Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

The Observations of Magnetic Reconnection During the Interaction Process of Two Active Region Filaments

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 First current sheet seen in a solar filament slingshot collision

desk verdict Solid slingshot-reconnection event study whose headline current-sheet claim is not supported at AIA's resolution; needs qualification, but the core interaction scenario holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05659 v1 pith:P7HWDHWQ submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.SR

Zongyin Wu , Zhike Xue , Xiaoli Yan , Jincheng Wang , Liheng Yang , Zhe Xu , Qiaoling Li , Yang Peng
show 6 more authors
Liping Yang Yian Zhou Xinsheng Zhang Liufan Gong Qifan Dong Guotang Wu
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarfilamentsmagneticreconnectionslingshotcurrentsheetfilamentinteractionfootpointexchangeactiveregion
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

The paper reports that on May 9, 2023, two active-region filaments in the Sun's corona, pushed together by the slow motion of a magnetic polarity at one footpoint, collided and underwent magnetic reconnection. The authors identify a thin, bright current sheet at their junction, about 2.17 Mm long and 0.84 Mm wide, with hot outflows streaming away at tens to more than one hundred km/s. They interpret the interaction as a "slingshot" reconnection that exchanged the filaments' footpoints and produced two new filaments, with F1 disappearing while part of F2 survived, a partial slingshot. If this reading is right, it is the first direct observation of a current sheet in a slingshot-type filament interaction, and it suggests that partial slingshot reconnections may be more common than complete ones.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the current sheet: a thin layer in which magnetic field lines of the two colliding filaments break and reconnect. It is identified as the bright linear structure in EUV 304 and 171 angstrom images at the filament junction, and all quantitative claims, length, width, temperature, density, and the outflows' origin, hang on that identification. The interpretive mechanism is the slingshot interaction proposed for colliding flux ropes: two filaments with the same chirality approach at an angle of about 5π/4, exchange footpoints rather than merging, and separate as two new filaments; unequal axial flux leaves part of the larger filament un-reconnected, giving a partial slingshot. The observed footpoint exchange and the later secondary reconnection are what turn the measured motions into new magnetic connectivities.

What would settle it

Take the bright feature visible from 01:09 to 02:28 UT and determine whether it is a single thin sheet at the magnetic separator rather than a loop or projection: check whether its width stays below about one Mm across several time steps in both 304 and 171 angstrom, whether the emission is cospatial with a separator or quasi-separatrix layer in a nonlinear force-free field extrapolation, and whether the inferred density is consistent with a pre-reconnection sheet rather than a filled loop; if the structure resolves into loop strands or connects footpoints without any connectivity change, the current-sheet claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the approach of filament F1, driven by the northwestward motion of photospheric magnetic polarity P1 at about 0.36 km/s, brought F1 into contact with the nearly stationary filament F2, and where they met, magnetic reconnection produced a clearly resolved current sheet. The sheet first appears around 01:09 UT, becomes stable around 01:45 UT, and disappears near 02:28 UT, moving with F1 at about 0.36 km/s. Emission-measure analysis shows that the sheet radiates mainly at log T = 6.0-6.3, with an average emission measure of 1.21 x $10^{29}$ $cm^{-5}$ and an inferred electron density of 3.79 x $10^{10}$ $cm^{-3}$, making it a relatively low-temperature structure. Reconnection outflows travel along the newly formed filaments at 50.7-159.9 km/s. Because F2 is only partially consumed, the event is classified as a partial slingshot reconnection between two same-chirality filaments, with the remnant of F2 later reconnecting with loops connecting polarities N1 and P1 and injecting material into F4. The authors state that this marks the first observation of a current sheet structure in filament slingshot reconnection events.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the bright linear structure visible between F1 and F2 in the 304 and 171 angstrom images is a current sheet; if it is instead a post-reconnection loop, an unrelated coronal projection, or a heated flux tube, the claimed first observation of a slingshot current sheet collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A current sheet in a slingshot filament interaction can be directly observed, so such events are no longer only inferred from footpoint changes and outflows.
  • Partial slingshot reconnection, driven by unequal magnetic flux between filaments, may be more common than complete slingshot events.
  • The motion of a photospheric polarity can initiate a filament collision without requiring an eruption or an associated flare.
  • After the main interaction, the surviving remnant of a filament can reconnect again with pre-existing coronal loops, injecting material and shaping the final morphology of a newly formed filament.
  • Two same-chirality filaments can exchange footpoints and produce same-chirality products, supporting flux-rope exchange rather than merging as the dominant outcome under these conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bright structure is indeed a current sheet, archival EUV images of previously reported filament interactions could be re-examined for similar thin, moving bright features, which would test how commonly slingshot reconnection leaves a visible current sheet.
  • The inferred electron density and low-temperature emission can be compared with MHD simulations of coronal flux-rope collisions to test whether partial slingshot models reproduce the observed sheet temperature and outflow speeds.
  • The relatively weak, low-temperature emission of the sheet suggests that in this event most released magnetic energy goes into bulk outflow and filament restructuring rather than into strong coronal heating; the paper does not make this energetics argument explicitly.
  • A double-reconnection sequence, a partial slingshot followed by remnant-loop reconnection, may be a generic way that filaments reorganize in active regions, implying that observed filament formation often hides multiple reconnection steps.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes a May 9, 2023 interaction between two active-region filaments (F1 and F2) using SDO/AIA and HMI, CHASE, and NVST data. The authors argue that a slow northwestward motion of the photospheric polarity P1 drove F1 into F2, triggering magnetic reconnection that exchanged footpoints and formed two new filaments, F3 and F4, in a partial 'slingshot' interaction. The paper reports a directly observed current sheet with length ~2.17 Mm and width ~0.84 Mm, along with reconnection outflows, DEM-based temperature and density estimates, and a second reconnection episode that injects material into F4. The central novelty claimed is the first observation of a current sheet in a slingshot-type filament interaction.

