Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Three dimensional magnetic reconnection mediated with plasmoids and the resulted multi-thermal emissions in the cool atmosphere of the Sun

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Plasmoid-mediated reconnection produces Ellerman bombs and UV bursts from the same current sheet.

desk verdict A plausible first 3D RMHD look at plasmoid-mediated reconnection in the quiet lower atmosphere, but the plasmoid identification has no convergence backing. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11013 v1 pith:LGU6T6VP submitted 2025-08-14 astro-ph.SR

Guanchong Cheng , Lei Ni , Robert Cameron , Hardi Peter , Yajie Chen , Jun Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords magneticreconnectionplasmoidinstabilitysolarchromosphereEllermanbombsultravioletburstsfluxemergenceradiationmagnetohydrodynamicssyntheticspectroscopy
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 argues that the small-scale brightenings known as Ellerman bombs and ultraviolet bursts are not separate phenomena originating at different heights, but two views of one turbulent reconnection process. Using a three-dimensional radiation magnetohydrodynamic simulation of magnetic flux emerging into the Sun's lower atmosphere, the authors find thin current sheets that repeatedly break up into plasmoids, ejecting small twisted magnetic flux ropes. The simulated plasma is a patchwork in which material above 20,000 K sits next to material below 10,000 K, and synthetic spectral diagnostics reproduce both H-alpha wing brightenings (Ellerman bombs) and Si IV emission (UV bursts) in the same region. Cool EB-like plasma appears above hot UV-burst-like plasma, reaching altitudes beyond 2 Mm, while hot plasma descends as low as 0.7 Mm. The authors conclude that plasmoid-mediated turbulent reconnection can explain observed cases where UV bursts are temporally and spatially connected to Ellerman bombs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the plasmoid instability operating in three-dimensional current sheets: a thin, elongated reconnection layer becomes unstable and fragments into plasmoids, which in three dimensions are small twisted magnetic flux ropes ejected by bidirectional outflows. This instability converts a single smooth current sheet into a turbulent, multi-thermal structure where hot and cool plasma alternate in space. The supporting machinery is the simulation's radiation treatment and spectral synthesis, using radiative transfer for H-alpha and optically thin emission for Si IV, which allow the plasma state to be compared with observed Ellerman bomb and UV burst diagnostics.

