pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23482 · v1 · pith:7YORSMIVnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Time-domain anomalies in solar and stellar flares

Sergey A. Belov , Dmitrii Y. Kolotkov , Akshay V. Mehta , Laura A. Hayes This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 07:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords solar flaresstellar flaresanomaly detectionlight curvesflare morphologymachine learningunsupervised learning
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new anomaly index applied to flare catalogs shows that 66 percent of stellar flares and up to 57 percent of solar flares deviate from standard light-curve shapes.

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

The paper trains an unsupervised Deep SVDD model on synthetic light curves built from existing analytical flare models plus noise to learn a compact description of normal flare behavior. It then defines a probabilistic Flare Anomaly Index that assigns each observed light curve to one of three classes: normal data, weak anomalies, or strong anomalies. When the index is run on the Kepler stellar flare catalog it places 36 percent of events in the weak-anomaly class and 30 percent in the strong-anomaly class. The same index applied to STIX solar-flare data finds higher anomaly fractions in the 15-25 keV band than in the 4-10 keV band. These fractions indicate that a large share of both solar and stellar flares depart from the morphologies assumed by standard trend models.

Core claim

Application of the Flare Anomaly Index to the Kepler white-light catalog classifies 36 percent of events as weak anomalies and 30 percent as strong anomalies, while the same index applied to M- and X-class solar flares from the STIX list classifies 25 percent and 32 percent of events in the 15-25 keV channel as weak and strong anomalies respectively, versus 15 percent for each class in the 4-10 keV channel; the results indicate that anomalous flares occur more often at higher energies and that both solar and stellar flares commonly deviate from the normal population used in model training.

What carries the argument

The Flare Anomaly Index (FLAI), a probabilistic score produced by a Deep Support Vector Data Description model trained exclusively on synthetic light curves from analytical flare trend models plus noise, which measures how far an observed light curve lies from the learned distribution of normal flares.

If this is right

  • Anomalous flares appear more frequently in the higher-energy STIX channel than in the lower-energy channel.
  • Both solar and stellar flares often deviate from the normal flare population used for model training.
  • Deviations suggest the action of mechanisms such as modified energy release and dissipation or wave and oscillatory processes.
  • The three-class separation into normal, weak-anomaly, and strong-anomaly populations is reproducible across independent flare catalogs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the anomaly rates remain stable when the training set is expanded with real observed normal flares, the standard analytical models are shown to be systematically incomplete.
  • Cross-matching the anomalous events with independent observables such as duration, peak energy, or multi-wavelength coverage could isolate which physical ingredients are missing from current trend models.

Load-bearing premise

The synthetic light curves generated from existing analytical flare trend models plus noise constitute a faithful and complete representation of all normal flare morphologies that occur in nature.

