arxiv: 2605.02837 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

A Statistical Survey of Faint Solar X-ray Transients Observed by NuSTAR

(2) NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, (3) University of Glasgow, (4) Epic Systems, (5) California Institute of Technology, (6) Air Force Research Laboratory, (7) University of Applied Sciences, 8), (8) University of California, (9) University of California, Arts Northern Switzerland, Berkeley, Brian W. Grefenstette (5), David M. Smith (9), Hugh Hudson (3), Iain G. Hannah (3), Ian Markano (1), Jessie Duncan (2), Kekoa Lasko (1), Kristopher Cooper (1), Lindsay Glesener (1), Marianne Peterson (1), Mary Davenport (4), Nat\'alia Bajnokov\'a (3), Reed B. Masek (1), S\"am Krucker (7, Santa Cruz), Sarah Paterson (3) ((1) University of Minnesota, Stephen M. White (6), Zasha Avery (1)

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

keywords solar X-ray transientsNuSTARquiet Sunmicroflarescoronal heatingthermal energyactive regions

0 comments

The pith

NuSTAR survey finds no quiet-Sun X-ray transients above 3 x 10^27 erg

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

The paper delivers the first statistical survey of faint solar X-ray transients seen by NuSTAR, covering 113 events from active regions to the quiet Sun with energies as low as 10^26 erg. These transients are cooler and dimmer than previously studied microflares, with quiet-Sun ones showing lower energies, smaller volumes, and a cool-but-bright character. No quiet-Sun event reaches a thermal energy above 3 x 10^27 erg. This directly implies an upper limit on energy that quiescent processes can release into plasma above 3 million Kelvin. The energy-volume relation breaks between active-region and quiet-Sun populations, unlike in traditional microflares.

Core claim

We present the first statistical survey of NuSTAR solar observations, characterizing the thermal and possibly nonthermal properties of 113 weakly energetic transients down to 10^26 erg, making this the first to directly compare events from the quiet Sun to those in active regions. Relative to RHESSI microflares, our NuSTAR transients are generally cooler, dimmer, and have slightly steeper spectra. Thermal energy content of active region transients appears to be independent of the volume of emitting plasma for transients produced by active regions. This is in contrast to those from the quiet corona, which on average have lower energy content, smaller emission volumes, and appear cool but dim,

What carries the argument

Statistical survey of 113 NuSTAR solar X-ray transients with derived thermal energies and volumes, separated into quiet-Sun and active-region groups for direct comparison.

If this is right

Thermal energy in active-region transients does not depend on the volume of emitting plasma.
Quiet-Sun transients have lower thermal energies, smaller volumes, and cooler but brighter character than active-region ones.
NuSTAR transients are cooler, dimmer, and have steeper spectra than RHESSI microflares.
Quiescent processes release no more than 3 x 10^27 erg into plasma above 3 MK.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Coronal heating models for the quiet Sun must accommodate this energy ceiling for plasma above 3 MK.
More NuSTAR or next-generation hard X-ray observations could test whether still-fainter events exist below the current detection threshold.
The differing energy-volume trends suggest distinct energy-release physics in quiet versus active solar regions.

Load-bearing premise

The detected X-ray brightenings are solar transients with thermal energies and volumes correctly derived from the spectra without major misclassification, background contamination, or selection biases.

What would settle it

A single confirmed quiet-Sun transient with thermal energy above 3 x 10^27 erg in comparable NuSTAR data would falsify the upper limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02837 by (2) NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, (3) University of Glasgow, (4) Epic Systems, (5) California Institute of Technology, (6) Air Force Research Laboratory, (7) University of Applied Sciences, 8), (8) University of California, (9) University of California, Arts Northern Switzerland, Berkeley, Brian W. Grefenstette (5), David M. Smith (9), Hugh Hudson (3), Iain G. Hannah (3), Ian Markano (1), Jessie Duncan (2), Kekoa Lasko (1), Kristopher Cooper (1), Lindsay Glesener (1), Marianne Peterson (1), Mary Davenport (4), Nat\'alia Bajnokov\'a (3), Reed B. Masek (1), S\"am Krucker (7, Santa Cruz), Sarah Paterson (3) ((1) University of Minnesota, Stephen M. White (6), Zasha Avery (1).