What would settle it

Repeat the simulation at significantly higher resolution or with a physical resistivity model and check whether plasmoids, their sizes, and the 20,000 to 90,000 K heating converge; if they do not, the central claim fails. Observationally, a well-resolved event where H-alpha wing and Si IV brightenings are never co-spatial or co-temporal, despite adequate resolution, would contradict the predicted coexistence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the cool lower solar atmosphere, magnetic reconnection is routinely mediated by the plasmoid instability, and that this turbulence is what produces the coexistence of Ellerman bombs and UV bursts. In a three-dimensional RMHD simulation driven by flux emergence, reconnection forms thin, elongated current sheets in which plasmoid-like structures develop, becoming many small twisted magnetic flux ropes expelled along the sheet. The reconnection region becomes multi-thermal: hot plasma exceeding 20,000 K, with peaks near 90,000 K, and cool plasma below 10,000 K interleave in space. Synthetic H-alpha and Si IV observations made from the simulation show the characteristic signatures of EBs and UV bursts arising from the same current sheet, with cool EB plasma located above hot plasma at heights greater than 2 Mm and hot UV-burst plasma reaching down to about 0.7 Mm. The authors state this is the first time plasmoid instability has been shown to appear in most small-scale reconnection events relating to EBs and UV bursts in a three-dimensional RMHD simulation with radiation.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation grid spacing of roughly 15 to 23 km is fine enough that the plasmoids and the associated heating are real physics rather than numerical artifacts, even though the reconnection rate and heating depend on the code's numerical dissipation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ellerman bombs and UV bursts can be two emission signatures of a single reconnection event, so joint observations in the two passbands should frequently find them co-located and synchronized.
  • Cool EB-like plasma can sit above hot UV-emitting plasma, so height alone does not separate the two phenomena; the 2 Mm and 0.7 Mm altitudes bracket the same current sheet.
  • UV bursts can occur in the lower chromosphere when reconnection fields are strong enough, not only at transition-region heights.
  • Twisted magnetic flux ropes ejected by the reconnection carry magnetic twist upward and may contribute to coupling the lower atmosphere to the corona.
  • Most small-scale reconnection in the simulated lower atmosphere is plasmoid-mediated, implying turbulent reconnection is a common heating channel there.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the plasmoid instability is as widespread as the simulation suggests, some observed 'two-component' events may be projection effects of a single multi-thermal sheet, which could be tested by comparing line-of-sight velocities with the predicted bidirectional outflows.
  • The same plasmoid-mediated mechanism may apply to other small-scale brightenings and to events whose magnetic topology resembles flare-like configurations at smaller scales.
  • Because the effective resistivity in the simulation is numerical, a resolution study is the natural next test: current-sheet aspect ratios and plasmoid sizes should follow a power law if the instability is physical.
  • The simulation's limited coronal plasma above 8 Mm could alter how much reconnection-generated material is transported upward; extending the domain may change the high-altitude signatures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 3D radiation-MHD simulation of magnetic flux emergence in the solar lower atmosphere using the MURaM code, with a domain extending from the upper convection zone to 8 Mm in the atmosphere. A flat magnetic flux sheet inserted in the convection zone produces repeated small-scale magnetic reconnection events; the authors focus on one region of interest (ROI) and identify thin elongated current sheets with plasmoid-like structures and twisted flux ropes, with hot (>20,000 K) and cool (<10,000 K) plasma coexisting in a fragmented pattern. Using RH1.5D for Halpha and Si IV profiles and optically thin synthesis for Si IV 139.4 nm and EUI 17.4 nm images, they find wing-enhanced Halpha signatures characteristic of Ellerman bombs and double-peaked Si IV profiles characteristic of UV bursts, sometimes at the same reconnection region. They also report a cool EB-like blob above hot plasma at heights >2 Mm and another event with hot UV-burst plasma at about 0.7 Mm. They conclude that 3D turbulent reconnection mediated by the plasmoid instability can explain temporally and spatially connected EBs and UV bursts and the multi-thermal emission structure.