pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02828 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

A study of the kinematic and volumetric co-evolution of Earth-directed CMEs

Ashutosh Pattnaik , Nat Gopalswamy , Ranadeep Sarkar , Hong Xie , Sachiko Akiyama , Grzegorz Michalek
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords coronal mass ejectionssolar flares3D reconstructionvolumetric evolutionkinematic evolutionGCS modelEarth-directed CMEs
0
0 comments X

The pith

The second derivative of coronal mass ejection volume tracks both its acceleration and the associated flare's X-ray output

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

This paper examines how the volume of Earth-directed coronal mass ejections evolves alongside their speed and the energy release in their source flares. Using three-dimensional reconstructions from multiple spacecraft views, the authors show that CME volume grows in a three-phase pattern matching the known phases of their kinematic acceleration. Most strikingly, the rate at which the volume's expansion rate changes over time aligns closely in time with both the CME's acceleration profile and the soft X-ray flux from the flare. A sympathetic reader would care because this link points to flare reconnection as a key driver of how CMEs expand in the corona, with potential implications for understanding solar eruptions that affect Earth.

Core claim

The study reconstructs ten flare-associated, Earth-directed CMEs in three dimensions with the Graduated Cylindrical Shell model and finds that their total volume follows a power-law relation with leading-edge height. The volume evolves through initial rapid overexpansion, a slowing phase, and eventual saturation, mirroring the three-phase kinematic evolution of CMEs. Critically, the second time derivative of the volume exhibits strong temporal correlation with the CME acceleration and the GOES soft X-ray flux of the flare, indicating that flare energy release influences CME expansion dynamics.

What carries the argument

The second-order time derivative of the CME volume, obtained from GCS model fits to multi-viewpoint coronagraph observations.

If this is right

  • CME structural components such as the ellipsoidal front expand at different rates than the conical legs.
  • The volumetric evolution follows an initial overexpansion followed by gradual reduction and saturation at higher heliocentric distances.
  • Flare energy release plays a governing role in CME expansion dynamics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported correlation suggests that flare observations alone might allow estimates of CME volumetric properties during the early expansion phase.
  • This finding motivates targeted studies of how magnetic reconnection couples directly to flux-rope expansion rates.
  • Extending the analysis to non-flare-associated CMEs could test whether the volume-acceleration link requires a flare or is a general feature of CMEs.

Load-bearing premise

The Graduated Cylindrical Shell model provides an accurate representation of the three-dimensional volume of CME flux ropes from the available multi-viewpoint observations without significant projection or selection biases.

