Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Identification of Nonlinear Damping of Transverse Loop Oscillations by KHI-induced Turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Turbulence damping beats exponential decay for kink oscillations

desk verdict A potentially useful analytic formula for nonlinear kink oscillation damping; the evidence from two events is thin and the supplied full text is unreadable. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16349 v1 pith:PDFOSQXO submitted 2025-08-22 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-ph

Sihui Zhong , Andrew Hillier , Iñigo Arregui This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph
keywords kinkoscillationscoronalloopsseismologynonlineardampingKelvin–Helmholtzinstabilityturbulenceresonantabsorptionperioddrift
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 presents an analytic formula for large-amplitude kink oscillations in coronal loops that are damped by turbulence driven by the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability. The formula gives a time-varying damping rate and a drift in the oscillation period, and it predicts that the initial damping time is inversely proportional to the ratio of the initial velocity disturbance to the loop radius. The authors fit this nonlinear formula to observed decaying oscillations using Markov-chain Monte Carlo and Bayesian model comparison, finding that one observed event is better described by the nonlinear turbulence model than by traditional linear exponential damping, while another event is better described by linear resonant absorption. They conclude that the analytic nonlinear damping description is a valid and reliable way to model large-amplitude decaying kink oscillations in coronal loops.

What carries the argument

The analytic nonlinear damping formula with time-varying damping rate and period drift, derived from the turbulent dissipation of standing kink oscillations. It carries the argument by providing a closed-form forward model whose free parameters can be estimated from observed light curves, and its predicted scaling τ ∝ R/V_i is the quantitative signature that separates nonlinear turbulence damping from linear mechanisms in the Bayesian model comparison.

What would settle it

Measure the amplitude envelope and period of many large-amplitude kink oscillations across loops with known radii and initial velocities. If the envelope remains exponential and the period stays constant even at the largest initial velocities, the nonlinear turbulence formula fails; if the initial damping time does not scale approximately as R/V_i, the central scaling is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that nonlinear damping of standing kink oscillations by Kelvin–Helmholtz-induced turbulence can be captured by a closed analytic form in which the damping rate changes over time and the oscillation period drifts. The paper derives that the initial damping time τ is inversely proportional to V_i/R, where V_i is the initial velocity disturbance and R is the loop radius, giving a concrete scaling law that connects loop properties to the observed decay. Using Bayesian parameter estimation and model comparison against linear exponential damping and other linear models, the authors report that the nonlinear formula fits one observed kink oscillation event better than the linea

Load-bearing premise

The non-exponential decay seen in the observed oscillations is caused by the Kelvin–Helmholtz turbulence mechanism built into the analytic formula, rather than by another amplitude-dependent process such as wave leakage, phase mixing, or a changing loop geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed large-amplitude kink oscillations can be modeled with a time-dependent damping rate and period drift instead of a single exponential decay time.
  • The scaling τ ∝ R/V_i gives a direct seismological diagnostic: measuring the initial damping time and amplitude of a loop oscillation constrains the loop radius or the initial velocity amplitude.
  • Bayesian model comparison in the τ/P versus V_i/R plane defines where nonlinear turbulence damping should be expected to dominate over linear resonant absorption, guiding which physical model to apply to a given event.
  • The analytic formula can serve as a fast forward model for fitting many observed events without expensive three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The τ ∝ R/V_i scaling could be tested against a statistical sample of observed decaying kink oscillations with independently measured loop radii and velocity amplitudes; a clear trend would discriminate nonlinear turbulence from other amplitude-dependent processes.
  • If the regime boundary between nonlinear and linear damping is confirmed across many events, it could be used to sort coronal loops by whether nonlinearity matters for their heating, connecting damping diagnostics to energy-deposition questions.
  • The same analytic construction may extend to other standing magnetohydrodynamic wave modes, such as sausage oscillations, where turbulent nonlinear damping could also produce period drift and nonexponential decay.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an analytic model for nonlinear damping of standing kink oscillations in coronal loops, attributing the damping to turbulence generated by the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. The central prediction is an initial damping time τ inversely proportional to the ratio of the initial velocity disturbance to the loop radius, V_i/R, together with a time-varying damping rate and period drift. The authors report MCMC fits with Bayesian inference for one observed event and a Bayesian model comparison for two events, concluding that one event favors the nonlinear formula while the other favors linear models, and they use this to draw a regime boundary in the τ/P versus V_i/R plane. The abstract states that the analytic approximation is a valid and reliable description of large-amplitude decaying kink oscillations.

