Arxiv:0710.3054V1 [Astro-Ph] 16 Oct 2007 Poland Ealdaayi Ftreﬂr-M Vnsobserved Events ﬂare-CME Three of by Analysis Detailed a H SK Aecemdl Alre L 18)Ex- (1989) the Al

arXiv:0710.3054v1 [astro-ph] 16 Oct 2007 Poland ealdaayi ftreflr-M vnsobserved events flare-CME three of by analysis detailed a h SK aeCEmdl alre l 18)ex- (1989) the al. by et observed Kahler events 35 model. with amined flare-CME inconsistent result, This CSHKP is asymmetry, the CMEs. flare-ejection associated the the a of called observed leg become events one to near flare-CME curred supposed 48 is analyzed which by also arch, He X-ray CME. an of foot nte7sad8swt h M bevtosobtained observations CME the with the 80s by and 70s the span. in of CME the center flare of the the center that the the to requires near model with corresponds CSHKP occurs associated the core thus CME the CME, the the eventu- Normally of which occurs core filament flare flare. the a erupting becomes that an ally requires of model underneath The just recon- model. Many magnetic Pneuman) nection & them. (Carmichael, Kopp CSHKP modeling Hirayama, the Sturrock, pro- for on based eruptive important are models is the flare-CME hence in and involved cess mag- configurations be- the relation field on information spatial netic contains The CMEs energy and atmosphere. free flares tween solar magnetic manifestations the releases which in different of stored process be eruption same to the an of Both thought is space. are (CME) interplanetary phenomena into ejection plasma mass atmospheric the coronal atmosphere, a solar the and in heating) plasma (suggesting tion ooarp/oaiee eecp nbadthe Mission board Maximum on telescope Coronagraph/Polarimeter 4 3 2 ulsaesuiso h aeCErltosi started relationship flare-CME the on studies Full-scale radia- electromagnetic of flash sudden is flare solar A 1 rpittpstuigL using 2021 typeset 26, Preprint June version Draft SMM aa eerhLbrtr,Wsigo,D 20375 DC Washington, Laboratory, Research Naval srnmclOsraoyo ailoinUiest,Kra 20771 University, MD Jagiellonian Greenbelt, of Observatory Center, Flight Astronomical Space Goddard NASA ahlcUiest fAeia ahntn C20064 DC Washington, America, of University Catholic SMM Solwind Ms u nigclsfracoe aeCErltosi n suppor and relationship flare-CME model. headings: closer reconnection spat Subject a magnetic detailed for CSHKP the calls the pre obtain by finding the previou to Our with from us result different enabled CMEs. our w is compared observation CME, former We LASCO The associated exists. long-term the span. site of flare CME preferred center the no freque the of that at outside t but the lie classes, that to often three found the flares is all X-class for It Many span separately. CME the flares of C-class center and M-class, X-class, evddrn 9620 nlsv.W dnie 9 aeCEpairs flare-CME meridian 496 central identified We from inclusive. 