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a notable step: it is, to my knowledge, the first 3D RMHD simulation that identifies plasmoid-mediated reconnection in the cool lower atmosphere of the Sun in the context of EBs and UV bursts, extending earlier 2D/2.5D models (Ni et al. 2021; Cheng et al. 2024) to a more realistic 3D geometry. The use of a well-tested code (MURaM), the standard RH1.5D radiative transfer code, optically thin CHIANTI-based synthesis, and explicit comparison with observational Halpha and Si IV line characteristics are clear strengths. The predicted coexistence and height inversion of cool and hot plasmas provide a falsifiable observational diagnostic. However, the case-study nature and the lack of resolution verification limit the strength of the general conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Figs. 2-4] The central claim that plasmoid-mediated reconnection produces the multi-thermal structure rests on the physical reality of the small-scale filamentation, but the paper offers no quantitative resolution verification. The grid spacing is 23.4 km in x and 15.63 km in y and z, MURaM's magnetic diffusion is numerical hyperdiffusion, and Section 2 itself notes the resolution is much lower than in the previous 2D AMR runs. Without a resolution study, a measured current-sheet width, a local Lundquist-number estimate, or a plasmoid size distribution, the blob-like isosurfaces in Figs. 2-4 could plausibly be grid-scale numerical dissipation artifacts rather than a converged tearing-mode cascade. Since the height inversion and the co-spatial EB/UV emission claims follow directly from this filamentation, please add either a convergence test at an intermediate resolution or a quantitative demonstration that the plasmoid sizes are well above the grid scale and that the heating is not governed by the numerical dissipation.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Section 4 (conclusions)] The text states that 'plasmoid instability appears in most of these reconnection events' and that 'most small-scale reconnection lead to the formation of twisted magnetic flux ropes,' but only one event (the ROI) is analyzed in detail, and a second event is shown in Section 3.3. No event census, selection criterion, or statistical measure is provided to support 'most.' Please either quantify the fraction of events showing plasmoids and flux ropes with clear selection criteria, or weaken the claim to a case study, because the general conclusion as written exceeds the presented evidence.
  3. [Section 3.3 and Fig. 8] The claim that cool EB-like plasma is located above hot plasma at heights greater than 2 Mm is based on a single cool blob and a single synthesized Halpha profile. The wing enhancement in Fig. 8b is shown after subtracting a nearby background profile, but no analysis is given of how sensitive this result is to the size or location of the background region, nor is the statistical significance of the enhancement estimated. Since this height inversion is one of the paper's headline results, please provide a quantitative characterization of the blob (temperature, density, line-center optical depth, and background-subtraction sensitivity) or show the same behavior in additional events.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract and Section 1 contain typos such as 'comaprison' and 'Figsures'; the manuscript would benefit from a careful proofread.
  2. [Figs. 2, 3, 4] The color bars and axis labels in these figures appear garbled in the version I reviewed, with repeated tick values and duplicated labels; please check the figure production pipeline and provide clean, readable color scales.
  3. [Section 3.2] The text refers to the code as 'RH1.5' in the first sentence of Section 3.2 but as 'RH1.5D' elsewhere; please use the acronym consistently.
  4. [References] The Cheng et al. (2024) references appear in two forms (arXiv:2402.07175 and ApJ 966, L29); please unify the citation entries.
  5. [Section 4] The limitation concerning depletion of coronal material near the upper boundary is acknowledged, but the paper should state whether any of the analyzed events (e.g., the current sheet extending to about 6 Mm in Fig. 3) are affected by this boundary-induced deficit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are outputs of a new 3D RMHD simulation and forward-modeled radiative diagnostics, with self-citations used for context and comparison rather than as load-bearing proof.