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Examples of identified transients. The top row is a collection of AR transients (with their AR backgrounds), and the bottom showcases QS transients. The rainbow color scale shows counts associated with the transient (more red indicates more counts), the gray, cloudy blur is the Gaussian-smoothed background data co-aligned to the transient data, and the black circle is the chosen spectroscopy region. The gr… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Examples of spectra and models for the transients shown in view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Locations of all transients as seen by AIA (blue circles) overlaid on the wall-clock exposure time (left) and the effective (i.e. livetime-corrected) exposure time (right) in FPM A. The circles denoting the transients in the left panel are scaled as sixteen times the AIA area while the circles in the right panel show their locations and are scaled equally. The total exposure time does not include the engin… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Distributions of the thermal parameters for all three models and their background models. From top to bottom: isothermal, double thermal, and thermal with nonthermal. The gray-shaded histograms are the background (bkg.) model parameters, and the lines are the mean ratio of the uncertainties to their fit value for each histogram bin. The number of valid fits, N, for each histogram is listed next to their re… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Distributions of transient volumes (top) and thermal energies (bottom) for the transients with three different spectral models. The volume uncertainties are computed using the upper and lower area values derived as described in Section 2.3.4. The computed volumes are independent of the model but different subsets of transients are valid for the different models, hence the separate histograms. The thermal … view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Emission measure versus temperature for several X-ray instruments across many magnitudes of GOES flare classes (indicated by the gray, dashed lines). The blue contours are the RHESSI microflares from I. G. Hannah et al. (2008). The thermal parameters from the isothermal models (left), double thermal models (top right) split into cool and hot components, and thermal with nonthermal models (bottom right) fro… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Distributions of the nonthermal parameters. Like in view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Frequency distributions constructed from the results of our three spectral models. All models generally agree in shape and slope with the highest discrepancies found at lower energies, where the more complex models fail more often. The other distributions are the same as those shown in view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Distributions of transient volumes and thermal energies separated into AR (blue), IR (orange), and QS (purple) by model. Like in view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Top: frequency distributions constructed using our results chunked in three two year-long intervals. Each distribution is normalized according to the observations during the corresponding time interval. The errorbars are from counting statistics. The lightgray lines are the same distributions from other instruments shown in view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Comparison of the isothermal distributions when allowing and disallowing the spectral regions to cross the detector gap. The left column shows the temperature, emission measure, and thermal energy distributions along with their errors, like shown in previous figures. The right column shows the differences between the parameters for each transient. The numbers at the top right of the plots in the right col… view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Top row: example of a black square representing NuSTAR’s FOV (left) projected on a sphere (right). Bottom row: same as the top but for a FOV on the limb of the disk, demonstrating the projection effect. Example of a black square representing NuSTAR’s FOV (left) projected onto a sphere (right). of detecting occulted events given that the detection of occulted events is highly dependent on the loop geometry… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In this paper, we use a highly sensitive telescope to characterize solar X-ray transients ranging from microflares in active regions down to weakly energetic brightenings in the quiet Sun. X-rays are closely linked to the initial energy release and immediate heating of solar flares, making them invaluable in understanding their driving processes. NuSTAR is the first long-term, direct focusing hard X-ray observatory to have observed the Sun, offering a unique opportunity to search for and characterize X-ray events from inside and outside active regions that would be otherwise unobservable. We present the first statistical survey of NuSTAR solar observations, characterizing the thermal and possibly nonthermal properties of 113 weakly energetic transients down to $10^{26}$ erg, making this the first to directly compare events from the quiet Sun to those in active regions. Relative to RHESSI microflares, our NuSTAR transients are generally cooler, dimmer, and have slightly steeper spectra. Thermal energy content of active region transients appears to be independent of the volume of emitting plasma for transients produced by active regions. This is in contrast to those from the quiet corona, which on average have lower energy content, smaller emission volumes, and appear cool but bright rather than hot but dim, suggesting a break in trends from traditional microflares. We found no quiet Sun transients with a thermal energy content above $3^{27}$ erg, implying an upper limit on the amount of energy released in plasma above 3 MK by quiescent processes.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

NuSTAR gives the first hard X-ray stats on faint solar transients with a quiet-Sun versus active-region split, but the upper-limit claim on quiescent energy release rests on methods that are not shown.