Significance. The proposed τ ∝ R/V_i scaling and the explicit time-dependent damping/period-drift formula are, in principle, useful seismological diagnostics: if validated, they would provide a physically motivated way to distinguish nonlinear turbulence damping from linear resonant absorption and to seismologically probe loop properties. The paper's ambition to move from a single light-curve fit to a Bayesian model comparison is appropriate. However, the evidence reported is far from sufficient to establish the mechanism: only two events are used, with one assigned to each model, and no posterior predictive checks, synthetic-data recovery tests, or alternative-mechanism comparisons are described. The manuscript body is also delivered in an unreadable encoded form, so the derivation and the details of the likelihood/priors cannot be checked. If the analytic derivation survives scrutiny and the claims are substantially softened, the framework could be a useful contribution; in its present form the central assertion exceeds the evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text (main body)] The entire main text after the abstract is garbled mojibake. None of the equations, the derivation of the nonlinear damping formula, the definition of the free parameters, the MCMC likelihood, priors, convergence diagnostics, or the model-comparison calculations can be read. This is a load-bearing deficiency: the paper's central claim rests on the analytic derivation and the Bayesian fits, and neither is checkable. A readable version is required before any substantive assessment.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract reports that two events were analyzed, one favoring the nonlinear model and one favoring the linear model. With N=2, one assignment per model, the conclusion that the nonlinear formula is a 'valid and reliable description' is disproportionate. The data cannot identify the KHI-turbulence mechanism against other amplitude-dependent processes (e.g., wave leakage, phase mixing, evolving loop geometry). No posterior predictive checks or synthetic-data recovery tests are described that would establish that the Bayesian comparison can distinguish the proposed formula from a generic amplitude-dependent decay law. The regime boundary in the τ/P–V_i/R plane is underdetermined.
  3. [Abstract] There is an apparent inconsistency in the model-comparison summary: the text first says 'the nonlinear function better fits an observed decaying kink oscillation than traditional linear models', then later says one of the two events favors the nonlinear model and the other favors the linear model. The authors should specify which of the two observed events is which, report the Bayes factor or information criterion with uncertainties, and state the fitted parameter values. Without this, the reader cannot evaluate which evidence supports the headline claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses 'MCMC fitting with Bayesian inference' without specifying the sampler, chain length, burn-in, or convergence diagnostics; these should be provided in a revised manuscript.
  2. [Abstract] The notation τ/P and V_i/R should be defined at first use; P presumably is the oscillation period, but units and definitions are not stated.
  3. [Figures/Tables] Figure and table captions are unreadable in the submitted text; as a consequence the empirical support for the claimed fits cannot be inspected.
  4. [References] The reference list is also garbled; complete citation information is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No demonstrated circularity: the tau-proportional-to-R/V_i scaling is a model-derived prediction and the Bayesian fit is an empirical model comparison, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The only clearly readable part of the supplied manuscript is the abstract. Based on that text, the analytic nonlinear damping formula is presented as the paper's own construction, and the scaling tau ∝ R/V_i is stated as a model consequence: the paper 'investigate[s] how the damping behaviour depends on the driving amplitude and loop properties, showing that the initial damping time τ is inversely proportional to the velocity disturbance over the loop radius, V_i/R.' The MCMC/Bayesian fitting is described as applying this pre-defined nonlinear function to observed events and comparing it with linear models, including exponential damping. That is a test of a model against data, not a case where the fitted parameter is itself the predicted quantity. No quoted equation in the readable text shows the observed events being used to define the functional form or the damping-time scaling, so no fitted-input-called-prediction step can be exhibited. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or prior-work ansatz is quoted. The skeptical concerns about this paper—two events, one assigned to each model, and competing amplitude-dependent mechanisms—are identifiability/evidence concerns rather than constructional circularity. Under the hard rule that circularity must be demonstrated by quoting the paper and showing the specific reduction, no circular step is identifiable from the available text, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract could be parsed because the full text was garbled. The ledger entries are inferred from the abstract's claims; the actual number of fitted parameters and invoked background assumptions may be larger.

