Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Coronal dimmings from active region 13664 during the May 2024 solar energetic events

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that within a single active region, dimming area and area growth rate track flare peak flux and fluence more tightly than in the general population, and that coronagraph-only CME speeds underestimate the dimming–CME link.

desk verdict A genuinely new single-AR dimming dataset and a reproducible selection tool, but the comparative claim of enhanced correlations over the general population is not yet controlled for the data-dependent threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04818 v1 pith:DLTBZJAV submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.SR

Amaia Razquin , Astrid M. Veronig , Karin Dissauer , Tatiana Podladchikova , Shantanu Jain This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords coronaldimmingsactiveregionAR13664May2024solarstormsflaresmassejectionsGOESsoftX-rayfluxdimmingareagrowthrateEUVimaging
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

Coronal dimmings are temporary darkenings of the Sun's corona in extreme-ultraviolet images, produced when plasma is evacuated during a coronal mass ejection. This paper argues that, within one hyperactive active region (AR 13664 during May 2024), the size of a dimming and how fast it grows are quantitative signatures of the energy released by the accompanying flare and of the speed the ejected plasma will reach. Across 16 on-disc dimmings, total dimming area and area growth rate correlate with GOES soft X-ray peak flux and fluence more strongly than in the general dimming population, because the events share the same magnetic environment. The paper also claims that coronagraph-only CME speeds, which miss the lower corona, systematically weaken the dimming–CME correlation; including EUV observations of the low corona restores it. If these claims hold, dimmings become a practical tool for estimating flare energy and early CME strength from EUV images alone, including for Earth-directed events.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the cumulative dimming mask built by logarithmic base-ratio thresholding of SDO/AIA 211 Å images at $\log_{10}(I/I_0) \le -0.19$, from which the paper derives the time evolution of dimming area $A(t)$, area growth rate $\dot{A}(t)$, magnetic area $A_\phi(t)$, unsigned magnetic flux $\phi(t)$, and brightness drop $I_{\rm drop}(t)$. The load-bearing selection rule is Eq. (2): a detection counts as a real coronal dimming only if its mean area growth rate during the first hour after flare onset exceeds $1.8\times10^{6}$ km$^{2}$ s$^{-1}$, equivalent to $\Delta A \ge 6.48\times10^{9}$ km$^{2}$; this threshold comes from a superposed-epoch analysis of events visually classified into clear, complicated, unclear, and absent dimmings. The threshold turns the 67 M/X-class flares into the 16 on-disc events whose log-log correlations with flare and CME parameters carry the paper's conclusions.