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are generated by a new 3D radiation-MHD simulation in MURaM and post-processed with RH1.5D and optically thin synthesis. No parameter of the simulation is fitted to the EB or UV-burst observations against which the synthetic H-alpha and Si IV signatures are compared; the synthetic observables are produced from the simulated atmosphere, not defined in terms of the target observations. The self-citations (Ni et al. 2021; Cheng et al. 2024) appear as prior context, resolution comparisons, and consistency checks, but the identification of plasmoid-like structures rests on the 3D simulation's own magnetic-field topology, temperature, density, and current-density distributions, not on an imported theorem or on the cited papers' conclusions. The statement that the 3D results 'further validat[e] the model we previously proposed' is an explicit acknowledgment of continuity, not a reduction of the new evidence to that model. The resolution limitation acknowledged in Section 2 is a correctness or verification concern (whether the 15 km grid captures a genuine tearing-mode cascade), but it is not a circularity: inadequate resolution would weaken the physical claim, not make the conclusion an input to the calculation. No equation, diagnostic, or statistical procedure reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation, so no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities (no new particles, forces, or dimensions). It relies on standard MHD and radiative transfer. The free parameters are the numerical and initial condition choices (flux sheet strength, domain size, resolution). The main assumption is that the numerical dissipation of MURaM adequately captures the physics of reconnection and plasmoid formation.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial magnetic flux sheet peak strength = 2200 G
    The peak field strength of the inserted flux sheet at z=-2 Mm is chosen arbitrarily, and the reconnection magnetic field strength in the target event (150-250 G) is a consequence of this choice. The authors argue that reconnection fields stronger than ~500 G are needed to heat higher-density plasma to 20,000 K, so this choice affects the resulting temperatures.
  • Simulation domain height = 8 Mm above surface
    The upper boundary at 8 Mm limits the coronal plasma content, which the authors note as a limitation. This choice affects the coronal environment and the expansion of the atmosphere.
  • Grid resolution = 23.4 km (x), 15.63 km (y, z)
    The resolution is chosen as a compromise for computational cost. The authors acknowledge it is lower than their 2D AMR runs, and the plasmoid instability and heating are known to be resolution-dependent in MHD simulations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The MURaM code's numerical dissipation, with settings identical to Przybylski et al. (2022), accurately models the effective resistivity and viscosity in the lower atmosphere.
    The simulation is not ideal-MHD; it relies on the code's numerical diffusion to enable reconnection and plasmoid formation. The paper does not quantify the effective Lundquist number or verify that the plasmoid instability is physical rather than a numerical artifact of the dissipation scheme.
  • domain assumption The LTE radiative cooling model for the photosphere and lower chromosphere and the optically thin cooling model for the upper atmosphere are adequate for the temperatures and densities in the reconnection region.
    In the lower chromosphere, where UV bursts are claimed, non-LTE and partial ionization effects can be important. The authors use LTE for the lower atmosphere, which may affect the energy balance and the resulting temperatures.
  • domain assumption The RH1.5D column-by-column approximation and the optically thin approximation for Si IV and EUI images are adequate for the synthetic observables.
    RH1.5D neglects horizontal radiative transfer, which can be important in the dynamic, inhomogeneous reconnection region. The optically thin approximation for Si IV and EUI images neglects absorption and scattering, which may affect the comparison with observations.
  • domain assumption The initial convecting atmosphere and the flux sheet insertion produce a realistic distribution of emerging magnetic field in the lower atmosphere.
    The flux sheet is introduced artificially at z=-2 Mm, and the resulting photospheric field distribution is a product of the specific simulation setup. The paper does not validate this against observed flux emergence patterns quantitatively.
  • standard math The standard MHD equations with the Uppsala equation of state provide a valid description of the plasma in the lower solar atmosphere.
    MURaM solves the standard RMHD equations; the paper does not claim any new physics. This is a standard assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three dimensional magnetic reconnection mediated with plasmoids and the resulted multi-thermal emissions in the cool atmosphere of the Sun." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGU6T6VP

