Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 78 references

Magnetic Reconnection in a Compact Magnetic Dome: Chromospheric Emissions and High-velocity Plasma Flows

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a small brightening seen in the solar active region 13465 was produced by low-altitude magnetic reconnection along quasi-separatrix layers in a compact fan-spine-type magnetic dome, with a magnetic null point about…

desk verdict A careful DKIST case study that plausibly links an EB-like brightening to QSL reconnection in a compact fan-spine dome, though the key topology rests on a force-free extrapolation whose low-atmosphere validity is not quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04292 v2 pith:XNHUXEXA submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

J. M. da Silva Santos , E. Dunnington , R. Jarolim , S. Danilovic , S. Criscuoli This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solarmagneticreconnectionquasi-separatrixlayersfan-spinetopologyEllermanbombsfluxcancellationnon-LTEspectropolarimetricinversionsNLFFFextrapolationchromosphere
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

Using high-resolution, multi-line spectropolarimetric observations of a small brightening in active region 13465, the paper argues that the event is not a simple photospheric Ellerman bomb but the observable signature of low-altitude magnetic reconnection in a compact fan-spine-type magnetic dome. The load-bearing evidence is a set of non-LTE inversions showing temperature, velocity, and microturbulence enhancements confined to the upper photosphere and low chromosphere, combined with a nonlinear force-free field extrapolation that places a magnetic null point about 500 km above the surface and traces quasi-separatrix layers with squashing factors up to about $10^4$. In this picture, flux cancellation between a small negative-polarity patch and surrounding positive plage stresses the dome, and reconnection along the quasi-separatrix layers releases energy that drives the observed supersonic, near-Alfvénic flows and enhanced emissions in H$\beta$, Ca II K, and the 1700 Å continuum. A sympathetic reader would care because the result ties a small, short-lived solar brightening to a specific magnetic topology and an energy budget that can be checked against measured flux cancellation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnetic field topology inferred from the NLFFF extrapolation: a compact fan-spine dome, in which fan field lines curve over a dome-like surface and meet at a spine, with a magnetic null point about 500 km above the photosphere. The quantitative tracer of the reconnection sites is the squashing factor $Q$, a measure of how rapidly the field-line mapping diverges; surfaces of high $Q$ are quasi-separatrix layers, where the field connectivity changes sharply and three-dimensional reconnection can proceed even without a null point. The other load-bearing piece is the multi-line non-LTE inversion, which uses the full profiles of Fe I 6301/6302, Na I D$_1$, and Ca II 8542 to recover height-stratified temperature, line-of-sight velocity, microturbulence, and magnetic field. These inversions supply the thermodynamic evidence that the energy release is deep-seated, occurring in the upper photosphere and low chromosphere rather than in the overlying corona.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to measure the chromospheric magnetic field directly around the inferred dome height rather than relying on the extrapolation: if a vector magnetogram from a chromospheric line such as He I 10830 Å or Ca II 8542 Å showed no null point about 500 km above the photosphere and no abrupt change in field connectivity at the brightening location, the fan-spine quasi-separatrix-layer interpretation would be falsified. An observational check is to follow the event with roughly 1-minute-cadence imaging and magnetograms through the flux-cancellation episode and verify that the brightenings track the time-dependent quasi-separatrix-layer footprints; if the brightenings persist in regions of ordinary connectivity, the mechanism is not QSL reconnection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the brightening in AR 13465 is caused by low-altitude magnetic reconnection along quasi-separatrix layers in a compact fan-spine-type configuration. The evidence is twofold. First, multi-line non-LTE inversions of the Fe I 6301/6302 Å, Na I D$_1$ 5896 Å, and Ca II 8542 Å lines show temperature increases of roughly 100 to 2000 K concentrated near $\log\tau=-2$, line-of-sight velocities up to about 28 km s$^{-1}$ near the Ellerman-bomb-like kernel, and microturbulence enhancements up to about 14 km s$^{-1}$ near $\log\tau=-3$, all confined to the upper photosphere and low chromosphere. Second, an NLFFF extrapolation built from the photospheric vector magnetogram embedded in the larger active-region magnetogram reveals a low-lying dome of field lines, a magnetic null point about 500 km above the photosphere, and elevated squashing factors along a sheet that reaches about 1.4 Mm in height. The paper interprets these quasi-separatrix layers, rather than the null point alone, as the main sites of reconnection, because the observed brightenings are broader than the null-point projection and extend at an angle to the spine.