Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 83 references

An Extreme Stellar Prominence Eruption Observed by LAMOST Time-Domain Spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An M dwarf's magnetic field hurled a massive prominence into space, possibly its own CME.

desk verdict The kinematic detection is real and the event is genuinely extreme, but the 'largest mass ratio' headline rests on a spherical-volume assumption and solar density relations that could easily be off by an order of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11076 v1 pith:CXGJPW2M submitted 2024-11-17 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Lu Hong-Peng , Tian Hui , Zhang Li-Yun , Chen He-Chao , Li Ying , Yang Zi-Hao , Wang Jia-Sheng , Zhang Jia-Le
show 1 more author
Sun Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords stellarprominencescoronalmassejectionsMdwarfsflaresHαspectroscopyLAMOSTtwo-cloudmodelDopplerblueshift
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports time-domain Hα spectroscopy of the M dwarf LAMOST J044431.62+235627.9 during a superflare on 2018 December 14. It claims that an extreme stellar prominence eruption accompanied the flare, evidenced by a strong blue-wing Hα enhancement with a bulk blueshift of -228±11 km/s and a maximum blueshift of -605±15 km/s. A two-cloud model fit yields an erupting prominence mass between 1.6×$10^{19}$ g and 7.2×$10^{19}$ g, which is larger than any previously reported stellar prominence or CME when expressed as a fraction of the host star's mass. The authors further interpret that some ejected material reaches escape velocity, suggesting that this eruption is a potential coronal mass ejection with far-reaching implications for exoplanet habitability.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Hα line profile asymmetry analyzed with a two-cloud radiative transfer model (Appendix C, Eq. C5). The model treats the erupting prominence as an upper cloud (cloud 1) and the flare emission region as a lower cloud (cloud 2) along the line of sight, with Gaussian optical-depth profiles (Eq. C6). The model yields the source function, optical depth, Doppler shift, and Doppler broadening for each cloud. These parameters are converted to excitation temperature (Eq. C7) and hydrogen column density (Eq. C8), which then feed the mass estimate. The mass calculation (Appendix D) additionally assumes a spherical prominence volume whose radius comes from the projected area (Eq. D9–D13), using solar-like relations between electron density and hydrogen density and between electron density and the second-level hydrogen column density.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of the prominence's physical depth or density would falsify the mass claim: for instance, if a simultaneous EUV or X-ray observation showed no coronal dimming indicative of a large mass loss, or if high spatial resolution imaging (e.g., with a large-aperture telescope like DKIST or the future ELT) resolved the erupting structure as a thin, sheet-like filament with a line-of-sight depth much smaller than the assumed spherical radius, the mass could be reduced to below $10^{18}$ g, negating the record mass ratio while leaving the blueshift detection intact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using eight LAMOST medium-resolution spectra spanning 183.8 minutes, the authors identify a superflare (Hα energy >4.6×$10^{31}$ erg, bolometric energy ≈3.5×$10^{35}$ erg) on the M dwarf LAMOST J044431.62+235627.9. During the impulsive phase and near flare peak, the Hα line shows a blue-wing enhancement that cannot be explained by chromospheric evaporation, reconnection outflows, or co-rotating prominence emission. Their two-cloud model of the most asymmetric profile (first spectrum, 0–20 min) attributes the blue-shifted component (cloud 1) to an erupting prominence with source function S=0.56, optical depth τ=1.49, line-of-sight velocity -229 km/s, and Doppler broadening 4.35 Å. From this fit, the projected area of the prominence is 1.19×$10^{18}$ $m^{2}$ (≈6.8 stellar disk areas), and assuming spherical expansion and solar-like density relations, the mass is 1.6–7.2×$10^{19}$ g. The ratio of this mass to the host star's mass (0.32 M⊙) is the largest among all reported stellar prominence eruptions/CMEs, making this event the most extreme stellar prominence eruption observed to date.