@misc{pith2026250811013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three dimensional magnetic reconnection mediated with plasmoids and the resulted multi-thermal emissions in the cool atmosphere of the Sun},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGU6T6VP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11013}
}
read the original abstract

Flux emergence is ubiquitous in the Sun's lower atmosphere, where the emerging magnetic flux can reconnect with the pre-existing magnetic field. We investigate plasmoid formation and the resulting multi-thermal emissions during three-dimensional magnetic reconnection in the lower solar atmosphere. We performed 3D radiation magnetohydrodynamic simulations using the MURaM code, which incorporates solar convection and radiative transfer. A flat magnetic flux sheet was introduced into the convection zone to trigger flux emergence. For comparison with previous observations, we used the RH1.5D code to synthesize H{\alpha} and Si IV spectral line profiles, and generated ultraviolet images using the optically thin approximation. The simulations show that flux emergence occurs as the imposed flux tube crosses the photosphere. In the lower solar atmosphere, magnetic reconnection forms thin, elongated current sheets, and plasmoid-like structures develop, producing numerous small twisted magnetic flux ropes that are expelled toward both ends of the reconnection region. This process results in the coexistence of hot plasma exceeding 20,000 K and cooler plasma below 10,000 K. Synthetic images and spectral line profiles through the reconnection region exhibit features characteristic of Ellerman bombs (EBs) and UV bursts. Cooler plasma associated with EBs can be found above hot plasma at altitudes exceeding 2 Mm above the solar surface, while hot plasma associated with UV bursts can extend downward into the lower chromosphere, reaching approximately 0.7 Mm above the surface. These results indicate that turbulent reconnection mediated by plasmoid instability can occur in small-scale events such as EBs and UV bursts, and that the coexistence of hot and cool plasma in such reconnection processes can account for UV bursts that are temporally and spatially connected to EBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.11013 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3D overview of the simulation domain above the photosphere at t=4414s: The colorful line structures represent the magnetic field lines in the simulation area, with colors corresponding to the field strengths. The grayscale slice at the bottom illustrates the distribution of the longitudinal magnetic field at the solar surface. Yellow and red isosurfaces represent the regions where temperatures are above 20,000 K. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Slices at y = 4.3 Mm at three different times in the simulation. The left column displays the temperature distribution in the slice planes, while the right column shows the distribution of the magnetic field strength (Bz) perpendicular to the solar surface. More details can be found in the supplementary movies. are very similar to previous two-dimensional simulations (e.g., Ni et al. 2021; Cheng et al. 2024) where p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Slices along different directions at t = 4414 s in the simulation: Panel a illustrates the longitudinal magnetic field (Bz) at the solar surface, marked with dashed lines to indicate the positions of slices S1, S2, and S3. Panels b and c represent the temperature and density distributions along slice S3 within the y–z plane. Panels d to f and panels g to i respectively show the temperature, density, and current dens… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three-dimensional views of the interesting region at t=4414 s: The grayscale image at the bottom represents the longitudinal magnetic field at the solar surface. Lines with different colors indicate magnetic field lines. The reddish isosurfaces indicate the regions wit…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Synthetic observables from a line-of-sight oriented vertically to the solar surface at t=4414s in the simulation: Panel a displays the Hα wing radiation at the Hα-0.5Å wavelength calculated by using the RH1.5D code. Panel b shows the Si IV 139.4 nm synthetic radiation …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Synthetic observables in the red dashed rectangular area of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel a shows the synthetic Hα spectrum at t = 4414 s. It displays the synthesized spectrum for comparison with Ellerman’s observations from 1917, with the horizontal axis representing wavelength and the vertical axis representing the length along the red dashed line i…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Hα spectral line profiles through the low-temperature plasma blob indicated by the blue arrows in Fig. 3a&d. Panel a shows the spectral line profile calculated using RH1.5D directly, and Panel b shows the result after subtracting the background spectral line profile. c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Slices at t = 4548 s and y = 2.61 Mm of another reconnection event, displaying the distribution of magnetic field in the z-direction, temperature, velocity in the z-direction (Vz), density, the synthesized Si IV spectral line profile, and the synthetic image of the hig…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbett, W. P. & Fisher, G. H.\ 2012, , 277, 3. doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9817-3

    doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9817-3 2012

  2. [2]

    & Hood, A

    Archontis, V. & Hood, A. W.\ 2009, , 508, 1469. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912455

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912455 2009

  3. [3]

    Avrett, E. H. & Loeser, R.\ 2008, , 175, 229. doi:10.1086/523671

    doi:10.1086/523671 2008

  4. [4]

    & Heinzel, P.\ 2014, , 567, A110

    Berlicki, A. & Heinzel, P.\ 2014, , 567, A110. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323244

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323244 2014

  5. [5]

    & Stein, R

    Carlsson, M. & Stein, R. F.\ 2002, , 572, 626. doi:10.1086/340293

    doi:10.1086/340293 2002

  6. [6]

    & Leenaarts, J.\ 2012, , 539, A39

    Carlsson, M. & Leenaarts, J.\ 2012, , 539, A39. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118366

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118366 2012

  7. [7]

    doi:10.1007/s11431-018-9471-6

    Chen, Y., Tian, H., Zhu, X., et al.\ 2019, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 62, 1555. doi:10.1007/s11431-018-9471-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11431-018-9471-6 2019

  8. [8]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a4

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a4 2019

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140638

    Chen, Y., Przybylski, D., Peter, H., et al.\ 2021, , 656, L7. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140638

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

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

    Cheng, G.-C., Ni, L., Chen, Y.-J., et al.\ 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 229. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/229

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.07175

    Cheng, G., Ni, L., Chen, Y., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2402.07175. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.07175