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the magnetic field in the first 1 to 2 Mm above the surface is force-free, meaning shaped only by magnetic forces, and static enough that a single 20-minute snapshot of the photospheric field can be extrapolated upward to give the true dome, null point, and quasi-separatrix layers; if plasma forces dominate at those heights, or the field changes faster than the raster, the inferred topology and the reconnection story built on it could be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The event demonstrates that Ellerman-bomb-like brightenings can be produced by reconnection at quasi-separatrix layers in compact fan-spine domes, not only at the U-loop bald-patch separatrices classically associated with such bombs.
  • The estimated radiative loss of roughly $10^{27}$ erg over the brightening is of the same order as the magnetic energy released by the measured flux cancellation rate, so flux cancellation can plausibly power the event.
  • The inferred null-point height of about 500 km and the deep-seated heating predict that the strongest spectral signatures appear in the upper photosphere and low chromosphere, as observed in the line wings of Ca II 8542 and H$\beta$.
  • The absence of significant emission in hotter AIA channels and the slight dimming in 304 Å indicate that the reconnection is confined to low heights and launches cool, absorbing material, so coronal signatures are not expected.
  • The recurrent brightenings at the same location over about an hour, with brightening lagging flux appearance by roughly 11 minutes, are consistent with the time needed for inflowing flux to build a stressed current sheet before reconnecting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not pursue this, but the same quasi-separatrix-layer mechanism may operate in many quiet-Sun and active-region Ellerman bombs whose magnetic topology cannot be resolved at lower resolution, suggesting that compact fan-spine domes are common hosts of such events.
  • Because the extrapolation is a single snapshot, a direct test would be to track the squashing-factor surfaces through the flux-cancellation sequence; if the quasi-separatrix layers persist and migrate with the brightenings, that would confirm that the topology, rather than a transient null, organizes the energy release.
  • The lack of correlation between inferred Doppler velocities and microturbulence at any optical depth may hint at unresolved, intermittent reconnection or wave-like motions, and higher-cadence spectropolarimetry than the present 20-minute raster could separate those possibilities.
  • The inferred quasi-separatrix-layer height of roughly 0.5 to 1.4 Mm provides a low-atmosphere anchor for the idea, seen in larger circular-ribbon flares, that fan-spine geometry bridges the smallest and strongest reconnection events across scales.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a small-scale brightening in AR 13465 observed with DKIST/ViSP and VBI, combining imaging, spectropolarimetry, NLTE inversions, and NLFFF extrapolations. The authors report EB-like H-beta morphology, Ca II K enhancements, flux cancellation, enhanced temperature/velocity/microturbulence in the upper photosphere and low chromosphere, and an extrapolated fan-spine-type dome with a null point about 500 km above the photosphere and enhanced squashing factors along low-lying QSLs. The central claim is that these observations provide evidence for low-altitude magnetic reconnection along quasi-separatrix layers in a compact fan-spine configuration.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this is a valuable high-resolution observational case study connecting small-scale reconnection to a fan-spine topology at heights that are difficult to probe, and it complements recent statistical and simulation work on EBs and UV bursts. The paper is honest and unusually explicit about its limitations: it acknowledges the Ca II K speckle-ring artifact, the weak chromospheric polarimetric sensitivity, the misfit of the lambda8542 surge feature, and the smoothed and quasi-static nature of the NLFFF solution. Strengths include the multi-line NLTE inversions, the embedding of a high-resolution ViSP magnetogram into a larger SHARP boundary, and an order-of-magnitude check of the radiative energy estimate against the magnetic energy budget. The main significance risk is that the topological attribution rests on the force-free assumption in exactly the layers where that assumption is least secure; this is a fixable gap rather than a fundamental flaw.