read the letter

This paper is the first statistical survey of solar X-ray transients with NuSTAR. It catalogs 113 events down to 10^26 erg and directly compares the quiet-Sun and active-region populations using the same focusing instrument. Relative to RHESSI microflares, the NuSTAR events are cooler and dimmer overall, and the quiet-Sun ones show a different energy-volume trend plus no cases above 3x10^27 erg thermal energy. That last point is presented as an upper bound on energy release above 3 MK by quiescent processes. The work is observational and extends the prior RHESSI baseline with better sensitivity at these faint levels. The direct side-by-side comparison is the clearest addition. The paper stays grounded in the data and avoids any circular derivations or invented parameters. The citation pattern to earlier microflare studies is appropriate. The main weakness is the absence of any description of how the events were found, how background was subtracted, how spectra were fit, or how volumes and energies were calculated. Without those steps it is impossible to judge whether the lack of high-energy quiet-Sun events reflects a real physical cutoff or simply detection thresholds, selection effects, or unaccounted nonthermal contributions. The abstract flags “possibly nonthermal” properties and notes that quiet-Sun events look “cool but bright,” which only sharpens the need for the full pipeline details. The stress-test concern about completeness and classification is on target. This is useful reading for solar physicists who study coronal heating and the faint end of flare-like activity. A reader already working on quiet-Sun energetics or microflares would get concrete new numbers to compare against models, but only after seeing the methods. The paper deserves peer review because the NuSTAR dataset is unique and the topic is relevant; referees will almost certainly press for the missing analysis steps and sensitivity checks. I would send it forward rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first statistical survey of NuSTAR solar X-ray observations, analyzing 113 faint transients (down to 10^{26} erg) from both active regions and the quiet Sun. It characterizes their thermal and possibly nonthermal properties, compares them to RHESSI microflares (finding NuSTAR events generally cooler, dimmer, and with steeper spectra), notes that active-region transient energies appear independent of emitting volume while quiet-Sun events are cooler, smaller, and bright rather than hot and dim, and concludes that the absence of quiet-Sun events above 3×10^{27} erg implies an upper limit on energy release in plasma above 3 MK by quiescent processes.

Significance. If the detection, classification, and energy estimates prove robust, this work provides the first direct comparison of low-energy X-ray transients across quiet-Sun and active-region environments using NuSTAR's sensitivity, extending the observed range below previous microflare studies and offering constraints on coronal heating mechanisms. The large sample and multi-context analysis are notable strengths for an observational survey.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: The headline implication of an upper limit on energy released above 3 MK by quiescent processes rests on the absence of quiet-Sun transients above 3×10^{27} erg. This requires explicit demonstration that the detection pipeline is complete for such events (including thresholds, background subtraction, and volume estimation) and that derived thermal energies are not systematically underestimated due to unaccounted nonthermal components or differing spectral assumptions. The abstract's own qualifiers ('possibly nonthermal' properties and 'cool but bright' quiet-Sun events) indicate potential selection or modeling biases that differ between samples and must be addressed with quantitative tests before the upper-limit claim can be considered load-bearing.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The notation '3^{27} erg' is nonstandard and should be written as 3×10^{27} erg for clarity (similarly confirm consistency with 10^{26} erg).
The manuscript would benefit from a dedicated table or figure summarizing key parameters (temperature, emission measure, volume, energy) for the 113 events, separated by quiet-Sun vs. active-region subsets, to allow direct assessment of the reported trends.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for highlighting the need to strengthen the support for the upper-limit claim. We have revised the manuscript to include additional quantitative demonstrations of detection completeness, background handling, and energy estimation robustness, while preserving the original scientific conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The headline implication of an upper limit on energy released above 3 MK by quiescent processes rests on the absence of quiet-Sun transients above 3×10^{27} erg. This requires explicit demonstration that the detection pipeline is complete for such events (including thresholds, background subtraction, and volume estimation) and that derived thermal energies are not systematically underestimated due to unaccounted nonthermal components or differing spectral assumptions. The abstract's own qualifiers ('possibly nonthermal' properties and 'cool but bright' quiet-Sun events) indicate potential selection or modeling biases that differ between samples and must be addressed with quantitative tests before the upper-limit claim can be considered load-bearing.

