Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Size Distributions of Arcsecond-Scale Properties of Solar Flare Ribbons

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Arcsecond-scale flare ribbon pixels show power-law waiting times but non-power-law energy, intensity, and magnetic field distributions, suggesting a temporal avalanche process modulated in space and energy.

desk verdict A useful pixel-level dataset and a clean waiting-time result, but the SOC consistency claim does not survive the authors' own pileup correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13015 v1 pith:ZZUYHGZA submitted 2025-08-18 astro-ph.SR

Yue Zhang , Rui Liu , Wensi Wang , Junyan Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarflaresflareribbonswaitingtimedistributionpower-lawstatisticsself-organizedcriticalitynonstationaryPoissonprocessmagneticreconnectionAIA1600/1700ratio
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 asks whether the tiny brightenings that trace solar flare ribbons behave like a self-organized critical system, as whole-flare statistics often suggest. It identifies individual flaring pixels in ten double-ribbon flares using the variance of the AIA 1600/1700 Å ratio plus an intensity threshold, and then measures five pixel-level properties: waiting time between brightenings, duration, peak intensity, a light-curve energy proxy, and radial magnetic field strength. Only the waiting-time and duration size distributions are clean power laws; the waiting-time slopes, around 1.5–2, sit between the 2D and 3D predictions of the standard self-organized-criticality model and are also compatible with nonstationary Poisson processes. Peak intensity, energy, and magnetic field strength deviate from power laws, so the paper concludes that the temporal driving of the reconnecting current sheet is avalanche-like but that its spatial and energetic output is modulated by other physical processes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the waiting-time distribution of individual ribbon pixels. The ribbon is divided into uniform cells of $5\times5$ pixels; within each cell, the gaps between successive peak times of flaring-pixel light curves are collected, and the gaps from all cells are lumped into one distribution. This distribution is compared against the slope predictions of the standard fractal-diffusive self-organized criticality (FD-SOC) model—$\alpha=1.5$ in 2D and $\alpha=2$ in 3D for waiting time and duration—and against nonstationary Poisson process predictions. The ribbon-pixel identification itself, based on the variance of the 1600/1700 Å filter ratio plus an intensity threshold, is the other essential piece, since it is what separates true ribbon brightenings from plage and quiet-Sun background.

What would settle it

Measure waiting times from higher-cadence ribbon images (a few seconds or better) without spatial binning and include brightenings in neighboring cells; if the power-law slope steepens monotonically with cell size, vanishes when cross-cell pairs are excluded, or rolls over at short lags, the temporal power law is a binning artifact rather than an intrinsic property of the reconnecting current sheet.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that timing, not energetics, is scale free at the arcsecond level of flare ribbons. Treating consecutive light-curve peaks inside $5\times5$-pixel cells as waiting times, all ten flares yield power-law waiting-time distributions with slopes 1.59–1.87, and the combined ten-flare sample gives 1.69; preflare and quiet-Sun control regions do not show this power law, and random-time synthetic experiments yield exponential distributions instead. Flaring duration also follows power laws, but the slopes scatter more, clustering near the 3D SOC prediction. Peak intensity, energy, and $B_r$ distributions fail power-law fits, which the paper reads as evidence that the reconnecting current sheet is temporally avalanche-like or nonstationary-Poisson while its spatial and energy dimensions are shaped by other processes or fine structure. The same split appears in IRIS 1400 Å data for the one event observed at higher resolution, which the paper uses to argue the result is not a resolution artifact.

