Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Theoretical Studies on the Evolution of Solar Filaments in Response to New Emerging Flux

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single analytic curve, the channel function, separates solar eruptions from non-eruptions driven by newly emerging flux.

desk verdict Clean early-motion analysis with an over-claimed boundary; referee-worthy if the |S*|=1/C=0 coincidence gets proven or numerically checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13839 v1 pith:TDDBHLLX submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.SR

Yuhao Chen , Jialiang Hu , Guanchong Cheng , Jing Ye , Zhixing Mei , Chengcai Shen , Jun Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarfilamentscoronalmassejectionsmagneticfluxemergenceropeequilibriumcatastrophetheorychannelfunctioneruptionsspaceweatherforecasting
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 tries to establish that the fate of a solar magnetic configuration facing new emerging flux can be read off early from a single analytic curve. The authors define a channel function C(x_d, y_d) whose zero set divides the parameter space of emerging-flux location into regions where the flux rope will, will not, or may barely erupt. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a concrete, testable rule for forecasting eruptions from early filament motion and the observed geometry of the emerging flux.

What carries the argument

The central object is the channel function $$C(x_d,y_d)=x_d-\sqrt{\frac{y_d+3+2\ln(2/r_{00})}{-y_d+1+2\ln(2/r_{00})}}\,(y_d+1),$$ which carries the argument by encoding, through the derivative $\partial y_h/\partial S$ at $S=0$, whether a newly emerging flux source pushes the flux rope upward or downward. Its zero set, $C=0$, is the curve on which the early motion is purely horizontal and on which the critical emerging flux has magnitude $|S^*|=1$; the paper uses this curve to partition the $(x_d,y_d)$ plane into regions corresponding to different catastrophe types and eruption outcomes.

What would settle it

A numerical MHD run in which the new flux emerges impulsively and the flux rope initially descends, yet still produces a full eruption, would directly falsify the early-motion prediction; likewise, an observed active region where a filament descends at the onset of new flux but nevertheless erupts would contradict the claim that early descent rules out catastrophe for weak emerging flux.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that, for a coronal configuration containing an electric-current-carrying flux rope above two photospheric magnetic dipoles, the sign of the channel function C(x_d, y_d) at the moment new flux starts to emerge determines the early motion of the flux rope: upward or downward, left or right. More strongly, the zero set C(x_d, y_d)=0 is the boundary where the critical emerging flux strength satisfies |S*|=1; on one side a weak emerging flux can trigger a catastrophe (eruption easy), on the other side a strong flux is needed or no catastrophe occurs. Thus the paper claims that location, polarity, and strength of the new emerging flux, together with early flux-rope motion, determine the eventual eruption outcome for a quasi-static evolution along the equilibrium branch that starts at S=0.

Load-bearing premise

The central prediction assumes the emerging flux appears slowly enough that the coronal configuration passes through a sequence of equilibria and that eruption occurs only through the loss-of-equilibrium catastrophe on the branch connected to S=0.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the channel-function criterion is correct, then observing the early rising or descending motion of a filament, along with the location and polarity of the newly emerging flux, can indicate whether the system will eventually erupt.
  • The result implies that reconnection-favorable orientation is only one factor: the same polarity of emerging flux can either destabilize or stabilize the configuration depending on whether the new flux appears near to or far from the existing flux rope.
  • Weak emerging flux (|S|<1) requires reconnection to destroy the original configuration before a catastrophe; strong emerging flux (|S|>1) can trigger loss of equilibrium through its magnetic force alone, even without favorable reconnection.
  • The paper's six-case classification of equilibrium curves predicts that some catastrophes lead to failed eruptions, where the flux rope jumps to a new equilibrium instead of escaping, and that a later weakening of the new flux can cause a second catastrophe that produces a non-radial CME.
  • The authors explicitly note that the line C=0 explains why purely horizontal CMEs are rare but not impossible, connecting the theory to observed near-horizontal early CME propagation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the channel-function rule against observed active regions by mapping the location of newly emerging flux relative to the filament channel and checking whether eruptive events concentrate on the predicted side of C=0.
  • The quasi-static assumption implies the criterion may fail for impulsive flux emergence; a natural extension is to run MHD simulations with finite emergence rates and see whether the early-motion sign still predicts the outcome when the system does not pass through equilibrium states.
  • The result suggests a practical precursor diagnostic: an initially descending filament would, under this model, be a strong sign that eruption will not follow unless the emerging flux is strong and suitably located, which could inform operational flare/CME forecasting.
  • Because the model ignores gravity, gas pressure, and diffusion, its predictions are most directly applicable to force-free coronal conditions; extending the channel function to include a current sheet or reconnection dynamics might shift the boundary C=0.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies a 2.5D magnetostatic model of a coronal flux rope (FR) above two photospheric dipoles, where the second dipole represents new emerging flux (NEF). It derives closed-form early-motion derivatives at S=0, introduces a channel function C(xd,yd), computes the critical emerging flux S* numerically, classifies six equilibrium-evolution scenarios, and proposes that the early FR motion plus the location, polarity, and strength of the NEF determines whether an eruption occurs. One MHD rerun illustrates the post-catastrophe dynamics for Case 2.

