Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 76 references

The Kinematical Behavior of Solar Eruptive Filaments Affected by the Poloidal Magnetic Field

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 Asymmetric magnetic confinement can steer solar filament eruptions sideways.

desk verdict Plausible new mechanism for non-radial filament eruptions, well-analyzed but dependent on a hand-patched PFSS boundary that needs stress-testing before the claim is secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17039 v1 pith:SVCEM4XB submitted 2025-08-23 astro-ph.SR

Ye Qiu , Yang Guo , Mingde Ding , Chuan Li , Linggao Kong , Zhen Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarfilamentsfilamenteruptionspoloidalmagneticfieldstrappingforcenon-radialejectionfluxropesPFSSextrapolationeruptivekinematics
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 tries to establish that asymmetric magnetic confinement can steer solar filament eruptions sideways. Using two eruptive filaments observed simultaneously by two spacecraft, the authors reconstruct each filament's three-dimensional ejection path and compare it with the poloidal component of the overlying coronal magnetic field. They find that in both events the eruption accelerates more slowly where the poloidal field strengthens, resumes accelerating where the decay index crosses 1, and finally travels along the side where the poloidal field, and hence the strapping force, is weaker. If correct, this gives a new explanation for non-radial filament ejections and a possible pre-eruption predictor of ejection direction.

What carries the argument

The central quantity is the poloidal component of the overlying magnetic field, computed as $B_{\rm pol} = e_{\rm pol} \cdot B_p$ from a PFSS potential-field extrapolation, where $e_{\rm pol}$ is perpendicular to both the axial current direction and the ejection direction. Because the axial current is nearly constant under line-tying, $B_{\rm pol}$ directly tracks the strapping force magnitude. The authors compare this quantity along the measured three-dimensional path and on an interception plane perpendicular to the filament axis at the pre-eruption apex, and match its variation to the measured acceleration profile.

What would settle it

Recompute the poloidal-field asymmetry for the same two events using a nonlinear force-free field or a time-dependent magnetohydrodynamic simulation anchored to the same photospheric boundary, and check whether the ejection still points toward the weaker side. Alternatively, apply the same measurement to a third well-observed eruptive filament whose three-dimensional trajectory is known: a single event that ejects toward the side with stronger $B_{\rm pol}$ would contradict the proposed rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For both investigated events, the filaments appear to eject toward the side where the poloidal magnetic field is weaker, indicating that eruptive filaments tend to propagate along the side with weaker strapping force. The acceleration of both filaments initially rises, then is suppressed or even declines when the poloidal field strengthens, and rises again once the poloidal field decays and the decay index exceeds about 1. The authors interpret this as direct evidence that the downward strapping force controls not only the speed but also the direction of an eruption: when the overlying field is asymmetric, the flux rope yields on the less-confined side.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the extrapolated potential-field model reproduces the real coronal magnetic field, including the patched active-region magnetogram taken half an hour before each eruption; if the actual field is significantly non-potential or the patch distorts the local configuration, the computed weaker side could be an artifact rather than the physical strapping-force asymmetry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inclined filament ejections can arise simply from an asymmetric overlying field, so forecasting deflection direction may be possible from pre-eruption magnetograms.
  • A local strengthening of the poloidal field, for example from an additional overlying loop system, can pause or reverse the acceleration of an erupting flux rope.
  • The ratio of poloidal field strength on the ejection side to the opposite side could serve as a quantitative predictor of non-radial ejection direction.
  • Models of coronal mass ejection propagation should include the asymmetric strapping force as a steering agent in addition to reconnection and ambient large-scale structures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the two events, the same method could be applied to a larger sample to calibrate how much field asymmetry is needed to produce a measurable deflection, and whether the required ratio varies with flux-rope height.
  • The paper compares the poloidal field magnitude rather than the full Lorentz force integrated over the flux-rope cross-section; computing the actual strapping force integral along candidate directions could sharpen the directional prediction.
  • Both events violate the hemispheric helicity rule, hinting that wrong-helicity flux ropes may be especially prone to this asymmetric-confinement steering; a helicity-stratified sample would test whether the effect is limited to that population.
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 analyzes two eruptive filaments (2011 March 7 from AR 11164 and 2014 February 25 from AR 11990) observed simultaneously by SDO and STEREO. Using the tie-pointing technique and 3D linear fitting, the authors reconstruct the three-dimensional ejection trajectories and accelerations. They compute the poloidal component of the external magnetic field from a PFSS extrapolation whose photospheric boundary is a synoptic HMI magnetogram patched with a local vector magnetogram taken half an hour before each eruption. The poloidal field is then compared with the measured acceleration along the path and with the side of ejection relative to the radial direction. The paper reports that the poloidal field strengthens where the ejection acceleration is suppressed, that the acceleration resumes when the decay index exceeds 1, and that both filaments eject toward the side where the poloidal field is weaker. The authors propose that asymmetric strapping by the background field can steer filament eruptions into non-radial directions.