free parameters (1)
  • turbulence dissipation parameter(s) in the analytic damping formula = not extractable from abstract
    The nonlinear damping formula must contain at least one dimensional or dimensionless coefficient controlling the dissipation rate; the abstract's scaling tau proportional to R/V_i indicates such a functional form, and MCMC fitting presumably constrains the coefficient.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Standing kink oscillations in coronal loops are governed by a nonlinear turbulence damping law of the analytic form presented.
    The paper's central claim presupposes this law; stated in abstract as 'an analytic formula describing nonlinear standing kink oscillations dissipated by turbulence'.
  • domain assumption The observed oscillations' initial velocities and loop radii V_i/R are measured with sufficient accuracy to define the model comparison.
    The regime separation and the scaling rely on V_i/R; the abstract does not report uncertainties for these inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identification of Nonlinear Damping of Transverse Loop Oscillations by KHI-induced Turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PDFOSQXO

@misc{pith2026250816349,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identification of Nonlinear Damping of Transverse Loop Oscillations by KHI-induced Turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PDFOSQXO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16349}
}
abstract

Kink oscillations in coronal loops have been extensively studied for their potential contributions to coronal heating and their role in plasma diagnostics through coronal seismology. A key focus is the strong damping of large-amplitude kink oscillations, which observational evidence suggests is nonlinear. However, directly identifying the nonlinearity is a challenge. This work presents an analytic formula describing nonlinear standing kink oscillations dissipated by turbulence, characterised by a time-varying damping rate and period drift. We investigate how the damping behaviour depends on the driving amplitude and loop properties, showing that the initial damping time $\tau$ is inversely proportional to the velocity disturbance over the loop radius, $V_i/R$. Using MCMC fitting with Bayesian inference, the nonlinear function better fits an observed decaying kink oscillation than traditional linear models, including exponential damping, suggesting its nonlinear nature. By applying a Bayesian model comparison, we establish regimes in which nonlinear and linear resonant absorption mechanisms dominate based on the relationship between the damping rate $\tau/P$ and $V_i/R$. Additionally, analysis of two specific events reveals that while one favours the nonlinear model, the other is better explained by the linear model. Our results suggest that this analytical approximation of nonlinear damping due to turbulence provides a valid and reliable description of large-amplitude decaying kink oscillations in coronal loops.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    1[B) bLb GH̖> k 1&g c sd l bL`]@e 1&CM@̖< j 1 n 1[p* f' liS 1W bN C&6< J fK. zcB@IlK 1C! b v@ I4I@I8 s rGA@I= -y|1 1 b p2O@LBP b ۴ ' f F 1 l

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    V., Arregui , I., & Van Doorsselaere , T

    Andries , J., Goossens , M., Hollweg , J. V., Arregui , I., & Van Doorsselaere , T. 2005, , 430, 1109, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041832

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041832 2005

  5. [5]

    A., & Nakariakov , V

    Anfinogentov , S. A., & Nakariakov , V. M. 2019, , 884, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4792

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4792 2019

  6. [6]

    A., Nakariakov , V

    Anfinogentov , S. A., Nakariakov , V. M., Pascoe , D. J., & Goddard , C. R. 2021, , 252, 11, 10.3847/1538-4365/abc5c1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abc5c1 2021

  7. [7]

    2016, , 830, L22, 10.3847/2041-8205/830/2/L22

    Antolin , P., De Moortel , I., Van Doorsselaere , T., & Yokoyama , T. 2016, , 830, L22, 10.3847/2041-8205/830/2/L22

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/830/2/l22 2016

  8. [8]

    2017, , 836, 219, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb2

    ---. 2017, , 836, 219, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb2 2017

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    2019, Frontiers in Physics, 7, 85, 10.3389/fphy.2019.00085