1996-2005 during served vatory ag nl n pcrmti ooarp LSO nbadth board on (LASCO) Coronagraph Spectrometric and Angle Large PTA EAINHPBTENSLRFAE N OOA MASS CORONAL AND FLARES SOLAR BETWEEN RELATIONSHIP SPATIAL and erpr ntesailrltosi ewe oa ae n coro and flares solar between relationship spatial the on report We n eotdta ae curdna one near occurred flares that reported and Solwind ( .Yashiro, S. SOHO ooarp nboard on coronagraph 1. ( SMM A INTRODUCTION T n eotdta ayflrsoc- flares many that reported and .W netgtdteflr oiin ihrsett h M pnf span CME the to respect with positions flare the investigated We ). E tl mltajv 05/04/06 v. emulateapj style X .Hrio 18)cridout carried (1986) Harrison ). u:flrs—Sn CMEs Sun: — flares Sun: 1,2 .Michalek, G. ≥ 45 Solwind ◦ ihsf -a aesize flare X-ray soft with ) P78-1 n reported and 1,2,3 rf eso ue2,2021 26, June version Draft .Akiyama, S. n the and Solar ABSTRACT kow, 1,2 ee;cnrlmrda itne(CMD) distance meridian central level; eghbn odtc oa ae.Teflr oainhas location flare wave- The H by nm flares. determined 0.1-0.8 solar been the detect in to band flux length X-ray whole-sun the serves hl alre l sdol toglm ae ( flares limb strong only span, used CME and al. criteria location, et any flare Kahler be apply intensity, while for should not X-ray criteria It did flare different Harrison on span. applied selection. preferred studies CME event two no the the the is to that there respect noted that with fact observations site CMEs. the both flare of with that Har- leg concluded compatible by one and are employed biased, at parameter was the occur rison re- that to match out the likely pointed not with are They do disagreeing flares Har- observations while that with the model, sult concurred center CSHKP that They the the point CMEs. with at the the neither at of peak leg rison not one at did nor positions flare that esr(R)o or the board Satellite Environmental on (XRS) Sensor data CME large the In using issue conclusion. by this firm obtained revisit a we reaching paper before this needed statisti- is systematic study consistent However, cal are studies.” recent asymmetry rela- many and about with locations conclusions pre-SOHO flare-CME ”the tive that a studies stated flare-CME provides several and reviewed relation- which (2006) flare-CME Harrison 1996, the ship. investigate from to CMEs opportunity great 11,000 than more bevtre n -a mgsotie ySf X-ray Soft by obtained images X-ray and observatories Ms(nua span (angular CMEs LSO reke ta.19)o or the board on Observatory 1995) Heliospheric al. et Brueckner schematic (LASCO; model. the flare-CME type with CSHKP inconsistent the were of in view studies results the the but both distributions, spatial different produce .Gopalswamy, N. oa ae r otnosymntrdb h X-ray the by monitored continuously are flares Solar h ag nl n pcrmti Coronagraph Spectrometric and Angle Large The ≥ 3lvl h Mswr eetdb the by detected were CMEs The level. C3 c sdffrn o h ieetclasses. different the for different is ncy ems rqetflr iei tthe at is site flare frequent most he SOHO iu tde n ocueta the that conclude and studies vious e ieCcasflrswdl spread widely flares C-class hile osdrn ibflrs(distance flares limb considering 2. tde,wihcnlddthat concluded which studies, s a aseetos(Ms ob- (CMEs) ejections mass nal a eainbtenflrsand flares between relation ial oa n eishrcObser- Heliospheric and Solar 2 AAADANALYSIS AND DATA n .A Howard A. R. and LASCO. seuto oestypified models eruption ts α ≥ ( mgsotie yground-base by obtained images GOES 40 ( SOHO ◦ .Dffrn rtramight criteria Different ). esainr Operational Geostationary rteeet with events the or isos h R ob- XRS The missions. ) iso a observed has mission ) EJECTIONS 4 ≥ 40 ◦ n wide and ) oa and Solar ≥ M1 2 Yashiro et al.