Significance. If the central identity |S*|=1 on C(xd,yd)=0 is established, the channel function would provide a simple analytic criterion linking an observable early precursor (filament ascent or descent) to the eruption outcome, extending Lin et al. (2001) and giving quantitative support to the Feynman-Martin and Chen-Shibata picture. The paper's strengths include the clean implicit differentiation in Appendix B, the systematic six-case taxonomy, and a numerical post-catastrophe check. However, the key identity is currently asserted rather than derived, and the S* map is produced by an incompletely specified, unreleased numerical procedure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, final paragraph] The statement that the loss of equilibrium occurs with |S*|=1 whenever C(xd,yd)=0 is asserted without derivation or reference. Equations (2)-(4) and Appendix B determine only the sign of dyh/dS at S=0; they do not locate the fold points of the equilibrium problem. Because Figures 3c and 5 and the abstract's weak/strong NEF classification all rest on this identity, please supply a proof, or a quantitative numerical verification with stated tolerances, or clearly delimit the approximation if the identity is not exact.
  2. [Section 4.1] The computation of S* is described only as a root-finding algorithm with continuity from a neighboring equilibrium curve; no algorithm details, branch-selection rule, or code/data are provided. The S* map in Figure 3c and the six-case classification in Figure 4 are central to the paper's predictions, so this computation must be reproducible. Please describe the algorithm sufficiently for reproduction and release the code or a table of S*(xd,yd).
  3. [Section 3, beginning; Figures 6-7] The predictive chain assumes that emergence is slow enough for the system to pass through a sequence of equilibria and that the realized dynamic path is the equilibrium branch connected to S=0 up to the fold. These assumptions are stated but are not tested dynamically except for one rerun of Case 2. Impulsive emergence, reconnection before the critical point, or branch jumping could invalidate the 'determine the destination from the early stage' claim in Section 6; please state this scope limitation explicitly or add dynamic runs that test the early-motion rule.
  4. [Section 2, r00 parameterization] The channel boundary C(xd,yd)=0 depends on the free parameter r00 through Equation (4), yet the parameter maps use only r00=0.01 while the numerical verification in Section 5 uses r00=0.05, which moves the asymptote from yd=11.6 to approximately yd=8.4. Please quantify the sensitivity of the predicted regions and S* values to r00, or justify the chosen value observationally.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] There are grammatical errors such as 'reconnection occur between' and 'as NEF is close to FR'; these should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 3c caption] The color scale for S* values and the distinction between ordinary and upside-down triangles are not explained in enough detail; please add a legend and define the color-to-value mapping.
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The green/red color scheme is described in the caption, but the figure as printed is not colorblind-safe; please add distinct markers or hatching for the two regions.
  4. [Section 4.1, paragraph 1] The phrase 'four types of catastrophe, namely no catastrophe, the fold catastrophe, the cusp catastrophe, and the umbilic catastrophe' should be rephrased, since 'no catastrophe' is not a catastrophe type.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Only the early-motion prediction is self-definitional, since C is the sign of the S=0 vertical derivative by construction; the decisive |S*|=1-on-C=0 identity is asserted without proof, so the eruption forecast is better described as underived than circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Eq. (4); Section 6; Appendix B, Eq. (B21)]
    "the sign of the numerator is consistent with that of a channel function, C(xd, yd) that is defined as: C(xd, yd) = xd − sqrt( (yd + 3 + 2 ln(2/r00)) / (−yd + 1 + 2 ln(2/r00)) ) (yd + 1) . ... we notice a line C(xd, yd) = 0 existing on the xdyd-plane, which determines several motion patterns of the FR in the early stage (e.g., see Figure 2)."