Load-bearing premise

The mass estimate depends on assuming the erupting prominence expands as a sphere whose radius is set by its projected area, and on the applicability of solar prominence density ratios (ne–n2 and ne/nH) to an M dwarf; if the true geometry is a thin sheet or filament, or if the density ratio differs on M dwarfs, the mass could change by orders of magnitude, which would weaken the 'largest mass ratio' claim even though the kinematic detection would stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mass estimate is correct, this event ejects more than 10^19 g of plasma from a low-mass star, which could alter the star's angular momentum and mass-loss budget.
  • Because some projected velocities exceed the local escape velocity, the event implies that M-dwarf superflares can indeed drive coronal mass ejections, a key question for stellar CME studies.
  • The prominence mass is comparable to the host star's Hα quiescent emission, meaning such eruptions could temporarily dominate the star's spectral energy distribution in Hα.
  • If such events are common, they would significantly impact the atmospheres of any orbiting exoplanets, potentially stripping them or altering their chemistry.
  • The record-breaking mass ratio provides a new benchmark for models of stellar prominence eruption and CME formation on active M dwarfs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mass estimate is extremely sensitive to the assumed geometry (sphere vs. sheet) and to the transferability of solar prominence density relations (N2–ne and ne/nH) to M dwarfs; a more flattened geometry could reduce the mass by orders of magnitude, weakening the 'largest mass ratio' claim even though the kinematic detection would stand.
  • If the eruption is confirmed as a CME by future high-cadence multi-line or imaging observations, it would imply that low-mass stars with strong magnetic fields can expel a substantial fraction of their outer atmosphere, which could be a major channel for stellar angular momentum loss.
  • The observed blueshift persistence (over one hour) suggests that the erupting structure is large and coherent; a direct test would be to search for coronal dimming in simultaneous EUV or X-ray data for similar events.
  • The event's placement in a sample of 22 blue-wing events (Fig. 4) suggests that such extreme eruptions are rare but not absent; a systematic search of LAMOST time-domain spectra might uncover additional cases that can be studied with the same two-cloud technique.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports time-domain H-alpha spectroscopy from LAMOST of the M dwarf LAMOST J044431.62+235627.9 during a superflare, identifying a strong blue-wing enhancement that the authors interpret as an erupting stellar prominence. Gaussian decomposition gives a projected bulk blueshift of -228 +/- 11 km/s and a maximum blueshift of -605 +/- 15 km/s, with some line-of-sight velocities exceeding the local escape velocity. A two-cloud model is used to extract physical parameters, yielding a projected prominence area of about 6.8 times the stellar disk and a prominence mass of 1.6e19 to 7.2e19 g. The paper's headline claim is that this event has the largest mass ratio of prominence/CME to host star among all reported stellar prominence eruptions/CMEs.

