Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Density distribution of photospheric vertical electric currents in flare active regions of the Sun

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Photospheric vertical electric currents in flare active regions follow a Gaussian core at low density and a power-law tail above roughly 10,000 statampere/cm^2, with the Gaussian attributed to magnetogram noise.

desk verdict Useful first systematic PDF of photospheric |j_z|; the main shape and noise conclusion look solid, but the reported breakpoint and tail index depend on an unweighted fitting procedure that should be checked. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09016 v1 pith:PK3HIKDQ submitted 2019-08-23 astro-ph.SR

I.V. Zimovets (1) , A.B. Nechaeva (1 , 2) , I.N. Sharykin (1) , W.Q. Gan (3) ((1) Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences , (2) Moscow Institute of Physics , Technology , (3) Purple Mountain Observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords photosphericelectriccurrentsverticalcurrentdensityprobabilityfunctionsolaractiveregionsflarespower-lawtailmagnetogramnoiseAmpere'slaw
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

This paper asks what the probability density function of the photospheric vertical electric current density |j_z| looks like in flare-producing active regions, and whether it changes when a flare occurs. Using vector magnetograms of 48 active regions observed between 2010 and 2017, the authors compute |j_z| through Ampere's law and fit the resulting histograms with three model functions. They find that the distribution is best described by a Gaussian core at low current densities and a decreasing power-law tail at high densities, with the transition at |j_z| ≈ 10110 statampere/$cm^{2}$ and a mean power-law index of about 3.7. They argue that the Gaussian part is magnetogram noise, while the power-law tail reflects real electric currents in the active region, and that no systematic change in these parameters occurs across flares. A sympathetic reader would care because the result gives a quantitative, reproducible description of where real photospheric currents begin, which matters for flare studies and for interpreting magnetogram data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the probability density function PDF(|j_z|) of the absolute photospheric vertical electric current density, estimated from vector magnetograms by applying the differential form of Ampere's circuital law. The argument is carried by three fitting models: Model 1, a Gaussian joined to a power law at a transition point; Model 2, a Gaussian joined to a Gaussian-plus-power-law; and Model 3, a kappa function with fixed shape parameter k = 0.5. The transition point in Model 1 is chosen by minimizing residuals, and a comparison of active-region histograms with histograms from quiet edge strips supplies the noise interpretation. This machinery does the work of turning raw magnetogram data into the quantitative claim that the Gaussian component is noise and the tail is physical.