What would settle it

Re-training the model on a hand-curated set of observed flares previously labeled normal by eye and then re-running the index on the original catalogs; a sharp drop in the reported anomaly fractions would support the claim while unchanged or higher fractions would falsify it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23482 by Akshay V. Mehta, Dmitrii Y. Kolotkov, Laura A. Hayes, Sergey A. Belov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Examples of synthetic light curves with imposed noise. The left column represents a flare trend only, while the right column shows a light curve with both flare trend and a QPP. Each light curve is standardised using its own mean and standard deviation. 3. ANOMALY DETECTION MODEL In this work, we use Deep Support Vector Data Description (Deep SVDD, Ruff et al. 2018) to separate anomalous flares from normal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Architecture of the Deep SVDD model for anomaly detection. Upper-left panel: an example output light curve. Lower-left panel: a schematic 2D cross-section of the hypersphere (solid circle) and the feature vectors produced by the model (coloured points). Green, yellow, and red points denote normal data within the hypersphere, ∼10% of the training data allowed to lie outside the hypersphere due to the soft b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The distribution of the distance measured in R between data points in an M-dimensional feature space and the centre of the hypersphere for normal data (solid lines) and anomalous data containing QPPs (dashed lines). The dotted vertical line denotes the sphere boundary (spanning 90% of normal data). To test the model’s capability to separate “normal” data from data having different properties (anomalies), w… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: the data distribution with d/R for normal data used for the network training (blue curve) and the GPD tail fit (dashed red curve). Right panel: the data distribution with d/R for Kepler data (blue curve) and STIX low-energy (green curve) and high-energy (red curve) bands. The grey dotted line represents a threshold equal to the 90th percentile of the normal data, while the blue dashed lines ind… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: distributions of the FLAI values obtained for synthetic flare time series with different temporal resolutions corresponding to 1024, 512, 256, and 128 data points. Each distribution was produced from 1000 noise realisations with NSR = 0.02, where the original flare trend was combined with a damped QPP signal of amplitude a0 = 20% of the flare amplitude. All time series were subsequently resampl… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of Kepler light curves with corresponding FLAI, where each row corresponds to the ND, WA, and SA data anomaly class. Each light curve is standardised using its own mean and standard deviation. 4.3. STIX flares To proceed with solar flares, we used data from the Spectrometer/Telescope for Imaging X-rays (STIX; Krucker et al. 2020) onboard Solar Orbiter (M¨uller et al. 2020). STIX measures solar har… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of STIX low-energy band (4-10 keV) light curves with corresponding FLAI, where each row corresponds to the ND, WA, and SA data anomaly class. Each light curve is standardised using its own mean and standard deviation. such as QPPs, multiple flares, and flares with unusual temporal profiles, and instrumental or data-processing artefacts (e.g. attenuator effects or imperfect trend removal). Conseque… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of STIX high-energy band (15-25 keV) light curves with corresponding FLAI, where each row corresponds to the ND, WA, and SA data anomaly class. Each light curve is standardised using its own mean and standard deviation. • Noise: events dominated by a visually high noise level. This classification scheme and the associated visual inspection are inherently subjective and may introduce biases, highli… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Box-and-whisker plots for anomaly classes from Kepler (left panel) and STIX low-energy band (right panel) data. The horizontal black line denotes a median value. Boundaries of the boxes are 25% and 75% levels, while whiskers are 5% and 95% levels. Black circles represent outliers for each class. 5. DO ANOMALOUS FLARES HAVE A TEMPLATE? In previous studies of flare templates (Davenport et al. 2014; Kashapova… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Median flare profile in ND (black curve) and the data regions between 5- and 95- percentiles for data from Kepler (left column), STIX low-energy (middle column) high-energy (right column) bands seperated into ND (green region), WA (orange region), and SA (red region) classes. we used 45,000 flare trends flare trends derived from stellar (Davenport et al. 2014) and solar flare trend models (Gryciuk et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Examples of Kepler light curves with corresponding FLAI values and anomaly types. The colour scale shows the normalised integrated-gradient attribution, indicating the relative contribution of individual time points to the anomaly score. Each light curve is standardised by its own mean and standard deviation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Examples of STIX low-energy band (4-10 keV) light curves with corresponding FLAI values and anomaly types. The colour scale shows the normalised integrated-gradient attribution, indicating the relative contribution of individual time points to the anomaly score. Each light curve is standardised by its own mean and standard deviation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The temporal morphology of flare light curves encodes the underlying flare physics, and deviations from the typical flare profile may indicate the presence of mechanisms not captured by a standard flare model. To search for such time-domain deviations from a "standard" flare, we develop an unsupervised Deep Support Vector Data Description (Deep SVDD) model, which learns a compact representation of normal flares, against which unseen anomalous flares are identified. The model is trained on synthetic light curves with a "normal" flare morphology, generated from existing analytical flare trend models with noise. Using the distribution of normal flare data, we introduce a probabilistic Flare Anomaly Index (FLAI) which allows for separating flare light curves into three distinct classes: normal data (ND), weak anomalies (WA), and strong anomalies (SA). Application of FLAI to the Kepler flare catalogue (white light) reveals that 36% and 30% of events belong to the WA and SA classes, respectively. For M- and X-class solar flares from the STIX flare list, 25% and 32% of events in the 15-25 keV channel are classified as WA and SA, respectively, versus 15% for both WA and SA classes in the 4-10 keV channel. Thus, anomalous flares appear more frequently in the STIX high-energy channel. These results show that both solar and stellar flares often deviate from the normal flare population used for model training, suggesting departures from the standard flare scenario, such as modified energy release and dissipation, or the development of wave and oscillatory processes in flare sites.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops an unsupervised Deep SVDD model trained exclusively on synthetic flare light curves generated from existing analytical trend models plus noise. It defines a probabilistic Flare Anomaly Index (FLAI) to partition observed flares into normal data (ND), weak anomalies (WA), and strong anomalies (SA). Application to the Kepler white-light catalogue yields 36% WA and 30% SA; for STIX M/X-class flares the fractions are 25% WA / 32% SA in the 15-25 keV channel versus 15% each in the 4-10 keV channel. The authors interpret the elevated anomaly rates as evidence of time-domain morphologies not captured by standard flare models.

