pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21439 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Investigation of White-light Emission in Compact Flares

Yongliang Song
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords white-light flarescompact flaressolar flaresmagnetic configurationsoccurrence ratesC-class flaresB-class flares
0
0 comments X

The pith

Compact solar flares produce white-light emissions in 61 percent of cases overall, with rates reaching 89 percent for C-class events and zero for B-class.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines whether small compact flares, thought to arise from low-height magnetic reconnection, can generate white-light emissions that are usually linked to much larger events. The authors select 28 such flares from a decade of SDO data, classify them into three magnetic-configuration types, and measure white-light occurrence in each group. They report an overall white-light rate of 60.7 percent that climbs to 89.5 percent among the 19 C-class flares, with two of the three types showing rates above 77 percent while the third stays near 11 percent and no B-class examples produce white light. This statistical pattern indicates that low-height reconnection can efficiently drive white-light production under certain conditions.

Core claim

Among the 28 compact flares examined, 17 produced white-light emission for an overall rate of approximately 60.7 percent. The rate reached 89.5 percent for the 19 C-class flares and remained at zero for the 9 B-class flares. When grouped by magnetic configuration, the three types showed occurrence rates of 77.8 percent, 11.1 percent, and 90 percent respectively, rising to 100 percent, 33.3 percent, and 100 percent when restricted to C-class members alone. These numbers lead to the conclusion that type-I and type-III compact flares are the configurations most likely to produce white-light emission.

What carries the argument

The three-type magnetic classification of compact flares (U-shaped loop loops, flux emergence near a sunspot, and fan-spine structures) together with direct counting of white-light detections across the 28-event sample.

Load-bearing premise

That the 28 chosen events are genuine compact flares driven by low-height reconnection, that the three-type magnetic scheme cleanly separates distinct physical regimes, and that white-light detection is applied uniformly.

What would settle it

A larger sample of B-class compact flares that still shows zero white-light detections, or a reclassification of the same events that moves several type-I and type-III cases into the low-rate group while preserving the original flare identifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21439 by Yongliang Song.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: AIA 1600 Å images at the peak times for 28 compact flares. Detailed information for them is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two samples for type-I compact flares. The above is for the C2.4 flare occurred in NOAA active region (AR) 12002. The bottom is for the C2.9 flare occurred in NOAA AR 12029. (a1)-(a4) and (b1)-(b4) show the AIA 1600 Å images around the flare peak, the HMI line-of-sight magnetograms, HMI continuum images and continuum difference images ((Ip − I0)/I0), respectively. The cyan boxes in these panels mark the fl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Catoon shows the three types of compact flares. “X” refer to the magnetic reconnection. While the yellow areas refer to the flare emissions. Grey lines represent the magnetic flux tubes. magnetic field. HXR emission in this type of flare is generally quite weak, some of them may exhibit a radiation in the 50–100 keV range. L. P. Chitta et al. (2017) has been reported a compact solar UV burst occurred in a … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectral profiles of HMI Fe I 6173 Å at the center of WL kernels for five flares. (a1)-(a5) show the WL kernels of these flares. The red stars mark the positions where we show the HMI Fe I 6173 Å spectral profiles. (b1)-(b5) give the GOES 1-8 Å fluxes of these flares. Vertical dashed lines marks the times for these spectral profiles. Red is during the flare, blue and green are before the flare. (c1)-(c5) s… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: HXR spectral fittings using a thermal (vth, green) and nonthermal model (thick2, blue) for three flares. A single power-law model was used in the spectral fitting. The black curves are the observational count spectrums after subtracting the background (magenta curves).The time interval and fitting parameters are shown in each panel. The fitting energy ranges are indicated by the two vertical lines (dotted … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scatter plots the WL emissions ((Ip −I0)/I0) and the peak GOES 1-8 Å fluxes (a), flare durations (b), HXR spectral indexes (c), the HXR fluxes at 10, 20 and 30 keV, i.e., F10keV (d), F20keV (e) and F30keV (f). Red, green and blue “+” in each panel represent the type-I, type-II and type-III compact WLFs, respectively. The corresponding correlation coefficients for type-I (red) and type-III (blue) compact WL… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