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.2 and 4.3] The central topological claim—a null point about 500 km above the boundary, a fan-spine dome reaching about 0.7 Mm, and a high-Q sheet reaching about 1.4 Mm—is made in the height range (upper photosphere and low chromosphere) where the force-free approximation is least justified, yet the paper provides no quantitative check of force-freeness at those heights. In Section 3.2 the divergence and force-free residuals are weighted by 10^-2 relative to the SHARP boundary, while the ViSP boundary weight is raised to 10; the smoother modeled boundary condition acknowledged in Section 4.3 therefore means the solution near the boundary is primarily a fit to the photospheric magnetogram rather than a force-free equilibrium. I request (i) maps of the residual Lorentz force or |J x B|/|B|^2 in the ROI, (ii) a plasma-beta height profile showing whether the beta=0 assumption holds at log tau about -2 to -3 where the brightenings are inferred, and (iii) a robustness test of the null-point height and QSL locations to the force-free weight, for example by increasing the weight or by using an HMI-only boundary.
  2. [Section 2.1 and Section 4.3] The NLFFF boundary condition is assembled from a single ViSP raster that took about 20 minutes to complete, while the event evolves on timescales of minutes: the HMI flux cancellation rate is about 3x10^15 Mx/s, the AIA emission lags the negative-flux peak by about 11 minutes, and the VBI sequences show morphological changes within the raster interval. The authors acknowledge the low cadence in Section 4.3, but the null point and QSL positions that anchor the interpretation are computed from this time-mosaicked, quasi-static boundary. Please quantify how sensitive the inferred topology is to the temporal mismatch, for example by running the extrapolation with the ViSP boundary replaced by the cotemporal HMI/SHARP boundary (with and without the negative patch) or by perturbing the boundary within the estimated polarimetric noise.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Figure 5] The high-velocity flow and microturbulence enhancements that motivate the 'Alfvénic plasma flows' part of the title and abstract are derived from line-profile fits that the authors themselves identify as problematic for the key features: the lambda8542 surge at location (C) has a blueshifted component near -31 km/s that the inversions cannot fit, and at location (B) the sodium line is forced brighter than observed. Because these are exactly the locations used to infer high-velocity outflows, the paper should quantify the robustness of the inferred vLOS and vturb enhancements to the choice of node spacing, to the plane-parallel hydrostatic assumption, and to masking the misfit feature; without such a check, it is unclear whether the extreme values (up to about 28 km/s and 14 km/s) are required by the data or are artifacts of an incomplete model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] The polarimetric sensitivity of (6-8)x10^-4 is quoted, but no uncertainty maps are shown for the ME and WFA magnetic field estimates; please provide typical error bars or state how the noise propagates into the extrapolation boundary.
  2. [Section 3.2] The text states that the divergence and force-free equations are weighted by 10^-2, but it does not define the dimensionless residual being minimized; please state the normalized loss components and report their converged values.
  3. [Section 4.1] The 11.3 min lag obtained from the normalized cross-correlation function is quoted without an uncertainty; please report the lag uncertainty given the 45-s HMI cadence and 24-s AIA cadence.
  4. [Section 4.3] The claim that the extrapolated field strength of about 300 G at about 700 km is consistent with the NLTE-inferred field at log tau about -4.5 'within the uncertainties' should be supported by a quantitative comparison of the profiles at locations A, B, and C rather than by a qualitative statement.
  5. [Section 4.2 and Figure 4] The Wiener filter used to smooth the inversion maps is not described; please give the filter parameters and show that the ring-like temperature structure at log tau = -2 is not an artifact of the smoothing.
  6. [Throughout] Please correct the typo in Section 2.1 ('to corrected for measured'), check the inconsistent rendering of 'van der Voort' in the text and references, and remove or define the leftover 'ATM' label in Figure 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral inversions and the magnetogram-driven NLFFF extrapolation are independent chains, and the QSL-reconnection interpretation is a physical inference rather than a restatement of the inputs.