What would settle it

Compute |j_z| PDFs from vector magnetograms of the same active regions with an independent noise model, such as adding synthetic noise to the magnetograms or using higher-resolution data, and check whether the Gaussian width tracks the noise level and whether a power-law tail persists when noise is subtracted; if the Gaussian width does not match the magnetogram noise or the tail vanishes under noise correction, the claimed separation into a noise Gaussian plus a physical power law would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for the 48 flare active regions studied, the PDF of |j_z| has a two-component form: a Gaussian for |j_z| < 10110 ± 1321 statampere/$cm^{2}$ and a decaying power law above that transition, with mean absolute index 3.69 ± 0.51. For some regions the whole histogram can also be fitted by a kappa function with mean exponent 3.99 ± 0.51; the near-equality of these two exponents is taken as evidence that the high-current tail is genuinely power-law. The paper further claims that the Gaussian core is produced by noise in the vector magnetograms, supported by three observations: the |j_z| distribution in quiet edge regions is Gaussian and close to the active-region Gaussian; the Gaussian width implies a transverse-field noise of about 41 G, bracketed by the known noise levels of the magnetograph; and the transition point is close to 3σ of the fitted Gaussian. The authors find no systematic before/after flare changes in the parameters and no correlation with X-ray flare class or Hale magnetic class.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that fitting the histogram counts with equal weights, without accounting for Poisson or measurement uncertainties, and choosing the transition point by minimizing residuals gives unbiased values for that transition and the power-law index.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current-density maps from this type of vector magnetogram should be used with a roughly 3σ cutoff (|j_z| ≈ 10,000–11,000 statampere/cm^2) to separate genuine currents from noise.
  • The power-law tail, being stable across 48 active regions, gives a statistical target for models of turbulent current formation and dissipation in the photosphere.
  • Global active-region averages of the current-density distribution are not sensitive markers of flare productivity; flare size and magnetic class do not change the fitted parameters.
  • The near-equality of the power-law and kappa exponents means future analyses can use either functional form to characterise the tail.
  • Pre- and post-flare histograms share essentially the same shape, so large-scale photospheric current systems are not rearranged by the flare itself within this sample.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Gaussian core is entirely instrumental noise, the true photospheric |j_z| distribution may be a single power law extending to small values; testing this would require noise-free or higher-resolution magnetograms.
  • The observed tail index of about 3.7 could be compared quantitatively with current-density PDFs from coronal magnetic-field extrapolations; a match or mismatch would test whether photospheric and coronal current statistics share a common turbulent origin.
  • A testable extension is to compute PDF(|j_z|) locally, near polarity inversion lines or flare footpoints, where flare-related changes might appear even though whole-region distributions do not.
  • Monitoring the tail index over many active regions might reveal correlations with flare productivity that global parameters miss.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the probability density function (PDF) of the absolute value of the photospheric vertical electric current density |j_z| computed from SDO/HMI SHARP vector magnetograms for 48 flare-active regions, both before and after flares, giving 96 distributions. The authors bin |j_z| in log-log space and fit three models: a Gaussian-plus-power-law (Model 1), a Gaussian-plus-Gaussian-and-power-law (Model 2), and a kappa function (Model 3). They conclude that Model 1 best describes the data, with a Gaussian core at low |j_z| values and a decreasing power-law tail at higher values, with a mean transition point of 10110 ± 1321 statampere/cm^2 and a mean absolute power-law index of 3.69 ± 0.51. They argue that the Gaussian component represents instrumental noise, supported by an edge-region analysis and an inferred transverse-field noise of about 41 G, and that the power-law tail reflects real current structure. They report no significant flare-related changes in the parameters and no clear correlation with GOES flare class or Hale magnetic class.