What would settle it

Take the 62-event comparison sample, apply the same selection used here—only flares of GOES class ≥M1.0 and only events whose first-hour mean area growth rate exceeds $1.8\times10^{6}$ km$^{2}$ s$^{-1}$—and recompute the correlations of total dimming area with GOES peak flux and fluence; if the coefficients do not rise toward the paper's values ($c \approx 0.78$ and $0.68$), the claimed single-AR enhancement is a selection artifact rather than a physical effect. Alternatively, a single visually unambiguous dimming associated with a fast CME that fails the growth-rate threshold would falsify the threshold's role as the discriminator of real dimmings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a single active region the relation between dimmings and their parent flares is much tighter than in the wider dimming population, and the extra amount of correlation is physically informative rather than incidental. For the 16 on-disc dimmings from AR 13664, total dimming area $A$ correlates with GOES peak soft X-ray flux $F_P$ at $c = 0.78 \pm 0.12$ (compared with $c = 0.53 \pm 0.07$ for the comparison sample), and the magnetic dimming area $A_\phi$ reaches $c = 0.84 \pm 0.08$ with $F_P$; similar enhancement appears for flare fluence and for the area growth rate. The paper further shows that when CME maximum velocities are taken only from SOHO/LASCO coronagraphs the correlations with dimming parameters drop (for the comparison sample, from $c \approx 0.56$–$0.69$ with EUV-inclusive velocities to $c \approx 0.36$–$0.41$ with LASCO-only velocities), demonstrating that coronagraphs underestimate the dimming–CME link because they miss the early acceleration phase below about $2\,R_\odot$. It also finds that AR 13664's very strong magnetic fields suppress eruptions: only 23% of its M-class flares (and 83% of its X-class flares) were accompanied by CMEs, well below the general M-class association rate of roughly 60%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the visual classification of detections into clear, complicated, unclear, and absent dimmings is an unbiased ground truth, so that the derived threshold—an average area growth rate above $1.8\times10^{6}$ km$^{2}$ s$^{-1}$ within the first hour—separates true plasma-depletion dimmings from unrelated EUV darkenings; if that premise fails, the selection of the 16 on-disc events and the correlations built on them become partly a selection artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dimming area and area growth rate, measured from full-disc EUV images, can be used as quantitative proxies for GOES soft X-ray peak flux and fluence, at least for events from a single active region.
  • Magnetic dimming area and its growth rate can serve as early indicators of maximum CME speed, provided the CME kinematics include the low corona rather than only coronagraph data.
  • Coronagraph-only CME catalogues systematically weaken dimming–CME correlations because they miss the acceleration phase below about $2\,R_\odot$; future studies should combine EUV and coronagraphic measurements.
  • Flare–CME association rates are not universal: in AR 13664 only 23% of M-class flares and 83% of X-class flares had CMEs, reflecting strong magnetic confinement, so global rates should not be applied to individual active regions.
  • The same dimming diagnostics are relevant to stellar CME searches, where strong-field active regions may bias the detectability of stellar eruptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference beyond the paper: part of the claimed enhancement over the comparison sample could be a selection effect, because the first-hour growth-rate threshold removes the slow-growing dimmings that would add scatter to the area–flux relation; applying the identical threshold to the comparison sample would test this.
  • Inference beyond the paper: if the single-AR correlations are physical, then global statistical samples are diluted by mixing different magnetic environments, and future dimming–flare correlations should be stratified by active-region magnetic flux or include region identity as a covariate.
  • Inference beyond the paper: the growth-rate threshold suggests an operational early-warning test—flag a ≥M1 flare once an EUV region grows by $6.48\times10^{9}$ km$^{2}$ within an hour—and this could be validated in real time against LASCO CME speeds.
  • Inference beyond the paper: a direct check of the coronagraph-underestimation claim for the May 2024 events would be to compare LASCO-based $v_{\max}$ correlations with velocities reconstructed from STEREO-A EUVI plus COR data, even at the limited 12° separation available.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic study of coronal dimmings associated with flares and CMEs from active region 13664 during 2024 May 1–15. The authors identify 67 M- and X-class flares, 23 CMEs, and 22 dimming detections (16 on-disc), and derive characteristic dimming parameters (area, area growth rate, magnetic flux, brightness drop) using the Dissauer et al. detection and parameterization framework. They compare correlations between dimming parameters and GOES flare peak flux, fluence, and CME maximum velocity with the statistical sample of Dissauer et al. (2018b, 2019), finding enhanced correlations for the single-AR sample and arguing that LASCO-based CME velocities underestimate the true correlations because they miss the early acceleration phase. The central claims are that dimming area and area growth rate are tighter proxies for flare energy release in a single active region than in the general population, and that coronal dimmings capture low-corona CME dynamics better than coronagraphs.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides quantitative support for using coronal dimming area and growth rate as proxies for flare energy release and as early indicators of CME speed, with potential application to stellar CME studies. The single-AR sample is a valuable complement to the multi-AR statistical studies, and the careful uncertainty estimation via threshold variation and bootstrapping is a strength. However, the significance is moderated by two load-bearing concerns: the dimming sample is selected by a threshold derived from the same dataset, and the comparison with the KD18 sample is not controlled for that differential selection; additionally, the tables that are needed to reproduce the correlations contain inconsistent event numbering. These issues must be resolved before the claimed enhancements can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (2)] The selection threshold on the first-hour mean area growth rate (Eq. 2) is derived from a superposed epoch analysis of the very same 67 flares (Fig. 4) and is then applied to that same sample to define the 16 on-disc dimmings. The KD18 comparison sample was selected by a different visual pre-selection procedure and includes B/C-class flares. Since the threshold truncates the sample on the area growth rate, the reported enhancements of the correlations involving A and \dot{A} relative to KD18 could be partly a selection artifact. The paper acknowledges in Sect. 5.3 that 'a preselection step was necessary', but it does not quantify the effect on the comparison. Please add a robustness test, for example by applying an analogous growth-rate threshold to the KD18 sample (if the time series allow) or by recomputing the KD18 correlations on the M1.0+ subsample, and by reporting the correlations obtained with and without the threshold for the May 2024 full detection set.
  2. [Section 4.2, Fig. 5(b)] The abstract claims stronger correlations with both GOES peak flux and fluence. For the headline pair A vs F_T, the evidence does not support an enhancement: the May 2024 correlation is c = 0.68 ± 0.10 versus c = 0.67 ± 0.06 for KD18, which are indistinguishable within the quoted uncertainties. The paper reports bootstrap error bars but never performs a formal test of the difference between the two correlation coefficients. Please add a formal comparison (e.g., Fisher z-transform or bootstrap of the difference) for all pairs where an enhancement is claimed, and state explicitly which differences are statistically significant and which are not.
  3. [Tables A.1 and B.1] The event numbering in Table B.1 does not match Table A.1. For example, Table B.1 lists N=4 as a dimming event on May 5 at 14:33 UT, but Table A.1 N=4 corresponds to a flare on May 5 at 09:23 UT with no dimming, while the 14:33 UT dimming is N=5 in Table A.1. Similar mismatches occur for other rows (e.g., B.1 N=27 appears to correspond to A.1 N=25). This inconsistency makes it impossible for a reader to associate the tabulated dimming parameters with the correct flare and CME properties, and casts doubt on the reproducibility of all correlation results that use these parameters. Please correct the tables and verify that the analysis code and figures used the correct event pairings.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption uses 'pink' for the category that the text in Sect. 3.3 calls 'magenta'; please harmonize the terminology.
  2. [Section 4.4] Typo: 'coronagrapo- hic' should be 'coronagraphic' in the sentence about the coronagraphic field of view.
  3. [Section 2.2] Minor grammatical issue: 'The data was rebinned' should be 'The data were rebinned'.
  4. [Table B.1] The column header 'Flare Start' would be clearer as 'Flare Start (UT)'.
  5. [References] The reference to Veronig et al. (2025) as 'under review' should be updated if the Living Reviews article has been accepted or published by the time of publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the selection threshold is a methodological choice and the KD18 baseline is an external published dataset.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: detect dimmings with a fixed log-ratio threshold (-0.19); extract dimming parameters following Dissauer et al. (2018a); apply a selection criterion (Eq. 2) to exclude false detections; compute Pearson correlations for the selected 16 on-disc dimmings; and compare with the published KD18 sample. None of these steps defines a target quantity in terms of an input. The Eq. (2) threshold is derived from a superposed epoch analysis of the same 67 flares, and applying it only to the May 2024 sample could bias the KD18 comparison. However, the reported correlations are not fixed by the threshold by construction; they are empirical measurements on the filtered sample. The paper explicitly acknowledges the preselection step in Sect. 5.3, which is a statistical limitation, not a circular reduction. The KD18 comparison uses a published, externally falsifiable dataset from 2010-2012. Although the same research group is involved, those data are independent of the May 2024 fitted values and do not constitute a self-citation chain that forces the conclusion. Self-citations supply the detection algorithm and comparison baseline, but the core correlations are computed from new observations. Therefore no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its main borrowed inputs are the detection threshold from previous work and the physically motivated mass-depletion interpretation; the one paper-specific free parameter is the first-hour area growth threshold that selects the sample.