full rationale

The paper's core interpretive claim is that the brightening in AR 13465 results from low-altitude magnetic reconnection along quasi-separatrix layers in a compact fan-spine-type dome. This claim is assembled from two largely independent analysis chains. First, the non-LTE inversions (Section 3.1, Section 4.2) fit the observed ViSP line profiles to infer temperature, velocity, and microturbulence stratifications; these quantities are outputs of the fitting procedure, not inputs. Second, the NLFFF extrapolation (Section 3.2) takes the ViSP vector magnetogram as a boundary condition and solves the force-free and solenoidal equations with a neural representation; the null point, squashing factor, and QSLs are computed from the resulting 3D field, not prescribed from the brightening morphology. The identification of the null at ~500 km and the QSL sheet reaching ~1.4 Mm is therefore a derived result, and the authors themselves note that the extrapolation requires a trade-off with the force-free assumption, producing an intrinsically smoother boundary. That caveat undermines model validity at the low heights of interest, but it is a correctness or robustness concern, not circularity: the topology is not defined in terms of the emission pattern. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the same authors. The cited NLFFF method (Jarolim et al. 2023) is a published, externally validated code, and the radiative-loss estimate is checked against an independent magnetic-energy budget rather than presented as a prediction. The self-citations to da Silva Santos et al. (2024) and Jarolim et al. (2023) are methodological or minor and do not carry the central argument. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference chain has no invented entities, but it rests on three classes of load-bearing assumptions: (1) the spectral inversion model (plane-parallel, hydrostatic, chosen atomic models and node freedoms), (2) the force-free extrapolation model and its hand-set optimization weights, and (3) the representativeness of a 20-minute raster magnetogram for a rapidly evolving event. The paper acknowledges parts of this but does not quantify the sensitivity of the fan-spine/QSL conclusion to these choices.

free parameters (3)
  • STiC atmospheric stratification node values = up to 8 T nodes, 6 v_LOS nodes, 6 v_turb nodes, 3 B nodes per pixel
    The temperature, velocity, turbulence, and magnetic field enhancements central to the paper are outputs of a non-LTE inversion fit to the ViSP spectra; node placement and initial guesses are user choices.
  • NLFFF optimization weights and sampling = boundary weights 1 and 1->10, PDE weight 1e-2; 2^13 boundary and 2^14 volume samples per step
    The extrapolated dome, null point height, and QSL locations depend on these hand-set weights and sampling densities, which are not varied in the paper.
  • Wiener filter smoothing = not specified
    Inversion maps are Wiener filtered to reduce noise; the filter scale affects the apparent size and amplitude of the temperature and velocity features.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Plane-parallel, hydrostatic-equilibrium atmosphere for the NLTE models
    The STiC inversions model the atmosphere as plane-parallel; Section 4.2.2 notes the lambda 8542 surge feature 'cannot be modeled under a plane-parallel atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium'.
  • domain assumption Force-free field approximation for the NLFFF extrapolation
    The extrapolation minimizes curl(B) x B = 0 and ignores pressure and gravity; the paper does not quantify plasma beta at heights 0-1.4 Mm where the brightenings and QSLs are located (Sections 3.2 and 4.3).
  • domain assumption The photospheric vector magnetogram boundary is representative of the event's magnetic field
    The hybrid HMI+ViSP boundary was scanned over about 20 minutes while the event evolved on minute timescales; the authors note the extrapolation uses a smoother, force-free-adjusted boundary (Sections 3.2 and 4.3).
  • domain assumption Atomic models and LTE approximations in the inversions
    Statistical equilibrium uses an 11-level Na I model, a 5-level Ca II model, and LTE hydrogen; the authors state this is fair for the probed layers, but it remains a modeling assumption (Section 3.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Reconnection in a Compact Magnetic Dome: Chromospheric Emissions and High-velocity Plasma Flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XNHUXEXA

@misc{pith2026250204292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Reconnection in a Compact Magnetic Dome: Chromospheric Emissions and High-velocity Plasma Flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XNHUXEXA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04292}
}
abstract

