by each instrument are given by the horizontal black bars in the bottom-left corner. The dots connected by lines at the bottom of each figure denote the combinations of instruments considered, while the histograms above give the number of events corresponding to a given combination. The most common combination of flare datasets was RHESSI+MEGS-A+*Hinode*/XRT (930 flares), due to their large fields of view and high duty cycles as mentioned above.\

![ plots of the intersection of flare datasets from each instrument as ordered by decreasing frequency (top panel) and increasing number of instruments (bottom panel). Zero-element sets are not included in either plot.[]{data-label="f:upset"}](UpSetR_dec_freq_cmx_nozero.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} ![ plots of the intersection of flare datasets from each instrument as ordered by decreasing frequency (top panel) and increasing number of instruments (bottom panel). Zero-element sets are not included in either plot.[]{data-label="f:upset"}](UpSetR_inc_deg_cmx_nozero.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}

Evaluation of Measured Versus Expected Success Rates
----------------------------------------------------

It is difficult to give a good estimate of how many flares one would *expect* to see with each instrument, given their different science goals and operational constraints. Table \[tab:estimated\_flares\] summarizes an attempt to estimate this expectation value \[${e}$\] for each instrument considered in this article. The estimates are based on the average field-of-views 