Relationship between prominence eruptions and coronal mass ejections during solar cycle 24

Kostadinka Koleva; Nat Gopalswamy; Pooja Devi; Ramesh Chandra; Sachiko Akiyama; Seiji Yashiro

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 79 references

Relationship between prominence eruptions and coronal mass ejections during solar cycle 24

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Erupting prominences and CME cores are the same structure at different heights.

desk verdict Largest AIA-based PE-CME study to date confirms the standard picture, but the headline >95% fit claim lacks statistical backing and the onset-time trend is internally inconsistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24202 v1 pith:ISXNGTRR submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.SR

Pooja Devi , Nat Gopalswamy , Seiji Yashiro , Sachiko Akiyama , Ramesh Chandra , Kostadinka Koleva This is my paper

classification astro-ph.SR

keywords solarprominencesprominenceeruptionscoronalmassejectionsCMEcorescycle24SDO/AIALASCOmagneticfields

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 whether an erupting solar prominence and the bright core of a coronal mass ejection are one physical structure observed at different heights. Using 1,225 prominence eruptions detected in SDO/AIA 304 Å data and matched to LASCO CMEs across most of solar cycle 24, the authors find that 54% of the prominences are associated with a CME and that 78% of the high-confidence (CL3) associations show a bright core. The main evidence is kinematic: in more than 95% of the clear cases, the CME core's height-time points fall on the same curve as the prominence's leading edge. If this holds, prominence eruptions and CME cores are the same plasma, and the speed difference between them is simply acceleration with height.

What carries the argument

The central object is the CME core, the bright white-light structure inside a three-part CME, and the comparison quantity is its height-time curve. The defining identity is that the CME core's height-time data and the PE leading-edge's height-time data fall on the same second-order curve, so the PE is the core at an earlier height. The supporting apparatus is the confidence-level scale (CL0-CL3) used to pair each PE with a CME, the automated PE detection program that supplies PE heights, and the LASCO CME catalog's measurement tool used to track core heights visually. The paper also uses speed comparisons and latitudinal and temporal offsets to argue that the two observations are the same structure rather than separate ejections.

What would settle it

Count how many CL3 CME-core height-time points fall off the PE leading-edge curve by more than the measurement uncertainty; if the fit holds for only a small majority rather than more than 95% of events, the claim that the core is the evolved prominence would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the CME core is the evolved form of the prominence eruption (PE) seen in the AIA field of view at lower solar heights. For CL3 events, second-order polynomial fits to the CME core height-time data align with the PE leading-edge data in more than 95% of cases, while the CME leading edge stays systematically above the core. The paper reports 1,225 PEs, of which 662 (54%) are associated with CMEs at confidence levels 1-3; among the 496 CL3 pairs, 78% of the CMEs show a clear bright core. The average speeds rise from 62 km/s for PEs to 390 km/s for CME cores and 525 km/s for CME leading edges, which the paper interprets as the same structure accelerating as it moves to greater heights. The study also finds that CMEs deflect toward the equator during the cycle-24 minimum and that PE-to-CME onset offsets are mostly within one hour, consistent with a common eruption process.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands on the accuracy of the visually measured CME core heights and on whether the few fits shown represent the stated more-than-95% of CL3 events, since the paper does not report the full distribution of fit residuals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single height-time curve connects a prominence eruption in the AIA field of view to its CME core in LASCO, so PE speeds measured near the surface underestimate the speed of the same plasma at coronal heights.
The cycle-24 baseline of 54% overall PE-CME association and 78% bright-core occurrence among CL3 events gives a large-sample reference for modeling how often eruptions become CMEs.
The equatorward deflection of CMEs during solar minimum implies that near-minimum CME source latitudes are systematically lower than the prominence source latitudes, which matters for source-region mapping.
The typical one-hour offset between PE onset and CME appearance in LASCO C2, together with PE speed, gives a rough way to predict when an erupting prominence will enter the coronagraph field of view.
The CME leading edge staying above the core throughout is consistent with flux-rope models in which the CME carries cool prominence material as an entrained structure.