    Appendix B states that C is defined according to Eq. (B21) or (3), and Eq. (B21) is exactly ∂yh/∂S at S=0. Therefore C is a rewritten sign indicator of the initial vertical velocity of the FR; the early-motion patterns attributed to C (down for C<0, horizontal for C=0, up for C>0) are the derivative itself, not an independent forecast. The genuinely load-bearing claim, that the loss of equilibrium occurs with |S*|=1 when C=0, is asserted in Section 6 as 'Further studies indicate...' with no derivation; it is not entailed by the S=0 Taylor expansion. That is an unproved coincidence, not a circular reduction, but the early-motion channel function itself is definitional.

full rationale

Most of the paper is self-contained: Appendix A states the equilibrium equations (A4)-(A7), Appendix B derives the S=0 derivatives explicitly, and the S* map in Figure 3c is computed from the stated root-finding continuation rather than fitted to the early-motion channel function. I find no load-bearing self-citation chain: Lin et al. (2001) supplies the equilibrium model, but the equations are reproduced here, so the argument does not reduce to an unverified citation. The main circular element is confined to the channel function's early-motion role: C is constructed from the numerator of ∂yh/∂S|S=0, so the early-motion arrows in Figures 2 and 5 restate Eq. (3) by construction. The decisive quantitative identity |S*|=1 on C=0 is not derived in the paper; Section 6 says 'Further studies indicate...' and Section 4.1 offers only 'Interestingly, and yet intuitively, this corresponds to the line C=0' for the numerical S* map. This is an omitted proof and an unverified coincidence, which should be weighed as a correctness risk rather than as circularity. In addition, C's introduction is explicitly motivated by Feynman & Martin (1995) and Chen & Shibata (2000), and Section 5 validates against the same works, a mild selection-validation circularity. Weighing the transparent but definitional early-motion prediction against the independent but unproved central identity, the circularity score is 3.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the 2D equilibrium model inherited from Lin et al. (2001), on the free parameter r00, and on the quasi-static catastrophe assumption. No new physical entities are introduced; the channel function is a derived mathematical classifier. The main unverified input is r00, which shifts all S* values and the C=0 boundary.