Significance. If the synthetic training distribution is shown to be a faithful proxy for the full morphological diversity of real normal flares, the reported anomaly fractions would constitute quantitative evidence that a substantial minority of both stellar and solar flares exhibit departures from the analytical templates used in the training set. The work applies a modern one-class learning technique to a large flare catalogue and provides channel-dependent statistics that could motivate targeted follow-up studies of high-energy flare morphology.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (training procedure): the central percentages (36%/30% for Kepler; 25%/32% vs 15% for STIX channels) are obtained by thresholding distances to a hypersphere learned solely from synthetic light curves. No quantitative validation is presented that real ND flares lie inside this hypersphere at the same rate as the synthetic ensemble; any systematic morphological difference between the two distributions directly shifts the decision boundary and inflates the reported WA/SA fractions.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the manuscript reports no error bars, bootstrap uncertainties, or sensitivity tests on the FLAI thresholds, nor any baseline comparison against simpler statistical anomaly detectors (e.g., isolation forest or one-class SVM on hand-crafted features). Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the quoted anomaly rates exceed what would be obtained by a less expressive model.
  3. [§4] §4 (application to STIX): the claim that anomalous flares appear more frequently in the 15-25 keV channel rests on the same unvalidated synthetic training distribution. Because the two energy channels may also differ in instrumental noise properties and background subtraction, an explicit test that the synthetic ensemble reproduces the observed scatter in each channel separately is required before the channel-dependent difference can be attributed to flare physics.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the model is trained on “existing analytical flare trend models with noise” but does not specify which functional forms or parameter ranges were used; a table listing the exact models and their parameter distributions would improve reproducibility.
  2. Figure captions and text should clarify whether the synthetic light curves include realistic sampling cadences, gaps, and instrumental response functions matching the Kepler and STIX data sets.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which identify important gaps in validation and robustness checks. We agree that these elements are needed to support the reported anomaly fractions and will revise the manuscript accordingly. Point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (training procedure): the central percentages (36%/30% for Kepler; 25%/32% vs 15% for STIX channels) are obtained by thresholding distances to a hypersphere learned solely from synthetic light curves. No quantitative validation is presented that real ND flares lie inside this hypersphere at the same rate as the synthetic ensemble; any systematic morphological difference between the two distributions directly shifts the decision boundary and inflates the reported WA/SA fractions.