Significance. If the current-sheet identification is correct, this is a valuable addition to the small set of observed filament-slingshot events, and the combination of kinematics, chirality analysis, DEM temperature mapping, and comparison with Linton (2006) simulations is methodologically appropriate. The paper is careful about the chirality argument and provides useful quantitative context (approach speeds, outflow speeds, EM evolutions). However, the headline claim rests on a bright feature whose measured width is below the AIA resolution limit, so the physical identification as a current sheet is not yet established. The study is nonetheless a solid case report of footpoint exchange and new-filament formation, and with moderated claims it would be a suitable contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figures 3(e)-(j), 5(d); abstract; Section 4] The reported current-sheet width of 0.84 Mm is below the AIA spatial resolution: the pixel scale is 0.6 arcsec (~0.43 Mm near disk center) and the PSF FWHM is about 1.2-1.5 arcsec (~0.9-1.1 Mm at the target location), so the structure is unresolved. The measured width is therefore an upper limit set by the instrument, not a measured physical thickness. The bright linear feature is also morphologically consistent with an unresolved post-reconnection loop or a heated flux tube, and the paper itself hedges ('may be the current sheet region' in Figure 3(e)). Because the headline claim ('first observation of current sheet structure in filaments slingshot reconnection events', Section 4) and all derived quantities (length, width, density, thermal structure) depend on this identification, the claim is not supported by the presented data. The authors should provide independent evidence (e.g., a DEM map confined to a thin sheet, spectral line widths from CHASE, or higher-resolution imaging), deconvolve the AIA PSF, or explicitly reframe the result as a candidate current-sheet-like structure.
  2. [Section 3, density estimate after Equation (1)] The electron density n_e = 3.79e10 cm^-3 is derived from n_e = sqrt(EM/l) with l taken equal to the current-sheet width, but the EM value (1.21e29 cm^-5) is an average over the box S in Figure 5(d) whose dimensions are not stated and which appears much larger than the 0.84 Mm width. This mixes a spatially averaged EM with an unresolved width and ignores the filling factor and line-of-sight projection. Please give the box size, use a consistent volume estimate, and provide uncertainties on EM, width, and n_e; without these, the density is not a robust quantitative result.
  3. [Section 4, partial slingshot interpretation] The conclusion that this is a partial slingshot reconnection caused by unequal axial flux between F1 and F2 is based on the observation that part of F2 remains after the interaction and on the interaction angle of ~5/4 pi. However, no estimate of the axial flux of the two filaments is provided, and a residual filament segment could also result from a reconnection that does not consume the full flux rope for other reasons. The authors should either quantify the flux ratio using the available magnetic field data or present a more cautious interpretation that clearly distinguishes partial slingshot from other partial-reconnection scenarios.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The caption states that panels (a)-(b) are time-distance diagrams along S5 and S6, whereas the text in Section 3 says panels (a)-(b) are along S3 and S4 and panels (c)-(f) are along S5 and S6; the labeling should be reconciled.
  2. [Section 3, interaction angle] The paper states the interaction angle is approximately 5/4 pi but does not describe how this angle was measured from the images; please specify the measurement method and associated uncertainty.
  3. [Section 4 and Figure 1 caption] There are several typographical issues, including 'velecity' in Section 4, a duplicated sentence in the Figure 1 caption, and incomplete axis labels in some time-slice diagrams; these should be corrected.
  4. [Section 3, DEM analysis] The DEM analysis averages over one minute and uses six AIA channels, but no uncertainties are quoted; please state the expected DEM errors or the temperature resolution of the method.
  5. [Section 3, discussion of GOES flares] Two C-class flares occur during the main reconnection phase, and the authors dismiss a physical connection because the reconnection site is 'relatively distant'; please quantify the projected distance and justify this conclusion, or discuss the possibility of a common trigger.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's reconnection scenario, slingshot classification, and current-sheet measurements are derived from observations and external benchmarks, not from fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational rather than definitional. The central claims are that two filaments F1 and F2 collide and reconnect, that footpoint exchange forms F3 and F4, that a current sheet is observed during the interaction, and that the event is a partial slingshot reconnection. None of these claims is produced by fitting a parameter and then predicting a closely related quantity. The current-sheet length and width are measured directly from AIA 304 and 171 Angstrom images (Section 3, Figure 5), and the electron density is estimated from the measured emission measure under the explicit geometric assumption that the line-of-sight depth equals the width; this is an assumption for interpreting a measurement, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The classification of the event as a slingshot interaction is checked against independent numerical simulations by Linton et al. (2001) and Linton (2006), and the chirality assignments follow standard external rules (Martin et al. 1994; Nakagawa et al. 1971), so the interpretation is not forced by the authors' own prior claims. The paper does contain self-citations, notably Yang et al. (2017), which includes overlapping authors, and Yan et al. (2020) for the NVST instrument, but these are used as prior observational context or facility descriptions and are not load-bearing for the reconnection interpretation or the reported quantities. The possibility that the bright linear feature is not a resolved current sheet is an empirical and resolution-related ambiguity, which is a correctness risk rather than circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to foreclose alternatives. The paper is therefore self-contained for its central argument, and no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted free parameters in the sense of a physical model. One hand-chosen assumption, the current sheet depth equal to its width, is used in the density estimate. The analysis relies on standard observational diagnostics and established simulation-based classification schemes.

