S., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5

    2013 doi

  72. [80]

    1995, PASJ, 47, 251

    Shimizu, T. 1995, PASJ, 47, 251

    1995

  73. [81]

    W., & Leighton, R

    Simon, G. W., & Leighton, R. B. 1964, ApJ, 140, 1120, doi: 10.1086/148010

    1964 doi

  74. [82]

    B., & Ulrich, R

    Snodgrass, H. B., & Ulrich, R. K. 1990, ApJ, 351, 309, doi: 10.1086/168467

    1990 doi

  75. [83]

    G., & Bopp, B

    Strassmeier, K. G., & Bopp, B. W. 1992, A&A, 259, 183

    1992

  76. [84]

    2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3

    Temmer, M. 2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    E., Caldwell, D

    Thompson, S. E., Caldwell, D. A., Jenkins, J. M., et al. 2016, Kepler Data Release 25 Notes, Kepler Science Document KSCI-19065-002, id.3. Edited by Jon Jenkins and Michael R. Haas

    2016

  78. [86]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/56

    Nagashima, K. 2017, ApJ, 834, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/56

    2017 doi

  79. [87]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c2

    Toriumi, S., & Takasao, S. 2017, ApJ, 850, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c2

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7

    Toriumi, S., & Wang, H. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7

    2019 doi

  81. [89]

    F., & Wang, F

    Tu, Z.-L., Yang, M., Wang, H. F., & Wang, F. Y. 2021, ApJS, 253, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abda3c

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    J., & Wang, F

    Tu, Z.-L., Yang, M., Zhang, Z. J., & Wang, F. Y. 2020, ApJ, 890, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6606

    2020 doi

  83. [91]

    2023, SSRv, 219, 73, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-01018-1 van Ballegooijen, A

    Usoskin, I., Miyake, F., Baroni, M., et al. 2023, SSRv, 219, 73, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-01018-1 van Ballegooijen, A. A., & Martens, P. C. H. 1989, ApJ, 343, 971, doi: 10.1086/167766 van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., & Green, L. M. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 1, doi: 10....

    2023 doi

  84. [92]

    I., et al

    Vasilyev, V., Reinhold, T., Shapiro, A. I., et al. 2024, Science, 386, 1301, doi: 10.1126/science.adl5441

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  86. [94]

    S., & Penrod, G

    Vogt, S. S., & Penrod, G. D. 1983, PASP, 95, 565, doi: 10.1086/131208

    1983 doi

  87. [95]

    1955, Ergebnisse und Probleme der Sonnenforschung

    Waldmeier, M. 1955, Ergebnisse und Probleme der Sonnenforschung. (Leipzig, Geest & Portig)

    1955

  88. [96]

    F., & Howard, T

    Webb, D. F., & Howard, T. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2012-3

    2012 doi

  89. [97]

    Welsch, B. T. 2006, ApJ, 638, 1101, doi: 10.1086/498638

    2006 doi

  90. [98]

    A., Maehara, H., Airapetian, V., et al

    Yamashiki, Y. A., Maehara, H., Airapetian, V., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a71

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.