    Authors: We agree this is a substantive limitation. The synthetic ensemble is generated from established analytical models cited in §2, but without explicit comparison the decision boundary could be affected. In the revised manuscript we will add to §3 a quantitative check: we will fit the analytical models to a random subset of real Kepler and STIX flares, generate corresponding synthetic realizations, and report the fraction of these real events that fall inside the learned hypersphere (i.e., classified ND). This will be presented alongside the original synthetic validation statistics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the manuscript reports no error bars, bootstrap uncertainties, or sensitivity tests on the FLAI thresholds, nor any baseline comparison against simpler statistical anomaly detectors (e.g., isolation forest or one-class SVM on hand-crafted features). Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the quoted anomaly rates exceed what would be obtained by a less expressive model.

    Authors: We accept the criticism. The revised version will include (i) bootstrap resampling (1000 iterations) of the training set to obtain 1σ uncertainties on the WA/SA fractions, (ii) a sensitivity analysis varying the FLAI threshold by ±10% around the chosen value, and (iii) a baseline comparison using isolation forest and one-class SVM applied to the same hand-crafted features (rise/decay times, asymmetry, peak flux) extracted from the light curves. These results will be reported in a new subsection of §3 and referenced in the abstract. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4] §4 (application to STIX): the claim that anomalous flares appear more frequently in the 15-25 keV channel rests on the same unvalidated synthetic training distribution. Because the two energy channels may also differ in instrumental noise properties and background subtraction, an explicit test that the synthetic ensemble reproduces the observed scatter in each channel separately is required before the channel-dependent difference can be attributed to flare physics.

    Authors: This point is well taken. The current noise model is instrument-specific but was not validated channel-by-channel. In the revision we will add to §4 (and the methods) a direct comparison of the standard deviation of the residuals (after subtracting the analytical trend) between the synthetic ensemble and the real STIX data, computed separately for the 4–10 keV and 15–25 keV channels. If discrepancies are found, the noise amplitude will be re-tuned per channel and the anomaly statistics recomputed; the updated channel-dependent fractions and the validation test will be presented. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; classification outputs are independent of training inputs

full rationale

The paper trains Deep SVDD exclusively on synthetic light curves from existing analytical flare models plus noise to learn a compact normal representation, then computes FLAI thresholds from that learned distribution and applies them to classify separate real datasets (Kepler white-light flares and STIX solar flares in two energy channels). The reported class fractions (36%/30% WA/SA for Kepler; 25%/32% vs 15% for STIX channels) are direct empirical outputs of this out-of-sample classification step. No equation, definition, or self-citation reduces these fractions to the synthetic training inputs by construction, nor renames a known result, nor imports uniqueness from prior author work. The assumption that the synthetics adequately cover normal morphologies is an external validity claim, not a definitional tautology. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the provided inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; the model implicitly assumes that the chosen analytical flare trend models plus additive noise span the full space of normal flares, but no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5830 in / 1168 out tokens · 16616 ms · 2026-06-26T07:15:51.211292+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

73 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    A., Antolin, P., Inglis, A

    Anfinogentov, S. A., Antolin, P., Inglis, A. R., et al. 2022, SSRv, 218, 9, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00869-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00869-w 2022

  3. [3]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2005, Physics of the Solar Corona. An Introduction with Problems and Solutions (2nd edition), doi: 10.1007/3-540-30766-4

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-30766-4 2005

  4. [4]

    Balona, L. A. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 2714–2725, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2651

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2651 2015

  5. [5]

    Battaglia, M., & Kontar, E. P. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 533, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117605

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117605 2011

  6. [6]

    Belov, S., Bromhall, A.-M., Kolotkov, D., & Nakariakov, V. 2024a, Synthetic star flare light curves with added QPP, Harvard Dataverse, doi: 10.7910/DVN/UNRTN6 19 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Normalised Time 2 0 2 4 Normalised Flux FLAI: 0.996 T ype: Multiple peaks/flares 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Gradient Magnitude 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Normalised Time 1 0 1 2 3 4...

    work page doi:10.7910/dvn/unrtn6

  7. [7]