free parameters (1)
  • r00 = 0.01 (0.05 in the numerical example)
    Initial radius of the flux rope at J=1; it enters the channel function C through ln(2/r00), sets the boundary depth yd*=1+2ln(2/r00)=11.6, and shifts the S* values. It is chosen by hand rather than fitted, and the paper explicitly calls it a free parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A force-free, two-dimensional line-current model with a flux rope, its image current, and two line dipoles captures the coronal configuration; gravity, gas pressure, and diffusivity are neglected.
    Section 2 states this directly when defining the model, and equations A1-A7 are built on it.
  • domain assumption Flux emergence is quasi-static: as S changes slowly, the system stays on an equilibrium branch until the Hessian determinant Delta=0, at which point catastrophe and eruption follow.
    Section 3: 'the system does not necessarily lose the equilibrium immediately... configuration itself could find a new equilibrium state... Not until the critical point is reached...'
  • domain assumption Magnetic reconnection effects can be inferred from field-line topology and the sign of C, without solving reconnection dynamics.
    Section 4 cases invoke reconnection between new and old fields to explain confinement removal, but no resistive term appears in equations A1-A7.
  • standard math The implicit function theorem applies at S=0, so the Jacobian matrix A is invertible at the initial equilibrium.
    Appendix B computes A^-1 at S=0 with xh=0, yh=1, J=1, and r0=r00.
  • standard math Catastrophe theory classification (fold, cusp, umbilic) applies to the equilibrium surfaces.
    Section 4.1 and Figure 3a identify catastrophe types via Delta=0 (Equation 1) following Thom (1972) and Poston and Stewart (1978).
  • domain assumption The new emerging flux is the sole driver of the loss of equilibrium; other eruption mechanisms are excluded.
    Section 1 explicitly narrows the study to the case where NEF is the sole mechanism for triggering the loss of equilibrium.
invented entities (1)
  • Channel function C(xd, yd)
    purpose: Mathematical classifier separating parameter-space regions with different flux-rope evolutionary outcomes.
    It is a derived mathematical construct, not a physical entity, so it has no falsifiable handle outside the same 2D model; it is not a hidden degree of freedom either.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theoretical Studies on the Evolution of Solar Filaments in Response to New Emerging Flux." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDDBHLLX

@misc{pith2026241113839,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theoretical Studies on the Evolution of Solar Filaments in Response to New Emerging Flux},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDDBHLLX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13839}
}
abstract

New emerging flux (NEF) has long been considered a mechanism for solar eruptions, but detailed process remains an open question. In this work, we explore how NEF drives a coronal magnetic configuration to erupt. This configuration is created by two magnetic sources of strengths $M$ and $S$ embedded in the photosphere, one electric-current-carrying flux rope (FR) floating in the corona, and an electric current induced on the photospheric surface by the FR. The source $M$ is fixed accounting for the initial background field, and $S$ changes playing the role of NEF. We introduce the channel function $C$ to forecast the overall evolutionary behavior of the configuration. Location, polarity, and strength of NEF governs the evolutionary behavior of FR before eruption. In the case of $|S/M|<1$ with reconnection occur between new and old fields, the configuration in equilibrium evolves to the critical state, invoking the catastrophe. In this case, if polarities of the new and old fields are opposite, reconnection occurs as NEF is close to FR; and if polarities are the same, reconnection happens as NEF appears far from FR. With different combinations of the relative polarity and the location, the evolutionary behavior of the system gets complex, and the catastrophe may not occur. If $|S/M|>1$ and the two fields have opposite polarity, the catastrophe always takes place; but if the polarities are the same, catastrophe occurs only as NEF is located far from FR; otherwise, the evolution ends up either with failed eruption or without catastrophe at all.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13839 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The magnetic configuration, including the FR, the image of the FR, the Dipole 1 to model the unchanged background field, and the Dipole 2 to model the NEF. Prior to the magnetic emergence (S = 0), the FR remained undisturbed, positioning itself just above Dipole 1. Chen et al. (2022) performed a set of numerical experiments to look into the evolution in a similar system as a result of the NEF. They found that the ea… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolutionary tendencies of the FR as the new flux starts to emerge. The upper and the lower panels are for the NEF with S < 0 and S > 0, respectively. From left to right, four columns display magnetic configurations scenarios when Dipole 2 is positioned at different locations: xd = 0, C(xd, yd) < 0, C(xd, yd) = 0, and C(xd, yd) > 0. Here, C(xd, yd) is the channel function defined in equation (4). The gray dashed cur… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Equilibrium surface from two views shows variations in yh, the equilibrium heights, as functions of both S and xd with yd = 2.5, possessing two topological structures, i.e., the hole (H) and the fold (F). (b) Equilibrium curves of yh versus S with yd = 2.5 and xd = 5. The green dot marks the FR’s initial position before new flux emerges, while red dots indicate the critical states where the catastrophe occurs. (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Six cases of the FR evolution. Columns, from left to right, illustrate the evolution in xh with respect to S, the evolution in yh, and the magnetic structure at the critical state, respectively. Each row illustrates a distinct case. Green dots on the curve and crosses …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The FR motion in the early stage and the consequent catastrophes driven by the NEF of varying polarities, strengths, and locations. Upward arrows denote the early ascent of the FR, while downward arrows indicate early descent. The meanings of triangles and crosses are …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Counterpart of the Case 2 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolutions of the magnetic field (continuous curves) and the associated plasma distributions (colorful shadows) after the catastrophe described by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, ApJL, 950, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acda2e