Load-bearing premise

The waiting-time distribution is built by assuming that brightenings in different $5\times5$-pixel cells are independent, and the observed shift in slope with cell size shows the result is sensitive to this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the waiting-time power law is real, the timing of footpoint brightenings in flare ribbons has no characteristic scale over about two decades in time, which supports an avalanche-like or nonstationary-Poisson driver in the current sheet.
  • Because flaring duration is also power-law distributed while peak intensity and energy are not, the temporal and energetic descriptions of reconnection decouple at pixel scale.
  • The failure of peak intensity, energy, and magnetic field to follow the SOC predictions rules out the simple standard avalanche model as a complete description of flare-ribbon physics at this resolution.
  • The agreement between AIA and IRIS results implies that the split between scale-free timing and non-scale-free energetics is not produced by the 24-second cadence or 0.6-arcsecond pixel size.
  • The systematic steepening of the waiting-time slope with larger grid cells means the reported exponents carry a built-in dependence on the assumed spatial correlation length.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the temporal power law is intrinsic, observations at 1–3 second cadence should show whether the power law continues down to the elementary reconnection timescale or rolls over, which would set the physical scale of the avalanche.
  • The dependence of the waiting-time slope on cell size can be turned into a measurement: the slope should converge once the cell exceeds the correlation length of flaring pixels, and the observed steepening from $5\times5$ to $9\times9$ suggests that length is not much smaller than the cell size.
  • The non-power-law energy and intensity tails could be used to infer the modulation itself, for example by predicting that their shapes are controlled by the local $B_r$ distribution or by current-sheet turbulence, a connection the paper leaves untested.
  • The variance-based identification of flaring pixels could be applied to active-region core brightenings outside flares, where a similar temporal power law would imply that the subflare background is driven by the same reconnection process.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 10 double-ribbon solar flares observed by SDO/AIA at arcsecond scale (0.6 arcsec pixels, 24 s cadence). Flaring pixels are identified by combining a variance threshold on the 1600/1700 Å filter ratio with an intensity threshold relative to preflare background. For each event, waiting times between consecutive pixel light-curve peaks are collected inside 5×5 pixel grid cells and lumped into a single distribution; the resulting WTDs are reported as power laws with slopes in the range 1.59–1.87 (Table 2, Figure 4). Duration distributions also follow power laws with more scattered slopes, while peak intensity, energy, and radial magnetic field distributions deviate from power laws according to KS tests. The authors compare the observed slopes to predictions of the 2D/3D standard SOC model (Appendix A) and to nonstationary Poisson process models, concluding that the temporal dimension is consistent with an avalanche-like or nonstationary Poisson process, while spatial and energy aspects are modulated by other processes. Controls include preflare and quiet-Sun WTDs and random-time experiments; an IRIS 1400 Å cross-check on one event is also presented.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides one of the first arcsecond-scale, pixel-level statistical characterizations of flare ribbon dynamics across a sample of ten events, with explicit controls for background and random processes. The power-law WTD result with slopes in 1.5–2 and the contrast with non-power-law distributions for intensity, energy, and magnetic field would be a useful observational constraint on reconnection and particle acceleration models. The study's strengths include the use of MLE power-law fitting with KS tests, preflare and quiet-Sun comparison regions, random-time null experiments, and an independent IRIS dataset for one event. However, as presented, the comparison to SOC theory is not quantitative because the pileup correction acknowledged in Section 4 is never applied, and the grid-cell dependence of the WTD slopes (Table 3) is of the same order as the difference between the 2D and 3D SOC predictions. The nonstationary Poisson consistency claim also appears to conflict with the quoted model range [2, 2.5] for the nonlinear regime. These issues must be resolved before the SOC-consistency statement can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Table 2, Appendix A] The pileup correction is internally inconsistent with the central comparison. In §4 the authors state that the SOC model assumes no temporal overlap between consecutive events, and that for their data the pileup effect steepens the waiting-time and duration power-law slopes by a factor of log Tmax / log ⟨Δt⟩, estimated at 1.4–2.0. Yet all slopes in Table 2 and Figure 5 are compared directly to the no-overlap predictions of Appendix A (α_WT = 1.5 for 2D and 2.0 for 3D). For the observed α_WT range 1.59–1.87, dividing by 1.4–2.0 yields underlying slopes of roughly 0.8–1.34, which fall below both SOC predictions. For duration slopes 1.72–2.96, the corrected values are about 1.2–2.1, and only the upper end marginally reaches the 2D value. Thus the abstract's statement that the slopes are 'generally consistent' with the 2D/3D SOC model is not established by the analysis as presented. The correction must either be applied explicitly, or the authors must justify why the pixel-peak waiting times are not subject to the pileup effect they themselves describe. Absent that, the SOC-consistency claim should be withdrawn in favor of the weaker power-law-form claim.