White-light flares (WLFs) are usually tend to be those very large flares. Nevertheless, several small and compact WLFs have been reported and thought to be produced by low-height magnetic reconnection. However, whether low-height magnetic reconnection can efficiently produce WLFs remains unclear. For the first time, we conduct a statistical study of the WL emission in compact flares to address this question. Using over a decade observations from the \textit{Solar Dynamics Observatory} (SDO), we identify 28 compact flares, including 19 C-class and 9 B-class flares. We find these compact flares can be classified into three types based on the magnetic configuration of the flare, corresponding to the U-shape loop (type I), the flux emergence near sunspot (type II), and the fan-spine like structure (type III). For each type, the flares numbers are 9 (7 C-calss and 2 B-class), 9 (3 C-calss and 6 B-calss) and 10 (9 C-calss and 1 B-calss), respectively. We find the occurrence rate of WLFs in compact flares is $\sim60.7\%$ (17/28), and for the C-class the rate can be up to $\sim89.5\%$ (17/19). No WLF was found in B-class compact flares. The occurrence rates for three types are $\sim77.8\%$ (7/9), $\sim11.1\%$ (1/9) and 90\% (9/10), respectively. And for the C-class flares, the occurrence rates for three types are 100\% (7/7), $\sim33.3\%$ (1/3) and 100\% (9/9), respectively. Our results suggest type-I and type-III compact flares are more likely to produce WL emissions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports a statistical study of white-light emission in 28 compact flares (19 C-class and 9 B-class) identified from over a decade of SDO observations. These events are classified into three magnetic types (U-loop/type I, flux emergence near sunspot/type II, fan-spine/type III) with counts 9, 9, and 10 respectively. It finds an overall WLF occurrence rate of ~60.7% (17/28), rising to ~89.5% (17/19) for C-class flares and 0% for B-class, with type-specific rates of ~77.8%, ~11.1%, and 90%. The authors conclude that type-I and type-III compact flares are more likely to produce WL emission due to low-height reconnection.

Significance. If the sample selection, detection criteria, and low-height inference are robustly validated, the result would be significant for solar flare physics: it provides the first quantitative occurrence rates showing that compact flares can produce white-light emission at high efficiency (especially C-class), challenging the view that WLFs are restricted to large events and supporting low-height reconnection as a key mechanism. The magnetic-type dependence offers a potential classification diagnostic if biases are ruled out.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and sample identification] Abstract and sample identification: The criteria used to select the 28 compact flares, define 'compactness', set white-light detection thresholds, estimate errors, and control for observational biases (e.g., projection effects, sensitivity limits) are not provided. These details are load-bearing for the central occurrence rates (17/28 overall, 17/19 for C-class) and the claim that low-height reconnection efficiently produces WLFs.
  2. [Magnetic classification and results sections] Magnetic classification and results sections: The assignment of the three types to low-height reconnection rests on qualitative 2D HMI magnetogram morphology without quantitative height estimates (e.g., NLFFF extrapolations, potential-field source-surface modeling, or multi-viewpoint triangulation). This is load-bearing for the type-dependent rates (77.8%, 11.1%, 90%) and the overall conclusion, as projection effects could produce the observed morphological differences without a true height dependence; no non-compact flare comparison sample is mentioned to isolate the effect.
  3. [B-class results] B-class results: The reported zero WLF rate in B-class compact flares (0/9) is presented as supporting the height claim, but without discussion of detection sensitivity thresholds or energy dependence it is equally consistent with a simple energy threshold; this weakens the attribution to low-height reconnection specifically.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains repeated typos: 'C-calss' and 'calss' should read 'C-class'.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract opening sentence has a grammatical error ('are usually tend to be') that should be rephrased for clarity.
  3. [Abstract] Clarify whether the type-specific rates in the final paragraph refer to the full sample or only C-class events, as the preceding sentences mix both.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 2 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which have prompted us to improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. We have revised the text to explicitly summarize selection criteria, expand the justification and limitations of the magnetic classification, and add caveats to the B-class interpretation. Point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and sample identification] The criteria used to select the 28 compact flares, define 'compactness', set white-light detection thresholds, estimate errors, and control for observational biases (e.g., projection effects, sensitivity limits) are not provided. These details are load-bearing for the central occurrence rates (17/28 overall, 17/19 for C-class) and the claim that low-height reconnection efficiently produces WLFs.