Significance. If confirmed, the result would add a new, observationally grounded mechanism to the known explanations for non-radial filament/CME ejections: asymmetric confinement by the background poloidal field. The strengths of the paper are that the 3D trajectories are obtained from dual-spacecraft triangulation, the apex positions are measured repeatedly to estimate uncertainty, and the decay-index threshold is a standard theoretical value rather than a parameter fitted to the acceleration data. These features make the reported connections between the field geometry and the kinematics more credible than a purely ad hoc comparison. However, the central claim rests on only two selected events and on a single potential-field model with a hand-adjusted boundary; the quantitative robustness of the weaker-side association is not demonstrated. The paper is honest in its final paragraph that further quantification is needed, but the abstract states the conclusion more categorically than the evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Figures 2-3] The central claim of the paper (abstract and Section 4) is that both filaments eject toward the side where the poloidal field is weaker. This asymmetry is computed from a PFSS extrapolation whose boundary is a synoptic HMI map patched by hand with a local vector magnetogram taken half an hour before each eruption. No sensitivity test is reported: the authors do not compare patched and unpatched boundaries, do not vary the patch size or placement, and do not compare with a non-potential extrapolation. The risk is concrete for Event 2, whose patch is at E77° longitude, where the radial-field component of the HMI vector magnetogram is most affected by projection effects. Because the asymmetry in B_pol controls the ejection-side/opposite-side ratio in Figure 9, a boundary artifact could produce the apparent weaker-side preference for both events without any physical asymmetry in the strapping force. A quantitative robustness test (e.g., unpatched versus patched PFSS runs, varying the patch region, or an NLFFF comparison) is needed before the conclusion is secure.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figure 9, Abstract] The conclusion that 'eruptive filaments tend to propagate along the side with weaker strapping force' is based on two selected events. With N=2, no statistical significance can be attached to the observed agreement, and the paper should either extend the sample or explicitly limit the claim to these two events. At minimum, the authors should report the uncertainty in the measured ejection direction (obtainable from the five repeated apex measurements) and the uncertainty in the B_pol side ratio shown in Figures 9(c-d), so that the reader can judge how robust the 'weaker side' identification is. The last paragraph of Section 4 appropriately notes that further quantification is needed, but the abstract's wording is more categorical than this limitation admits.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 7] The claimed correlation between acceleration and poloidal field along the ejection path is qualitative. The acceleration profiles have error bars, but statements that the acceleration 'levels off' when the poloidal field 'strengthens to a certain value' and 'resumes' when the decay index exceeds 1 are made without a quantitative test or uncertainty propagation. A cross-correlation, a regression, or at least an explicit identification of the corresponding features with uncertainties would strengthen this secondary claim. In addition, because B_pol and the decay index are derived from the same PFSS model, this part of the analysis is not an independent confirmation of the physical mechanism.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] The word 'brightennings' should be 'brightenings'.
  2. [Section 2] The word 'extropolation' should be 'extrapolation'.
  3. [Section 3.2] The transition 'Variously' is awkward; consider replacing it with 'In contrast' or 'For Event 2'.
  4. [Section 3.3, Figure 9] The sentence 'the final positive value of reje arises because the poloidal field reverses on both sides' is ambiguous and should be rewritten to clarify how a ratio that declines to negative values can later become positive.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract uses 'appear to eject towards the side', but Section 4 states the weaker-side conclusion without that hedge; the authors should keep the level of certainty consistent between the abstract and the discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the poloidal-field comparison is computed from magnetograms independently of the measured kinematics.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the three-dimensional ejection trajectory and acceleration are measured by stereoscopic tie-pointing and time–distance analysis, while the poloidal field Bpol is computed from a PFSS extrapolation of magnetogram data via the definition Bpol = epol · Bp. No parameter is fitted to the acceleration or ejection-direction data; the decay-index threshold n > 1 is taken from external literature, not adjusted to match the events. The central 'weaker-side' comparison in Section 3.3 uses the observed ejection direction as a fixed test vector and compares it with the independently computed angular distribution of Bpol; the ratio r_eje is a diagnostic statistic, not a fitted output. The main vulnerability is the model dependence of the hand-patched PFSS boundary and the limb position of Event 2, which is an accuracy and sensitivity concern, not a circularity. Self-citations such as the chirality rule of Guo et al. (2010b) and the Bpol projection method of Guo et al. (2019) supply externally established or definitional tools and do not presuppose the paper's conclusion.