Reading between the lines

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

If the identity is exact, the mass lost by the prominence should appear in the CME core; combining EUV prominence mass estimates with white-light CME core masses would make that conservation testable.
The three events where the core speed fell below the PE speed suggest that projection and deflection, not only acceleration, shape the measured speed difference; a 3-D reconstruction using STEREO data could separate those effects.
The lower 54% association rate, compared with earlier small-sample estimates above 80%, may reflect the larger sample and the inclusion of transverse and failed eruptions; an automated matching algorithm could remove human judgment from the confidence-level assignments.
The equatorward deflection during minima implies a systematic latitudinal bias in any PE-CME association that converts position angle to latitude; a dipolar-field correction could sharpen source-location estimates.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Two things you should know about this paper. First, it is the largest AIA-based study of PE-CME associations to date: 1225 events across cycle 24, with a public catalog and careful confidence-level assignments. It broadly confirms the standard picture that erupting prominences become CME cores, and the association rates, latitude patterns, and speed ordering are consistent with earlier work on a much bigger sample. Second, the paper's headline quantitative claim—that CME core height-time data "fits very well" with the PE leading edge in >95% of clear cases—is not backed by any aggregate statistics. It rests on one illustrative fit (Figure 9k) and a visual statement. The stress-test note is right on this.

What the paper does well: the dataset is a real resource. The automatic PE catalog plus manual CL assignment gives cycle-wide statistics useful for space weather and CME modeling. The latitudinal deflection toward the equator during minima and the RTTP pattern are clearly shown and consistent with earlier results. The authors are honest about limitations—no SDO data before May 2010, the FOV gap, and the subjectivity of CLs. They engage with the Howard et al. 2017 challenge rather than ignoring it, and the comparison with Gopalswamy et al. 2003 is appropriate.

The soft spots are real but concentrated. The main one is the kinematic argument for PE-to-core continuity. No fit residuals, no chi-square distribution for the full sample, no error bars on core height measurements. The single shown fit is not probative because the last PE point and first CME core point are separated by the AIA-LASCO FOV gap; the curve is fit to the core points alone, so PE points lying near an extrapolation are weaker evidence than the text implies. This is fixable: report reduced chi-square or residual scatter for all CL3 events with bright cores, and show several examples spanning different speeds and latitudes. A second issue is an internal inconsistency about the onset-time offset trend: the text says there is "no clear trend" but also says the offset is larger at maxima and smaller at minima, then later says the difference decreases from maximum to minimum. The 2010 data point (3.9 h, highest average) complicates the narrative. That needs clarification or a softened claim.

The CL assignments are subjective, but the paper doesn't hide that, and for a survey of this scale it's a standard approach. I would not call that a fatal flaw.

Who should read this: anyone working on CME initiation, prominence eruption kinematics, or space weather forecasting. It deserves a serious referee, but with a request for major revision—quantify the fits, resolve the onset-time inconsistency, and soften the >95% claim if it cannot be supported.

Recommendation: send it to review, but flag the two issues clearly.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a statistical study of 1225 prominence eruptions (PEs) detected in SDO/AIA 304 Å data from May 2010 to December 2019 (solar cycle 24), classifying them as radial, transverse, or failed, and associating them with LASCO CMEs using a four-level confidence scale (CL0–CL3). The authors report that 54% of PEs are associated with CMEs, that CMEs tend to deflect toward the equator during solar minima, that the PE–CME onset-time offset is larger at solar maximum than at minimum, and that the kinematic and morphological evidence indicates that the PE evolves into the CME core at higher altitudes. The central claim, stated in Section 3.2.3, is that the CME core is the evolved form of the PE observed in the AIA field of view.