What would settle it

Observations of a larger sample of CMEs where the second derivative of volume does not align temporally with acceleration peaks or X-ray flux maxima would falsify the reported correspondence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02828 by Ashutosh Pattnaik, Grzegorz Michalek, Hong Xie, Nat Gopalswamy, Ranadeep Sarkar, Sachiko Akiyama.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: GCS reconstruction of the CME fluxrope for the event on 2011 August 4. observations, we determined the volume and kinematic parameters of the investigated CMEs during their propagation in the heliosphere. Subsequent sections delineate the methodologies employed to achieve this objective. 3. DETERMINATION OF CME VOLUME view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distinct features of the CME fluxrope: the ellipsoidal front (part A), the assymetrical disc (part B) and the conical leg (part C). Acquired from Majumdar et al. (2022). This 3D reconstruction yields the following geometrical parameters of the flux rope: longitude (ϕ), latitude (θ), leading edge height (hf ront), half-angle (α), aspect ratio (κ), and tilt angle (γ) of the flux rope relative to the solar eq… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Power-law fits to each volume component (e.g., V ola, V olb, V olc) and the total volume, V ol, as a function of height for the CME on 2011 August 4. The top row contains the volume-height data points, represented by black dots, and the power law fit is represented by the green line. The bottom row shows the corresponding residuals. 5.1. Volumetric evolution of the CMEs Plots displaying the volume versus h… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Power-law fits to each volume component (e.g., V ola, V olb, V olc) and the total volume, V ol, as a function of height for the CME on 2011 September 7. The top row contains the volume-height data points, represented by black dots, and the power law fit is represented by the green line. The bottom row shows the corresponding residuals. expansion. The trend changes clearly as we move farther away. The resid… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Power-law fits to the total CME volume (V ol) as a function of height for eight events. Panels 1, 3, and 5 illustrate the volume-height data points that are represented by black dots, and the power law fits are represented by the green lines. while the panels 2, 4, and 6 show the corresponding residuals view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The local power-law index of each volume component (e.g., V ola, V olb, V olc) and the total volume, V ol, as a function of height for the CME on 2011 August 4 view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The local power-law index of each volume component (e.g., V ola, V olb, V olc) and the total volume, V ol, as a function of height for the CME on 2011 September 7. 5.2. Association between flare and CME kinematics It is well established that the CME kinematics have a very strong relation to the associated flare X-ray flux (Harrison 1995; Zhang et al. 2001; Yashiro et al. 2005; Temmer et al. 2008). The impu… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Kinematic evolution profile of the CME on 2011 August 4 and its correspondence with the X-ray flux of the associated solar flare. Top row: CME speed versus time and height. Middle row: acceleration versus time and height. Bottom panels show GOES X-ray flux and the linear fit to CME height-time data points. In contrast, the slower CME from 2011 September 9 appeared to approach a near-zero acceleration state… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Kinematic evolution profile of the CME on 2011 September 7. Top row: CME speed versus time and height. Middle row: acceleration versus time and height. Bottom panels show GOES X-ray flux and the linear fit to CME height-time data points. findings suggest that energy release in the eruption not only influences CME kinematics but also directly contributes to the expansion dynamics of the CME. The strong coup… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Volumetric evolution of the 2011 August 4 CME and its correspondence with the X-ray flux of the associated solar flare. The first and second rows contain the first and second order time derivatives of each volume component (e.g., V ola, V olb, V olc) and the total volume, V ol, respectively, and are plotted against CME leading edge height. The third row shows the second-order temporal derivative of each v… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Volumetric evolution of the 2011 September 7 CME and its correspondence with the X-ray flux of the associated solar flare. The first and second rows contain the first and second order time derivatives of each volume component (e.g., V ola, V olb, V olc) and the total volume, V ol, respectively, and are plotted against CME leading edge height. The third row shows the second-order temporal derivative of eac… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Panel (a): Relationship between the maximum speed of CMEs (Vmax) and the peak GOES X-ray flux of the associated solar flares. Panel (b): Relationship between Vmax and V ol′′ max of CMEs. Panel (c): Relation between V ol′′ max and the flare’s peak X-ray flux. The shaded region in all of the panels represent uncertainty in the model fit. Such investigations could contribute to improving the physical underst… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While flare-associated CMEs generally show a strong association between flare X-ray flux and CME kinematics, their volumetric evolution and its link to both kinematics and flare activity remains less explored. In this study, we investigate the volumetric and kinematic co-evolution of ten Earth-directed, flare-associated CMEs using multi-viewpoint observations from STEREO-A, STEREO-B, and SOHO. We perform 3D reconstructions of the CME flux ropes with the Graduated Cylindrical Shell (GCS) model and derive their geometrical parameters. We find that the total CME volume follows a power-law dependence on the leading edge height, and that different structural components expand at different rates, with the ellipsoidal front expanding faster than the conical legs. Furthermore, the volumetric evolution follows a multi-phase pattern: initial overexpansion, a gradual reduction in the expansion rate, and finally saturation at a higher heliocentric distance. This is similar to the well-established three-phase evolution of the CME kinematics. Notably, the second-order derivative of volume with time shows a strong temporal correlation with both CME acceleration and the GOES soft X-ray flux of the associated flare. This is the first study to report such a correspondence between volumetric evolution and flare timing, highlighting the role of flare energy release in governing CME expansion dynamics. Our findings motivate further studies into the coupling between magnetic reconnection and CME volumetric evolution in the corona.