free parameters (1)
  • Current sheet depth l = 0.84 Mm (assumed equal to measured width)
    Used to convert emission measure to electron density via n_e = sqrt(EM/l). The paper states 'assuming that the depth (l) of the current sheet equals its width' (Section 3, Figure 5).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The linear bright structure in AIA 304 and 171 angstrom images is a current sheet.
    The central novelty rests on identifying this feature as a current sheet rather than another coronal structure. Introduced in Section 3, Figures 3(e)-(j).
  • domain assumption Standard filament chirality determination (Martin et al. 1994) and sunspot whorl rotation correctly give filament handedness.
    Used to classify F1, F2, F3, and F4 as sinistral and to connect the event to slingshot-type interactions. Invoked in Section 3 and Figure 1.
  • domain assumption The slingshot interaction model from Linton (2001, 2006) is applicable to coronal filaments, including partial slingshot with unequal flux.
    The interpretation of observed footpoint exchange as a slingshot event and the partial residual F2 as partial slingshot depends on this model. Discussed in Sections 1 and 4.
  • standard math DEM inversion from six AIA channels provides reliable temperature and emission measure maps.
    The current sheet temperature and density diagnostics are based on the DEM method (Cheung et al. 2015; Su et al. 2018). Applied in Section 2 and Figure 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Observations of Magnetic Reconnection During the Interaction Process of Two Active Region Filaments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7HWDHWQ