    Antolin , P., & Van Doorsselaere , T. 2019, Frontiers in Physics, 7, 85, 10.3389/fphy.2019.00085

    2019

  2. [10]

    2014, , 787, L22, 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L22

    Antolin , P., Yokoyama , T., & Van Doorsselaere , T. 2014, , 787, L22, 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L22

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    2021, , 915, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0d53

    Arregui , I. 2021, , 915, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0d53

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Fletcher , L., Schrijver , C

    Aschwanden , M. J., Fletcher , L., Schrijver , C. J., & Alexander , D. 1999, , 520, 880, 10.1086/307502

    1999 doi

  5. [13]

    R., & Livescu , D

    Baltzer , J. R., & Livescu , D. 2020, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 900, A16, 10.1017/jfm.2020.466

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Van Doorsselaere , T., & Erd \'e lyi , R

    Barbulescu , M., Ruderman , M. S., Van Doorsselaere , T., & Erd \'e lyi , R. 2019, , 870, 108, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf506

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    L., & Roshko , A

    Brown , G. L., & Roshko , A. 1974, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 64, 775, 10.1017/S002211207400190X

    1974 doi

  8. [16]

    A., & Hood , A

    De Moortel , I., Munday , S. A., & Hood , A. W. 2004, , 222, 203, 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000043578.01201.2d

    2004

  9. [17]

    J., Goddard , C

    Duckenfield , T. J., Goddard , C. R., Pascoe , D. J., & Nakariakov , V. M. 2019, , 632, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936822

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, Bayesian Model Comparison Using Bayes Factors (Cambridge University Press), 273–308

    Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. 2018, Bayesian Model Comparison Using Bayes Factors (Cambridge University Press), 273–308

    2018

  11. [19]

    L., & Handy , B

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

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    R., & Nakariakov , V

    Goddard , C. R., & Nakariakov , V. M. 2016, , 590, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628718

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Goossens , M., Andries , J., & Aschwanden , M. J. 2002, , 394, L39, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021378

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1d0

    Guo , M., Van Doorsselaere , T., Karampelas , K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1d0

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, , 687, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449991

    Guo , M., Van Doorsselaere , T., Li , B., & Goossens , M. 2024, , 687, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449991

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Heyvaerts , J., & Priest , E. R. 1983, , 117, 220

    1983

  17. [25]

    2019, , 885, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4795

    Hillier , A., & Arregui , I. 2019, , 885, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4795

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, , 966, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad306f

    Hillier , A., Arregui , I., & Matsumoto , T. 2024, , 966, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad306f

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2019, , 482, 1143, 10.1093/mnras/sty2742

    Hillier , A., Barker , A., Arregui , I., & Latter , H. 2019, , 482, 1143, 10.1093/mnras/sty2742

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, , 520, 1738, 10.1093/mnras/stad234

    Hillier , A., Snow , B., & Arregui , I. 2023, , 520, 1738, 10.1093/mnras/stad234

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2016, , 591, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628215

    Hillier , A., Takasao , S., & Nakamura , N. 2016, , 591, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628215

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    W., Ruderman , M., Pascoe , D

    Hood , A. W., Ruderman , M., Pascoe , D. J., et al. 2013, , 551, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220617

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    A., De Moortel , I., & Antolin , P

    Howson , T. A., De Moortel , I., & Antolin , P. 2017, , 607, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731178

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Guo , M., & Antolin , P

    Karampelas , K., Van Doorsselaere , T., Pascoe , D. J., Guo , M., & Antolin , P. 2019, FrASS, 6, 38, 10.3389/fspas.2019.00038

    2019

  25. [33]

    E., & Raftery , A

    Kass , R. E., & Raftery , A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 773, 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    1995

  26. [34]

    R., Title , A

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

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, , 595, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629010

    Magyar , N., & Van Doorsselaere , T. 2016, , 595, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629010

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Ofman , L., Deluca , E

    Nakariakov , V. M., Ofman , L., Deluca , E. E., Roberts , B., & Davila , J. M. 1999, Science, 285, 862, 10.1126/science.285.5429.862

    1999 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Roberts , B., & Murawski , K