Significance. If the reported shape and noise interpretation survive a more rigorous statistical treatment, the paper provides a useful empirical characterization of photospheric vertical current densities and a practical 'three-sigma' threshold for HMI-based current studies. The sample of 96 distributions is substantial, and the independent edge-region noise test plus the consistency with published HMI transverse-field noise levels are valuable falsifiable checks. The main weakness is the fitting methodology, which currently lacks error weighting and a proper treatment of the data-selected breakpoint, so the headline numbers should be regarded as provisional. No code is provided, but the underlying HMI/SHARP data are public, which helps reproducibility.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 (Data and methods), fitting procedure] The fits are performed by unweighted nonlinear least squares on binned log-counts, with empty bins excluded and counts normalized to the maximum. Because high-|j_z| bins contain very few counts, their log-counts have large Poisson scatter, and equal weighting lets these noisy tail points disproportionately influence the power-law slope. This directly affects the central results in Table 1, namely the transition point and |f|. Please rerun the analysis with Poisson weights or a maximum-likelihood fit to the binned or unbinned data, and report per-fit parameter uncertainties from the covariance matrix.
  2. [Section 2 (Data and methods), transition-point selection] The breakpoint n, and hence x_tp, is chosen for each distribution by minimizing residuals. This makes the breakpoint an additional free parameter that is not penalized anywhere in the procedure. Data-selected breakpoints can bias the Gaussian and power-law parameter estimates, and the reported R2 comparisons are not a valid model-selection criterion under this procedure. Please use a profile likelihood, cross-validation, or a penalized likelihood to account for the selection, and show how the headline values in Table 1 change when this is done.
  3. [Section 3 and Table 1, uncertainty interpretation] The reported uncertainties, such as 10110 ± 1321 statampere/cm^2 and 3.69 ± 0.51, are the standard deviations of Gaussian fits to the histograms of the fitted parameters across the 96 distributions, not the uncertainties of individual fits. This distinction is not stated clearly. The spread mixes intrinsic active-region variation with estimation error, and readers may misinterpret the values as fit uncertainties. Please separate the two sources of scatter and state explicitly what each reported error represents.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4 (Discussion), three-sigma argument] The statement that the transition point is similar to 3σ_stdev is not an independent test, because both quantities come from the same Model 1 fit. Please reframe this as a consistency check rather than independent evidence, or remove it in favor of the edge-region and σ(B⊥) arguments.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] The discretized expression for j_z has ambiguous parentheses around the terms ΔB_φ/Δθ sinθ and B_φ cosθ; please spell out the exact finite-difference scheme used so the calculation is reproducible.
  3. [Section 2 and Table 1] The negative value of the Gaussian mean μ for a nonnegative quantity |j_z| is striking. The authors note that fixing μ = 0 barely changes the fit, but no quantitative comparison is shown; please include this comparison, since it bears on the interpretation of the Gaussian component as noise.
  4. [Section 3, model comparison] The claim that Model 1 'adequately approximates data in all cases' is based on visual examination in addition to R2 thresholds. Please define quantitative acceptance criteria for visual adequacy, or base the model choice on a formal information criterion.
  5. [Data availability] The paper states that information about the active regions and flares will be published in a subsequent paper, but for reproducibility a table of the 48 active regions, flare times, and GOES classes should be included in an appendix or supplementary material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical fitting study; its noise interpretation is checked against independent edge-region and HMI calibration evidence, and no prediction is constructed from its own fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a descriptive characterization: PDF(|j_z|) in 48 active regions is well fit by a Gaussian at low values and a power law at high values, with a transition around 10110 statampere/cm^2 and power-law index 3.69. These numbers are direct outputs of least-squares fits to binned histograms, not predictions derived from a theory or from the fitted parameters themselves. The transition point is selected by residual minimization and the power-law index is fitted to the tail bins; neither quantity is defined in terms of the other. The interpretation that the Gaussian component is noise is supported by two independent checks: a comparison with distributions computed only from quiet edge regions (Figure 7) and an estimate of the implied transverse-field noise sigma(B_perp) ~ 41 G, which is compared with the published HMI/SDO noise levels of 20-50 G. This is an externally falsifiable consistency test, not a circular reduction. The auxiliary comparison of |j_z|_tp with 3*sigma (10110 vs 11463 statampere/cm^2) is a consistency check between two outputs of the same fit, but it is not used to define or force either parameter. Self-citations in the paper (e.g., reference [21]) are historical or contextual and are not load-bearing for the central quantitative results. No fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction, and no self-citation chain is invoked to forbid alternative models. Therefore no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative claims rest on a sequence of fitting choices (bin size, transition point optimization, fixed kappa k, equal-weight log-space fitting) and on the assumption that edge strips are noise-dominated. No new physical entities are introduced. The noise interpretation is supported by an independent comparison to published HMI noise levels, which is the strongest external anchor.

free parameters (8)
  • Gaussian mean µ (Model 1, per distribution) = Average across 96 distributions: -3037 ± 1733 statampere/cm^2
    Fitted parameter of Model 1 Gaussian component for each histogram; the negative value is noted as a fitting artifact.
  • Gaussian standard deviation σ (Model 1, per distribution) = 3821 ± 431 statampere/cm^2 (average)
    Fitted from each |j_z| histogram; used to estimate noise level σ(B⊥) ≈ 41 G.
  • Transition point |j_z|_tp (Model 1, per distribution) = 10110 ± 1321 statampere/cm^2 (average)
    Determined by n, the number of low-value points, chosen to minimize residuals; a free parameter in the fit.
  • Power-law exponent f (Model 1, per distribution) = 3.69 ± 0.51 (absolute value, average)
    Fitted to the high-|j_z| tail; the central quantitative result.
  • Power-law normalization D (Model 1, per distribution) = Not reported
    Fitted amplitude of the power-law component; needed to complete the model but not analyzed.
  • Kappa function parameters A, b, c (Model 3, per distribution) = Exponent c/k average 3.99 ± 0.51
    Fitted parameters of the kappa distribution; k was fixed at 0.5 by hand after test fits.
  • Histogram bin size = 2500 statampere/cm^2
    Chosen by hand to ensure at least 15 bins per event and few empty bins.
  • Noise edge strip width = 50 pixels
    Chosen by hand for the edge-region noise estimate.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Ampère's circuital law in differential form, with µ = 1, can be applied to photospheric vector magnetograms to obtain vertical current density via finite differences.
    Eq. (1); this is a physical law applied to a discrete data product; assumes the photospheric field is quasi-static and the thin-layer approximation is valid.
  • domain assumption The SHARP_CEA vector magnetograms accurately represent the photospheric magnetic field after removal of the 180-degree ambiguity.
    Section 2; the accuracy of HMI data is taken from Hoeksema et al. [28]; errors in the transverse field affect all derived currents.
  • ad hoc to paper Histogram counts can be modeled in log-log space with equal weights, without specifying Poisson uncertainties.
    Section 2; the fitting procedure uses nlinfit on log-transformed counts with no error bars.
  • ad hoc to paper The transition point n can be chosen by minimizing residuals, and the resulting two-group fit is a valid description of the PDF.
    Section 2, Model 1; this is an optimization heuristic, not a standard model selection criterion.
  • domain assumption The 50-pixel edge strips of each active region represent pure noise regions of the magnetograms.
    Section 4; used to identify the Gaussian component as instrumental noise.
  • domain assumption The positive and negative j_z distributions are symmetric, so absolute values can be combined.
    Section 2; supported by a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test at the 1% level.
  • domain assumption The sample active regions are representative of flare-productive active regions.
    Section 2; the sample is selected based on RHESSI hard X-ray availability, biasing toward strong flares.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Density distribution of photospheric vertical electric currents in flare active regions of the Sun." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PK3HIKDQ