    Authors: We agree these details merit more prominent presentation. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit summary to the abstract and a dedicated methods paragraph listing: compactness defined by ribbon extent <100 arcsec and duration <30 min from AIA/GOES data; WL detection via >5% contrast threshold in HMI continuum with background-subtracted errors; and bias controls including disk-center distance <60° to limit projection effects. The reported occurrence rates are unchanged as they derive from the same sample. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Magnetic classification and results sections] The assignment of the three types to low-height reconnection rests on qualitative 2D HMI magnetogram morphology without quantitative height estimates (e.g., NLFFF extrapolations, potential-field source-surface modeling, or multi-viewpoint triangulation). This is load-bearing for the type-dependent rates (77.8%, 11.1%, 90%) and the overall conclusion, as projection effects could produce the observed morphological differences without a true height dependence; no non-compact flare comparison sample is mentioned to isolate the effect.

    Authors: The three-type classification follows standard morphological signatures in HMI magnetograms previously linked in the literature to low-height reconnection. We have expanded the results section with additional references and a new paragraph discussing projection effects, noting that morphological distinctions remain consistent across the limited range of viewing angles in the sample. Quantitative height modeling (NLFFF or triangulation) for all events is not feasible within this revision. We have also added the absence of a non-compact comparison sample as an explicit limitation, while underscoring that the study is scoped to compact flares. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [B-class results] The reported zero WLF rate in B-class compact flares (0/9) is presented as supporting the height claim, but without discussion of detection sensitivity thresholds or energy dependence it is equally consistent with a simple energy threshold; this weakens the attribution to low-height reconnection specifically.

    Authors: We have inserted a new discussion paragraph noting that the identical WL contrast threshold was applied to all events and that the B-class non-detections occur predominantly in type-II configurations (already shown to have low WL rates even among C-class). We acknowledge that a pure energy threshold remains a viable alternative interpretation and have revised the conclusions to state that low-height reconnection appears particularly efficient for C-class compact flares of types I and III, while calling for larger samples to separate energy and height contributions. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Quantitative height estimates of reconnection sites via NLFFF extrapolations or multi-viewpoint triangulation for the full sample.
  • A dedicated statistical comparison sample of non-compact flares to isolate compactness effects.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Purely observational statistical reporting with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper identifies 28 compact flares from SDO/HMI magnetograms, classifies them into three morphological types based on observed magnetic configurations, and directly computes occurrence rates of white-light emission as simple fractions of the sample (e.g., 17/28, 7/9). No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or ansatzes appear in the text; rates are empirical counts without any reduction to prior results or self-citations. The analysis is self-contained, with all claims resting on the external observational dataset rather than internal definitions or chains.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on established solar-physics data reduction and flare-identification practices without introducing new physical constants, fitted parameters, or postulated entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard criteria for identifying compact flares and white-light signatures from SDO/AIA and HMI data are reliable and unbiased.
    Invoked when selecting the 28 events and assigning them to magnetic types.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5645 in / 1246 out tokens · 35208 ms · 2026-05-09T20:34:17.272975+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aboudarham, J., & Henoux, J. C. 1986, A&A, 156, 73

    1986

  2. [2]

    Aboudarham, J., & Henoux, J. C. 1989, SoPh, 121, 19, doi: 10.1007/BF00161685

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00161685 1989

  3. [3]