free parameters (1)
  • Dimming selection threshold on first-hour area growth rate = 1.8x10^6 km2/s (equivalent to area gain of 6.48x10^9 km2 within one hour)
    Chosen from a superposed epoch analysis of the same events and their visual classification into real/false dimmings (Sect. 3.3, Eq. 2). The threshold is not derived from first principles or pre-registered, so it acts as a free parameter that defines the sample used for all subsequent correlations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption EUV 211 Å brightness decreases in the identified regions are caused by plasma density depletion (mass loss) rather than by temperature changes or cool ejecta.
    Used throughout to interpret detections as coronal dimmings; introduced in Sect. 1 with references to prior spectroscopy and differential emission measure work. The paper itself removes one event (M2.7 on May 2) because its darkening was due to cool ejecta, showing the assumption is load-bearing (Sect. 3.3).
  • domain assumption The detection algorithm and parameter definitions from Dissauer et al. (2018a) are directly transferable to a highly active, large active region without recalibration, enabling the quantitative comparison of parameter distributions and correlations between the two samples.
    The paper states 'the analysis and detection methods are identical' (Sect. 3.4) and relies on this to compare AR 13664 dimmings with the KD18 population. If the transferability fails, the reported enhancements could be methodological artifacts.
  • standard math Pearson correlation in log-log space with bootstrapped errors is an adequate statistical framework for comparing correlation strengths between the two datasets.
    Used in Sect. 3.4; the paper does not apply a formal test for the difference between two correlation coefficients from independent samples, which weakens the comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2-hour analysis window and manual stops at subsequent flares do not systematically truncate the dimming evolution for most events.
    The paper notes that for some events a subsequent flare occurred earlier than 2 hr, and the detection was stopped at the start of the subsequent flare (Sect. 2.2); this truncation could bias parameter values for closely spaced events.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coronal dimmings from active region 13664 during the May 2024 solar energetic events." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLTBZJAV

@misc{pith2026250604818,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coronal dimmings from active region 13664 during the May 2024 solar energetic events},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLTBZJAV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04818}
}
read the original abstract

Coronal dimmings are regions of transiently reduced brightness in extreme ultraviolet (EUV) and soft X-ray (SXR) emissions associated with coronal mass ejections (CMEs), providing key insights into CME initiation and early evolution. During May 2024, AR 13664 was among the most flare-productive regions in recent decades, generating 55 M-class and 12 X-class flares along with multiple Earth-directed CMEs. The rapid succession of these CMEs triggered the most intense geomagnetic storm in two decades. We study coronal dimmings from a single active region (AR 13664) and compare them with statistical dimming properties. We investigate how coronal dimming parameters - such as area, brightness, and magnetic flux - relate to key flare and CME properties. We systematically identified all flares above M1.0, all coronal dimmings and all CMEs (from the CDAW SOHO/LASCO catalogue) produced by AR 13664 during 2024 May 1 - 15, and studied the associations between the different phenomena and their characteristic parameters. We detect coronal dimmings in 22 events, with 16 occurring on-disc and six off-limb. Approximately 83% of X-class flares and 23% of M-class flares are associated with CMEs, with 13 out of 16 on-disc dimmings linked to CME activity. Our results support the strong interplay between coronal dimmings and flares, as we find increased correlations between flare and dimming parameters in this single-AR study compared to the general dimming population. Furthermore, we confirm that coronagraphic observations, unable to observe the lower corona, underestimate correlations between CME velocities and dimming parameters, as they fail to capture the early CME acceleration phase. This highlights the critical role of dimming observations in providing a more comprehensive understanding of CME dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04818 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GOES SXR peak flux of M- and X-class flares from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the evolution of the X1.1 flare and associated dimming on 2024 May 9 (no. 29). Top row: SDO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time evolution of selected dimming parameters for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Idrop(t) is calculated as the sum of the brightness in base￾difference units of the pixels within the dimming mask. Thus, it represents how much the intensity decreases with respect to the pre-event image within the dimming region. The brightness drop rate ˙Idrop; that…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Superposed epoch analysis of selected dimming param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as Fig. 5 but for the magnetic dimming area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dimming area A against (a) the GOES SXR peak flux FP and (b) the GOES SXR fluence FT . Blue crosses represent dimmings from the May 2024 events, while grey crosses corre￾spond to dimming events from Dissauer et al. (2018b). The black (blue) regression lines are fitted …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as Fig. 5 but for the total unsigned magnetic flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as Fig. 5 but for the dimming area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as Fig. 5 but for the negative magnetic flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as Fig. 5 but for the total unsigned magnetic flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Correlation plots of the CME maximum velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aschwanden , M. J. 2016, , 831, 105

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Aschwanden , M. J. 2017, , 847, 27

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    S., Harra , L

    Attrill , G., Nakwacki , M. S., Harra , L. K., et al. 2006, , 238, 117

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Attrill , G. D. R., van Driel-Gesztelyi , L., D \'e moulin , P., et al. 2008, , 252, 349

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Attrill, G. D. R. & Wills-Davey, M. J. 2010, Solar Physics, 262, 461

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    M., Berkebile-Stoiser , S., Veronig , A

    Bein , B. M., Berkebile-Stoiser , S., Veronig , A. M., et al. 2011, , 738, 191

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    A., & Brown , D

    Bewsher , D., Harrison , R. A., & Brown , D. S. 2008, , 478, 897

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    T., Hundhausen , A

    Burkepile , J. T., Hundhausen , A. J., Stanger , A. L., St. Cyr , O. C., & Seiden , J. A. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A03103

    work page 2004

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Carrington , R. C. 1859, , 20, 13