Magnetic reconnection at small spatial scales is a fundamental driver of energy release and plasma dynamics in the lower solar atmosphere. We present observations of a brightening in an active region, captured in high-resolution data from the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST) using the Visible Broadband Imager (VBI) and the Visible Spectro-Polarimeter (ViSP). The event exhibits Ellerman bomb-like morphology in the H$\beta$ filter, associated with flux cancellation between a small negative polarity patch adjacent to opposite-polarity plage. Additionally, it displays enhanced emissions in Ca II K, hot elongated features containing Alfv\'enic plasma flows, and cooler blue-shifted structures. We employ multi-line, non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (non-LTE) inversions of the spectropolarimetric data to infer the stratification of the physical parameters of the atmosphere. Furthermore, we use the photospheric vector magnetogram inferred from the ViSP spectra as a boundary condition for nonlinear force-free field extrapolations, revealing the three-dimensional distribution of squashing factors. We find significant enhancements in temperature, velocity, and microturbulence confined to the upper photosphere and low chromosphere. Our findings provide observational evidence of low-altitude magnetic reconnection along quasi-separatrix layers in a compact fan-spine-type configuration, highlighting the complex interplay between magnetic topology, energy release, and plasma flows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04292 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of AR 13465 on 2023 October 16. (a): SDO/HMI LOS magnetogram. (b): SDO/HMI 6173 A continuum. (c): ˚ DKIST/ViSP photospheric LOS magnetogram obtained with PyMilne. (d): DKIST/ViSP raster in the 6301A continuum. (e): DKIST/ViSP ˚ Ca II 8542 A core. (f): DKIST/VBI G-band. Panel (g): DKIST/VBI H ˚ β. (h): DKIST/VBI Ca II K. All colormap ranges are capped for display purposes. The dashed and solid boxes in (a)–(… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of the brightening captured by SDO. The upper panels show, from the top to the bottom, HMI line of sight mag￾netograms capped at ± 0.4 kG, and intensities in the AIA 1700 A and 304 ˚ A channels of the brightening highlighted in the bottom panels in ˚ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. High-resolution view of the event provided by DKIST/VBI. From the top to the bottom, intensities (in counts) in the VBI G-band, Hβ and Ca II K filters. The FOV is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Atmospheric stratification from NLTE inversions. The leftmost panels display the intensities in the λ5896 core, as well as core and blue wing of λ8542 observed by the ViSP within the blue box shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectra and best models at different locations. The three sets of panels show the observed ViSP spectra and best-fit models (left panels), as well as the corresponding model parameters as a function of logarithmic continuum optical depth (right panels)) at the three lo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magnetic field extrapolation with the NLFFF method. (a): Side view of the ROI showing the traced field lines (red), and a volume rendering of the squashing factor (yellow); the blue cross shows the location of the magnetic null point, located ∼ 500 km above the magne￾t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, Nature Communications, 15, 8811, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53102-x Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Anan, T., Casini, R., Uitenbroek, H., et al. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 8811, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53102-x Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53102-x 2024

  2. [2]

    A., & Prior, C

    Berger, M. A., & Prior, C. 2006, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General, 39, 8321, doi: 10.1088/0305-4470/39/26/005

    doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/26/005 2006

  3. [3]

    2025, A&A, 693, A221, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452822 AAST EX V6.3.1 S AMPLE ARTICLE 15

    Bhatnagar, A., Prasad, A., Rouppe van der V oort, L., N´obrega-Siverio, D., & Joshi, J. 2025, A&A, 693, A221, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452822 AAST EX V6.3.1 S AMPLE ARTICLE 15

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452822 2025

  4. [4]

    G., Sun, X., Hoeksema, J

    Bobra, M. G., Sun, X., Hoeksema, J. T., et al. 2014, SoPh, 289, 3549, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0529-3

    doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0529-3 2014

  5. [5]

    2019, ApJL, 875, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a4

    Chen, Y ., Tian, H., Peter, H., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a4 2019

  6. [6]