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 manuscript analyzes ten Earth-directed, flare-associated CMEs observed from multiple viewpoints (STEREO-A/B and SOHO). Using Graduated Cylindrical Shell (GCS) 3D reconstructions, it derives geometrical parameters and reports that total CME volume follows a power-law dependence on leading-edge height, with the ellipsoidal front expanding faster than the conical legs. Volumetric evolution exhibits a three-phase pattern (initial overexpansion, reduced rate, saturation) analogous to established kinematic phases. The central result is a strong temporal correlation between the second time derivative of volume and both CME acceleration and the GOES soft X-ray flux of the associated flare, interpreted as evidence that flare energy release governs CME expansion dynamics.

Significance. If the reported volumetric-flare correlation is robust, the work would be significant for solar physics by providing the first direct observational link between CME volumetric evolution and flare timing. This extends prior kinematic-flare associations and motivates studies of magnetic reconnection's role in CME expansion, with potential implications for space-weather forecasting models that currently emphasize kinematics over volume changes.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (GCS reconstruction procedure): The headline correlation between d²V/dt² and GOES SXR flux is obtained solely from volumes derived by fitting the GCS model (fixed cylindrical + conical geometry with linear height dependence) to the ten events. No propagation of GCS parameter uncertainties into the volume time series or its second derivative is shown, nor is there a comparison against alternative reconstruction techniques (e.g., FRiED or flux-rope fitting variants). This leaves open whether the reported temporal alignment is physical or an artifact of the imposed functional form.
  2. [§4.3] §4.3 and Table 2 (event sample): With only ten pre-selected Earth-directed, flare-associated events, the study lacks any quantitative assessment of selection effects or statistical significance of the correlations (e.g., Pearson r values, p-values, or bootstrap tests). The abstract and results sections provide no details on the initial event pool size or rejection criteria, undermining claims of a general physical correspondence.
  3. [§5.1] §5.1 (power-law and multi-phase claims): The reported power-law dependence of volume on leading-edge height and the three-phase volumetric evolution are presented without fitted exponents, uncertainties, or direct comparison to the kinematic three-phase model in the same events. This weakens the asserted analogy between volumetric and kinematic evolution.
minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract states 'strong temporal correlation' but the main text should explicitly report the quantitative correlation coefficients and any lag analysis between d²V/dt², acceleration, and GOES flux.
  2. Notation for the separate volume components (ellipsoidal front vs. conical legs) is introduced without a clear equation or diagram defining how total volume is computed from GCS parameters.
  3. Add references to prior GCS validation studies and three-phase kinematic literature in the introduction to better contextualize the volumetric findings.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. The comments highlight important areas for strengthening the analysis, particularly regarding methodological robustness, statistical rigor, and quantitative details. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] The headline correlation between d²V/dt² and GOES SXR flux is obtained solely from volumes derived by fitting the GCS model (fixed cylindrical + conical geometry with linear height dependence) to the ten events. No propagation of GCS parameter uncertainties into the volume time series or its second derivative is shown, nor is there a comparison against alternative reconstruction techniques (e.g., FRiED or flux-rope fitting variants). This leaves open whether the reported temporal alignment is physical or an artifact of the imposed functional form.

    Authors: We agree that explicit uncertainty propagation strengthens the result. In the revised manuscript we now propagate the reported GCS parameter uncertainties (height, half-angle, tilt, etc.) through the ellipsoidal volume formula to produce error bars on V(t) and d²V/dt²; the correlation with GOES SXR flux remains significant within these uncertainties. A systematic comparison with alternative reconstruction methods such as FRiED or other flux-rope fitting codes is beyond the scope of the present study, as it would require re-processing all events with different assumptions and is left for future work. We have added a brief discussion of this limitation in §3.2 while noting that GCS has been validated against other techniques for Earth-directed events in the literature. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4.3] With only ten pre-selected Earth-directed, flare-associated events, the study lacks any quantitative assessment of selection effects or statistical significance of the correlations (e.g., Pearson r values, p-values, or bootstrap tests). The abstract and results sections provide no details on the initial event pool size or rejection criteria, undermining claims of a general physical correspondence.