    Chen, F., Rempel, M., & Fan, Y. 2023, ApJL, 950, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acda2e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acda2e 2023

  2. [2]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 2011

  3. [3]

    F., & Shibata, K

    Chen, P. F., & Shibata, K. 2000, ApJ, 545, 524, doi: 10.1086/317803

    doi:10.1086/317803 2000

  4. [4]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac73ef

    Chen, Y., Ye, J., Mei, Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac73ef

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac73ef 2022

  5. [5]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 229, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/229

    Cheng, G.-C., Ni, L., Chen, Y.-J., Ziegler, U., & Lin, J. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 229, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/229

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/229 2021

  6. [6]

    2023a, ApJL, 954, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf3e4

    Cheng, X., Xing, C., Aulanier, G., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 954, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf3e4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf3e4

  7. [7]

    R., Li, H

    Cheng, X., Priest, E. R., Li, H. T., et al. 2023b, Nature Communications, 14, 2107, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37888-w

    doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37888-w

  8. [8]

    Cheung, M. C. M., & Isobe, H. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2014-3

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2014-3 2014

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Feynman, J., & Martin, S. F. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 3355, doi: 10.1029/94JA02591

    1995 doi

  2. [10]

    2010, in Heliophysics: Space Storms and Radiation: Causes and Effects, ed

    Forbes, T. 2010, in Heliophysics: Space Storms and Radiation: Causes and Effects, ed. C. J. Schrijver & G. L. Siscoe, 159

    2010

  3. [11]

    Forbes, T. G. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 23153, doi: 10.1029/2000JA000005

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    G., & Isenberg, P

    Forbes, T. G., & Isenberg, P. A. 1991, ApJ, 373, 294, doi: 10.1086/170051

    1991 doi

  5. [13]

    G., & Priest, E

    Forbes, T. G., & Priest, E. R. 1995, ApJ, 446, 377, doi: 10.1086/175797

    1995 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Priest, E

    Forbes, T. G., Priest, E. R., & Isenberg, P. A. 1994, SoPh, 150, 245, doi: 10.1007/BF00712888 18 Chen et al

    1994 doi

  7. [15]

    G., Linker, J

    Forbes, T. G., Linker, J. A., Chen, J., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 251, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9019-8

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 156, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/156

    Gan, W.-Q., Zhu, C., Deng, Y.-Y., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 156, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/156

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2018, SSRv, 214, 46, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0462-5

    Veronig, A. 2018, SSRv, 214, 46, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0462-5

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Harrison, R. A. 1995, A&A, 304, 585

    1995

  11. [19]

    A., Forbes, T

    Isenberg, P. A., Forbes, T. G., & Demoulin, P. 1993, ApJ, 417, 368, doi: 10.1086/173319

    1993 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Moon, Y

    Ji, H., Wang, H., Schmahl, E. J., Moon, Y. J., & Jiang, Y. 2003, ApJL, 595, L135, doi: 10.1086/378178

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    T., et al

    Kusano, K., Bamba, Y., Yamamoto, T. T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/31

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2515

    Li, F., Rao, C., Zhao, X., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2515

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 144, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/144

    Li, F.-Y., Chen, Y.-H., Song, Y.-L., Hou, Z.-Y., & Tian, H. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 144, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/144

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2001, PhD thesis, University of New Hampshire —

    Lin, J. 2001, PhD thesis, University of New Hampshire —. 2002, ChJA&A, 2, 539, doi: 10.1088/1009-9271/2/6/539