  2. [§2.2.2, Table 3, Figure 5] The WTD construction relies on an assumption of no long-range spatio-temporal correlations between flaring pixels in different grid cells, and the results are demonstrably sensitive to the cell choice. Table 3 shows that the WTD slopes systematically increase with cell size for every event (e.g., Event 2: 1.74 to 1.79 to 1.82; Event 10: 1.69 to 1.71 to 1.76). The spread across the three grid sizes is comparable to the difference between the 2D (1.5) and 3D (2.0) SOC predictions. This means that the claimed agreement with the SOC model is partly an artifact of the particular 5×5 cell size selected, and the data as presented do not discriminate between the 2D and 3D cases. The authors should quantify the full systematic uncertainty from grid-size variation and discuss whether the power-law form itself (rather than just the slope) is robust to this choice.
  3. [§4, Figure 5] The paper's nonstationary Poisson consistency claim is quantitatively mismatched with the cited model range. In §4 the authors write that Aschwanden et al. (2021) narrowed the nonstationary Poisson WTD slope to [2, 2.5] in the nonlinear regime and that this 'compares favorably' to the observed exponents. However, the observed WTD slopes in Table 2 and Figure 5 are 1.59–1.87 (5×5 grid), i.e., entirely below the [2, 2.5] range. Only the duration slopes for some events reach into this range. This internal inconsistency should be corrected either by adopting the appropriate model range (e.g., the 2D SOC value 1.5 or the 3D value 2.0, if pileup is neglected) or by explicitly stating that the nonstationary Poisson model in the nonlinear regime does not match the observed WTD slopes.
  4. [§3.1, Figure 4 (Event 8)] The statistical power of the KS test is uneven across events. For Event 8 (2016 December 5), the WTD is constructed from only N=87 waiting times (Figure 4h), yet the quoted KS p-value is 1.00. With such a small sample, the KS test has limited power to reject a power law, and the apparent 'excellent' fit may be uninformative. The authors should report the sample size dependence and consider whether the slope estimate for this event is reliable, or exclude it from the average-slope calculation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] There are several typographical errors: 'T able 1' in the Table 1 caption, 'wether' in the Figure 5 caption, and 'The obtain the WTD' in §2.2.2 should be 'To obtain the WTD'.
  2. [Eq. (1)] In Eq. (1), the index i and the normalization of f_i(Δt) are not defined precisely. Please clarify that f_i is the normalized waiting-time distribution within cell i and specify how the sum over cells is normalized.
  3. [§2.2.2] The text says larger cells 'violate the assumption' of no long-range correlations, but it is not explained quantitatively what constitutes a violation. A short discussion of how the correlation length was checked, or a sensitivity analysis with a finer grid (e.g., 3×3 or 4×4), would strengthen the justification for the chosen 5×5 cell size.
  4. [Table 2 caption] The superscript/subscript notation in Table 2 is compact and could be misread; a sentence in the caption explaining that the superscript (subscript) is the difference between the index for the lower (upper) threshold and the median-threshold index would improve readability.
  5. [§3.3] The conclusion that the results are 'relatively robust and not sensitive to the spatio-temporal resolution' is based on a single event with IRIS data; the different cadence, pixel scale, and passband response make this a limited cross-check. Please soften this claim or add a caveat.
  6. [§4] The statement that the Levy flight model predicts a slope range [1, 3] is correct but very broad; this range encompasses the observed WTD slopes and thus does not discriminate between models. The authors should acknowledge that the present data cannot distinguish among nonstationary Poisson, SOC, and Levy/turbulence interpretations beyond the power-law form.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SOC and nonstationary-Poisson predictions are external benchmarks, and the measured power-law indices are compared rather than fitted from them.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Flaring pixels are identified from AIA/IRIS data via variance and intensity thresholds; waiting times and durations are measured from pixel light curves; power-law indices are estimated by MLE and compared to externally published SOC and nonstationary-Poisson predictions (Aschwanden and colleagues), and to control distributions from preflare, quiet-Sun, and random peak-time experiments. The SOC model predictions quoted in Appendix A are parameter-free closed-form expressions (e.g., α_WT = 1 + (d−1)β/2 with β = 1 and d = 2, 3), not fitted to the present data, and the cited works are not by the present authors. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no target quantity is used in its own derivation, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim rests on a self-citation. The admitted pileup effect in §4 is a quantitative correction that the authors leave unapplied; if applied, the observed slopes would move below, not above, the SOC predictions. That is a correctness or robustness concern, not circularity: the comparison remains an external benchmark and the claimed consistency is not forced by the construction of the measured quantities. Grid-size and threshold choices shape the measured distributions (Table 3), but they are analysis choices with stated uncertainty ranges and random-process controls, not inputs that make the SOC-comparison conclusion true by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on identification threshold parameters, the grid choice, and external SOC and Poisson model assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The heavy reliance on Aschwanden's SOC scaling relations is an external-model dependence, not circularity, because those predictions were not fitted to this dataset.