Fig. 1.— Three CMEs observed by SOHO LASCO to illustrate the measurement of CME span. The top row shows direct images used to measure the main CME body, and the bottom row shows corresponding running difference images used to measure the whole CMEs. φ1 and φ2 indicate the PAs of side edges of the main CME body, and φA and φB indicate those of the whole CME. Arrows point to the position of the flares associated with the CMEs. Imager (SXI) on GOES. All flares have been listed in a shock wave driven by the CME (Sheeley et al. 2000; the Solar Geophysical Data (SGD) and the online solar Vourlidas et al. 2003; Ciaravella et al. 2005), thus there event report5 compiled by NOAA Space Environment is a problem whether the envelope is a part of the CMEs Center. From the online report we selected limb flares or not (see St. Cyr 2005). However, since there is no (CMD ≥ 45◦) with soft X-ray flare size ≥ C3 level. established way to identify a shock by coronagraph ob- We used the SOHO LASCO CME Catalog6 servation itself, we have included the envelope structures (Yashiro et al. 2004) to investigate the CME asso- as a part of the CME and refer to all the CME features ciations. The CME candidates associated with a given as the whole CME. flare were searched within a 3 hr time window (90 For the comparison between flare and CME positions, minutes before and 90 minutes after the onset of the it is ideal if we could measure the position angles7 (PAs) flare). However, because the time window analysis by of the CME edges on the solar limb. The innermost itself could produce false flare-CME pairs, we checked coronagraph C1 is the best, but its data are not available the consistency of the associations by viewing both flare for the most of the CMEs. Since several CMEs did show and CME movies in the Catalog. We played movies non-radial motion (Gopalswamy et al. 2000; Zhang et al. obtained by the Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope 2004), we measured PAs of the CME edges in C2 images (EIT) on SOHO and Soft X-ray Telescope (SXT) on as close to the occulting disk as possible. Yohkoh to look for any eruptive surface activities (e.g., Figure 1 illustrates how we measured the PAs of the filament eruptions, dimmings, and arcade formations) main CME body and the whole CME. Top panels are associated with the flares. All flares can be divided into LASCO C2 images for three CMEs with the correspond- those with and without CMEs except for some in which ing running difference images (previous images are sub- the eruptive signatures were obscure. We excluded such tracted to enhance the faint structure of the CMEs) in uncertain flare-CME pairs from this analysis. From the bottom panels. The side edges of the main CME 1996 to 2005, we found 496 definitive flare-CME pairs. body (the whole CME) are denoted by φ1 and φ2 (φA A typical CME consists of a bright frontal struc- and φB ). The CME on 1997 November 14 (Figs. 1a and ture (leading edge), followed by a dark cavity, and a 1b) did not have an envelope, thus the φ1 (φ2) and φA bright core. This configuration is called the CME three- (φB) are identical. On the other hand, the CME on 2000 part structure (Illing & Hundhausen 1985; Webb 1988). June 25 had a faint envelope to the north of the main The bright core corresponds to the erupting filament CME body (Figs. 1c and 1d). Since it is hard to see it in (Webb & Hundhausen 1987; Gopalswamy et al. 2003a). print, we traced out the edge of the envelope by a dotted There is an issue whether narrow CMEs have the three- curve on Fig. 1d. The northern edge of the envelope de- part structure or not (e.g. Gilbert et al. 2001), but at noted by φB is used for the edge of the whole CME. The least for large CMEs, this structure is fundamental. In black-and-white radial features (denoted by S) at both this paper we refer to the three-part structure as the sides of the CME are a signature of streamer shift caused main CME body. Some CMEs possess a faint envelope by the expansion of the CME. We should note that we outside of the main CME body. The envelope might be did not use them for the determination of the edges of the whole CME. Since we can not see an envelope to the 5 http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpmenu/indices.html 6 http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME_list/index.html 7 PA is measured counterclockwise from Solar North in degrees Spatial Relationship between Flares and CMEs 3 PA Difference Relative Position Main Body Whole CME Main Body Whole CME 100 100 (a) 496 Events (e) 442 Events 120 (i) 496 Events (m) 442 Events 80 σ σ σ ° 80 σ ° 100 = 0.59 150 = 0.37 = 17.1 = 17.5 P = 71% P = 86% 60 60 80