Significance. The time-domain H-alpha data and the Gaussian fitting provide a solid kinematic detection: the blue-wing enhancement, the measured velocities, and the comparison with the escape velocity are well documented and are an important addition to the sparse sample of stellar prominence eruption candidates. The paper is also valuable for compiling a quantitative comparison of H-alpha blue-wing EWs across 22 events. However, the record-setting mass-ratio claim rests entirely on the mass estimate in Appendix D, which depends on an unexplained factor in the luminosity conversion, a spherical-volume assumption, and solar-based density relations. If those assumptions are not substantially better constrained, the central 'largest mass ratio' claim is not yet secured, even though the kinematic result stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D, Eq. (D9)] The factor 1/4 in the conversion from H-alpha EW to line-of-sight H-alpha luminosity is not explained or derived. The equation L_Halpha_bluewing_los = chi_Halpha * L_bol * EW_Halpha_bluewing / 4 is load-bearing: it sets the luminosity used to infer the projected area and hence the radius and mass. The authors should either provide a derivation of this factor (including whether it accounts for the fraction of the stellar disk contributing to the continuum, an anisotropy factor, or a unit conversion) or replace it with a fully referenced standard expression. As written, the factor appears ad hoc.
  2. [Appendix D, Eqs. (D10)-(D13)] The mass derivation assumes that the erupting prominence expands as a sphere with radius R_CME obtained from the projected area and that the line-of-sight thickness D equals 2 R_CME. Solar prominences are typically filamentary or sheet-like, with a small volume filling factor, and the manuscript provides no observational constraint on D. If D is an order of magnitude smaller than 2 R_CME, the mass in Eq. (D13) drops by a corresponding order of magnitude, which could remove the event from the 'largest mass ratio' position. The record claim therefore needs either a direct constraint on the line-of-sight geometry or a presentation of the mass as a heavily model-dependent upper limit rather than a definitive record.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C7) and Appendix D, Eqs. (D11)-(D12)] The excitation temperature and column density N2 from the two-cloud model require the departure coefficients b2 and b3, but their values are never stated. In addition, the electron density relation n_e ~ 3.2e8 sqrt(n2) and the hydrogen-to-electron density ratio n_e/n_H ~ 0.2-0.9 are taken from solar prominence studies, and their applicability to an M-dwarf prominence is not discussed. These unquantified inputs propagate directly into n_H and thus into the mass estimate. At minimum, the authors should state the adopted b2/b3 values, test the sensitivity of the mass to plausible ranges of these solar-relation parameters, and add explicit caveats about applying solar prominence scaling laws to active M dwarfs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Authors (title page)] There is a typo in the author list: 'Jia-Sheng W ang' should be 'Jia-Sheng Wang'.
  2. [Section 4, Figure 4] The color-bar labels in Figure 4 are difficult to read because the tick labels are placed at values that do not match the color scale. Please reformat the color bar so that its limits and ticks are clearly visible.
  3. [Section 2 and Figure 1] The statement that the last spectrum represents the quiescent state should be justified further, because the final spectrum still has an H-alpha EW close to that of the earlier flare spectra and may contain lingering activity. A brief examination of the night-to-night stability of the H-alpha profile would strengthen the reference-subtraction approach.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B4)] The definition of the maximum velocity for the blue-shifted component as lambda_i - lambda_0 +/- 2*sigma_i is asymmetric in sign; the authors should explain why the plus sign is used for the blueshifted component and whether the quoted -605 km/s corresponds to the blue edge of the Gaussian.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kinematic measurements and EW record are direct observational quantities, and the mass is a model-based inference, not an input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central detections (projected bulk blueshift -228 km/s, maximum -605 km/s, and H-alpha blue-wing EW) come from Gaussian fits to time-domain spectra after subtracting a quiescent reference; none of these quantities is a fitted parameter that is then renamed as the result. The mass estimate (1.6e19-7.2e19 g) is derived in Appendix D through a chain: the two-cloud model fit gives S1 and tau1; Eq. C8 gives column density N2; solar empirical relations (Eqs. D10-D12) give density; Eq. D13 combines this with an assumed spherical volume whose radius comes from a projected area estimated from line luminosity divided by model radiance. This is standard model-based inference: the mass is not equal by construction to any input, and the comparison to other events is an external benchmark rather than a tautology. Self-citations (Lu et al. 2022, 2023; Yang et al. 2022, 2024; Tian et al. 2023; Xu et al. 2022, 2024a,b) are used for contextual methods and sample context, not as a load-bearing uniqueness argument. Unquantified modeling choices (the unexplained factor 1/4 in Eq. D9, unspecified departure coefficients b2/b3, and the spherical-volume assumption) are accuracy risks that could change the mass, but they do not make the derivation circular. The detection and EW record stand independently of the mass estimate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The kinematic detection relies mainly on the reference spectrum and the assumption that the blueshift is a prominence. The mass and area estimates add more assumptions: a spherical geometry, solar-like density ratios, unstated departure coefficients, and an unexplained factor 1/4 in the luminosity conversion.

free parameters (5)
  • S1 (prominence source function) = 0.56
    Fitted by two-cloud model to the first Halpha profile; sets the radiance used to convert luminosity to area.
  • tau1 (prominence optical depth) = 1.49
    Fitted by two-cloud model; enters the column density N2 and thus the mass estimate.
  • Delta lambda_D1 (prominence Doppler broadening) = 4.35 A
    Fitted by two-cloud model; enters N2 and mass.
  • ne/nH ratio = 0.2 to 0.9
    Assumed range from solar prominences (Eq. D12); directly scales the mass.
  • Factor 1/4 in Halpha luminosity conversion = 0.25
    Ad hoc divisor in Eq. D9 with no explanation; changes area by 4x and mass by roughly 8x if wrong.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The last Halpha spectrum represents the quiescent state of the star
    Used as reference for all difference spectra and EW measurements (Section 2, Figure 1).
  • domain assumption The blueshifted Halpha component originates from an erupting prominence, not chromospheric evaporation or reconnection outflows
    Authors argue from solar analogies, but no direct imaging confirms the prominence (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Solar prominence density relations (N2-ne and ne/nH) apply to M dwarf prominences
    Used in Appendix D, Eqs. D10-D12, to convert column density and volume to mass.
  • ad hoc to paper The prominence expands as a sphere with radius derived from the projected area
    Appendix D, 'Assuming that the prominence expands into a spherical volume'; no constraint on the line-of-sight depth.
  • domain assumption Background chromospheric radiation can be neglected after reference subtraction
    Two-cloud model in Appendix C does not include background radiation; fits the difference spectrum only.
  • ad hoc to paper The factor 1/4 in Eq. D9 is the correct conversion from Halpha EW to luminosity
    No derivation or citation is given for this divisor, yet it scales the area and mass estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Extreme Stellar Prominence Eruption Observed by LAMOST Time-Domain Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CXGJPW2M