  2. [10]

    Chikunova , G., Dissauer , K., Podladchikova , T., & Veronig , A. M. 2020, , 896, 17

    2020

  3. [11]

    2023, , 678, A166

    Chikunova , G., Podladchikova , T., Dissauer , K., et al. 2023, , 678, A166

    2023

  4. [12]

    M., Temmer , M., & Podladchikova , T

    Dissauer , K., Veronig , A. M., Temmer , M., & Podladchikova , T. 2019, , 874, 123

    2019

  5. [13]

    M., Temmer , M., Podladchikova , T., & Vanninathan , K

    Dissauer , K., Veronig , A. M., Temmer , M., Podladchikova , T., & Vanninathan , K. 2018 a , , 855, 137

    2018

  6. [14]

    M., Temmer , M., Podladchikova , T., & Vanninathan , K

    Dissauer , K., Veronig , A. M., Temmer , M., Podladchikova , T., & Vanninathan , K. 2018 b , , 863, 169

    2018

  7. [15]

    2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 295

    Gopalswamy , N., Yashiro , S., Michalek , G., et al. 2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 295

    2009

  8. [16]

    Harra , L. K. & Sterling , A. C. 2001, , 561, L215

    2001

  9. [17]

    2025, , 979, 49

    Hayakawa , H., Ebihara , Y., Mishev , A., et al. 2025, , 979, 49

    2025

  10. [18]

    S., Acton , L

    Hudson , H. S., Acton , L. W., & Freeland , S. L. 1996, , 470, 629

    1996

  11. [19]

    Jain, S., Podladchikova, T., Chikunova, G., Dissauer, K., & Veronig, A. M. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A15

    2024

  12. [20]

    M., et al

    Jain , S., Podladchikova , T., Veronig , A. M., et al. 2024, , 692, A214

    2024

  13. [21]

    W., Green , L

    James , A. W., Green , L. M., Palmerio , E., et al. 2017, , 292, 71

    2017

  14. [22]

    M., Purkhart , S., Zhang , P., & Rempel , M

    Jarolim , R., Veronig , A. M., Purkhart , S., Zhang , P., & Rempel , M. 2024, , 976, L12

    2024

  15. [23]

    Jin , M., Cheung , M. C. M., DeRosa , M. L., et al. 2020, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 354, Solar and Stellar Magnetic Fields: Origins and Manifestations, ed. A. Kosovichev , S. Strassmeier , & M. Jardine , 426--432

    2020

  16. [24]

    D., Chen , P

    Jin , M., Ding , M. D., Chen , P. F., Fang , C., & Imada , S. 2009, , 702, 27

    2009

  17. [25]

    K., Martinis , C., Daniell , R

    Karan , D. K., Martinis , C., Daniell , R. E., et al. 2024, ESS Open Archive eprints, 428, 171805504.42893378

    2024

  18. [26]

    2024, , 965, L5

    Karimov , K., Lee , H., Jeong , H.-J., et al. 2024, , 965, L5

    2024

  19. [27]

    D., Lynch , B

    Kazachenko , M. D., Lynch , B. J., Welsch , B. T., & Sun , X. 2017, , 845, 49

    2017

  20. [28]

    D., Manning , D., & West , M

    Krista , L. D., Manning , D., & West , M. J. 2022, , 930, 165

    2022

  21. [29]

    Krista , L. D. & Reinard , A. A. 2017, , 839, 50

    2017

  22. [30]

    R., Title , A

    Lemen , J. R., Title , A. M., Akin , D. J., et al. 2012, , 275, 17

    2012

  23. [31]

    2021, , 917, L29

    Li , T., Chen , A., Hou , Y., et al. 2021, , 917, L29

    2021

  24. [32]

    Loyd , R. O. P., Mason , J. P., Jin , M., et al. 2022, , 936, 170

    2022

  25. [33]

    H., Nakwacki , M

    Mandrini , C. H., Nakwacki , M. S., Attrill , G., et al. 2007, , 244, 25

    2007

  26. [34]

    P., Woods , T

    Mason , J. P., Woods , T. N., Webb , D. F., et al. 2016, , 830, 20

    2016

  27. [35]