100 60 40 40

# of Events 40 50 20 20 20 All Flares 0 0 0 0 -60 -30 0 30 60 -60 -30 0 30 60 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

20 (b) 44 Events 10 (f) 25 Events (j) 44 Events 20 (n) 25 Events 8 30 σ σ 15 σ ° σ ° = 0.32 15 = 0.42 = 16.6 = 21.1 P = 89% P = 100% 6 20 10 10 4

# of Events 5 10 5 X Class 2 0 0 0 0 -60 -30 0 30 60 -60 -30 0 30 60 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

(c) 303 Events 70 (g) 271 Events 80 (k) 303 Events 140 (o) 271 Events 50 60 σ 120 σ σ ° σ ° 60 = 0.54 = 0.30 40 = 17.1 50 = 16.6 P = 74% 100 P = 89% 40 80

30 40 30 60 20 # of Events 20 20 40 M Class 10 10 20 0 0 0 0 -60 -30 0 30 60 -60 -30 0 30 60 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 30 30 (d) 149 Events 30 (h) 146 Events (l) 149 Events 40 (p) 146 Events 25 25 σ ° 25 σ ° σ = 1.11 σ = 0.62 = 17.7 = 18.7 30 20 20 20 P = 58% P = 79%

15 15 15 20 10

# of Events 10 10 10 C Class 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 -60 -30 0 30 60 -60 -30 0 30 60 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 φ φ φ φ F - 3 [deg] F - C [deg] r3 rC Fig. 2.— Distributions of flare positions with respect to the CPA of the CME. The first and second columns show the PA difference in degree for the main CME body and for the whole CME, respectively. The standard deviation (σ) obtained by Gaussian fit is shown in each plot. The third and forth columns show the distributions of PA differences normalized by the half CME span. The vertical dashed lines mark the two side edges of the CMEs. P is the percentage of the flares lying inside of the CME span. The second, third, and forth rows correspond to the events with X-class, M-class, and C-class flares, respectively. south of the CME, the southern edges of the main CME 3. RESULTS body and whole CME (φ1 and φA) are almost identi- 3.1. PA Difference cal. The CME on 2005 July 14 appeared in the C2 FOV at 10:54 UT (Figs. 1e and 1f). The CME had a clear The distributions of differences between flare PAs and three-part structure with a faint envelope. The envelope CME CPAs for the main CME body and for the whole covered the occulting disk at 11:54 UT, thus the CME is CME are shown in Figures 2a and 2e, respectively. Fifty listed as a halo (Howard et al. 1982) in the CME catalog. four halo CMEs are not used in Figure 2e since their φC In this case φA and φB cannot be defined. cannot be defined. Both the distributions are very simi- The location of a CME is represented by the central lar and are well represented by Gaussians. The standard deviation is 17.1◦ for the difference between the flares position angle (CPA), which is defined as the mid-angle ◦ of the two side edges of the CME in the sky plane. We and main CME bodies and 17.5 for the difference be- define the CPA of the main CME body as φ3 = (φ1 + tween the flares and whole CMEs. The average (median) angular span is 52.2◦ (43.8◦) for the main body of CMEs φ2)/2 and that of the whole CME as φC = (φA + φB)/2. ◦ ◦ The PAs of flares (φF ) are computed from their location and 89.5 (75.0 ) for the whole CMEs. Thus the PA dif- in heliographic coordinates listed in NOAA SGD. The ferences between flares and CMEs are smaller than the angular span of the main CME body (ω3) and the whole angular span of the CMEs. One might think that the CME (ωC ) is defined as the difference between the two flare site is inherently close to the center of the CME side edges [ω3 = φ2 − φ1; ωC = φB − φA]. and the non-radial motion below the C2 occulting disk produces the PA differences. In order to explain a dif- 4 Yashiro et al.

◦ ◦ ference of 17 , a CME needs to erupt 30 away from the Latitude Difference radial direction. 60 403 Events 403 Events We separated the events into three groups according (a) (c) 80 Ave to their ﬂare intensity and made the same plots for each 30 -5.7° 60 | [deg] group. The second, third, and forth rows in Figure 2 cor- 3 0 λ respond to the events with X-class, M-class, and C-class 40 | - F # of Events

λ -30 |

flares, respectively. The standard deviation is shown in Main Body ◦ ◦ 20 each plot, which ranges from 16.6 -17.7 for the main -60 ◦ ◦ 0 CME body and 16.6 -21.1 for the whole CME. The 96 98 00 02 04 06 -60 -30 0 30 60 distributions of PA differences in the three groups are λ λ Year | F| - | 3| [deg] almost identical, suggesting that the events with weak 60 353 Events 80 353 Events flares (below C3 level) have a similar distribution. (b) (d) Ave 30 60 -5.2°