free parameters (4)
  • Variance threshold for ribbon identification. = Per event, the median of the range between the local minimum and the second hump; exact values are not tabulated.
    The pixel set used for all distributions depends on this threshold, which was chosen by trial and error to match visually identified ribbons in Section 2.2.1.
  • Intensity threshold factor. = The factor is 5, requiring peak intensity P to be larger than five times the preflare background P0.
    This fixed factor filters off-ribbon pixels and directly sets which pixels are counted as flaring in Section 2.2.1.
  • Grid cell size for waiting-time construction. = 5 by 5 pixels.
    Waiting-time slopes shift systematically with 7 by 7 and 9 by 9 cells in Table 3, so the chosen cell size affects the slopes being compared with SOC predictions.
  • Power-law lower cutoff xmin. = Per distribution, fitted by minimizing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance; values are not listed.
    The fitted slopes and KS p-values depend on xmin, and p-values near 1.00 partly reflect this optimization in Section 2.2.4.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard flare model: ribbons map the footpoints of newly reconnected flux tubes.
    Used throughout to interpret pixel brightenings as signatures of reconnection; stated in Section 1.
  • domain assumption AIA 1600/1700 ratio variance separates flare ribbon pixels from plage and network.
    Basis of the ribbon identification in Section 2.2.1, supported by cited literature but still a detection assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper No long-range spatio-temporal correlations between flaring pixels in different grid cells.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 2.2.2; the waiting-time distribution is the lumped sum over cells, so this assumption legitimizes the pooled sample.
  • domain assumption Standard SOC (FD-SOC) scaling relations from Aschwanden apply to flare ribbon pixels.
    Appendix A derives alpha_WT, alpha_T, alpha_P, alpha_E, and alpha_B from N(L) proportional to L^-d, D_d roughly d-1/2, T proportional to L^(2/beta), and F proportional to L^(gamma D_d); the comparisons in Section 3 depend on these external model assumptions.
  • domain assumption Nonstationary Poisson process waiting-time predictions from the cited literature are applicable.
    Used in Section 4 to argue that the observed waiting-time slopes favor a nonstationary Poisson process; these are prior analytical results, not derived here.
  • standard math MLE power-law fitting with xmin chosen by KS minimization is appropriate for the data.
    The statistical inference in Section 2.2.4 and all p-values rely on Clauset et al. 2009 procedures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Size Distributions of Arcsecond-Scale Properties of Solar Flare Ribbons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZUYHGZA

@misc{pith2026250813015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Size Distributions of Arcsecond-Scale Properties of Solar Flare Ribbons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZUYHGZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13015}
}
read the original abstract

Solar flare ribbons are believed to map the footpoints of newly reconnected magnetic flux tubes, therefore shedding light on the reconnecting current sheet, which is rarely observed by direct imaging or spectroscopy. Here we study the detailed evolution of flare ribbons down to the arcsecond scale for 10 flares characterized by the classic double ribbons. Identifying the flaring pixels by combining the intensity variances of the UV filter ratio and intensity threshold, we found that the waiting time distributions of the flaring pixels are well described by power laws, distinct from those in the preflare or quiet-Sun regions, and that the power-law slopes are generally consistent with those predicted by nonstationary Poisson processes in the nonlinear regime or by the 2D/3D self-organized criticality (SOC) model. The size distributions for flaring duration also follow power laws but the slopes are more scattered. In contrast, the size distributions for other parameters, including peak intensity, energy, and radial magnetic field strength of the flaring pixels, deviate from power laws, and the estimated slopes significantly differ from the SOC predictions. These results suggest that a nonstationary Poisson process or an avalanche-like process might be ongoing in the temporal dimension in the reconnecting current sheet, but in other aspects, e.g., space- and energy-wise, the avalanche is likely modulated by other physical processes or the fine structures of the reconnecting current sheet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13015 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Identification of flare ribbons in SDO/AIA’s UV passbands for the 2013 April 11 event. The background image in panels (a–d) and (g–i) is a 1600 ˚A synoptic map of flare ribbons, in which each pixel is shown by its maximum intensity during the flare period. The superimposed contours indicate the extracted flare ribbons. Flare ribbons are identified by a conventional threshold method with 2 different thresholds applie… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic diagram to illustrate the derivation of physical parameters from light curves of flaring pixels. Panel (a) shows the synoptic map of flare ribbons on 2013 April 11. The red square marks a representative grid cell of 5 × 5 pixels. The inset zooms into this cell to show 6 pixels on the flare ribbon, as indicated in orange colors. Panel (b) shows a map of color-coded peak times of the light curves of flaring … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. WTDs of an eruptive double-ribbon flare on 2015 November 4. Panel (a) shows the WTD (blue) for the identified flaring pixels, and the MLE fitting with a power-law function (pink). Panel (b) shows the WTD of the same region with the same time interval before the flare. Panel (c) shows the WTD for a quiet-Sun region of the same size and duration as the flaring region. The distribution above the peak at 528 s is fitted… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: WTD for each of the 10 selected flare events. The distributions (blue) are fitted by a power-law function using the MLE method (red). p-values are given by the KS test. N indicates the sample size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Power-law indices for various physical parameters of flaring pixels in comparison with the SOC model. The triangles (circles) show the indices derived from AIA (IRIS) data ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Size distributions for flaring pixels in the 2014 September 10 event. Panels (a - c) show the IRIS 1400 ˚A flare ribbons (b) as identified by IRIS 1400 ˚A variance distribution (a) and corresponding flare ribbons in SDO/AIA 1600 ˚A. The size distributions of W T (d), T…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 12 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]

    /c9I 'S# wm>>N آ o /A jۣ[lA[ ރ CL EI ? 2IUϸ

    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...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2014, PloS one, 9, e85777

    Alstott, J., Bullmore, E., & Plenz, D. 2014, PloS one, 9, e85777

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Aschwanden , M. J. 2012, , 539, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118237

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118237 2012

  6. [6]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2014, , 782, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/54

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/1/54 2014

  7. [7]

    2022, , 934, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b8d

    ---. 2022, , 934, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b8d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b8d 2022

  8. [8]

    Aschwanden , M. J. 2022, , 934, 33, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6bf2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6bf2 2022

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Dudok De Wit, T

    Aschwanden, M. J., & Dudok De Wit, T. 2021, , 912, 94, 10.3847/1538-4357/abef69

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    J., & Freeland, S

    Aschwanden, M. J., & Freeland, S. L. 2012, , 754, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/112

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Johnson , J

    Aschwanden , M. J., Johnson , J. R., & Nurhan , Y. I. 2021, , 921, 166, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac19a9

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    J., & McTiernan, J

    Aschwanden, M. J., & McTiernan, J. M. 2010, , 717, 683, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/683

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Crosby, N

    Aschwanden, M. J., Crosby, N. B., Dimitropoulou, M., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 198, 47, 10.1007/s11214-014-0054-6

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    1987, Physical Review Letters, 59, 381, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.381

    Bak, P., Tang, C., & Wiesenfeld, K. 1987, Physical Review Letters, 59, 381, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.381

    1987 doi

  7. [15]

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

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    1999, Physical Review Letters, 83, 4662, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4662

    Boffetta, G., Carbone, V., Giuliani, P., Veltri, P., & Vulpiani, A. 1999, Physical Review Letters, 83, 4662, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4662

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    1964, NASA SP., 451

    Carmichael, H. 1964, NASA SP., 451

    1964

  10. [18]

    R., & Newman, M

    Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. 2009, SIAM Review, 51, 661, 10.1137/070710111

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Lemen, J

    De Pontieu, B., Title, A. M., Lemen, J. R., et al. 2014, Solar Physics, 289, 2733, 10.1007/s11207-014-0485-y

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, , 823, 41, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/41