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

The analysis introduces no new physical entities. It relies on a set of standard domain assumptions: PFSS potential-field extrapolation, the flux-rope force balance, a chirality-based axial current direction, and the decay-index instability threshold. There is one hand-chosen modeling input, the local boundary patch region, whose influence on the central asymmetry claim is not quantified.

free parameters (1)
  • AR boundary patch region = Not quantified (boxes in Figures 2e/f and 3e/f)
    The spatial extent and location over which the local HMI vector magnetogram replaces the synoptic Br map are chosen by hand to correct time-lag effects. This choice affects the PFSS boundary and hence the computed poloidal field, but no sensitivity study is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The coronal magnetic field is potential (current-free) up to a source surface at 2.5 solar radii (PFSS model).
    Invoked in Section 2 to extrapolate the magnetic field from photospheric magnetograms. All poloidal field values and its asymmetry are derived from this potential field, so errors in the potential-field assumption propagate directly into the central comparison.
  • domain assumption The flux-rope current-ring force balance (Kliem & Török 2006) describes the eruption, with the strapping force proportional to the external poloidal field B_pol.
    Equation (1) in the Introduction and the subsequent interpretation rely on this model to identify B_pol as the confining strapping force that steers the eruption.
  • domain assumption The filament chirality rule (Guo et al. 2010b) gives the axial current direction used to define the poloidal direction.
    In Section 3.1, sinistral/dextral chirality is inferred from photospheric polarities and used to set the current direction at the apex. If the chirality assignment is wrong, the orientation (and possibly the sign) of the computed poloidal field would be altered.
  • standard math A decay index n > 1 is the instability threshold for a straight current tube and marks where acceleration resumes.
    Section 3.2 and Section 4 use the Démoulin & Aulanier (2010) criterion to explain the second increase in acceleration. This is a standard theoretical result used as an interpretive benchmark, not fitted to the data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Kinematical Behavior of Solar Eruptive Filaments Affected by the Poloidal Magnetic Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SVCEM4XB

@misc{pith2026250817039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Kinematical Behavior of Solar Eruptive Filaments Affected by the Poloidal Magnetic Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SVCEM4XB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17039}
}
read the original abstract