3.2. | [deg] Relative PA Diﬀerence 3 0 λ 40 | - F

In order to investigate the ﬂare position with respect # of Events

λ -30 | 20 to the main CME body (frontal structure), we normalize Whole CME -60 the PA differences by the half angular span. We define 0 relative flare location r3 = (φF −φ3)/0.5ω3. The r3 = ±1 96 98 00 02 04 06 -60 -30 0 30 60 Year |λ | - |λ | [deg] indicates the flare is located at either leg of the CME F C frontal structure. The r3 = 0 indicates that the flare is Fig. 3.— Solar cycle variation (left) and distribution (right) of located at the center of the CME span. The distribution the latitude difference between flares and CMEs. λF , λ3, and λC of r is shown in Figure 2i. It is clear that most of the are latitudes of the flares, main CME body, and whole CME, re- 3 spectively. The flare-CME pairs occuring in different hemispheres flares are located under the span of the main CME body. (e.g. a flare in the northern hemisphere and a CME in the south- Out of the 496 flares, 350 (or 71%) resided under the span ern) were excluded. of the main CME body. Figure 2m is the same as the Figure 2i, but for flare locations with respect to the edges 3.3. Latitude Difference of the whole CMEs [rC = (φF − φC )/0.5ωC]. Again, we ◦ Even though the flare PAs tend to be close to those exclude 54 full halos (ωC = 360 ). Out of the 442 flares, 379 (or 86%) resided under the angular span of the whole of CMEs, we need to point out some systematic offsets CMEs. Both the distributions are well represented by between flares and CMEs stemming from the varying in- Gaussians with standard deviations of 0.59 for the main fluence of the global solar magnetic field as a function of CME body and 0.37 for the whole CME. In both the the solar cycle. Gopalswamy et al. (2003a) examined the cases, the peak of the Gaussian is around zero, meaning relationship between prominence eruptions (PEs) and that the flares frequently occur under the center of the CMEs and found that, during solar minimum, the CPA CME span, not near one leg (outer edge) of the CMEs. of CMEs tend to be closer to the equator compared to As we did for the PA difference distributions, we sepa- those of PEs, while no such effect was seen during solar rated the events into three groups according to their flare maximum. A similar relation is expected between flares intensity. The second, third, and forth rows in Figure 2 and CMEs. In order to examine whether flare positions correspond to events with X-class, M-class, and C-class are equatorward or polarward with respect to the CMEs, flares, respectively. σ is the standard deviation and P we have shown their latitudinal differences in Figures 3. is the percentage of the flares occurring under the CME The CME latitudes (λ3 and λC ) were calculated from span. We found that all distributions have a peak around CPAs of the main CME body (φ3) and whole CME (φC ), zero, while the width of the distributions is different for respectively. The flare-CME pairs occurring in different different flare levels. The flare-CME events with X-class hemispheres were excluded. flares (hereafter X-class events8) have a narrower distri- The gray lines in Figs 3a and 3b show annual av- bution suggesting that many X-class flares lie under the erage of the latitude difference. In spite of the small center of the CME span. On the other hand, the C- data set during solar minimum, we see a positive off- class events have a broader distribution and a significant set in 1997, meaning that CMEs occurred in lower lati- number of events occurred outside of the CME span. tudes as compared to flares. This is consistent with the We do not see a significant distinction in the PA dif- result of Gopalswamy et al. On the other hand, dur- ference distributions among the three flare levels, but we ing solar maximum, we see a negative offset, indicating do see a difference in the relative position distributions. that flares occurred in lower latitudes as compared to Since the relative position is defined by the PA difference CMEs. This is different from Gopalswamy et al. who re- normalized by the CME half span, the distinction shown ported that no systematic offset exists between PE and in Figure 2 results from the difference in CME span. The CME latitudes. The difference may result from the ex- average angular span of the main CME body (the whole clusion of high-latitude flares from our analysis. Since CME) is 87◦ (224◦), 54◦ (124◦), and 38◦ (75◦) for X- we did not include small flares (below C3 level), the , M-, and C-class events, respectively. As reported by high-latitude flares (e.g. X-ray arcade formations asso- the previous studies (e.g., Yashiro et al. 2005), by means ciated with the eruption of polar crown filaments) were of statistics, CMEs associated with stronger flares have excluded. Therefore the sampled flares mainly occurred larger angular span. in active regions, i.e. in low latitudes. We should note that high-latitude CMEs are not associated with active- 8 Similarly we labeled flare-CME events with M-class (C-class) region flares, but appear frequently during solar maxi- flares as M-class (C-class) events. mum (Gopalswamy et al. 2003b). During the declining Spatial Relationship between Flares and CMEs 5 phase of solar cycle 23, CMEs have gradually started 2.0 (a) Harrison 1986 clustering around the equator, while active regions have Center Leg 48 Events remained around the equator. This is why we still see 1.0 the negative offset in 2004 and 2005. The positive offset between flare and CME latitude is likely to resume with 0.0 the start of solar cycle 24. 2.0 (b) Kahler et al. 1989 One would think that the existence of the latitude off- 35 Events set is inconsistent with the result that flares frequently 1.0 occur under the center of the CME span. In order to check this, we have shown the distributions of latitude 0.0 differences in figures 3c and 3d. Because of the exclusion 2.0 (c) Harrison 1991 of the flare-CME events from different hemispheres, the distributions became narrower since the excluded events 23 Events 1.0 have relatively larger PA differences. We can see that both the distributions are asymmetric with a broad tail Interval on the left. However, the most frerqent bin stays as 0◦ R 0.0 ◦ ◦ 2.0 (d) Harrison 1995 and the average (median) difference is -5.7 (-3.9 ) for the main CME body and -5.2◦ (-2.0◦) for the whole CME. 25 Events We conclude that there are systematic offsets between 1.0 flares and CMEs, but such an offset is only a small fraction (∼ 10%) of the CME span. 0.0