@misc{pith2026250605659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Observations of Magnetic Reconnection During the Interaction Process of Two Active Region Filaments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7HWDHWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05659}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the interaction between two filaments (F1 and F2) and their subsequent magnetic reconnection in active region (AR) NOAA 13296 and AR NOAA 13293 on May 9, 2023, utilizing high spatial and temporal resolution and multi-wavelength observational data from the Solar Dynamics Observatory, the New Vacuum Solar Telescope, and the Chinese H{\alpha} Solar Explorer. The movement of F1 from the southeast toward the northwest, driven by the motion of the positive magnetic polarity (P1), leads to a collision and reconnection with F2. This reconnection exchanges their footpoints, resulting in the formation of two new filaments (F3 and F4) consistent with "slingshot" type filament interaction. During the interaction, the current sheet moving due to the motion of F1 and the reconnection outflows moving along F3 and F4 were both observed. The current sheet is rarely observed in the slingshot type filament interaction, measuring approximately 2.17 Mm in length and 0.84 Mm in width. After the interaction, the F1 disappears whereas a portion of F2 remains, indicating that the interaction involves partial slingshot reconnection, due to the unequal magnetic flux between the filaments. The residual part of F2 will undergo another magnetic reconnection in the same interaction region with the magnetic loops connecting polarities N1 and P1. The material generated by the reconnection is continuously injected into F4, leading to its final morphology. The findings enhance our understanding of slingshot-type filament interactions, indicating that partial slingshot reconnections between filaments may be more common than full slingshot events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05659 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) SDO/HMI LOS magnetogram, in which positive (negative) magnetic fields are shown in white (black). (b) AIA 304, (c) 171 ˚A, and (d) CHASE Hα image. In panels (a) and (b), the green and cyan profiles denote the two filaments F1 and F2, respectively. The magnetic polarities corresponding to the footpoints of F1 and F2 are labeled as ”N1,” ”P1,” ”N2,” and ”P2,” which can be seen before the interaction in panel (a). … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The motion of F1 and the evolution of the photospheric magnetic field are illustrated in AIA 304 ˚A images, LOS magnetograms, and Bz maps. The green lines in panels (a1) to (b4) indicate the position of the filament F1. The contour of F1 is overlaid on the corresponding LOS magnetograms at the same time (panels (b1)-(b4)). Time-slice maps along the cyan lines S1 in panel (a2) and S2 in panel (b2) are presented in pa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The interaction process and magnetic reconnection features can be observed in the AIA 304 and 171 ˚A images (panels (a)–(b) and (d)–(k)). The NVST Hα image illustrates the final morphology of F3 and F4 following the subsequent magnetic reconnection (panel (c)). The blue box in panel (a) indicates the views shown in panels (d)–(k) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a)-(b) The time-distance diagrams along S5 and S6 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Thermal characteristics of current sheets at 01:09 UT and 02:00 UT. (a)-(c) 304 ˚A image, 171 ˚A image, and emission measures at log T = 5.7-6.0 at 01:09:57 UT. (d)-(i) 304 ˚A image, 171 ˚A image, 94 ˚A image, emission measures at log T = 5.7-6.0, emission measures at …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of different parameters in the current sheets. (a)-(c) The normalized intensity and emission measures with time were calculated in the cyan dashed box S in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Another magnetic reconnection in the current sheet region occurs after the interaction between F1 and F2, as observed in the AIA 304 ˚A and 171 ˚A images. Panels (a) and (d) illustrate the cusp structure and the movement of plasma blobs at the onset of reconnection. Th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Luciani, J

    Amari, T., Aly, J. J., Luciani, J. F., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. 2011, ApJL, 742, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/L27

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/l27 2011

  2. [2]

    K., Dahlburg, R

    Antiochos, S. K., Dahlburg, R. B., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1994, ApJL, 420, L41, doi: 10.1086/187158

    doi:10.1086/187158 1994

  3. [3]

    R., & Antiochos, S

    Aulanier, G., DeVore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2006, ApJ, 646, 1349, doi: 10.1086/505020

    work page doi:10.1086/505020 2006

  4. [4]

    2010, SoPh, 261, 127, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9470-2

    Uddin, W. 2010, SoPh, 261, 127, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9470-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9470-2 2010

  5. [5]

    H., et al

    Chandra, R., Schmieder, B., Mandrini, C. H., et al. 2011, SoPh, 269, 83, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9670-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9670-9 2011

  6. [6]