    M., Temmer , M., M \"o stl , C., & Biernat , H

    Miklenic , C., Veronig , A. M., Temmer , M., M \"o stl , C., & Biernat , H. K. 2011, , 273, 125

    2011

  28. [36]

    Parker , W. E. & Linares , R. 2024, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 61, 1412

    2024

  29. [37]

    D., Thompson , B

    Pesnell , W. D., Thompson , B. J., & Chamberlin , P. C. 2012, , 275, 3

    2012

  30. [38]

    M., et al

    Podladchikova , T., Jain , S., Veronig , A. M., et al. 2024, , 691, A344

    2024

  31. [39]

    & Yurchyshyn , V

    Qiu , J. & Yurchyshyn , V. B. 2005, , 634, L121

    2005

  32. [40]

    Reinard , A. A. & Biesecker , D. A. 2009, , 705, 914

    2009

  33. [41]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 973, L31

    Romano, P., Elmhamdi, A., Marassi, A., & Contarino, L. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 973, L31

    2024

  34. [42]

    M., Chikunova , G., Dissauer , K., Podladchikova , T., & Veronig , A

    Ronca , G. M., Chikunova , G., Dissauer , K., Podladchikova , T., & Veronig , A. M. 2024, , 691, A195

    2024

  35. [43]

    H., Schou , J., Bush , R

    Scherrer , P. H., Schou , J., Bush , R. I., et al. 2012, , 275, 207

    2012

  36. [44]

    H., Bush , R

    Schou , J., Scherrer , P. H., Bush , R. I., et al. 2012, , 275, 229

    2012

  37. [45]

    2024, Annals of Geophysics, 67, PA218

    Spogli, L., Alberti, T., Bagiacchi, P., et al. 2024, Annals of Geophysics, 67, PA218

    2024

  38. [46]

    Sterling , A. C. & Hudson , H. S. 1997, , 491, L55

    1997

  39. [47]

    G., Hoeksema , J

    Sun , X., Bobra , M. G., Hoeksema , J. T., et al. 2015, , 804, L28

    2015

  40. [48]

    K., Su , Y., Temmer , M., & Veronig , A

    Thalmann , J. K., Su , Y., Temmer , M., & Veronig , A. M. 2015, , 801, L23

    2015

  41. [49]

    J., Cliver , E

    Thompson , B. J., Cliver , E. W., Nitta , N., Delann \'e e , C., & Delaboudini \`e re , J. P. 2000, , 27, 1431

    2000

  42. [50]

    J., Plunkett , S

    Thompson , B. J., Plunkett , S. P., Gurman , J. B., et al. 1998, , 25, 2465

    1998

  43. [51]

    A., Shugai , Y

    Vakhrusheva , A. A., Shugai , Y. S., Kaportseva , K. B., Eremeev , V. E., & Kalegaev , V. V. 2024, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 64, 1

    2024

  44. [52]

    M., Dissauer , K., & Temmer , M

    Vanninathan , K., Veronig , A. M., Dissauer , K., & Temmer , M. 2018, , 857, 62

    2018

  45. [53]

    M., Dissauer , K., Kliem , B., et al

    Veronig , A. M., Dissauer , K., Kliem , B., et al. 2025, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, under review

    2025

  46. [54]

    M., G \"o m \"o ry , P., Dissauer , K., Temmer , M., & Vanninathan , K

    Veronig , A. M., G \"o m \"o ry , P., Dissauer , K., Temmer , M., & Vanninathan , K. 2019, , 879, 85

    2019

  47. [55]

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

    Veronig , A. M., Odert , P., Leitzinger , M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 697

    2021

  48. [56]

    Veronig , A. M. & Polanec , W. 2015, , 290, 2923

    2015

  49. [57]

    Wall, J. V. & Jenkins, C. R. 2012, Practical Statistics for Astronomers (Cambridge University Press)

    2012

  50. [58]

    Yashiro, S., Akiyama, S., Gopalswamy, N., & Howard, R. A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 650, L143

    2006

  51. [59]

    2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A07105

    Yashiro , S., Gopalswamy , N., Michalek , G., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A07105

    2004

  52. [60]

    M., Sterling, A

    Zarro, D. M., Sterling, A. C., Thompson, B. J., Hudson, H. S., & Nitta, N. 1999, , 520, L139

    1999

  53. [61]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  54. [62]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.