4. 3.0 (e) Present Study SUMMARY & DISCUSSION 44 X Class Events

2.0 We investigated the spatial relationship between solar flares and CMEs for 496 pairs occurring from 1996 to 1.0 2005. It is found that the distribution of the difference 0.0 between flare PA and CME CPA can be represented by 2.0 (f) Present Study Gaussian centered at zero with a standard deviation of Frequency in 0.01 ◦ 303 M Class Events ∼ 17 , and the distribution does not change with the 1.0 flare level. We examined the flare positions with respect to the CME span and found that the most probable flare 0.0 site is the center of the CME span for all flare levels, but 2.0 (g) Present Study the width of the distributions is different for different 149 C Class Events

flare levels. For C-class events, the flare positions widely 1.0 scattered with respect to the CME span, while for X- class events, most of the flares lie under the center of the 0.0 CME span. The result is suitable for flare-CME models 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 typified by the CSHKP reconnection model. Relative Flare Position R 4.1. Comparison with Previous Studies Fig. 4.— Flare position (R) with respect to the CME span. Let us compare our results with four previous studies, R = 0 for a flare centered under the CME, R = 1 for a flare at one leg of the CME, and R > 1 for a flare lying outside of the CME Harrison (1986, hereafter H86), Kahler et al. (1989, here- span. after K89), Harrison (1991, hereafter H91), and Harrison (1995, hereafter H95). All previous studies examined R. For each α bin, the frequency (f) in 0.01 R inter- flare positions with respect to the CME span using data vals in percentage is computed by dividing the number obtained by Solwind or SMM. Since the observational ca- of events (n) by both the total number of events (N) and pability of the pre-SOHO coronagraphs is thought to be the interval of R (dR), i.e. f = n/N/dR. For example, lower, it is possible that they did not detect the faint en- H86 examined 48 flare-CME events and found that 3 of velope around the three-part CME structure. Therefore, them are in the bin of α =0.8−1.0, which corresponds to for the proper comparison, we used r3, the flare positions R =0 − 0.11 (N = 48, n = 3, and dR =0.12). Then we with respect to the main CME body. obtained the frequency for R = 0 − 0.11 bin to be 0.52 H86 employed the parameter α = (φ2 − φF )/(φF − φ1) (=3/48/0.12). We carried out the same conversion for (In Figure 4 of H86, φ2, φF , and φ1 correspond to letters other bins. However, treatment of the α = 0 − 0.19 bin A, B, and C). He found a significant peak at α =0−0.19, is not easy. Harrison used 30 Solwind events compiled meaning that flares often occur at the one leg of the by Sheeley et al. (1984) and 18 SMM events compiled CMEs. However, K89 pointed out that the bin size in by Sawyer. We examined the Sheeley et al.’s list and equal α is biased; the smallest bin (α =0−0.19) is about found 7 events lying outside the CME span. Such flares 3 times more probable than the largest bin (α = 0.8 − should have negative α, but there is no corresponding 1.0) for the random distribution of flare positions. They bin in Fig. 5 of H86. Thus we supposed that the 7 events employed the parameter R = |φF − φ3|/0.5ω3, which is were included in α =0 − 0.19 bin, and determined their the absolute of r3. The relation between parameters α R using the Sheeley et al’s list. Unfortunately we could and R is R = (1 − α)/(1 + α). not locate Sawyer’s 18 events. Thus we assumed that In order to compare the previous studies properly, we the same fraction of the events in the bin inherently lied converted the distributions in equal α into those in equal outside of the CME span. The result of this analysis is 6 Yashiro et al.

TABLE 1 Summary of studies on the spatial relationship between flares and CMEs

# of Events Satellite Data Period Remarks Harrison 1986 (H86) 48 Solwind and SMM 1979 − 82 ··· 1 2 ◦ 3 ◦ Kahler et al. 1989 (K89) 35 Solwind 1979 − 82 IP ≥ M1; CMD ≥ 45 ; WD ≥ 40 Harrison 1991 (H91) 23 SMM 1984 − 87 ··· Harrison 1995 (H95) 25 SMM 1986 − 87 CMD ≥ 40◦ ◦ Present Study 496 SOHO 1996 − 05 IP ≥ C3; CMD ≥ 45