    Belov, S., & Kolotkov, D. Y. 2026, Kepler Stellar Flare Light Curves with QPP Detections, Harvard Dataverse, doi: 10.7910/DVN/1IHLLK

    work page doi:10.7910/dvn/1ihllk 2026

  8. [8]

    Y., & Hayes, L

    Belov, S., Kolotkov, D. Y., & Hayes, L. 2026a, STIX Solar Flare Light Curve Dataset (M–X Class, 2021–2025), Harvard Dataverse, doi: 10.7910/DVN/LQUOL3

    work page doi:10.7910/dvn/lquol3 2021

  9. [9]

    2026b, Warwick-Solar/FLAI: Flare Anomaly Index (FLAI) v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.19608233

    Belov, S., Mehta, A., Kolotlov, D., & Hayes, L. 2026b, Warwick-Solar/FLAI: Flare Anomaly Index (FLAI) v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.19608233

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19608233

  10. [10]

    2025, ApJL, 987, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade542

    Belov, S., Parmenter, T., Arber, T., et al. 2025, ApJL, 987, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade542

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade542 2025

  11. [11]

    2024b, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 274, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f98

    Broomhall, A.-M. 2024b, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 274, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f98

  12. [12]

    A., Zhong, Y., Kolotkov, D

    Belov, S. A., Zhong, Y., Kolotkov, D. Y., & Nakariakov, V. M. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 281, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae0a34

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae0a34 2025

  13. [13]

    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

  14. [14]

    O., & G¨ udel, M

    Benz, A. O., & G¨ udel, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101757

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101757 2010

  15. [15]

    Broomhall, A.-M., Davenport, J. R. A., Hayes, L. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 244, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab40b3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab40b3 2019

  16. [16]

    J., Mariska, J

    Cargill, P. J., Mariska, J. T., & Antiochos, S. K. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 439, 1034, doi: 10.1086/175240

    work page doi:10.1086/175240 1995

  17. [17]

    1964, in AAS NASA Symposium on the Physics of Solar Flares: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,

    Carmichael, H. 1964, in AAS NASA Symposium on the Physics of Solar Flares: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,

    1964

  18. [18]

    50, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 451

    Maryland, October 28-30, 1963, Vol. 50, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 451

    1963

  19. [19]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Hawley, S. L., Hebb, L., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/122

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/122 2014

  20. [20]

    R., & Zarro, D

    Dennis, B. R., & Zarro, D. M. 1993, Solar Physics, 146, 177–190, doi: 10.1007/bf00662178

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00662178 1993

  21. [21]

    G., Hudson, H

    Fletcher, L., Hannah, I. G., Hudson, H. S., & Metcalf, T. R. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 656, 1187–1196, doi: 10.1086/510446

    work page doi:10.1086/510446 2007

  22. [22]

    R., Hudson, H

    Fletcher, L., Dennis, B. R., Hudson, H. S., et al. 2011, Space Science Reviews, 159, 19–106, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9701-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9701-8 2011

  23. [23]

    2017, Solar Physics, 292, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1101-8

    Gryciuk, M., Siarkowski, M., Sylwester, J., et al. 2017, Solar Physics, 292, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1101-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-017-1101-8 2017

  24. [24]

    O., Schmit, J

    Gudel, M., Benz, A. O., Schmit, J. H. M. M., & Skinner, S. L. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 471, 1002–1014, doi: 10.1086/178027

    work page doi:10.1086/178027 1996

  25. [25]

    , author =

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  26. [26]

    L., Fisher, G

    Hawley, S. L., Fisher, G. H., Simon, T., et al. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 453, 464, doi: 10.1086/176408

    work page doi:10.1086/176408 1995

  27. [27]

    Gallagher, P. T. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d40

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d40 2020

  28. [28]

    1974, Solar Physics, 34, 323

    Hirayama, T. 1974, Solar Physics, 34, 323

    1974

  29. [29]

    S., & MacGregor, M

    Howard, W. S., & MacGregor, M. A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac426e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac426e 2022