    F., Harra, L

    Chen, P. F., Harra, L. K., & Fang, C. 2014, ApJ, 784, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/50 2014

  7. [7]

    D., Zhang, J., et al

    Cheng, X., Ding, M. D., Zhang, J., et al. 2014, ApJL, 789, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/2/L35

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/789/2/l35 2014

  8. [8]

    Cheung, M. C. M., Boerner, P., Schrijver, C. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/143

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/143 2015

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    R., & Antiochos, S

    DeVore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2000, ApJ, 539, 954, doi: 10.1086/309275

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Antiochos, S

    DeVore, C. R., Antiochos, S. K., & Aulanier, G. 2005, ApJ, 629, 1122, doi: 10.1086/431721

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    1976, SoPh, 49, 283, doi: 10.1007/BF00162453

    Engvold, O. 1976, SoPh, 49, 283, doi: 10.1007/BF00162453

    1976 doi

  4. [12]

    1998, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Engvold, O. 1998, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 150, IAU Colloq. 167: New Perspectives on Solar Prominences, ed. D. F. Webb, B. Schmieder, & D. M. Rust, 23

    1998

  5. [13]

    Filippov, B. P. 2011, Astronomy Reports, 55, 541, doi: 10.1134/S1063772911050015

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/131

    Gekelman, W., Lawrence, E., & Van Compernolle, B. 2012, ApJ, 753, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/131

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    2004, ApJ, 617, 600, doi: 10.1086/425294

    Demoulin, P. 2004, ApJ, 617, 600, doi: 10.1086/425294

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/68

    Jiang, Y., Hong, J., Yang, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/68

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/14

    Jiang, Y., Yang, J., Wang, H., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/14

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Magara, T., & Inoue, S

    Joshi, N. C., Magara, T., & Inoue, S. 2014, ApJ, 795, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/4

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    1957, ZA, 43, 36

    Kippenhahn, R., & Schl¨ uter, A. 1957, ZA, 43, 36

    1957

  12. [20]

    2022, SoPh, 297, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-01981-y 8Zongyin Wu et al

    Koleva, K., Devi, P., Chandra, R., et al. 2022, SoPh, 297, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-01981-y 8Zongyin Wu et al

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    K., & Uddin, W

    Kumar, P., Manoharan, P. K., & Uddin, W. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1195, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1195

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    Kuperus, M., & Raadu, M. A. 1974, A&A, 31, 189

    1974

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 289602, doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1893-3

    Li, C., Fang, C., Li, Z., et al. 2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 289602, doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1893-3

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    P., et al

    Li, L., Peter, H., Chitta, L. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 213, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd47e

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Linton, M. G. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A12S09, doi: 10.1029/2006JA011891

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    G., Dahlburg, R

    Linton, M. G., Dahlburg, R. B., & Antiochos, S. K. 2001, ApJ, 553, 905, doi: 10.1086/320974

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 705, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/009

    Liu, Z., Xu, J., Gu, B.-Z., et al. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 705, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/009

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Luna, M., Su, Y., Schmieder, B., Chandra, R., & Kucera, T. A. 2017, ApJ, 850, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9713

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    H., Karpen, J

    Mackay, D. H., Karpen, J. T., Ballester, J. L., Schmieder, B., & Aulanier, G. 2010, SSRv, 151, 333, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9628-0

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    C., & Zwaan, C

    Martens, P. C., & Zwaan, C. 2001, ApJ, 558, 872, doi: 10.1086/322279

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    Martin, S. F. 1998, SoPh, 182, 107, doi: 10.1023/A:1005026814076

    1998 doi

  25. [33]

    F., Bilimoria, R., & Tracadas, P

    Martin, S. F., Bilimoria, R., & Tracadas, P. W. 1994, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol. 433, Solar Surface Magnetism, ed. R. J. Rutten & C. J. Schrijver, 303

    1994

  26. [34]

    F., & McAllister, A

    Martin, S. F., & McAllister, A. H. 1996, in IAU Colloq. 153: Magnetodynamic Phenomena in the Solar Atmosphere - Prototypes of Stellar Magnetic Activity, ed. Y. Uchida, T. Kosugi, & H. S. Hudson, 497, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-0315-9 112

    1996 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Billings, D

    Nakagawa, Y., Raadu, M. A., Billings, D. E., & McNamara, D. 1971, SoPh, 19, 72, doi: 10.1007/BF00148825