a Peak X-ray Intensity of a flare b Central Meridian Distance of a flare c Angular Span of a CME shown in Figure 4a. By the conversion of equal α to equal is farther). Except for the lack of flares under the cen- R distribution and the special treatment of α =0 − 0.19 ter of the CME span (R < 0.25), the R distribution of bin, the peak at the α = 0 − 0.19 bin in Fig. 5 of H86 K89 (Fig. 4b) is similar to that of our M-class events disappeared. For K89, we obtained the R distribution (Fig. 4f), which can be explained by their selection cri- from their Table 3. They reported 7 out of the 35 flares terion about flare intensity (≥ M1 level). By the same occurring outside the CME span. However we could not token, because 30% and 57% of the H86 events were X- find out how far apart the flares were located from the class and M-class flares, respectively, Fig. 4a should be nearest CME leg. Thus we assumed that the 7 events the similar to Fig. 4e or Fig. 4f. However the distribution resided in R = 1.01 − 2.00. The R distribution of K89 is similar to that of C-class events (Fig. 4g). Additionally is shown in Figure 4b. H91 has a histogram of the α H86 also lacks flares under the center of the CME span distribution and their conversion to the R distribution (R< 0.25). The average CME span of H86 events (64◦) was straightforward (Fig. 4c). H95 does not have a his- is larger than that of our M-class events (56◦), suggest- togram of spatial distribution, but has the scatter plots ing that the different capability between SOHO LASCO of R vs. flare intensity and R vs. flare duration. We and previous coronagraphs does not explain the H86 lack read the R value from the plots and made a histogram of of flares under the center of the CME span. Except for the R distribution (Fig. 4d). For the present study, we this discrepancy, all the flare position distributions re- plotted the R distribution for the X-class, M-class, and ported in the previous studies are consistent with our C-class events in Figure 4e, 4f, and 4g, respectively. results. The long-term LASCO observation enabled us As we showed in Section 3.2, the R distribution varies obtain a large number of flare-CME pairs from small to according to the scale of the flare-CME events. There- large events for the first time that revealed the detailed fore, in the comparison with previous studies, we should spatial relation between flares and CMEs. pay attention to their data source and selection criteria, 4.2. Flare-CME Geometry which are summarized in Table 1. The second and third columns show that the number of events and satellites The flare-CME asymmetry found by H86 has been the used in each study. The forth column shows the study basis of the claim that flare-CME observations are incon- period. H86 and K89 used data during solar maximum, sistent with the schematic picture of the CSHKP type while H91 and H95 used data during solar minimum. The flare-CME models. In this paper we show that most of present study covers the almost whole of the solar cycle the X-class flares are located at the center of the CME 23, but many events were obtained during solar maxi- span while a significant number of C-class flares reside mum. The last column is for event selection criteria in near the edge or even outside of the CME span. The each study. K89 and the present study used only strong CSHKP type flare-CME models are well suited for strong flares (≥ M1 and ≥ C3, respectively), but other studies events, but may not be applicable for the many weak by Harrison did not eliminate weak flares. K89, H95, and events. The other extreme is the non-eruptive (or com- the present study used limb events only, which reduces pact) flares which do not involve any mass motion, and the projection effects. hence their geometry may not be appropriate for CSHKP Except for H95 (Fig. 4d), the three previous studies models. show a trend that the flare occurred near the center of The flare-CME geometry is possibly different between CMEs rather than at the edges. The majority of the weak (narrow) and strong (wide) events. This is re- events in H95 were C-class flares, thus we should com- lated to the issue whether narrow CMEs are physically pare the result of H95 with our C-class events (Fig. 4g). distinct from general CMEs (Kahler et al. 1989, 2001). The C-class events in our data show a trend that flare Reames (2002) presented two types of flare-CME geom- occurred near the CME center, but the trend is very etry which are responsible for two types of solar ener- weak. Therefore it is not surprising that the examina- getic particle (SEP) events, i.e. impulsive and grad- tion of the 25 events can not see such weak trend. On ual events. The gradual SEP events are associated the other hand, H91 shows a strong peak at the center of with large CMEs, which fit CSHKP type models, while the CME even though the data were obtained during so- the impulsive SEPs are associated with narrow CMEs lar minimum (1984-87). We could not find a statement that fit the X-ray jet model (Shimojo & Shibata 2000). of exclusion of disk events, thus the projection effects Bemporad et al. (2005) reported that blob-like narrow might produce the peak (Apparent CME span becomes CMEs in a streamer (called ”streamer puffs”) differ from larger than inherent span if the distance from the limb general CMEs (see also Moore & Sterling 2007). The streamer puffs are associated with weak flares (below C4 Spatial Relationship between Flares and CMEs 7 level) and their schematic picture clearly explains the has never been examined. The Solar TErrestrial REla- flare-CME asymmetry. tions Observatory (STEREO) mission started to observe Even X-class events, some of them showed the clear CMEs in stereoscopic view. Three-dimensional structure flare-CME asymmetry. A good example is the event on of the CMEs and their relation to the associated flares 2002 May 20. The X2.1 flare at 15:21 UT located at one should be tested again using STEREO data. edge of the CME at 15:50 UT. Another example is the event on 2003 November 3 (The X2.7 flare at 01:09 UT and the CME at 01:59 UT). In both cases EIT dimmings The authors would like to thank to the referee whose were clearly observed only on the CME side of the flares. suggestions and comments led to improvement of the It is important to investigate the flare-dimming asym- manuscript. SOHO is a project of international cooper- metry for understanding the origin of such flare-CME ation between ESA and NASA. The LASCO data used asymmetry. here are produced by a consortium of the Naval Research We examined the flare positions with respect to CME Laboratory (USA), Max-Planck-Institut fuer Aeronomie spans using LASCO data and found that most frequent (Germany), Laboratoire d’Astronomie (France), and the flare site is the center of the CME span. However, since University of Birmingham (UK). Part of this effort was we examined the spatial relationship using limb events, supported by NASA (NNG05GR03G). Work done by G. our finding can apply only in the latitudinal direction. M. was partly supported by MNiSW through the grant The flare-CME geometry in the longitudinal direction N203 023 31/3055.