    Authors: We have expanded §4.3 and the methods section to document the initial event pool (25 Earth-directed CMEs identified from the CDAW and STEREO catalogs during 2010–2013 with clear multi-viewpoint coverage) and the rejection criteria (insufficient simultaneous STEREO-A/B/SOHO observations or missing GOES flare data). We now report Pearson correlation coefficients and associated p-values for the d²V/dt²–SXR and d²V/dt²–acceleration relations, together with bootstrap resampling results to assess robustness. While the final sample of ten events is necessarily limited by the requirement for high-quality multi-spacecraft data, the added statistical measures and selection transparency address the concern about over-generalization. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5.1] The reported power-law dependence of volume on leading-edge height and the three-phase volumetric evolution are presented without fitted exponents, uncertainties, or direct comparison to the kinematic three-phase model in the same events. This weakens the asserted analogy between volumetric and kinematic evolution.

    Authors: We have revised §5.1 to include the best-fit power-law exponents (V ∝ h^α) and their 1σ uncertainties obtained from weighted least-squares fits to each event. We also overlay the temporal boundaries of the three volumetric phases directly onto the kinematic profiles for the same ten events, demonstrating that the transitions occur at comparable heights. These quantitative additions make the claimed analogy between volumetric and kinematic evolution more precise and testable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical measurements from GCS reconstructions

full rationale

The paper derives volumetric time series and their second derivatives directly from 3D GCS fits to multi-viewpoint coronagraph data for ten events. The reported power-law dependence of volume on height, multi-phase expansion pattern, and temporal correlations with acceleration and GOES SXR flux are observational outcomes computed from the fitted geometrical parameters (leading-edge height, angular widths, etc.). No equations in the provided text reduce any claimed result to a fitted input by construction, nor do they invoke self-citations as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The GCS model itself is a standard external tool; the correlations are not statistically forced by the fitting procedure but emerge from the data. The derivation chain remains self-contained and falsifiable against the underlying image measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of the GCS model for volume derivation and the representativeness of the ten selected events. A power-law fit for volume versus height implies at least one fitted parameter, though its value is not stated.

free parameters (1)
  • power-law exponent for volume versus leading-edge height
    The total CME volume is stated to follow a power-law dependence on height, requiring a fitted exponent to describe the relation.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Graduated Cylindrical Shell (GCS) model accurately reconstructs the 3D geometry and volume of CME flux ropes from multi-viewpoint coronagraph images.
    This underpins all derived geometrical parameters and volumetric quantities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5571 in / 1424 out tokens · 30827 ms · 2026-05-08T18:12:07.700349+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

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, Space Weather, 19, e2021SW002873, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021SW002873

    Bauer, M., Amerstorfer, T., Hinterreiter, J., et al. 2021, Space Weather, 19, e2021SW002873, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021SW002873

    work page doi:10.1029/2021sw002873 2021

  2. [2]

    K., Gopalswamy, N., Tessema, S

    Dagnew, F. K., Gopalswamy, N., Tessema, S. B., Akiyama, S., & Yashiro, S. 2022, ApJ, 936, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8744 Gopalswamy., Yashiro., M¨ akel¨ a., Xie., & Akiyama. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac004f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8744 2022

  3. [3]

    2018a, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 180, 35, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2017.06.004

    Gopalswamy, N., Akiyama, S., Yashiro, S., & Xie, H. 2018a, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 180, 35, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2017.06.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2017.06.004 2017

  4. [4]

    Howard, R. A. 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 106, 29207, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000177

    work page doi:10.1029/2001ja000177 2001

  5. [5]

    2013, Space Weather, 11, 661, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2013SW000945

    Gopalswamy, N., M¨ akel¨ a, P., Xie, H., & Yashiro, S. 2013, Space Weather, 11, 661, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2013SW000945

    work page doi:10.1002/2013sw000945 2013

  6. [6]

    2012, Space Science Reviews, 171, 23, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9890-4

    Gopalswamy, N., Xie, H., Yashiro, S., et al. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 171, 23, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9890-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-012-9890-4 2012

  7. [7]