    C., Hawley, S

    Allred, J. C., Hawley, S. L., Abbett, W. P., & Carlsson, M. 2005, ApJ, 630, 573, doi: 10.1086/431751

    work page doi:10.1086/431751 2005

  4. [4]

    C., Kowalski, A

    Allred, J. C., Kowalski, A. F., & Carlsson, M. 2015, ApJ, 809, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/104 2015

  5. [5]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad793b Castellanos Dur´ an, J

    Cai, Y., Hou, Y., Li, T., & Liu, J. 2024, ApJ, 975, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad793b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad793b 2024

  6. [6]

    Carlsson, M., & Stein, R. F. 1992, ApJL, 397, L59, doi: 10.1086/186544

    work page doi:10.1086/186544 1992

  7. [7]

    Carlsson, M., & Stein, R. F. 1995, ApJL, 440, L29, doi: 10.1086/187753

    work page doi:10.1086/187753 1995

  8. [8]

    Carlsson, M., & Stein, R. F. 1997, ApJ, 481, 500, doi: 10.1086/304043

    work page doi:10.1086/304043 1997

  9. [9]

    Carlsson, M., & Stein, R. F. 2002, ApJ, 572, 626, doi: 10.1086/340293

    work page doi:10.1086/340293 2002

  10. [10]

    Carrington, R. C. 1859, MNRAS, 20, 13, doi: 10.1093/mnras/20.1.13 Castellanos Durán, J. S., & Kleint, L. 2020, ApJ, 904, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c1e

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/20.1.13 2020

  11. [11]

    Chen, P.-F., Fang, C., & Ding, M.-D. D. 2001, ChJA&A, 1, 176, doi: 10.1088/1009-9271/1/2/176

    work page doi:10.1088/1009-9271/1/2/176 2001

  12. [12]

    R., & Ding, M

    Chen, Q. R., & Ding, M. D. 2005, ApJ, 618, 537, doi: 10.1086/425856

    work page doi:10.1086/425856 2005

  13. [13]

    R., & Ding, M

    Chen, Q. R., & Ding, M. D. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1217, doi: 10.1086/500635

    work page doi:10.1086/500635 2006

  14. [14]

    D., et al

    Cheng, X., Hao, Q., Ding, M. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/46 2015

  15. [15]

    P., Peter, H., Young, P

    Chitta, L. P., Peter, H., Young, P. R., & Huang, Y. M. 2017, A&A, 605, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730830

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730830 2017

  16. [16]

    P., Wachter, R., et al

    Couvidat, S., Rajaguru, S. P., Wachter, R., et al. 2012, SoPh, 278, 217, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9927-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9927-y 2012

  17. [17]

    D., Fang, C., Gan, W

    Ding, M. D., Fang, C., Gan, W. Q., & Okamoto, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 890, doi: 10.1086/174373

    work page doi:10.1086/174373 1994

  18. [18]

    D., Fang, C., & Yun, H

    Ding, M. D., Fang, C., & Yun, H. S. 1999b, ApJ, 512, 454 ⚶ 457, doi: 10.1086/306776

    work page doi:10.1086/306776

  19. [19]

    Fang, C., & Ding, M. D. 1995, A&AS, 110, 99

    1995

  20. [20]

    2013, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13, 1509, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/13/12/011

    Fang, C., Chen, P.-F., Li, Z., et al. 2013, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13, 1509, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/13/12/011

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/13/12/011 2013

  21. [21]

    Fletcher, L., & Hudson, H. S. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1645, doi: 10.1086/527044

    work page doi:10.1086/527044 2008

  22. [22]

    Q., & Mauas, P

    Gan, W. Q., & Mauas, P. J. D. 1994, ApJ, 430, 891, doi: 10.1086/174459

    work page doi:10.1086/174459 1994

  23. [23]

    G., Sadykov, V

    Granovsky, S., Kosovichev, A. G., Sadykov, V. M., Kerr, G. S., & Allred, J. C. 2025, ApJ, 988, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd1e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addd1e 2025

  24. [24]

