{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014764338444065871, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008517887563884156, 'mean_word_length': 5.674242424242424, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Characteristics of lightning leader propagation and ground attachment

The grounding process and the associated leader behavior were analyzed by using high‐speed video record and time‐correlated electric field change for 37 natural negative cloud‐to‐ground flashes. Weak luminous grounded channel was recognized below the downward leader tip in the frame preceding the return stroke, which is inferred as upward connecting leader considering the physical process of lightning attachment, though not directly confirmed by sequential frames. For stepped leader‐first return strokes, the upward connecting leaders tend to be induced by those downward leader branches with brighter luminosity and lower channel tip above ground, and they may accomplish the attachment with great possibility. The upward connecting leaders for 2 out of 61 leader‐subsequent stroke sequences were captured in the frame prior to the return stroke, exhibiting relatively long channel lengths of 340 m and 105 m, respectively. The inducing downward subsequent leaders were of the chaotic type characterized by irregular electric field pulse train with duration of 0.2–0.3 ms. The transient drop of the high potential difference between stepped leader system and ground when the attachment occurred would macroscopically terminate the propagation of those ungrounded branches while would not effectively prevent the development of the existing space stem systems in the low‐conductivity streamer zone apart from the leader tip. When the ungrounded branches are of poor connection with the main stroke channel, their further propagation toward ground would be feasible. These two factors may contribute to the occurrence of multiple grounding within the same leader‐return stroke sequence.