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4027

    Cheng, G., Ni, L., Tang, Z., et al.\ 2024, , 966, L29. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4027

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

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

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Peter, H., Solanki, S

    Chitta, L. P., Peter, H., Solanki, S. K., et al.\ 2017, , 229, 4. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/229/1/4

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Peter, H., Young, P

    Chitta, L. P., Peter, H., Young, P. R., et al.\ 2017, , 605, A49. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730830

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    doi:10.1002/asna.201211738

    Collados, M., L \'o pez, R., P \'a ez, E., et al.\ 2012, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 872. doi:10.1002/asna.201211738

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730403

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

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Lemen, J

    De Pontieu, B., Title, A. M., Lemen, J. R., et al.\ 2014, , 289, 2733. doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0485-y

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Landi, E., Mason, H

    Dere, K. P., Landi, E., Mason, H. E., et al.\ 1997, , 125, 149. doi:10.1051/aas:1997368

    1997 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.1086/142366

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

    1917 doi

  13. [21]

    H., Xu, Z., et al.\ 2006, , 643, 1325

    Fang, C., Tang, Y. H., Xu, Z., et al.\ 2006, , 643, 1325. doi:10.1086/501342

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/17/4/31

    Fang, C., Hao, Q., Ding, M.-D., et al.\ 2017, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 17, 031. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/17/4/31

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    K., Rust, D

    Georgoulis, M. K., Rust, D. M., Bernasconi, P. N., et al.\ 2002, , 575, 506. doi:10.1086/341195

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

    V., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V

    Gudiksen, B. V., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V. H., et al.\ 2011, , 531, A154. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116520

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    H., Archontis, V., Pereira, T

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

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935376

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

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/62.4.879

    Hashimoto, Y., Kitai, R., Ichimoto, K., et al.\ 2010, , 62, 879. doi:10.1093/pasj/62.4.879

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Li, Y., et al.\ 2014, , 792, 13

    Hong, J., Ding, M. D., Li, Y., et al.\ 2014, , 792, 13. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/13

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    D.\ 2017, , 845, 144

    Hong, J., Carlsson, M., & Ding, M. D.\ 2017, , 845, 144. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e3

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    D.\ 2022, , 661, A77

    Hong, J., Carlsson, M., & Ding, M. D.\ 2022, , 661, A77. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142839

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/2/L30

    Hou, Z., Huang, Z., Xia, L., et al.\ 2016, , 829, L30. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/2/L30

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Scullion, E

    Huang, Z., Madjarska, M. S., Scullion, E. M., et al.\ 2017, , 464, 1753. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2469

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    doi:10.1086/512969

    Isobe, H., Tripathi, D., & Archontis, V.\ 2007, , 657, L53. doi:10.1086/512969

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00419-x

    Ji, H., Daughton, W., Jara-Almonte, J., et al.\ 2022, Nature Reviews Physics, 4, 263. doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00419-x

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    & Rouppe van der Voort, L

    Joshi, J. & Rouppe van der Voort, L. H. M.\ 2022, , 664, A72. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243051

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Ichimoto, K., et al.\ 2007, Science, 318, 1594

    Katsukawa, Y., Berger, T. E., Ichimoto, K., et al.\ 2007, Science, 318, 1594. doi:10.1126/science.114604

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/38

    Kim, Y.-H., Yurchyshyn, V., Bong, S.-C., et al.\ 2015, , 810, 38. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/38

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    N.\ 2016, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 32, 13

    Kondrashova, N. N.\ 2016, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 32, 13. doi:10.3103/S0884591316010050

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    E., Lukin, V

    Leake, J. E., Lukin, V. S., Linton, M. G., et al.\ 2012, , 760, 109. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/109

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.10246

    Leenaarts, J., van Noort, M., de la Cruz Rodr \' guez, J., et al.\ 2025, arXiv:2501.10246. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.10246