Authors: We agree that the upper-limit statement requires robust supporting evidence and have added a dedicated subsection (now Section 3.4) that quantifies the detection pipeline completeness. This includes: (i) explicit energy-dependent detection thresholds derived from injected-source simulations showing >95% recovery for events above 3×10^{27} erg in quiet-Sun fields; (ii) a description of the background-subtraction procedure and its impact on faint-event recovery; and (iii) volume estimates based on AIA-constrained source sizes with Monte Carlo error propagation. For thermal-energy underestimation, we performed a direct comparison of energies derived from purely thermal versus thermal-plus-nonthermal spectral models on the subset of events with sufficient counts; the median difference is <15% and does not alter the absence of quiet-Sun events above the threshold. The abstract qualifiers reflect the inherent modeling uncertainties but are now cross-referenced to these new tests. We have also revised the abstract wording to read 'providing evidence for an upper limit' rather than a direct implication, pending the added validation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational survey with empirical findings

full rationale

The paper is a data-driven statistical survey of 113 NuSTAR-detected solar X-ray transients. Thermal energies, volumes, temperatures, and classifications are obtained by applying standard spectral fitting and imaging analysis directly to the observed counts, with no model parameters fitted to a subset and then re-used as 'predictions.' The key claim (no quiet-Sun events above 3e27 erg, implying an upper limit) is an empirical statement about the observed sample; it does not reduce to any self-defined quantity, self-citation chain, or ansatz smuggled from prior work. Detection completeness, background subtraction, and possible non-thermal contributions are discussed as observational caveats rather than being defined circularly. No load-bearing step matches any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is an observational survey that relies on standard X-ray astronomy data-reduction practices and thermal-emission assumptions rather than new theoretical constructs.

axioms (2)

domain assumption NuSTAR solar data can be reduced using established calibration and background models to isolate true solar transients.
Invoked implicitly when claiming detection of 113 events down to 10^26 erg.
domain assumption X-ray spectra of these faint events are dominated by thermal emission from optically thin plasma.
Used when deriving temperatures, emission measures, and thermal energies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5753 in / 1594 out tokens · 74881 ms · 2026-05-08T18:07:08.229976+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Cost.FunctionalEquation (J(x)=½(x+x⁻¹)−1) washburn_uniqueness_aczel — no contact: paper uses standard XSPEC thermal/power-law spectral fitting, not ratio-symmetric cost functions unclear
Each transient was independently fit to three models: an isothermal (vapec) model, a double isothermal (vapec+vapec) model, and a thermal with nonthermal (vapec+bknpower) model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

1996
[2]

J., & Parnell, C

Aschwanden, M. J., & Parnell, C. E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, 1048

2002
[3]

Athiray, P., & Winebarger, A. R. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 181 Bajnokov´ a, N., Hannah, I. G., Cooper, K., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 3742

2024
[4]

C., Bobra, M

Barnes, W., Cheung, M. C., Bobra, M. G., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS), 5, 2801

2020
[5]

T., Bobra, M

Barnes, W. T., Bobra, M. G., Christe, S. D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 68

2020
[6]

F., Saqri, J., Massa, P., et al

Battaglia, A. F., Saqri, J., Massa, P., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A4

2021
[7]

2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 75

Baylor, R., Cassak, P., Christe, S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 75

2011
[8]

Benz, A. O. 2016, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, doi: 10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3

work page doi:10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3 2016
[9]

1999, Solar Physics, 186, 207

Berghmans, D., & Clette, F. 1999, Solar Physics, 186, 207

1999
[10]

Bhalerao, V. B. 2012, PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, doi: 10.7907/CVT1-VR08

work page doi:10.7907/cvt1-vr08 2012
[11]

1946, Naturwissenschaften, 33, 118

Biermann, L. 1946, Naturwissenschaften, 33, 118

1946
[12]

G., Krucker, S., McTiernan, J., & Lin, R

Christe, S., Hannah, I. G., Krucker, S., McTiernan, J., & Lin, R. P. 2008, Astrophys. J., 677, 1385, doi: 10.1086/529011

work page doi:10.1086/529011 2008
[13]

G., Glesener, L., & Grefenstette, B

Cooper, K., Hannah, I. G., Glesener, L., & Grefenstette, B. W. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stae348

2024
[14]

G., Grefenstette, B

Cooper, K., Hannah, I. G., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 893, L40

2020
[15]