Significance. If correct, this work provides the largest statistical sample to date linking prominence eruptions to CME cores over a full solar cycle, extending the earlier cycle-23 study of Gopalswamy et al. (2003) and offering quantitative distributions of PE speeds, latitudes, and association rates. The paper's strengths include the use of a large, publicly available catalog, the explicit comparison of cycle 24 with cycle 23, the overlay of PE positions on the HMI butterfly diagram to demonstrate the rush-to-the-poles, and the careful discussion of known counter-evidence (e.g., Howard et al. 2017). The main weakness is that the load-bearing kinematic claim of PE-to-CME-core continuity rests on a single illustrative fit and an unquantified '>95%' success rate, without aggregate fit statistics or error analysis. This weakens the paper's central conclusion but does not invalidate it; the claim is plausible and consistent with prior case studies, and the manuscript can be strengthened with additional quantitative support.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2.3, Figure 9(k)] The claim that "The CME core data fits very well with those of the PE leading edge for almost all (>95%) the clear cases (CL3)" is not supported by any quantitative summary. The only goodness-of-fit statistic reported is a single chi-square value of 0.9 for the one event in Figure 9, with no definition of the statistic, no residual distribution, and no aggregate values across the CL3 sample. Because this fit is the load-bearing evidence for the conclusion that PEs become CME cores, the authors should either report the fit statistics (e.g., reduced chi-square or RMS residual) for all CL3 events with clear cores, or soften the claim to a qualitative statement and clearly separate it from the quantitative association rates.
[Section 4, Figure 9(k)] The manuscript acknowledges that "a significant gap exists between the last PE data point and the first CME core data point" (Section 4). The quadratic shown in Figure 9(k) is fit only to the CME core points, so the PE points lying near an extrapolation of that curve provide weak evidence of continuity across the unobserved AIA–LASCO FOV gap. To strengthen the continuity argument, the authors should either bridge the gap with additional observations (e.g., STEREO COR1/EUVI data) or quantify the expected overlap under a propagation model, including the uncertainty in the extrapolated curve.
[Section 2.2, Figures 10–11] The core-height measurements are made manually with the LASCO CME catalog's "measurement" tool, and no uncertainties are reported for these heights or for the derived speeds and accelerations. The average speeds (PE 62 km/s, core 390 km/s, leading edge 525 km/s), the acceleration ranges, and the association percentages (54%, 78%) are presented without error bars, and the scatter in Figure 11 is interpreted without accounting for measurement noise. Given that the >95% fit claim depends on these manual measurements, the authors should provide at least a representative uncertainty estimate or a sensitivity analysis showing that the acceptance fraction is robust to realistic height errors.

minor comments (6)

[Page 2 (Introduction)] "Conversly" should be "Conversely".
[Abstract] "the prominences evolves into CME cores" should be "prominences evolve into CME cores".
[Section 3.2.3] "The speed of CME cores are more than the speed of PEs" has subject–verb disagreement and should read "The speed of CME cores is greater than that of PEs".
[Figure 2 caption] The bin labels in the inset are described only in the text; please clarify the axis tick labels in the caption so that the reader can interpret the histogram without referring to the body text.
[Section 4] The reference to "paper I" should be spelled out at first use in the text (Gopalswamy et al. 2003) to avoid ambiguity for readers who have not read the earlier paper.
[Section 3.2.3] The heading "PE and CME core" and the shorthand "PE=CME core" are informal; consider renaming the subsection to "Relationship between PEs and CME cores" for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PE-to-CME-core conclusion rests on independent height-time comparisons, not on fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that erupting prominences (PEs) become CME cores is supported by comparing PE leading-edge heights measured in AIA 304 with CME core heights measured in LASCO. The second-order polynomial is fit to the CME core data alone, and the PE points are then checked against that curve, so the agreement is a genuine comparison of independent measurements rather than a fitted prediction. PE detection uses the published automatic catalog of Yashiro et al. (2020) with stated criteria (intensity ratio >=2, width >=15 degrees, 10-minute continuous rise), and the CME association levels are visual classifications; no parameter is fit to force the kinematic result. The '>95% fit' claim is not quantitatively documented (only one chi-square value, 0.9, is given for Fig. 9), and the paper itself flags the 'significant gap' between the AIA and LASCO FOVs in Section 4; these are rigor limitations, not circularity. Self-citations (Yashiro et al. 2020; Gopalswamy et al. 2003 as paper I) are used as data sources or as corroboration, and the same conclusion is independently cited from House et al. (1981), Sime et al. (1984), and others. No load-bearing reduction of the result to its own inputs is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on published detection algorithms and catalogs (Yashiro et al. 2020, LASCO CME catalog) and adds no new fitted physical parameters. The hand-chosen detection thresholds from the prior algorithm appear as the effective free parameters of the sample. The main logical burdens are the plane-of-sky latitude conversion and the representative quality of the manually measured CME cores.