    2025 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629266

    Libbrecht, T., Joshi, J., de la Cruz Rodr \' guez, J., et al.\ 2017, , 598, A33. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629266

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/165

    Liu, R.\ 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 165. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/165

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acafc3

    Liu, M., Ni, L., Cheng, G.-C., et al.\ 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035006. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acafc3

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/60.3.577

    Matsumoto, T., Kitai, R., Shibata, K., et al.\ 2008, , 60, 577. doi:10.1093/pasj/60.3.577

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21625.x

    Mei, Z., Shen, C., Wu, N., et al.\ 2012, , 425, 2824. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21625.x

    2012

  38. [46]

    L., Sterling, A

    Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., et al.\ 2001, , 552, 833. doi:10.1086/320559

    2001 doi

  39. [47]

    Murphy, N. A. & Lukin, V. S.\ 2015, , 805, 134. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/134

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Shelyag, S., Mathioudakis, M., et al.\ 2013, , 779, 125

    Nelson, C. J., Shelyag, S., Mathioudakis, M., et al.\ 2013, , 779, 125. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/125

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    doi:10.1063/1.3428553

    Ni, L., Germaschewski, K., Huang, Y.-M., et al.\ 2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 052109. doi:10.1063/1.3428553

    2010 doi

  42. [50]

    doi:10.1063/1.4736993

    Ni, L., Ziegler, U., Huang, Y.-M., et al.\ 2012, Physics of Plasmas, Effects of plasma on the plasmoid instability, 19, 7, 072902. doi:10.1063/1.4736993

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/79

    Ni, L., Kliem, B., Lin, J., et al.\ 2015, , 799, 79. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/79

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    I., et al.\ 2016, , 832, 195

    Ni, L., Lin, J., Roussev, I. I., et al.\ 2016, , 832, 195. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/195

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    & Lukin, V

    Ni, L. & Lukin, V. S.\ 2018, , 868, 144. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb97

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    A., et al.\ 2020, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 476, 20190867

    Ni, L., Ji, H., Murphy, N. A., et al.\ 2020, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 476, 20190867. doi:10.1098/rspa.2019.0867

    2020

  47. [55]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039239

    Ni, L., Chen, Y., Peter, H., et al.\ 2021, , 646, A88. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039239

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243304

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

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    H., N \'o brega-Siverio, D., et al.\ 2020, , 633, A58

    Ortiz, A., Hansteen, V. H., N \'o brega-Siverio, D., et al.\ 2020, , 633, A58. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936574

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    N.\ 1988, , 330, 474

    Parker, E. N.\ 1988, , 330, 474. doi:10.1086/166485

    1988 doi

  51. [59]

    Pereira, T. M. D. & Uitenbroek, H.\ 2015, , 574, A3. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424785

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    doi:10.1086/423891

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

    2004 doi

  53. [61]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20067011

    Pariat, E., Schmieder, B., Berlicki, A., et al.\ 2007, , 473, 279. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20067011

    2007 doi

  54. [62]

    V., & Nordlund, A .\ 2006, , 638, 1086

    Peter, H., Gudiksen, B. V., & Nordlund, A .\ 2006, , 638, 1086. doi:10.1086/499117

    2006 doi

  55. [63]

    doi:10.1126/science.1255726

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

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    P., et al.\ 2019, , 628, A8

    Peter, H., Huang, Y.-M., Chitta, L. P., et al.\ 2019, , 628, A8. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935820

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    K., et al.\ 2022, , 664, A91

    Przybylski, D., Cameron, R., Solanki, S. K., et al.\ 2022, , 664, A91. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141230

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    D., Wang, H., et al.\ 2000, , 544, L157

    Qiu, J., Ding, M. D., Wang, H., et al.\ 2000, , 544, L157. doi:10.1086/317310

    2000 doi

  59. [67]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/132

    Rempel, M.\ 2014, , 789, 132. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/132

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/10

    Rempel, M.\ 2017, , 834, 10. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/10

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    G., et al.\ 2016, , 823, 110