    Dud \'i k, J., Polito, V., Janvier, M., et al. 2016, , 823, 41, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/41

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Hudson, H

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

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Morris, S

    Goldstein, M. L., Morris, S. A., & Yen, G. G. 2004, The European Physical Journal B, 41, 255, 10.1140/epjb/e2004-00316-5

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    M., et al

    Gou , T., Liu , R., Veronig , A. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 815, 10.1038/s41550-023-01966-2

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2002, Physical Review E, 65, 046203, 10.1103/PhysRevE.65.046203

    Grigolini, P., Leddon, D., & Scafetta, N. 2002, Physical Review E, 65, 046203, 10.1103/PhysRevE.65.046203

    2002 doi

  17. [25]

    1974, Solar Physics, 34, 323, 10.1007/BF00153671

    Hirayama, T. 1974, Solar Physics, 34, 323, 10.1007/BF00153671

    1974 doi

  18. [26]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 591, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628406

    Janvier, M., Savcheva, A., Pariat, E., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 591, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628406

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, Scientific Reports, 6, 24319, 10.1038/srep24319

    Jing , J., Xu , Y., Cao , W., et al. 2016, Scientific Reports, 6, 24319, 10.1038/srep24319

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    1976, Solar Physics, 50, 10.1007/BF00206193

    Kopp, R., & Pneuman, G. 1976, Solar Physics, 50, 10.1007/BF00206193

    1976 doi

  21. [29]

    H., Li, C., Chen, F., et al

    Lei, W. H., Li, C., Chen, F., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 975, 10.1093/mnras/staa688

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Title, A

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

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    2001, , 555, L133, 10.1086/323178

    Lepreti, F., Carbone, V., & Veltri, P. 2001, , 555, L133, 10.1086/323178

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Wang , L., Su , W., & Fang , C

    Li , C., Zhong , S. J., Wang , L., Su , W., & Fang , C. 2014, , 792, L26, 10.1088/2041-8205/792/2/L26

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Rutten, R

    Lites, B. W., Rutten, R. J., & Kalkofen, W. 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 414, no. 1, p. 345-356., 414, 345, 10.1086/173081

    1993 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, , 885, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4519

    L \"o rin c \'i k, J., Dud \'i k, J., & Aulanier, G. 2019, , 885, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4519

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    T., & Hamilton, R

    Lu, E. T., & Hamilton, R. J. 1991, , 380, L89, 10.1086/186180

    1991 doi

  28. [36]

    2009, , 694, L74, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/L74

    Nishizuka, N., Asai, A., Takasaki, H., Kurokawa, H., & Shibata, K. 2009, , 694, L74, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/L74

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, Solar Physics, 275, 3, 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol

    S \'a nchez , R., & Newman , D. 2018, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 943, A Primer on Complex Systems (Springer), 10.1007/978-94-024-1229-1

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, Solar Physics, 275, 207, 10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    H., Bush, R

    Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, Solar Physics, 275, 229, 10.1007/s11207-011-9842-2

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    Sturrock, P. A. 1968, The Astronomical Journal Supplement, 73, 79

    1968

  34. [42]

    2003, , 593, 564, 10.1086/376360

    Wang, H., Qiu, J., Jing, J., & Zhang, H. 2003, , 593, 564, 10.1086/376360

    2003 doi

  35. [43]

    2017, Nature Communications, 8, 1330, 10.1038/s41467-017-01207-x

    Wang , W., Liu , R., Wang , Y., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 1330, 10.1038/s41467-017-01207-x

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    Wheatland, M. S. 2000, , 536, L109, 10.1086/312739

    2000 doi

  37. [45]

    2003, Solar Physics

    ---. 2003, Solar Physics

    2003

  38. [46]

    S., & Litvinenko , Y

    Wheatland , M. S., & Litvinenko , Y. E. 2002, , 211, 255, 10.1023/A:1022430308641

    2002 doi

  39. [47]

    F., & Pontin, D

    Wyper, P. F., & Pontin, D. I. 2021, , 920, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1943

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    2025, , arXiv:2507.16118, 10.3847/2041-8213/adf2a5

    Yang , Z., & Liu , R. 2025, , arXiv:2507.16118, 10.3847/2041-8213/adf2a5

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.