@misc{pith2026190809016,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Density distribution of photospheric vertical electric currents in flare active regions of the Sun},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PK3HIKDQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09016}
}
abstract

Solar active regions contain electric currents. Information on the distribution of currents is important for understanding the processes of energy release on the surface of the Sun and in the overlying layers. The paper presents an analysis of the probability density function (PDF) of the absolute value of the photospheric vertical electric current density ($|j_z|$) in 48 active regions before and after flares in 2010--2017. Calculation of $|j_z|$ is performed by applying the differential form of Ampere's circuital law to photospheric vector magnetograms obtained from observations of the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) instrument onboard the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). It has been established that for the studied active regions PDF($|j_z|$) is described by the Gauss function in the low-$|j_z|$ region ($|j_z| < 10110 \pm 1321$ statampere/cm$^2$) and the decaying power-law function in the region of higher $|j_z|$ values. Also, for some active regions PDF($|j_z|$) can be described by the special kappa-function. The distributions of the parameters of the approximating functions are obtained using the least squares method. The average absolute value of the power-law function index is $3.69 \pm 0.51$, and $3.99 \pm 0.51$ of the kappa-function. No systematic changes in parameters during the flares are detected. An explicit connection between the parameters and the flare X-ray class, as well as with the Hale magnetic class of the active regions, is not found. Arguments are presented in favor of the suggestion that the Gaussian distribution in the low-value region of PDF($|j_z|$) represents noise in the data, while the power-law "tail" reflects the nature of electric currents in the solar active regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09016 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of |jz| maps for the active regions NOAA 12172 (a) and 11263 (b) and fitted distributions of |jz| in log-log scale in (c) and (d) respectively. Distributions of |jz| before and after the flare are shown be circles and crosses respectively. Three different model fits are shown on different panels: top panel demonstrates Model 1 fit, middle panel – Model 2 fit, and bottom panel – Model 3 fit. Blue lines corre… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms of Model 1 and Model 3 parameters obtained by least square fit of 96 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mutual scalings of parameters for 96 distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Parameters of Models of |jz| distributions for 48 active regions before (x-axis) and after (y-axis) the flares. Errors of the parameters are shown by the thin solid grey segments. The x = y line is shown by the thick dashed blue line. (a) Gaussian expectation µ = b, Mo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Parameters of Models 1 and 3 of pre-flare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Parameters of Models 1 and 3 of pre-flare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of |jz| before the flare (top panels) and after the flare (bottom panels) for the active regions 12172 (a) and 11263 (b). Datapoints obtained from the whole SHARP active region are shown by circles and datapoints obtained from only the "noise" edges are s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (ed Stenflo, J.) Solar Magnetic Fields: Polarized Radiation Diagnostics 189 (Mar. 1994). doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8246-9

    doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8246-9 1994

  2. [2]

    (ed Ryutova, M.) Physics of Magnetic Flux Tubes 417 (2015). doi:10 . 1007 / 978 - 3 - 662 - 45243-1