    1971 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Tsuneta, S., Lites, B

    Okamoto, T. J., Tsuneta, S., Lites, B. W., et al. 2008, ApJL, 673, L215, doi: 10.1086/528792 —. 2009, ApJ, 697, 913, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/913

    2008 doi

  29. [37]

    2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2014-1

    Parenti, S. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2014-1

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    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

  31. [39]

    A., Balasubramaniam, K

    Pevtsov, A. A., Balasubramaniam, K. S., & Rogers, J. W. 2003, ApJ, 595, 500, doi: 10.1086/377339

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    R., & Longcope, D

    Priest, E. R., & Longcope, D. W. 2017, SoPh, 292, 25, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-1049-0

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    M., & Martin, S

    Rust, D. M., & Martin, S. F. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 68, Solar Active Region Evolution: Comparing Models with Observations, ed. K. S. Balasubramaniam & G. W. Simon, 337

    1994

  34. [42]

    2004, SoPh, 223, 119, doi: 10.1007/s11207-004-1107-x

    Schmieder, B., Mein, N., Deng, Y., et al. 2004, SoPh, 223, 119, doi: 10.1007/s11207-004-1107-x

    2004 doi

  35. [43]

    H., Bush, R

    Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 229, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9842-2

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    Schuck, P. W. 2006, ApJ, 646, 1358, doi: 10.1086/505015

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    2004, A&A, 421, 323, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034199

    Schwartz, P., Heinzel, P., Anzer, U., & Schmieder, B. 2004, A&A, 421, 323, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034199

    2004 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a4d

    Shen, Y., Qu, Z., Yuan, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a4d

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    2007, SoPh, 242, 53, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-0213-y

    Su, J., Liu, Y., Kurokawa, H., et al. 2007, SoPh, 242, 53, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-0213-y

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Hannah, I

    Su, Y., Veronig, A. M., Hannah, I. G., et al. 2018, ApJL, 856, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab436

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, L12, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac069 T¨ or¨ ok, T., Chandra, R., Pariat, E., et al

    Tan, S., Shen, Y., Zhou, X., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, L12, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac069 T¨ or¨ ok, T., Chandra, R., Pariat, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 728, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/65 van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2004, ApJ, 612, 519, doi: 10.1086/422512 van Ballegooijen, A. A., &...

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2017, ApJ, 839, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6bf3

    Wang, J., Yan, X., Qu, Z., Xue, Z., & Yang, L. 2017, ApJ, 839, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6bf3

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    2016, Nature Communications, 7, 11837, doi: 10.1038/ncomms11837

    Xue, Z., Yan, X., Cheng, X., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 11837, doi: 10.1038/ncomms11837

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 63, 1656, doi: 10.1007/s11431-019-1463-6

    Yan, X., Liu, Z., Zhang, J., & Xu, Z. 2020, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 63, 1656, doi: 10.1007/s11431-019-1463-6

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    L., Xue, Z

    Yan, X. L., Xue, Z. K., Liu, J. H., Kong, D. F., & Xu, C. L. 2014, ApJ, 797, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/52

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    L., Xue, Z

    Yan, X. L., Xue, Z. K., Pan, G. M., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 17, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/17

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    L., Jiang, C

    Yan, X. L., Jiang, C. W., Xue, Z. K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e29

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 16, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/16

    Yang, B., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., Bi, Y., & Li, H. 2016, ApJ, 830, 16, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/16

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab557e

    Yang, B., Yang, J., Bi, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab557e

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa653a

    Yang, L., Yan, X., Li, T., Xue, Z., & Xiang, Y. 2017, ApJ, 838, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa653a

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca9d2

    Yang, L., Yan, X., Xue, Z., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca9d2

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c38 9

    Zheng, R., Zhang, Q., Chen, Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c38 9

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    F1” and “F2,

    Zhu, C., Liu, R., Alexander, D., Sun, X., & McAteer, R. T. J. 2015, ApJ, 813, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/60 10Zongyin Wu et al. Figure 1.(a) SDO/HMI LOS magnetogram, in which positive (negative) magnetic fields are shown in white (black). (b) AIA 304, (c) 171 ˚A, and (d)...

    2015 doi

Pith tools

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