    P., & Lazarian, A

    Chitta, L. P., & Lazarian, A. 2020, ApJL, 890, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6f0a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab6f0a 2020

  7. [7]

    P., Peter, H., Priest, E

    Chitta, L. P., Peter, H., Priest, E. R., & Solanki, S. K. 2020, A&A, 644, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039099

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039099 2020

  8. [8]

    P., Peter, H., Young, P

    Chitta, L. P., Peter, H., Young, P. R., & Huang, Y . M. 2017, A&A, 605, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730830 da Silva Santos, J. M., Danilovic, S., Leenaarts, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243191 da Silva Santos, J. M., Molnar, M., Mili´c, I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 21

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730830 2017

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    2017, A&A, 601, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730403

    Danilovic, S. 2017, A&A, 601, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730403

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    K., Barthol, P., et al

    Danilovic, S., Solanki, S. K., Barthol, P., et al. 2017, ApJS, 229, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/229/1/5 de la Cruz Rodr´ıguez, J. 2019, A&A, 631, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936635 de la Cruz Rodr´ıguez, J., Leenaarts, J., & Asensio Ramos, A. 2016, ApJL, 830, L30, doi: 10.38...

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, A&A, 623, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834464 de Wijn, A

    Uitenbroek, H. 2019, A&A, 623, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834464 de Wijn, A. G., Casini, R., Carlile, A., et al. 2022, SoPh, 297, 22, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-01954-1 D´emoulin, P., Priest, E. R., & Lonie, D. P. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 7631, doi: 10.1029/95JA03558 D´ıa...

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    B., & Zirker, J

    Dunn, R. B., & Zirker, J. B. 1973, SoPh, 33, 281, doi: 10.1007/BF00152419

    1973 doi

  5. [13]

    1917, ApJ, 46, 298, doi: 10.1086/142366

    Ellerman, F. 1917, ApJ, 46, 298, doi: 10.1086/142366

    1917 doi

  6. [14]

    H., Xu, Z., Ding, M

    Fang, C., Tang, Y . H., Xu, Z., Ding, M. D., & Chen, P. F. 2006, ApJ, 643, 1325, doi: 10.1086/501342

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    R., Fox, P

    Fontenla, J., White, O. R., Fox, P. A., Avrett, E. H., & Kurucz, R. L. 1999, ApJ, 518, 480, doi: 10.1086/307258

    1999 doi

  8. [16]

    L., & Handy, B

    Freeland, S. L., & Handy, B. N. 1998, SoPh, 182, 497, doi: 10.1023/A:1005038224881

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    K., Rust, D

    Georgoulis, M. K., Rust, D. M., Bernasconi, P. N., & Schmieder, B. 2002, ApJ, 575, 506, doi: 10.1086/341195

    2002 doi

  10. [18]

    J., & Shine, R

    Hagenaar, H. J., & Shine, R. A. 2005, ApJ, 635, 659, doi: 10.1086/497367

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, A&A, 626, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935376

    Hansteen, V ., Ortiz, A., Archontis, V ., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935376

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    H., Archontis, V ., Pereira, T

    Hansteen, V . H., Archontis, V ., Pereira, T. M. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6844

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    E., Guo, L

    Innes, D. E., Guo, L. J., Huang, Y . M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2015, ApJ, 813, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/86

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 535830101, doi: 10.1017/S0022377817000034

    Janvier, M. 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 535830101, doi: 10.1017/S0022377817000034

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    K., Veronig, A

    Jarolim, R., Thalmann, J. K., Veronig, A. M., & Podladchikova, T. 2023, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02030-9

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2024a, ApJL, 963, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2450

    Jarolim, R., Tremblay, B., Rempel, M., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 963, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2450

    doi

  17. [25]

    M., Purkhart, S., Zhang, P., & Rempel, M

    Jarolim, R., Veronig, A. M., Purkhart, S., Zhang, P., & Rempel, M. 2024b, ApJL, 976, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8914

    doi

  18. [26]

    Joshi, J., Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., & de la Cruz Rodr´ıguez, J. 2020, A&A, 641, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038769 Kors´os, M. B., Jarolim, R., Erd´elyi, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bd