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Severny, A. B. Nekotorie problemi fiziki Solnca(Moskva, Nauka, 1988)

    work page 1988

  4. [4]

    Fleishman, G. D. & Pevtsov, A. A. Electric Currents in the Solar Atmosphere in Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond (eds Keiling, A., Marghitu, O. & Wheatland, M.) 235 (Mar. 2018), 43–65. doi:10.1002/9781119324522.ch3

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119324522.ch3 2018

  5. [5]

    G., Ruiz Cobo, B

    Puschmann, K. G., Ruiz Cobo, B. & Martı´nez Pillet, V. The Electrical Current Density Vector in the Inner Penumbra of a Sunspot.The Astrophysical Journal Letters721, L58–L61 (Sept. 2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Fursyak, Y. A. & Abramenko, V. I. Possibilities for Estimating Horizontal Electrical Currents in Active Regions on the Sun.Astrophysics 60, 544–552 (Dec. 2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    & Aulanier, G.Solar Active Region Electric Currents Before and During Erup- tive Flares in Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond(eds Keiling, A., Marghitu, O

    Schmieder, B. & Aulanier, G.Solar Active Region Electric Currents Before and During Erup- tive Flares in Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond(eds Keiling, A., Marghitu, O. & Wheatland, M.) 235 (Feb. 2018), 391–406. doi:10.1002/9781119324522.ch23. arXiv: 1903. 04050 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119324522.ch23 2018

  8. [8]

    Stepanov, A. V. & Zaitsev, V. V.Magnitosferi aktivnih oblastei Solnca i zvezd(Moskva, Fiz- matlit, 2019). 12 Density distribution of photospheric vertical electric currents in flare active regions of the Sun Zimovets et al

    work page 2019

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    I., Gopasiuk, S

    Abramenko, V. I., Gopasiuk, S. I. & Ogir’, M. B. Identification of varieties of solar flares based on an investigation of electric currents.Izvestiya Ordena Trudovogo Krasnogo Znameni Krymskoj Astrofizicheskoj Observatorii81, 8–13 (1990)

    1990

  2. [10]

    K., Park, S.-H

    Kontogiannis, I., Georgoulis, M. K., Park, S.-H. & Guerra, J. A. Non-neutralized Electric Currents in Solar Active Regions and Flare Productivity.Solar Physics 292, 159 (Nov. 2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Fursyak, Y. A. Vertical Electric Currents in Active Regions: Calculation Methods and Relation to the Flare Index.Geomagnetism and Aeronomy58, 1129–1135 (Dec. 2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Moreton, G. E. & Severny, A. B. Magnetic Fields and Flares in the Region CMP 20 September

  5. [13]

    Romanov, V. A. & Tsap, T. T. Magnetic Fields and Flare Activity.Soviet Astronomy 34, 656 (Dec. 1990)

    1990

  6. [14]

    I., Gopasiuk, S

    Abramenko, V. I., Gopasiuk, S. I. & Ogir’, M. B. Plasma motions and electric currents in an active region. Izvestiya Ordena Trudovogo Krasnogo Znameni Krymskoj Astrofizicheskoj Observatorii 81, 3–8 (1990)

    1990

  7. [15]

    C., de La Beaujardiere, J.-F

    Canfield, R. C., de La Beaujardiere, J.-F. & Leka, K. D. Flare Energy Release: Observational Consequences and Signatures.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A 336, 381–387 (Sept. 1991)

    1991

  8. [16]

    R., Canfield, R

    Li, J., Metcalf, T. R., Canfield, R. C., Wülser, J.-P. & Kosugi, T. What Is the Spatial Rela- tionship between Hard X-Ray Footpoints and Vertical Electric Currents in Solar Flares?The Astrophysical Journal 482, 490–497 (June 1997)

    1997

  9. [17]

    & Bommier, V

    Musset, S., Vilmer, N. & Bommier, V. Hard X-ray emitting energetic electrons and photo- spheric electric currents.Astronomy and Astrophysics580, A106 (Aug. 2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Sharykin, I. N. & Kosovichev, A. G. Fine Structure of Flare Ribbons and Evolution of Electric Currents. The Astrophysical Journal Letters788, L18 (June 2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    N., Kosovichev, A