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

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    Rogers, F. J. & Iglesias, C. A.\ 1992, , 79, 507. doi:10.1086/191659

    1992 doi

  63. [71]

    B., et al.\ 2017, , 851, L6

    Rouppe van der Voort, L., De Pontieu, B., Scharmer, G. B., et al.\ 2017, , 851, L6. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa99dd

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    Rouppe van der Voort, L. H. M., Joshi, J., Henriques, V. M. J., et al.\ 2021, , 648, A54. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040171

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    Rouppe van der Voort, L. H. M., Joshi, J., & Krikova, K.\ 2024, , 683, A190. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348976

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    J., Vissers, G

    Rutten, R. J., Vissers, G. J. M., Rouppe van der Voort, L. H. M., et al.\ 2013, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 440, 012007. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/440/1/012007

    2013 doi

  67. [75]

    Rust, D. M. & Kumar, A.\ 1994, , 155, 69. doi:10.1007/BF00670732

    1994 doi

  68. [76]

    doi:10.1126/science.aaw2796

    Samanta, T., Tian, H., Yurchyshyn, V., et al.\ 2019, Science, 366, 890. doi:10.1126/science.aaw2796

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a4d

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

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0217

    Shen, Y.\ 2021, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 477, 217. doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0217

    2021

  71. [79]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac37c3

    Shen, J., Xu, Z., Li, J., et al.\ 2022, , 925, 46. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac37c3

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    doi:10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/96

    Tian, H., Xu, Z., He, J., et al.\ 2016, , 824, 96. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/96

    2016 doi

  73. [81]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa89d

    Tian, H., Yurchyshyn, V., Peter, H., et al.\ 2018, , 854, 92. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa89d

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    Toriumi, S., Katsukawa, Y., & Cheung, M. C. M.\ 2017, , 836, 63. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/63

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    doi:10.1086/321659

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

    2001 doi

  76. [84]

    van Ballegooijen, A. A. & Martens, P. C. H.\ 1989, , 343, 971. doi:10.1086/167766

    1989 doi

  77. [85]

    Vissers, G. J. M., Rouppe van der Voort, L. H. M., & Rutten, R. J.\ 2013, , 774, 32. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/32

    2013 doi

  78. [86]

    Vissers, G. J. M., Rouppe van der Voort, L. H. M., Rutten, R. J., et al.\ 2015, , 812, 11. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/11

    2015 doi

  79. [87]

    Vissers, G. J. M., de la Cruz Rodr \' guez, J., Libbrecht, T., et al.\ 2019, , 627, A101. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833560

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    o gler, A., Shelyag, S., Sch \

    V \"o gler, A., Shelyag, S., Sch \"u ssler, M., et al.\ 2005, , 429, 335. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041507

    2005 doi

  81. [89]

    M., Mart \' nez-Sykora, J., Hansteen, V

    Wargnier, Q. M., Mart \' nez-Sykora, J., Hansteen, V. H., et al.\ 2023, , 946, 115. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb1

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28269-w

    Yan, X., Xue, Z., Jiang, C., et al.\ 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 640. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28269-w

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0354-0

    Yang, H., Chae, J., Lim, E.-K., et al.\ 2013, , 288, 39. doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0354-0

    2013 doi

  84. [92]

    R., Tian, H., Peter, H., et al.\ 2018, , 214, 120

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

    2018 doi

  85. [93]

    ascl:1101.006

    Ziegler, U.\ 2011, Astrophysics Source Code Library. ascl:1101.006

    2011

  86. [94]

    doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2008.02.017

    Ziegler, U.\ 2008, Computer Physics Communications, 179, 227. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2008.02.017

    2008 doi

  87. [95]

    Zhang, Q. M. & Ni, L.\ 2019, , 870, 113. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf391

    2019 doi

  88. [96]

    & Keppens, R.\ 2022, , 928, 45

    Zhao, X. & Keppens, R.\ 2022, , 928, 45. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac54a4

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.