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.10246, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10246

    Leenaarts, J., van Noort, M., de la Cruz Rodr´ıguez, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.10246, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.10246

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    D., Barnes, G., & Crouch, A

    Leka, K. D., Barnes, G., & Crouch, A. 2014, AMBIG: Automated Ambiguity-Resolution Code, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1404.007

    2014

  21. [29]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    2019a, ApJ, 876, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18aa

    Li, Q., Deng, N., Jing, J., Liu, C., & Wang, H. 2019a, ApJ, 876, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18aa

    doi

  23. [31]

    2019b, Atmosphere, 10, 488, doi: 10.3390/atmos10090488

    Li, S., Jaroszynski, S., Pearse, S., Orf, L., & Clyne, J. 2019b, Atmosphere, 10, 488, doi: 10.3390/atmos10090488

    doi

  24. [32]

    Ramos, A. A. 2017, A&A, 598, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629266

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Masson, S., Pariat, E., Aulanier, G., & Schrijver, C. J. 2009, ApJ, 700, 559, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/559

    2009 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, ApJL, 961, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1bee

    McKevitt, J., Jarolim, R., Matthews, S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1bee

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Morosin, R., de la Cruz Rodr´ıguez, J., Vissers, G. J. M., & Yadav, R. 2020, A&A, 642, A210, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038754

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    1984, SoPh, 90, 205, doi: 10.1007/BF00173953 N´obrega-Siverio, D., Cabello, I., Bose, S., et al

    Neckel, H., & Labs, D. 1984, SoPh, 90, 205, doi: 10.1007/BF00173953 N´obrega-Siverio, D., Cabello, I., Bose, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A218, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348894 N´obrega-Siverio, D., Guglielmino, S. L., & Sainz Dalda, A. 2021, A&A, 655, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-636...

    1984 doi

  29. [37]

    H., N´obrega-Siverio, D., & Rouppe van der V oort, L

    Ortiz, A., Hansteen, V . H., N´obrega-Siverio, D., & Rouppe van der V oort, L. 2020, A&A, 633, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936574

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    2004, ApJ, 614, 1099, doi: 10.1086/423891

    Pariat, E., Aulanier, G., Schmieder, B., et al. 2004, ApJ, 614, 1099, doi: 10.1086/423891

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    2009, ApJ, 701, 1911, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1911

    Pariat, E., Masson, S., & Aulanier, G. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1911, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1911

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Chitta, L

    Peter, H., Huang, Y . M., Chitta, L. P., & Young, P. R. 2019, A&A, 628, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935820 16 DA SILVA SANTOS ET AL

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    2014, Science, 346, 1255726, doi: 10.1126/science.1255726

    Peter, H., Tian, H., Curdt, W., et al. 2014, Science, 346, 1255726, doi: 10.1126/science.1255726

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    I., & Priest, E

    Pontin, D. I., & Priest, E. R. 2022, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 19, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41116-022-00032-9

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    R., & D´emoulin, P

    Priest, E. R., & D´emoulin, P. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 23443, doi: 10.1029/95JA02740

    1995 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Dickson, E

    Purkhart, S., Veronig, A. M., Dickson, E. C. M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346354

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. 2019, Journal of Computational Physics, 378, 686, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    Reardon, K. P. 2006, SoPh, 239, 503, doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0283-2

    2006 doi

  40. [48]

    G., et al

    Reid, A., Mathioudakis, M., Doyle, J. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/110

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Warner, M., Keil, S

    Rimmele, T. R., Warner, M., Keil, S. L., et al. 2020, SoPh, 295, 172, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01736-7 Rouppe van der V oort, L., De Pontieu, B., Scharmer, G. B., et al. 2017, ApJL, 851, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa99dd Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., van Noort, M., & de la C...