free parameters (2)

Minimum prominence width threshold = 15 degrees
Hand-chosen threshold in the automatic detection program to exclude jets and surges; it directly determines the sample of 1225 PEs.
Intensity ratio threshold = 2.0
Hand-chosen threshold from Yashiro et al. 2020 used to define prominence regions in AIA 304 Å ratio images.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The automatic PE detection program (Yashiro et al. 2020) correctly identifies erupting prominences and measures their leading-edge height.
All 1225 PE heights and speeds come from this program; its accuracy is not re-validated in this paper (Section 2.2).
domain assumption CME positions (CPA) can be converted to heliographic latitudes assuming plane-of-sky geometry.
Used for all latitudinal comparisons in Section 3.2.1; ignores projection effects and 3D propagation of CMEs.
domain assumption The LASCO CME catalog height-time points and the manually measured CME core heights are accurate.
Speeds and fits in Section 3.2.3 rely on these measurements.
domain assumption A second-order polynomial is an adequate kinematic model for PE, CME core, and CME leading edge height-time data.
Used to compute speeds and accelerations; higher-order terms could bias the derived acceleration values.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relationship between prominence eruptions and coronal mass ejections during solar cycle 24." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ISXNGTRR

@misc{pith2026250524202,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relationship between prominence eruptions and coronal mass ejections during solar cycle 24},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ISXNGTRR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24202}
}

read the original abstract

In this article, we present the relationship between prominence eruptions (PEs) and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) from May 2010 to December 2019 covering most of solar cycle 24. We used data from the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) for PEs and the Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) for CMEs. We identified 1225 PEs, with 67% being radial, 32% transverse, and 1% failed PEs. The radial, transverse PEs, and the combined set have average speeds of ~53, 9, and 38 km/s, respectively. The PE association with CMEs is examined by assigning a confidence level (CL) from 0 (no association) to 3 (clear association). Out of 1225 PEs, 662 (54%) are found to be associated to CMEs including CL 1, 2, and 3. Our study reveals that the spatial and temporal relationships between PEs and CMEs vary over the solar cycle. During solar minima, CMEs tend to deflect towards the equator, possibly due to a stronger polar field. Temporal offsets are larger during solar maxima and smaller during the minima. This implies that the PEs appear in LASCO C2 FOV earlier during the minima than during the maxima. Among the 662 CMEs associated with PEs, 78% show clear bright core structures. Investigation of the morphological and temporal behavior of these CMEs indicate that the prominences evolves into CME cores at higher altitudes suggesting that PEs and CME cores are the same structure. The average speeds of the PEs, CME core, and CME leading edge are 62, 390, and 525 km/s, respectively. The speed of CME cores are more than the speed of PEs because the former are observed at larger heights where they have accelerated to higher speeds.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

[1]

F., Aly, J

Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Aly, J. J., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1231

work page 2003
[2]

F., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J

Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. 1999, ApJ, 518, L57

work page 1999
[3]

1952, Nature, 170, 156 —

Ananthakrishnan, R. 1952, Nature, 170, 156 —. 1961, ApJ, 133, 969

work page 1952
[4]

K., DeV ore, C

Antiochos, S. K., DeV ore, C. R., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 510, 485

1999
[5]

2024, Sol

Oliver, R. 2024, Sol. Phys., 299, 94

work page 2024
[6]