    Nakariakov , V. M., Roberts , B., & Murawski , K. 1997, , 175, 93, 10.1023/A:1004965725929

    1997 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Zhong , S., Kolotkov , D

    Nakariakov , V. M., Zhong , S., Kolotkov , D. Y., et al. 2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 19, 10.1007/s41614-024-00160-9

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Anfinogentov , S

    Nakariakov , V. M., Anfinogentov , S. A., Antolin , P., et al. 2021, , 217, 73, 10.1007/s11214-021-00847-2

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    V., Nakariakov , V

    Nechaeva , A., Zimovets , I. V., Nakariakov , V. M., & Goddard , C. R. 2019, , 241, 31, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0e86

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    M., & Verwichte , E

    Nistic \`o , G., Nakariakov , V. M., & Verwichte , E. 2013, , 552, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220676

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    2009, , 694, 502, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/502

    Ofman , L. 2009, , 694, 502, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/502

    2009 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Hood , A

    Pascoe , D. J., Hood , A. W., de Moortel , I., & Wright , A. N. 2012, , 539, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117979

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Hood , A

    Pascoe , D. J., Hood , A. W., De Moortel , I., & Wright , A. N. 2013, , 551, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220620

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Thompson , B

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

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    Ruderman , M. S. 2017, , 292, 111, 10.1007/s11207-017-1133-0

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    S., & Goossens , M

    Ruderman , M. S., & Goossens , M. 2014, , 289, 1999, 10.1007/s11207-013-0446-x

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    S., Goossens , M., & Andries , J

    Ruderman , M. S., Goossens , M., & Andries , J. 2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 082108, 10.1063/1.3464464

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    S., & Roberts , B

    Ruderman , M. S., & Roberts , B. 2002, , 577, 475, 10.1086/342130

    2002 doi

  42. [50]

    S., & Terradas , J

    Ruderman , M. S., & Terradas , J. 2013, , 555, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220195

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    2025, , 693, A201, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451583

    Soler , R., & Hillier , A. 2025, , 693, A201, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451583

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    2008, , 687, L115, 10.1086/593203

    Terradas , J., Andries , J., Goossens , M., et al. 2008, , 687, L115, 10.1086/593203

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    2018, , 853, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d0f

    Terradas , J., Magyar , N., & Van Doorsselaere , T. 2018, , 853, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d0f

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    2004, , 610, 523, 10.1086/421514

    Terradas , J., & Ofman , L. 2004, , 610, 523, 10.1086/421514

    2004 doi

  47. [55]

    2004, , 424, 1065, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041239

    Van Doorsselaere , T., Debosscher , A., Andries , J., & Poedts , S. 2004, , 424, 1065, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041239

    2004 doi

  48. [56]

    S., & Ismayilli , R

    Van Doorsselaere , T., Goossens , M., Magyar , N., Ruderman , M. S., & Ismayilli , R. 2021, , 910, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe630

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    K., Antolin , P., et al

    Van Doorsselaere , T., Srivastava , A. K., Antolin , P., et al. 2020, , 216, 140, 10.1007/s11214-020-00770-y

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2008, , 486, 1015, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809626

    Verth , G., & Erd \'e lyi , R. 2008, , 486, 1015, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809626

    2008 doi

  51. [59]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    M., & Su , Y

    Wang , T., Ofman , L., Davila , J. M., & Su , Y. 2012, , 751, L27, 10.1088/2041-8205/751/2/L27

    2012 doi

  53. [61]

    V., Zhelyazkov , I., & Ofman , L

    Zaqarashvili , T. V., Zhelyazkov , I., & Ofman , L. 2015, , 813, 123, 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/123

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Miao , Y., Fu , L., & Yuan , D

    Zhong , S., Nakariakov , V. M., Miao , Y., Fu , L., & Yuan , D. 2023 a , Scientific Reports, 13, 12963, 10.1038/s41598-023-40063-2

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    Y., Zhong , S., & Nakariakov , V

    Zhong , Y., Kolotkov , D. Y., Zhong , S., & Nakariakov , V. M. 2023 b , , 525, 5033, 10.1093/mnras/stad2598

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.