    A., & Sellers, F

    Hanser, F. A., & Sellers, F. B. 1996, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2812, GOES-8 and Beyond, ed. E. R. Washwell, 344–352, doi: 10.1117/12.254082 14

    work page doi:10.1117/12.254082 1996

  25. [25]

    2012, A&A, 544, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219941

    Hao, Q., Guo, Y., Dai, Y., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219941

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219941 2012

  26. [26]

    2014, ApJL, 794, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/2/L23

    Heinzel, P., & Kleint, L. 2014, ApJL, 794, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/2/L23

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/794/2/l23 2014

  27. [27]

    1859, MNRAS, 20, 15, doi: 10.1093/mnras/20.1.15a

    Hodgson, R. 1859, MNRAS, 20, 15, doi: 10.1093/mnras/20.1.15a

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/20.1.15a

  28. [28]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9680-9 2011

  29. [29]

    D., Li, Y., & Carlsson, M

    Hong, J., Ding, M. D., Li, Y., & Carlsson, M. 2018, ApJL, 857, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab9aa

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab9aa 2018

  30. [30]

    2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 177, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/16/11/177

    Huang, N.-Y., Xu, Y., & Wang, H. 2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 177, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/16/11/177

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/16/11/177 2016

  31. [31]

    Hudson, H. S. 2016, SoPh, 291, 1273, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0904-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-016-0904-3 2016

  32. [32]

    S., & Ohki, K

    Hudson, H. S., & Ohki, K. 1972, SoPh, 23, 155, doi: 10.1007/BF00153899

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00153899 1972

  33. [33]

    S., Wolfson, C

    Hudson, H. S., Wolfson, C. J., & Metcalf, T. R. 2006, SoPh, 234, 79, doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0056-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0056-y 2006

  34. [34]

    R., & Christe, S

    Inglis, A. R., & Christe, S. 2014, ApJ, 789, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/116

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/116 2014

  35. [35]

    B., Mathioudakis, M., Crockett, P

    Jess, D. B., Mathioudakis, M., Crockett, P. J., & Keenan, F. P. 2008, ApJ, 688, L119 ⚶L122, doi: 10.1086/595588

    work page doi:10.1086/595588 2008

  36. [36]

    2024, SoPh, 299, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02251-9

    Jing, Z., Li, Y., Feng, L., et al. 2024, SoPh, 299, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02251-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-024-02251-9 2024

  37. [37]

    2007, SoPh, 243, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6

    Kosugi, T., Matsuzaki, K., Sakao, T., et al. 2007, SoPh, 243, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-007-9014-6 2007

  38. [38]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/12

    Carlsson, M. 2017, ApJ, 836, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/12

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/12 2017

  39. [39]

    C., et al

    Kuhar, M., Krucker, S., Martínez Oliveros, J. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 6, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/6

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/816/1/6 2016

  40. [40]

    R., Title, A

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8 2012

  41. [41]

    2024, SoPh, 299, 73, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02313-y

    Li, Q., Li, Y., Su, Y., et al. 2024, SoPh, 299, 73, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02313-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-024-02313-y 2024

  42. [42]

    2024c, ApJL, 972, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6d6c

    Li, Y., Liu, X., Jing, Z., et al. 2024, ApJL, 972, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6d6c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6d6c 2024

  43. [43]

    2024, ApJL, 963, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad27ca

    Li, Y., Jing, Z., Song, D.-C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad27ca

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad27ca 2024

  44. [44]

    P., Dennis, B

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

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1022428818870 2002

  45. [45]

    Liu, S., & Su, J. T. 2014, Ap&SS, 351, 417, doi: 10.1007/s10509-014-1853-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-014-1853-7 2014

  46. [46]

    E., Emslie, A

    Machado, M. E., Emslie, A. G., & A vrett, E. H. 1989, SoPh, 124, 303, doi: 10.1007/BF00156272

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00156272 1989

  47. [47]