Aulanier, G., T¨or¨ok, T., D´emoulin, P., & DeLuca, E. E. 2010, ApJ, 708, 314

work page 2010
[7]

E., Howard, R

Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J.,et al. 1995, Sol. Phys., 162, 357

work page 1995
[8]

2021, ApJ, 922, 227

Schmieder, B. 2021, ApJ, 922, 227

work page 2021

Show all 79 references

[9]

2017, Sol

Chandra, R., Filippov, B., Joshi, R., & Schmieder, B. 2017, Sol. Phys., 292, 81

2017
[10]

Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1

2011
[11]

2020, ApJ, 894, 85

Cheng, X., Zhang, J., Kliem, B.,et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 85

2020
[12]

P., & Cailloux, M

Crifo, F., Picat, J. P., & Cailloux, M. 1983, Sol. Phys., 83, 143

1983
[13]

2021, A&A, 647, A85 DeV ore, C

Devi, P., D´emoulin, P., Chandra, R.,et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A85 DeV ore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2008, ApJ, 680, 740

2021
[14]

Domingo, V ., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, Sol. Phys., 162, 1 Druckm¨uller, M., Habbal, S. R., Alzate, N., & Em- manouilidis, C. 2017, ApJ, 851, L41

1995
[15]

Fan, Y ., & Gibson, S. E. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1232

2007
[16]

2008, Annales Geophys- icae, 26, 3025

Filippov, B., & Koutchmy, S. 2008, Annales Geophys- icae, 26, 3025

2008
[17]

Filippov, B. P. 1998, in Astronomical Society of the Pa- cific Conference Series, V ol. 150, IAU Colloq. 167: New Perspectives on Solar Prominences, ed. D. F

1998
[18]

P., Gopalswamy, N., & Lozhechkin, A

Filippov, B. P., Gopalswamy, N., & Lozhechkin, A. V . 2001, Sol. Phys., 203, 119

2001
[19]

Fujimori, K. I. 1984, PASJ, 36, 189

1984
[20]

E., & Fan, Y

Gibson, S. E., & Fan, Y . 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A12103

2006
[21]

R., Alexander, D., & Liu, R

Gilbert, H. R., Alexander, D., & Liu, R. 2007, Sol. Phys., 245, 287

2007
[22]

R., Holzer, T

Gilbert, H. R., Holzer, T. E., Burkepile, J. T., & Hund- hausen, A. J. 2000, ApJ, 537, 503

2000
[23]

2015, in Astrophysics and Space Sci- ence Library, V ol

Gopalswamy, N. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Sci- ence Library, V ol. 415, Solar Prominences, ed. J.-C. Vial & O. Engvold, 381

2015
[24]

2016, Geoscience Letters, 3, 8

Gopalswamy, N. 2016, Geoscience Letters, 3, 8

2016
[25]

Gopalswamy, N., Hanaoka, Y ., & Hudson, H. S. 2000, Advances in Space Research, 25, 1851

2000
[26]

R., Hanaoka, Y .,et al

Gopalswamy, N., Kundu, M. R., Hanaoka, Y .,et al. 1996, New A, 1, 207

1996
[27]

2018, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, 176, 26

Gopalswamy, N., M¨akel¨a, P., Yashiro, S., & Akiyama, S. 2018, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, 176, 26

2018
[28]

2003, ApJ, 586, 562

Gopalswamy, N., Shimojo, M., Lu, W.,et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, 562

2003
[29]

2016, ApJ, 823, L15

Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., & Akiyama, S. 2016, ApJ, 823, L15

2016
[30]

2012, ApJ, 750, L42

Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., M ¨akel¨a, P.,et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, L42

2012
[31]

2009, ApJ, 691, L123

Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Temmer, M.,et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, L123

2009
[32]

R., Druckm ¨uller, M., Morgan, H.,et al

Habbal, S. R., Druckm ¨uller, M., Morgan, H.,et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1362

2010
[33]