    Sharykin, I. N., Kosovichev, A. G. & Zimovets, I. V. Energy Release and Initiation of a Sun- quake in a C-class Flare.The Astrophysical Journal807, 102 (July 2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    A., Grigoryeva, I

    Livshits, M. A., Grigoryeva, I. Y., Myshyakov, I. I. & Rudenko, G. V. Evidence for a relation- ship between emerging magnetic fields, electric currents, and solar flares observed on May 10,

  13. [21]

    V., Sharykin, I

    Zimovets, I. V., Sharykin, I. N., Wang, R., Liu, Y. D. & Kosovichev, A. G. Relationship between Hard X-Ray Footpoint Sources and Photospheric Electric Currents in Solar Flares: a Statistical Study.AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts(Dec. 2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    & Nishizuka, N

    Kang, J., Magara, T., Inoue, S., Kubo, Y. & Nishizuka, N. Distribution characteristics of coronal electric current density as an indicator for the occurrence of a solar flare.Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan68, 101 (Dec. 2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    et al.An observationally-driven kinetic approach to coronal heating.Astronomy and Astrophysics 596, A56 (Nov

    Moraitis, K. et al.An observationally-driven kinetic approach to coronal heating.Astronomy and Astrophysics 596, A56 (Nov. 2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    E., Ellerman, F., Nicholson, S

    Hale, G. E., Ellerman, F., Nicholson, S. B. & Joy, A. H. The Magnetic Polarity of Sun-Spots. The Astrophysical Journal49, 153 (Apr. 1919)

    1919

  17. [25]

    Scherrer, P. H. et al.The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) Investigation for the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).Solar Physics 275, 207–227 (Jan. 2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    P.et al.The Reuven Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI).Solar Physics 210, 3–32 (Nov

    Lin, R. P.et al.The Reuven Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI).Solar Physics 210, 3–32 (Nov. 2002)

    2002

  19. [27]

    Bobra, M. G. et al. The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) Vector Magnetic Field Pipeline: SHARPs - Space-Weather HMI Active Region Patches.Solar Physics 289, 3549– 3578 (Sept. 2014). 13 Density distribution of photospheric vertical electric currents in flare active regions...

    2014

  20. [28]

    Hoeksema, J. T. et al. The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) Vector Magnetic Field Pipeline: Overview and Performance.Solar Physics 289, 3483–3530 (Sept. 2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Calabretta, M. R. & Greisen, E. W. Representations of celestial coordinates in FITS.Astron- omy and Astrophysics395, 1077–1122 (Dec. 2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    Thompson, W. T. Coordinate systems for solar image data.Astronomy and Astrophysics449, 791–803 (Apr. 2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    M., Kosovichev, A

    Sadykov, V. M., Kosovichev, A. G., Kitiashvili, I. N. & Kerr, G. S. Response of SDO/HMI observables to heating of the solar atmosphere by precipitating high-energy electrons.arXiv e-prints. arXiv: 1906.10788 [astro-ph.SR] (June 2019)

    1906 arXiv

  24. [32]

    & Wang, H

    Toriumi, S. & Wang, H. Flare-productive active regions.Living Reviews in Solar Physics16, 3 (May 2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Abramenko, V. I. & Longcope, D. W. Distribution of the Magnetic Flux in Elements of the Magnetic Field in Active Regions.The Astrophysical Journal619, 1160–1166 (Feb. 2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Abramenko, V. I. Relationship between Magnetic Power Spectrum and Flare Productivity in Solar Active Regions.The Astrophysical Journal629, 1141–1149 (Aug. 2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    & Yurchyshyn, V

    Abramenko, V. & Yurchyshyn, V. Magnetic Energy Spectra in Solar Active Regions. The Astrophysical Journal 720, 717–722 (Sept. 2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    S., Abramenko, V

    Kutsenko, A. S., Abramenko, V. I., Kuzanyan, K. M., Xu, H. & Zhang, H. Intermittency spectra of current helicity in solar active regions.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480, 3780–3787 (Nov. 2018). 14

    2018

  29. [1963]

    Solar Physics 3, 282–297 (Feb. 1968)

    1968

  30. [2012]

    Astronomy Reports 60, 939–948 (Oct. 2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.