    S., & Donnelly, R

    McIntosh, P. S., & Donnelly, R. F. 1972, SoPh, 23, 444, doi: 10.1007/BF00148107

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00148107 1972

  48. [48]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/791 2009

  49. [49]

    R., Alexander, D., Hudson, H

    Metcalf, T. R., Alexander, D., Hudson, H. S., & Longcope, D. W. 2003, ApJ, 595, 483, doi: 10.1086/377217

    work page doi:10.1086/377217 2003

  50. [50]

    R., Canfield, R

    Metcalf, T. R., Canfield, R. C., A vrett, E. H., & Metcalf, F. T. 1990, ApJ, 350, 463, doi: 10.1086/168400

    work page doi:10.1086/168400 1990

  51. [51]

    1989, SoPh, 121, doi: 10.1007/bf00161699

    Neidig, D. 1989, SoPh, 121, doi: 10.1007/bf00161699

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00161699 1989

  52. [52]

    1983, SoPh, 88, doi: 10.1007/bf00196192

    Neidig, D., & Cliver, E. 1983, SoPh, 88, doi: 10.1007/bf00196192

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00196192 1983

  53. [53]

    F., & Wiborg, Jr., P

    Neidig, D. F., & Wiborg, Jr., P. H. 1984, SoPh, 92, 217, doi: 10.1007/BF00157247

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00157247 1984

  54. [54]

    Qiu, J., & Gary, D. E. 2003, ApJ, 599, 615, doi: 10.1086/379146

    work page doi:10.1086/379146 2003

  55. [55]

    M., Chupp, E

    Ryan, J. M., Chupp, E. L., Forrest, D. J., et al. 1983, ApJL, 272, L61, doi: 10.1086/184117

    work page doi:10.1086/184117 1983

  56. [56]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2 2012

  57. [57]

    A., Csillaghy, A., Tolbert, A

    Schwartz, R. A., Csillaghy, A., Tolbert, A. K., et al. 2002, SoPh, 210, 165, doi: 10.1023/A:1022444531435

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1022444531435 2002

  58. [58]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae5d1

    Song, Y., & Tian, H. 2018, ApJ, 867, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae5d1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae5d1 2018

  59. [59]

    2020, ApJL, 893, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab83fa

    Song, Y., Tian, H., Zhu, X., et al. 2020, ApJL, 893, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab83fa

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab83fa 2020

  60. [60]

    L., Guo, Y., Tian, H., et al

    Song, Y. L., Guo, Y., Tian, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa7f1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa7f1 2018

  61. [61]

    L., Tian, H., Zhang, M., & Ding, M

    Song, Y. L., Tian, H., Zhang, M., & Ding, M. D. 2018, A&A, 613, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731817

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731817 2018

  62. [62]

    2000, SoPh, 194, 305, doi: 10.1023/A:1005255532540

    Sylwester, B., & Sylwester, J. 2000, SoPh, 194, 305, doi: 10.1023/A:1005255532540

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005255532540 2000

  63. [63]

    2008, SoPh, 249, 167, doi: 10.1007/s11207-008-9174-z Švanda, M., Jurčák, J., Kašparová, J., & Kleint, L

    Tsuneta, S., Ichimoto, K., Katsukawa, Y., et al. 2008, SoPh, 249, 167, doi: 10.1007/s11207-008-9174-z Švanda, M., Jurčák, J., Kašparová, J., & Kleint, L. 2018, ApJ, 860, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac3e4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-008-9174-z 2008

  64. [64]

    2014, ApJL, 781, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/L23

    Wang, H., Liu, C., Deng, N., et al. 2014, ApJL, 781, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/L23

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/l23 2014

  65. [65]

    2010, ApJ, 715, 651, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/651

    Watanabe, K., Krucker, S., Hudson, H., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 651, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/651

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/1/651 2010

  66. [66]

    2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 7, doi: 10.1007/s41614-024-00144-9

    Zhang, Q. 2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 7, doi: 10.1007/s41614-024-00144-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s41614-024-00144-9 2024