2016, A&A, 589, A128

Anzer, U. 2016, A&A, 589, A128

2016
[34]

Hori, K., & Culhane, J. L. 2002, A&A, 382, 666 J. Astrophys. Astr .(0000)000: #### Page 17 of 1 ####

2002
[35]

Schmidt, H. U. 1981, ApJ, 244, L117

1981
[36]

Howard, R., & Labonte, B. J. 1981, Sol. Phys., 74, 131

1981
[37]

Alden, C. R. 2017, ApJ, 834, 86

2017
[38]

1999, in The many faces of the sun: a summary of the results from NASA’s Solar Maxi- mum Mission., ed

Hundhausen, A. 1999, in The many faces of the sun: a summary of the results from NASA’s Solar Maxi- mum Mission., ed. K. T. Strong, J. L. R. Saba, B. M. Haisch, & J. T. Schmelz, 143

1999
[39]

2015, ApJ, 813, 35

Hutton, J., & Morgan, H. 2015, ApJ, 813, 35

2015
[40]

Hyder, C. L. 1965, ApJ, 141, 272

1965
[41]

Illing, R. M. E., & Hundhausen, A. J. 1985, J. Geo- phys. Res., 90, 275

1985
[42]

2018, Sol

Carlyle, J. 2018, Sol. Phys., 293, 7

2018
[43]

M.,et al

Joshi, B., Kushwaha, U., Veronig, A. M.,et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 42

2017
[44]

2020, ApJ, 901, 94

Joshi, R., Wang, Y ., Chandra, R.,et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 94

2020
[45]

Klimchuk, J. A. 2001, Geophysical Monograph Series, 125, 143

2001
[46]

L., Noci, G., Cranmer, S

Kohl, J. L., Noci, G., Cranmer, S. R., & Raymond, J. C. 2006, A&A Rev., 13, 31

2006
[47]

L., Esser, R., Gardner, L

Kohl, J. L., Esser, R., Gardner, L. D.,et al. 1995, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engi- neers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 2517, X-Ray and EUV/FUV Spectroscopy and Polarimetry, ed. S. Fineschi, 40–61

1995
[48]

C.,et al

Labrosse, N., Heinzel, P., Vial, J. C.,et al. 2010, Space Sci. Rev., 151, 243

2010
[49]

R., Title, A

Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J.,et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 17

2012
[50]

A., Torok, T., Downs, C.,et al

Linker, J. A., Torok, T., Downs, C.,et al. 2024, in Jour- nal of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 2742, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012012

2024
[51]

Lockyer, W. J. S. 1931, MNRAS, 91, 797

1931
[52]

Low, B. C. 1996, Sol. Phys., 167, 217

1996
[53]

2010, Space Sci

Schmieder, B., & Aulanier, G. 2010, Space Sci. Rev., 151, 333 Mariˇci´c, D., Vr ˇsnak, B., & Ro ˇsa, D. 2009, Sol. Phys., 260, 177

2010
[54]

Morgan, H., & Habbal, S. R. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1

2010
[55]

H., Gosling, J

Munro, R. H., Gosling, J. T., Hildner, E.,et al. 1979, Sol. Phys., 61, 201

1979
[56]

1994, IEEE Proceedings, 82, 705

Nakajima, H., Nishio, M., Enome, S.,et al. 1994, IEEE Proceedings, 82, 705

1994
[57]

2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1

Parenti, S. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1

2014
[58]

D., Thompson, B

Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 3

2012
[59]

M., & Kumar, A

Rust, D. M., & Kumar, A. 1994, Sol. Phys., 155, 69

1994
[60]

2013, Ad- vances in Space Research, 51, 1967

Schmieder, B., D´emoulin, P., & Aulanier, G. 2013, Ad- vances in Space Research, 51, 1967

2013
[61]

H., Bush, R

Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I.,et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 229

2012
[62]

T., Asai, A., & Ichimoto, K

Seki, D., Otsuji, K., Ishii, T. T., Asai, A., & Ichimoto, K. 2021, Earth, Planets and Space, 73, 58