  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]

    R., Ireland, J., & Dominique, M

    Inglis, A. R., Ireland, J., & Dominique, M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/798/2/108

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/2/108 2015

  32. [32]

    1992, A&A, 253, 269

    Jakimiec, J., Sylwester, B., Sylwester, J., et al. 1992, A&A, 253, 269

    1992

  33. [33]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 3123–3136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2789

    Jia, M., Luo, A.-L., & Qiu, B. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 3123–3136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2789

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2789 2024

  34. [34]

    2023, IEEE Access, 11, 117494–117507, doi: 10.1109/access.2023.3325734

    Jiang, R., Yang, Z., & Zhao, J. 2023, IEEE Access, 11, 117494–117507, doi: 10.1109/access.2023.3325734

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2023.3325734 2023

  35. [35]

    G., & Motyk, I

    Kupriyanova, E. G., & Motyk, I. D. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 3922–3931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab276

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab276 2021

  36. [36]

    Nakariakov, V. M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 858, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aabde9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aabde9 2018

  37. [37]

    1976, Solar Physics, 50, 85

    Kopp, R., & Pneuman, G. 1976, Solar Physics, 50, 85

    1976

  38. [38]

    Kowalski, A. F. 2024, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 21, doi: 10.1007/s41116-024-00039-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s41116-024-00039-4 2024

  39. [39]

    F., Hawley, S

    Kowalski, A. F., Hawley, S. L., Wisniewski, J. P., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 207, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/15 2013

  40. [40]

    F., Mathioudakis, M., Hawley, S

    Kowalski, A. F., Mathioudakis, M., Hawley, S. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 95, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/95

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/95 2016

  41. [41]

    J., Grimm, O., et al

    Krucker, S., Hurford, G. J., Grimm, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937362

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937362 2020

  42. [42]

    C., et al

    Kuhar, M., Krucker, S., Mart´ ınez 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

  43. [43]

    2020, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 6, 3, doi: 10.12737/stp-61202001

    Kaufman, A. 2020, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 6, 3, doi: 10.12737/stp-61202001

    work page doi:10.12737/stp-61202001 2020

  44. [44]

    A., & Kolotkov, D

    Kuznetsov, A. A., & Kolotkov, D. Y. 2021, ApJ, 912, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf569

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf569 2021

  45. [45]

    E., Emslie, A

    Machado, M. E., Emslie, A. G., & Avrett, E. H. 1989, Solar Physics, 124, 303–317, doi: 10.1007/bf00156272

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00156272 1989

  46. [46]

    Maehara, H., Shibayama, T., Notsu, S., et al. 2012, Nature, 485, 478–481, doi: 10.1038/nature11063 21 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Normalised Time 0 1 2 3 4Normalised Flux FLAI: 0.995 T ype: Multiple peaks/flares 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Gradient Magnitude 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Normalised Time 0 1 2 3 4 5 6Normalised Flux FLAI: 0.969 T ype: QPP 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0....

    work page doi:10.1038/nature11063 2012

  47. [47]

    2026, STIXpy, v0.2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18938020 Mart´ ınez Oliveros, J.-C., Hudson, H

    Maloney, S., Clarke, B., Hayes, L., et al. 2026, STIXpy, v0.2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18938020 Mart´ ınez Oliveros, J.-C., Hudson, H. S., Hurford, G. J., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/753/2/l26

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18938020 2026

  48. [48]

    A., Nakariakov, V

    McLaughlin, J. A., Nakariakov, V. M., Dominique, M., Jel´ ınek, P., & Takasao, S. 2018, SSRv, 214, 45, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0478-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0478-5 2018

  49. [49]

    D., & Kashapova, L

    Motyk, I. D., & Kashapova, L. K. 2022, Astronomy Reports, 66, 1043–1049, doi: 10.1134/s1063772922100092

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772922100092 2022

  50. [50]