@misc{pith2026241111076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Extreme Stellar Prominence Eruption Observed by LAMOST Time-Domain Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CXGJPW2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11076}
}
abstract

We report the detection of an extreme stellar prominence eruption on the M dwarf LAMOST J044431.62+235627.9, observed through time-domain H$\alpha$ spectroscopy with the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST). This prominence eruption was accompanied by a superflare lasting over 160.4 minutes. The H$\alpha$ line profile exhibits significant blue-wing enhancement during the impulsive phase and near the flare peak, with a projected bulk blueshift velocity of $-228\pm11$~km~s$^{-1}$ and a maximum blueshift velocity reaching $-605\pm15$~km~s$^{-1}$. Velocity analysis of the eruptive prominence at various heights above the stellar surface indicates that some of the projected ejection velocities along the line of sight exceed the corresponding escape velocities, suggesting a potential coronal mass ejection (CME). The equivalent width (EW) of the H$\alpha$ blue-wing enhancement in this eruption appears to be the largest observed to date and is comparable to the EW of the H$\alpha$ line profile during the quiescent phase of the host star. We performed a two-cloud modeling for the prominence and the associated flare, which suggests that the eruptive prominence has a mass ranging from $1.6 \times 10^{19}~\text{g}$ to $7.2 \times 10^{19}~\text{g}$. More importantly, the mass ratio of the erupting prominence to its host star is the largest among all reported stellar prominence eruptions/CMEs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11076 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the Hα line profile during a superflare on the M-type dwarf LAMOST J044431.62+235627.9. Panel (A) shows the normalized Hα line profiles, with different colors representing spectra observed at different times. Panel (B) presents the time evolution of the Hα equivalent width. Panel (C) illustrates the difference between the integrated fluxes of the blue wing (6552.6 – 6564.6 ˚A; Hα blue) and red wing (656… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gaussian fitting for the Hα line profiles. The yellow star-dashed lines represent the normalized Hα line profiles with the reference spectrum subtracted, and the red solid lines show the results of single or double Gaussian fitting. The blue and green dashed lines represent the two Gaussian components. The vertical gray dotted line in each panel marks the rest wavelength of the Hα line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Doppler velocity evolution of the blue- and red-shifted Gaussian components in the Hα line profiles. Panel (A) shows the ejection distances of the blue-shifted components corresponding to the bulk blue-shift (blue solid circles) and maximum blue-shift velocities (blue squares) within each 20-minute spectral exposure. The sky-blue shaded area represents the possible ejection distances of the prominence plasma, where … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Statistical analysis of blue-wing asymmetry in the Hα line during stellar flares. The x-axis represents the ratio of the EW of the blue-wing component of the most prominent asymmetric Hα line profile to the EW of the Hα line profile at the same time (Hα EW blue/Hα EW e…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fitting the most asymmetric Hα line profile using the two-cloud model. Panel (A) shows the fitting result, where the yellow star-dashed line represents the normalized Hα line profile with the reference spectrum subtracted, and the blue dashed line shows the two-cloud m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, SoPh, 289, 4117, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0559-x

    Ahn, K., Chae, J., Cho, K.-S., et al. 2014, SoPh, 289, 4117, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0559-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0559-x 2014

  2. [2]

    2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2719

    Danchi, W. 2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2719

    doi:10.1038/ngeo2719 2016

  3. [3]

    2020, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 62, 014016, doi: 10.1088/1361-6587/ab5406

    Antolin, P. 2020, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 62, 014016, doi: 10.1088/1361-6587/ab5406

    doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ab5406 2020

  4. [4]

    J., et al

    Argiroffi, C., Reale, F., Drake, J. J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0781-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0781-4 2019

  5. [5]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1928

    Cao, D., & Gu, S. 2024, ApJ, 963, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1928

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1928 2024

  6. [6]

    2022a, ApJ, 933, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739b

    Chen, H., Tian, H., Li, H., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 933, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac739b

  7. [7]

    2022b, A&A, 659, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142093

    Chen, H., Tian, H., Li, L., et al. 2022b, A&A, 659, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142093

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142093

  8. [8]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 2011

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 908, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty212

    Fang, X.-S., Zhao, G., Zhao, J.-K., & Bharat Kumar, Y. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 908, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty212