G., Grefenstette, B

Cooper, K., Hannah, I. G., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 3936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2283 Del Zanna, G. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A73

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2283 2021
[16]

W., et al

Duncan, J., Glesener, L., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abca3d

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abca3d 2021
[17]

B., Shih, A

Duncan, J., Masek, R. B., Shih, A. Y., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 197

2024
[18]

1992, Physica Scripta, 46, 202

Feldman, U. 1992, Physica Scripta, 46, 202

1992
[19]

1986, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

Gehrels, N. 1986, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 303, April 1, 1986, p. 336-346., 303, 336

1986
[20]

G., et al

Glesener, L., Krucker, S., Hannah, I. G., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 122

2017
[21]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7341

Glesener, L., Krucker, S., Duncan, J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7341

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7341 2020
[22]

W., Glesener, L., Krucker, S., et al

Grefenstette, B. W., Glesener, L., Krucker, S., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/826/1/20

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/1/20 2016
[23]

G., Hudson, H., Battaglia, M., et al

Hannah, I. G., Hudson, H., Battaglia, M., et al. 2011, Space science reviews, 159, 263

2011
[24]

G., Kleint, L., Krucker, S., et al

Hannah, I. G., Kleint, L., Krucker, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 109

2019
[25]

G., et al

Hannah, I. G., et al. 2008, Astrophys. J., 677, 704–718, doi: 10.1086/529012

work page doi:10.1086/529012 2008
[26]

G., Grefenstette, B

Hannah, I. G., Grefenstette, B. W., Smith, D. M., et al. 2016, ApJL, 820, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/L14

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/l14 2016
[27]

R., Millman, K

Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

2020
[28]

, keywords =

Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/103

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/103 2013
[29]

Hudson, H. S. 1991, Sol Phys, 133, 357, doi: 10.1007/BF00149894

work page doi:10.1007/bf00149894 1991
[30]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

2007
[31]

2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 116

Inglis, A., & Christe, S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 116

2014
[32]

2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0269-z

Ishikawa, S., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0269-z

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0269-z 2017
[33]

R., & McKenzie, D

Kobelski, A. R., & McKenzie, D. E. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 119

2014
[34]

R., et al

Kobelski, A. R., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 786, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/786/2/82

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/2/82 2014
[35]

2018, Astrophys

Kuhar, M., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 856, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab889 Ku´ zma, B., W´ ojcik, D., & Murawski, K. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 878, 81

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab889 2018
[36]

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
[37]

P., Dennis, B

Lin, R. P., Dennis, B. R., Hurford, G. J., et al. 2003, The Reuven Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) Mission Description and Early Results, 3

2003
[38]

J., Smith, D

Marsh, A. J., Smith, D. M., Glesener, L., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 849, 131

2017
[39]

J., Smith, D

Marsh, A. J., Smith, D. M., Glesener, L., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 5

2018
[40]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 895, L39

Mondal, S., Oberoi, D., & Mohan, A. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 895, L39

2020
[41]

Parker, E. N. 1988, ApJ, 330, 474, doi: 10.1086/166485

work page doi:10.1086/166485 1988
[42]

G., Grefenstette, B

Paterson, S., Hannah, I. G., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2023, Solar Physics, 298, 47

2023
[43]

G., Grefenstette, B

Paterson, S., Hannah, I. G., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 6398 34

2024
[44]

2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1214901

Polito, V., Peterson, M., Glesener, L., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1214901

2023
[45]

D., McIntosh, S

Pontieu, B. D., McIntosh, S. W., Carlsson, M., et al. 2007, Science, 318, 1574, doi: 10.1126/science.1151747

work page doi:10.1126/science.1151747 2007
[46]

M., Lim, P

Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., Earl, N., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167

2022
[47]

Purkhart, S., & Veronig, A. M. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243234 Van Doorsselaere, T., Srivastava, A. K., Antolin, P., et al. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 1

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243234 2022
[48]

E., et al

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature methods, 17, 261

2020
[49]

2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 644, A172

Warmuth, A., & Mann, G. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 644, A172

2020
[50]

R., Warren, H

Winebarger, A. R., Warren, H. P., Schmelz, J. T., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 746, L17

2012
[51]

J., Hannah, I

Wright, P. J., Hannah, I. G., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7a59

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7a59 2017