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Rutten, R. J. 2016, A&A, 590, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526489

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Rouppe van der V oort, L

    Rutten, R. J., Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., & Vissers, G. J. M. 2015, ApJ, 808, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/133

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Vissers, G

    Rutten, R. J., Vissers, G. J. M., Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., S¨utterlin, P., & Vitas, N. 2013, in Journal of Physics Conference

    2013

  45. [53]

    440, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012007, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/440/1/012007 Sanchez Almeida, J., & Lites, B

    Series, V ol. 440, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012007, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/440/1/012007 Sanchez Almeida, J., & Lites, B. W. 1992, ApJ, 398, 359, doi: 10.1086/171861

    1992 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Tritschler, A., & Cauzzi, G

    Schad, T. A., Tritschler, A., & Cauzzi, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.02742. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.02742

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 207

    2012

  48. [56]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf55f

    Seo, M., Quintero Noda, C., Lee, J., & Chae, J. 2019, ApJ, 871, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf55f

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    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

  50. [58]

    2023, A&A, 672, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245390

    Skan, M., Danilovic, S., Leenaarts, J., Calvo, F., & Rempel, M. 2023, A&A, 672, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245390

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    N., Chitta, L

    Smitha, H. N., Chitta, L. P., Wiegelmann, T., & Solanki, S. K. 2018, A&A, 617, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833276

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    T., Liu, Y ., et al

    Sun, X., Hoeksema, J. T., Liu, Y ., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/139

    2013 doi

  53. [61]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf4f1 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W

    Testa, P., Bakke, H., Rouppe van der V oort, L., & De Pontieu, B. 2023, ApJ, 956, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf4f1 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W. T., Bobra, M. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f7a

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 96, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/96

    Tian, H., Xu, Z., He, J., & Madsen, C. 2016, ApJ, 824, 96, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/96

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaae6

    Tian, H., Zhu, X., Peter, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaae6

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    Titov, V . S. 2007, ApJ, 660, 863, doi: 10.1086/512671

    2007 doi

  57. [65]

    S., Hornig, G., & D´emoulin, P

    Titov, V . S., Hornig, G., & D´emoulin, P. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1164, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000278

    2002 doi

  58. [66]

    S., Priest, E

    Titov, V . S., Priest, E. R., & Demoulin, P. 1993, A&A, 276, 564

    1993

  59. [67]

    K., Panesar, N

    Tiwari, S. K., Panesar, N. K., Moore, R. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab54c1

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    2001, ApJ, 557, 389, doi: 10.1086/321659

    Uitenbroek, H. 2001, ApJ, 557, 389, doi: 10.1086/321659

    2001 doi

  61. [69]

    Vissers, G. J. M., Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., & Rutten, R. J. 2013, ApJ, 774, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/32 —. 2019, A&A, 626, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834811

    2013 doi

  62. [70]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/11

    Carlsson, M., & De Pontieu, B. 2015, ApJ, 812, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/11

    2015 doi

  63. [71]

    2012, ApJ, 760, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/101

    Wang, H., & Liu, C. 2012, ApJ, 760, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/101

    2012 doi

  64. [72]

    Rutten, R. J. 2011, ApJ, 736, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/71

    2011 doi

  65. [73]

    L., & Noyes, R

    Withbroe, G. L., & Noyes, R. W. 1977, ARA&A, 15, 363, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.002051 W¨oger, F., Rimmele, T., Ferayorni, A., et al. 2021, SoPh, 296, 145, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01881-7 W¨oger, F., von der L¨uhe, O., & Reardon, K. 2008, A&A, 488, 375, doi: 10.1051/00...

    1977

  66. [74]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a06

    Wu, P. 2019, ApJ, 885, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a06

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    1995, Nature, 375, 42, doi: 10.1038/375042a0

    Yokoyama, T., & Shibata, K. 1995, Nature, 375, 42, doi: 10.1038/375042a0

    1995 doi

  68. [76]

    R., Tian, H., Peter, H., et al

    Young, P. R., Tian, H., Peter, H., et al. 2018, SSRv, 214, 120, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0551-0

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d61

    Zhang, P., Chen, J., Liu, R., & Wang, C. 2022, ApJ, 937, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d61

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/52

    Zhao, J., Schmieder, B., Li, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/52

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.