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Forbes, T. G. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 23153, doi: 10.1029/2000JA000005

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    Fuhrmeister, B., Czesla, S., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732204 12 Gaia Collaboration, Babusiaux, C., van Leeuwen, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832843

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2010, Sun and Geosphere, 5, 7

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

    2010

  6. [14]

    M., Dun, J

    Gu, X. M., Dun, J. P., & Zhong, S. H. 2001, A&A, 380, 704, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011251

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, AJ, 165, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd1ec

    Pascucci, I., & L´ opez-Morales, M. 2023, AJ, 165, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd1ec

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Davenport, J

    Hawley, S. L., Davenport, J. R. A., Kowalski, A. F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/121

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 62, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy055

    Honda, S., Notsu, Y., Namekata, K., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 62, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy055

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Li, Y., Fang, C., & Cao, W

    Hong, J., Ding, M. D., Li, Y., Fang, C., & Cao, W. 2014, ApJ, 792, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/13

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Foing, B

    Houdebine, E. R., Foing, B. H., & Rodono, M. 1990, A&A, 238, 249

    1990

  12. [20]

    J., Poppenh¨ ager, K., et al

    Ilin, E., Schmidt, S. J., Poppenh¨ ager, K., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039198

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7e8

    Inoue, S., Maehara, H., Notsu, Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7e8

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    B., Enoto, T., et al

    Inoue, S., Iwakiri, W. B., Enoto, T., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 969, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5667

    doi

  15. [23]

    2024b, PASJ, 76, 175, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae001

    Inoue, S., Enoto, T., Namekata, K., et al. 2024b, PASJ, 76, 175, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae001

    doi

  16. [24]

    Schrijver, C. J. 2022, ApJ, 928, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac589b

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Lin, J., et al

    Ko, Y.-K., Raymond, J. C., Lin, J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 1068, doi: 10.1086/376982

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, A&A, 646, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039003

    Koller, F., Leitzinger, M., Temmer, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039003

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    C., et al

    Labrosse, N., Heinzel, P., Vial, J. C., et al. 2010, SSRv, 151, 243, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9630-6

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 205, 1, doi: 10.2298/SAJ2205001L

    Leitzinger, M., & Odert, P. 2022, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 205, 1, doi: 10.2298/SAJ2205001L

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 1486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1404

    Leitzinger, M., Odert, P., & Greimel, R. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 1486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1404

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2011, A&A, 536, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015985

    Leitzinger, M., Odert, P., Ribas, I., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015985

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    P., & Song, H.-Q

    Li, L.-P., Peter, H., Chitta, L. P., & Song, H.-Q. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 255, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/10/255

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    D., Hong, J., Li, H., & Gan, W

    Li, Y., Ding, M. D., Hong, J., Li, H., & Gan, W. Q. 2019, ApJ, 879, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab245a

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Qiu, J., & Cheng, J

    Li, Y., Ding, M. D., Qiu, J., & Cheng, J. X. 2015, ApJ, 811, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/7

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    C., Ding, M

    Li, Y., Xue, J. C., Ding, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJL, 853, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa6c0

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    C., & van Ballegooijen, A

    Lin, J., Raymond, J. C., & van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2004, ApJ, 602, 422, doi: 10.1086/380900

    2004 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, Host Stars and their Effects on Exoplanet

    Linsky, J. 2019, Host Stars and their Effects on Exoplanet

    2019

  29. [37]

    955, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-11452-7

    Atmospheres, Vol. 955, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-11452-7

    doi

  30. [38]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.07210, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2005.07210

    Liu, C., Fu, J., Shi, J., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.07210, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2005.07210

    2020 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 075, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/75

    Liu, N., Fu, J.-N., Zong, W., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 075, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/75

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Loyd, R. O. P., Mason, J. P., Jin, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac80c1

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, A&A, 663, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142909

    Lu, H.-p., Tian, H., Zhang, L.-y., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142909

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd6a1

    Lu, H.-p., Tian, H., Chen, H.-c., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd6a1

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Zhang, H.-T., Zhao, Y.-H., et al

    Luo, A. L., Zhang, H.-T., Zhao, Y.-H., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1243, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/004

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al

    Luo, A. L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    2015, Earth, Planets and Space, 67, 59, doi: 10.1186/s40623-015-0217-z

    Maehara, H., Shibayama, T., Notsu, Y., et al. 2015, Earth, Planets and Space, 67, 59, doi: 10.1186/s40623-015-0217-z