    D., Kashapova, L

    Motyk, I. D., Kashapova, L. K., & Rozhkova, D. V. 2025, Astronomy Reports, 69, 519–531, doi: 10.1134/s1063772925701860 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772925701860 2025

  51. [51]

    M., Inglis, A

    Nakariakov, V. M., Inglis, A. R., Zimovets, I. V., et al. 2010, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 52, 124009, doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/52/12/124009

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/52/12/124009 2010

  52. [52]

    M., & Melnikov, V

    Nakariakov, V. M., & Melnikov, V. F. 2009, SSRv, 149, 119, doi: 10.1007/s11214-009-9536-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-009-9536-3 2009

  53. [53]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 851, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b34

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b34 2017

  54. [54]

    Neupert, W. M. 1968, The Astrophysical Journal, 153, L59, doi: 10.1086/180220

    work page doi:10.1086/180220 1968

  55. [55]

    I., & Priest, E

    Pontin, D. I., & Priest, E. R. 2022, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 19, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41116-022-00032-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s41116-022-00032-9 2022

  56. [56]

    2007, A&A, 471, 271, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077223

    Reale, F. 2007, A&A, 471, 271, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077223

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077223 2007

  57. [57]

    2018, in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol

    Ruff, L., Vandermeulen, R., Goernitz, N., et al. 2018, in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 80, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ed. J. Dy & A. Krause (PMLR), 4393–4402. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v80/ruff18a.html

    2018

  58. [58]

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

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

    work page doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-6 2011

  59. [59]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 209, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5

    Shibayama, T., Maehara, H., Notsu, S., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 209, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5 2013

  60. [60]

    1966, Nature, 211, 695

    Sturrock, P. 1966, Nature, 211, 695

    1966

  61. [61]

    2017, in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol

    Sundararajan, M., Taly, A., & Yan, Q. 2017, in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 70, Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ed. D. Precup & Y. W. Teh (PMLR), 3319–3328. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/sundararajan17a.html

    2017

  62. [62]

    A., Kazachenko, M

    Tamburri, C. A., Kazachenko, M. D., & Kowalski, A. F. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3047

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3047 2024

  63. [63]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2018

    Tan, C., Lu, H.-P., Su, T.-H., & Shi, Y. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2018

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2018 2025

  64. [64]

    I., Notsu, Y., Kowalski, A

    Tristan, I. I., Notsu, Y., Kowalski, A. F., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc94f Van Doorsselaere, T., Kupriyanova, E. G., & Yuan, D. 2016, SoPh, 291, 3143, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0977-z

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc94f 2023

  65. [65]

    I., et al

    Vasilyev, V., Reinhold, T., Shapiro, A. I., et al. 2024, Science, 386, 1301–1305, doi: 10.1126/science.adl5441

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adl5441 2024

  66. [66]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141068

    Vida, K., B´ odi, A., Szklen´ ar, T., & Seli, B. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141068

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141068 2021

  67. [67]

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , eprint =

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  68. [68]

    Wang, Y., Zhang, L.-y., Su, T., Misra, P., & Han, X. L. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 281, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1469

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae1469 2025

  69. [69]

    2017, in 2017 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) (IEEE), doi: 10.1109/ijcnn.2017.7966039

    Wang, Z., Yan, W., & Oates, T. 2017, in 2017 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) (IEEE), doi: 10.1109/ijcnn.2017.7966039

    work page doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2017.7966039 2017

  70. [70]

    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

  71. [71]

    2023, A&A, 673, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346031

    Xiao, H., Maloney, S., Krucker, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346031

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346031 2023

  72. [72]

    V., McLaughlin, J

    Zimovets, I. V., McLaughlin, J. A., Srivastava, A. K., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 66, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00840-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00840-9 2021

  73. [73]

    G., & Yamada, M

    Zweibel, E. G., & Yamada, M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 291, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101726

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101726 2009