2021
[63]

G., MacQueen, R

Sime, D. G., MacQueen, R. M., & Hundhausen, A. J. 1984, J. Geophys. Res., 89, 2113

1984
[64]

Simnett, G. M. 2000, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 62, 1479

2000
[65]

2022, ApJ, 933, 68 St

Song, H., Li, L., & Chen, Y . 2022, ApJ, 933, 68 St. Cyr, O. C., & Webb, D. F. 1991, Sol. Phys., 136, 379

2022
[66]

S., & D´emoulin, P

Titov, V . S., & D´emoulin, P. 1999, A&A, 351, 707 T¨or¨ok, T., & Kliem, B. 2005, ApJ, 630, L97 T¨or¨ok, T., Kliem, B., & Titov, V . S. 2004, A&A, 413, L27

1999
[67]

Vasantharaju, N., Vemareddy, P., Ravindra, B., & Dod- damani, V . H. 2019, ApJ, 885, 89

2019
[68]

2017, ApJ, 850, 38

Vemareddy, P., Gopalswamy, N., & Ravindra, B. 2017, ApJ, 850, 38

2017
[69]

Vemareddy, P., & Ibrahim, M. S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1774 Vrˇsnak, B. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 1002

2024
[70]

1960, ZAp, 49, 176

Waldmeier, M. 1960, ZAp, 49, 176

1960
[71]

Wang, H., & Goode, P. R. 1998, in Astronomical So- ciety of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 140, Synoptic Solar Physics, ed. K. S. Balasubramaniam, J. Harvey, & D. Rabin, 497 #### Page 18 of 1J. Astrophys. Astr .(0000)000: ####

1998
[72]

F., & Hundhausen, A

Webb, D. F., & Hundhausen, A. J. 1987, Sol. Phys., 108, 383

1987
[73]

F., Krieger, A

Webb, D. F., Krieger, A. S., & Rust, D. M. 1976, Sol. Phys., 48, 159

1976
[74]

E., Howard, R

Wood, B. E., Howard, R. A., & Linton, M. G. 2016, ApJ, 816, 67

2016
[75]

L., Qu, Z

Yan, X. L., Qu, Z. Q., & Kong, D. F. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2803

2011
[76]

2002, in Solar-Terrestrial Mag- netic Activity and Space Environment, ed

Yang, G., & Wang, H. 2002, in Solar-Terrestrial Mag- netic Activity and Space Environment, ed. H. Wang & R. Xu, V ol. 14, 113

2002
[77]

Yashiro, S., Gopalswamy, N., Akiyama, S., & M¨akel¨a, P. A. 2020, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, 205, 105324

2020
[78]

Yashiro, S., Gopalswamy, N., Akiyama, S., Michalek, G., & Howard, R. A. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A12S05

2005
[79]

V ., Aboudarham, J., Zharkov, S.,et al

Zharkova, V . V ., Aboudarham, J., Zharkov, S.,et al. 2005, Sol. Phys., 228, 361

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F., Aly, J

Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Aly, J. J., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1231

work page 2003

[2] [2]

F., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J

Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. 1999, ApJ, 518, L57

work page 1999

[3] [3]

1952, Nature, 170, 156 —

Ananthakrishnan, R. 1952, Nature, 170, 156 —. 1961, ApJ, 133, 969

work page 1952

[4] [4]

K., DeV ore, C

Antiochos, S. K., DeV ore, C. R., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 510, 485

1999

[5] [5]

2024, Sol

Oliver, R. 2024, Sol. Phys., 299, 94

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Aulanier, G., T¨or¨ok, T., D´emoulin, P., & DeLuca, E. E. 2010, ApJ, 708, 314

work page 2010

[7] [7]

E., Howard, R

Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J.,et al. 1995, Sol. Phys., 162, 357

work page 1995

[8] [8]

2021, ApJ, 922, 227

Schmieder, B. 2021, ApJ, 922, 227

work page 2021