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 44, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa098

    Maehara, H., Notsu, Y., Namekata, K., et al. 2021, PASJ, 73, 44, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa098

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    Hock, R. A. 2014, ApJ, 789, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/61

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    O., & Dennis, B

    Milligan, R. O., & Dennis, B. R. 2009, ApJ, 699, 968, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/968

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

    Keenan, F. P. 2006, ApJL, 642, L169, doi: 10.1086/504592

    2006 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, A&A, 686, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347924

    Mohan, A., Mondal, S., Wedemeyer, S., & Gopalswamy, N. 2024, A&A, 686, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347924

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Cohen, O., et al

    Moschou, S.-P., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b37

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    W., Mutabazi, T., & Jurua, E

    Muheki, P., Guenther, E. W., Mutabazi, T., & Jurua, E. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3152

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 241, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01532-8

    Namekata, K., Maehara, H., Honda, S., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 241, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01532-8

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    S., Petit, P., et al

    Namekata, K., Airapetian, V. S., Petit, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7c

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    F., Maehara, H., et al

    Notsu, Y., Kowalski, A. F., Maehara, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad062f

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    Oliver, R., Soler, R., Terradas, J., & Zaqarashvili, T. V. 2016, ApJ, 818, 128, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/128

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad24ec 13

    Otsu, T., & Asai, A. 2024, ApJ, 964, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad24ec 13

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2001, A&A, 374, 1108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010697

    Peter, H. 2001, A&A, 374, 1108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010697

    2001 doi

  51. [59]

    1971, SoPh, 18, 391, doi: 10.1007/BF00149061

    Tandberg-Hanssen, E. 1971, SoPh, 18, 391, doi: 10.1007/BF00149061

    1971 doi

  52. [60]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    2013, ApJS, 209, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5

    Shibayama, T., Maehara, H., Notsu, S., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Kowalski, A

    Silverberg, S. M., Kowalski, A. F., Davenport, J. R. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 129, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/129

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    1995, The nature of solar prominences, Vol

    Tandberg-Hanssen, E. 1995, The nature of solar prominences, Vol. 199, doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-3396-0

    1995 doi

  56. [64]

    W., De Pontieu, B., et al

    Tian, H., McIntosh, S. W., De Pontieu, B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/18

    2011 doi

  57. [65]

    2023, SCIENTIA SINICA Technologica, 53, 2021, doi: 10.1360/SST-2022-0212

    Tian, H., Xu, Y., Chen, H., et al. 2023, SCIENTIA SINICA Technologica, 53, 2021, doi: 10.1360/SST-2022-0212

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    R., Reeves, K

    Tian, H., Young, P. R., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/139

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al

    Veronig, A. M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01345-9

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    2019, A&A, 623, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834264

    Vida, K., Leitzinger, M., Kriskovics, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834264

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    2016, A&A, 590, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527925

    Vida, K., Kriskovics, L., Ol´ ah, K., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527925

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    2024, Universe, 10, 313, doi: 10.3390/universe10080313

    Vida, K., K˝ ov´ ari, Z., Leitzinger, M., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 313, doi: 10.3390/universe10080313

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    P., Li, H

    Wang, J., Xin, L. P., Li, H. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac096f

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    L., Chen, J

    Wang, R., Luo, A. L., Chen, J. J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3cc0

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Hawley, S

    West, A. A., Hawley, S. L., Walkowicz, L. M., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 426, doi: 10.1086/421364

    2004 doi

  66. [74]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5897

    Wu, Y., Chen, H., Tian, H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5897

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    D., Tian, H., et al

    Xu, Y., Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Tian, H., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 971, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5845

    doi

  68. [76]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac69d5

    Xu, Y., Tian, H., Hou, Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac69d5

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    M., & Dissauer, K

    Xu, Y., Tian, H., Veronig, A. M., & Dissauer, K. 2024b, ApJ, 970, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad500b

    doi

  70. [78]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a44

    Yang, Z., Tian, H., Zhu, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a44

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6607

    Yang, Z., Tian, H., Bai, X., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6607

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    2021, ApJS, 256, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    Zhang, B., Li, J., Yang, F., et al. 2021, ApJS, 256, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

  74. [82]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abca90

    Zic, A., Murphy, T., Lynch, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abca90

    2020 doi

  75. [83]

    2020, ApJS, 251, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abbb2d

    Zong, W., Fu, J.-N., De Cat, P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abbb2d

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.