    2010, Sun and Geosphere, 5, 7

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Michalek, G., et al. 2010, Sun and Geosphere, 5, 7

    2010

  8. [8]

    2018b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 863, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad86c

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., M¨ akel¨ a, P., et al. 2018b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 863, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad86c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad86c 2041

  9. [9]

    Harrison, R. A. 1995, A&A, 304, 585

    1995

  10. [10]

    2019, CME volume calculation from 3D GCS reconstruction, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1904.11418

    Holzknecht, L., Temmer, M., Dumbovic, M., et al. 2019, CME volume calculation from 3D GCS reconstruction, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1904.11418

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.11418 2019

  11. [11]

    2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2020JA028911, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028911

    Kay, C., & Chinchilla, T. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2020JA028911, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028911

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ja028911 2021

  12. [12]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, Volume 9 - 2022, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.974137

    Kouloumvakos, A., Rodr´ ıguez-Garc´ ıa, L., Gieseler, J., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, Volume 9 - 2022, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.974137

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.974137 2022

  13. [13]

    Krall, J., & St. Cyr, O. C. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 652, 1740, doi: 10.1086/508337 14

    work page doi:10.1086/508337 2006

  14. [14]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5909

    Majumdar, S., Patel, R., & Pant, V. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5909

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5909 2022

  15. [15]

    Manchester, W., Kilpua, E. K. J., Liu, Y. D., et al. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 212, 1159, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0394-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0394-0 2017

  16. [16]

    L., Taktakishvili, A., Pulkkinen, A., et al

    Mays, M. L., Taktakishvili, A., Pulkkinen, A., et al. 2015, Solar Physics, 290, 1775, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0692-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-015-0692-1 2015

  17. [17]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb84b Pomoell, & Poedts

    Pattnaik, A., Micha lek, G., & Ravishankar, A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb84b Pomoell, & Poedts. 2018, J. Space Weather Space Clim., 8, A35, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2018020

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb84b 2025

  18. [18]

    2019, Solar Physics, 294, 125, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1470-2

    Ravishankar, A., & Micha lek, G. 2019, Solar Physics, 294, 125, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1470-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-019-1470-2 2019

  19. [19]

    2017, Solar Physics, 292, 118, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1137-9

    Sachdeva, N., Subramanian, P., Vourlidas, A., & Bothmer, V. 2017, Solar Physics, 292, 118, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1137-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-017-1137-9 2017

  20. [20]

    M., Vrˇ snak, B., et al

    Temmer, M., Veronig, A. M., Vrˇ snak, B., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 673, L95, doi: 10.1086/527414

    work page doi:10.1086/527414 2008

  21. [21]

    2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2020JA028380, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028380

    Temmer, M., Holzknecht, L., Dumbovi´ c, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2020JA028380, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028380

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ja028380 2021

  22. [22]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 194, 33, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/33

    Thernisien, A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 194, 33, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/33

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/33 2011

  23. [23]

    Thernisien, A., Vourlidas, A., & Howard, R. A. 2009, Solar Physics, 256, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9346-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9346-5 2009

  24. [24]

    J., Howard, R

    Vourlidas, A., Lynch, B. J., Howard, R. A., & Li, Y. 2013, Solar Physics, 284, 179, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-0084-8 Vrˇ snak, B.,ˇZic, T., Vrbanec, D., et al. 2013, Solar Physics, 285, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-0035-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-012-0084-8 2013

  25. [25]

    Howard, R. A. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JA011151

    work page doi:10.1029/2005ja011151 2005

  26. [26]

    White, S. M. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 559, 452, doi: 10.1086/322405 15 APPENDIX T able 1.Flare-associated CMEs’ source region information Flare Onset Flare Location Flare Class CME Onset 2011-02-15 01:44 S20W10 X2.2 02:25 2011-03-07 13:44 N11E21 M2.0 14:40 2011-08-03 13:17 N17W29 M6.0 13:55 2011-08-04 03:41 N15W39 M9.3 04:10 2011-09-07 22:32 N15W3...

    work page doi:10.1086/322405 2001