REFERENCES Bemporad, A., Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., & Poletto, G. 2005, Kahler, S. W., Sheeley, N. R., & Ligget, M. 1989, ApJ, 344, 1026 ApJ, 635, L189 Kahler, S. W., Reames, D. V., & Sheeley, N. R. 2001, ApJ, 562, Brueckner, G. E., et al. 1995, Sol. Phys., 162, 357 558 Ciaravella, A., Raymond, J. C., & Kahler, S. W. 2005, ApJ, 621, Moore, R. L. & Sterling, A. C. 2007, ApJ, 661, 543 1121 Reames, D. V. 2002, ApJ, 571, L63 Gilbert, H R., Serex, E. C., Holzer, T. E., MacQueen, R. M., & Sheeley, N. R., Hakala, W. N., & Wang, Y.-M. 2000, McIntosh, P. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 1093 J. Geophys. Res., 105, 5081 Gopalswamy, N., Hanaoka, Y., & Hudson, H. S. 2000, Adv. Sp. Shimojo, M. & Shibata, K. 2000, ApJ, 542, 1100 Res., 25(9), 1851 St. Cyr, O. C. 2005, Eos Trans. AGU, 86(30), 281 Gopalswamy, N., Shimojo, M., Lu, W., Yashiro, S., Shibasaki, K., Vourlidas, A., Wu, S. T., Wang, A. H., Subramanian, P., & Howard, & Howard, R. A. 2003a, ApJ, 586, 562 R. A. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1392 Gopalswamy, N., Lara, A., Yashiro, S., & Howard, R. A. 2003b, Webb, D. F. 1988, J. Geophys. Res., 93, 1749 ApJ, 598, L63 Webb, D. F. & Hundhausen, A. J. 1987, Sol. Phys., 108, 383 Harrison, R. A. 1986, A&A, 162, 283 Yashiro, S., Gopalswamy, N., Michalek, G., St. Cyr, O. C., Harrison, R. A. 1991, Adv. Space Res., 11, 25 Plunkett, S. P., Rich, N. B., & Howard, R. A. 2004, Harrison, R. A. 1995, ˚a, 304, 585 J. Geophys. Res., 109, 7105 Harrison, R. A. 2006, in Solar Eruptions and Energetic Particles, Yashiro, S., Gopalswamy, N., Akiyama, S., Michalek, G., & AGU Monograph 165, 73 Howard, R. A. 2005, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A12S05 Howard, R. A., Michels, D. J., Sheeley, N. R., & Koomen, M. J. Zhang, J, Dere, K. P., Howard, R. A., & Vourlidas, A. 2004, ApJ, 1982, ApJ, 263, L101 604, 420 Illing, R. M. E. & Hundhausen, A. J. 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 275