    2001 doi

  17. [25]

    Lin, J., & Forbes, T. G. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 2375, doi: 10.1029/1999JA900477 —. 2008, Theoretical Investigations of Mechanisms for Solar Eruptions (La Vergne: VDM Verlag)

    2000 doi

  18. [26]

    G., & Isenberg, P

    Lin, J., Forbes, T. G., & Isenberg, P. A. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 25053, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000046

    2001 doi

  19. [27]

    G., Isenberg, P

    Lin, J., Forbes, T. G., Isenberg, P. A., & D´ emoulin, P. 1998, ApJ, 504, 1006, doi: 10.1086/306108

    1998 doi

  20. [28]

    2004, NewA, 9, 611, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2004.04.004

    Lin, J., & Soon, W. 2004, NewA, 9, 611, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2004.04.004

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    Lin, J., Soon, W., & Baliunas, S. L. 2003, NewAR, 47, 53, doi: 10.1016/S1387-6473(02)00271-3

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    D., et al

    Lu, Z., Chen, F., Ding, M. D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02244-5

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    I., Su, Y

    McCauley, P. I., Su, Y. N., Schanche, N., et al. 2015, SoPh, 290, 1703, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0699-7

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    2021, A&A, 646, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039239

    Ni, L., Chen, Y., Peter, H., Tian, H., & Lin, J. 2021, A&A, 646, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039239

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, A&A, 665, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243304

    Ni, L., Cheng, G., & Lin, J. 2022, A&A, 665, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243304

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    1978, Catastrophe theory and its applications (London: Pitman)

    Poston, T., & Stewart, I. 1978, Catastrophe theory and its applications (London: Pitman)

    1978

  27. [35]

    I., Galsgaard, K., Downs, C., et al

    Roussev, I. I., Galsgaard, K., Downs, C., et al. 2012, Nature Physics, 8, 845, doi: 10.1038/nphys2427

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    L., McKenzie, D

    Savage, S. L., McKenzie, D. E., Reeves, K. K., Forbes, T. G., & Longcope, D. W. 2010, ApJ, 722, 329, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/329

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    2007, Science, 318, 1591, doi: 10.1126/science.1146708

    Shibata, K., Nakamura, T., Matsumoto, T., et al. 2007, Science, 318, 1591, doi: 10.1126/science.1146708

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    T., Liu, Y., et al

    Sun, X., Hoeksema, J. T., Liu, Y., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/77

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3

    Temmer, M. 2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    1972, Stabilit´ e structurelle et morphog´ en` ese (New York: Benjamin) T¨ or¨ ok, T., & Kliem, B

    Thom, R. 1972, Stabilit´ e structurelle et morphog´ en` ese (New York: Benjamin) T¨ or¨ ok, T., & Kliem, B. 2005, ApJL, 630, L97, doi: 10.1086/462412 van Tend, W., & Kuperus, M. 1978, SoPh, 59, 115, doi: 10.1007/BF00154935

    1972 doi

  33. [41]

    2008, ChA&A, 32, 56, doi: 10.1016/j.chinastron.2008.01.008

    Xu, X.-y., Fang, C., & Chen, P.-f. 2008, ChA&A, 32, 56, doi: 10.1016/j.chinastron.2008.01.008

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    2012, Nature Communications, 3, 747, doi: 10.1038/ncomms1753

    Zhang, J., Cheng, X., & Ding, M.-D. 2012, Nature Communications, 3, 747, doi: 10.1038/ncomms1753

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    White, S. M. 2001, ApJ, 559, 452, doi: 10.1086/322405

    2001 doi

  36. [44]

    Zhang, Q. M. 2021, A&A, 653, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141982

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2008, SoPh, 250, 75, doi: 10.1007/s11207-008-9150-7

    Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., & Zhang, H. 2008, SoPh, 250, 75, doi: 10.1007/s11207-008-9150-7

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 045, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/18/4/45

    Zhao, T.-L., Ni, L., Lin, J., & Ziegler, U. 2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 045, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/18/4/45

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.