Kinematics of solar eruptive filaments is one of the important diagnostic parameters for predicting whether solar eruptions would induce geomagnetic storms. Particularly, some geomagnetic storms might be induced by solar filament eruptions originating from unexpected surface source regions because of non-radial ejection. The non-radial ejection of filaments has received widespread attention but remains inconclusive. We select two eruptive filaments, both of which are supported by flux ropes, as indicated by the hot channel structures seen in the 94 {\AA} images and the hook-shaped brightenings where the filament material falls back. We measure the three-dimensional ejection trajectory of the eruptive filaments by integrating the simultaneous observations from SDO and STEREO. Furthermore, we calculate the distribution of the poloidal field along the ejection path and compare it to the ejection acceleration. It is revealed that the reinforcement of the poloidal magnetic field may lead to the suppression of the acceleration, with the acceleration resuming its increase only when the poloidal field diminishes to a certain level. Additionally, we compute the spatial distribution of the poloidal field in various directions and find that the poloidal magnetic field above the filaments is asymmetric. For both investigated events, the filaments appear to eject towards the side where the poloidal magnetic field is weaker, indicating that the eruptive filaments tend to propagate along the side with weaker strapping force. This may provide a new explanation for the inclined ejection of filaments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.17039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the current ring model. The black curves with arrowheads represent the magnetic field lines. The red arrow indicates the direction of the axial current, while the orange and green arrows indicate the directions of the strapping force and hoop force, respectively. The gray and black circles denote positive and negative magnetic polarities, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the eruptive filament on 2011 March 7. (a) Locations of STEREO satellites at 19:30 UT. The orange arrow points to the eruptive filament of interest. (b) The filament image observed by SDO/AIA 304 ˚A channel at 19:26:08 UT. (c) The image of the same filament observed by STEREO-A in 304 ˚A waveband at almost the same time. (d) The synoptic magnetic field of 2107 Carrington Rotation, with the green-shaded b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the filament eruption on 2014 February 25. (a) Orbital positions of STEREO satellites at 00:35 UT. The orange arrow indicates the location of the eruptive filament. (b) Pre-eruptive filament structure observed by SDO/AIA 304 ˚A channel at 00:35:31 UT. (c) Quasi-simultaneous 304 ˚A observation of the same filament from STEREO-B. (d) Synoptic magnetic field map for Carrington Rotation 2147, with the green-… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Triangulation of the vertices of the eruptive filament at three discrete time points on 2011 March 7. The white solid lines delineate the slice used to trace the ejection trajectory of the filament in the plane of sky observed by SDO/AIA. The white dashed lines represe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Triangulation of the eruptive filament vertices at three different moments on 2014 February 25. The legend follows the same conventions as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a, d) AIA 94 ˚A images showing the pre-existing hot channels, indicated by the orange arrows. (b, e) AIA 1600 ˚A images, with the green masks outlining flare ribbons. The white and black lines sketch the contours of 400 G and -400 G radial magnetic field, respectively…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Time-distance map of the filament erupting on 2011 March 7. The green diamonds with white error bars trace the filament propagation. (b) Comparison between the acceleration and poloidal field, which are shown by the blue diamonds with black error bars and the orang…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Extrapolated magnetic field lines enveloping two eruptive filaments computed by the PFSS model. The dark blue lines indicate the lower magnetic field lines while the cyan lines represent higher. The orange straight lines denote the actual ejection path of two filament …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a, b) Two-dimensional distributions of the poloidal field above the filaments. The dashed line means the projection of the radial direction onto the calculated plane, while the solid line indicates the direction of the realistic ejection path projected onto the calcul…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    TV:9 ||r CbXxx z^[ |ch?̤ EL ȡ.4u31 L 39;w. yC?rIP#>C#Laaدm&DL gF z 4^&

    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...

    work page arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    E., Ji , H., et al

    Alt , A., Myers , C. E., Ji , H., et al. 2021, , 908, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/abda4b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abda4b 2021

  3. [3]

    D., & Newkirk , Jr., G

    Altschuler , M. D., & Newkirk , Jr., G. 1969, , 9, 131, 10.1007/BF00145734

    doi:10.1007/bf00145734 1969

  4. [4]

    2019, , 621, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834221

    Aulanier , G., & Dud \' k , J. 2019, , 621, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834221

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834221 2019

  5. [5]

    Aulanier , G., T \"o r \"o k , T., D \'e moulin , P., & DeLuca , E. E. 2010, , 708, 314, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/314

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/314 2010

  6. [6]

    2013, , 773, 162, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/162

    Bi , Y., Jiang , Y., Yang , J., et al. 2013, , 773, 162, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/162

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/2/162 2013

  7. [7]

    V., Cremades , H., et al

    C \'e cere , M., Sieyra , M. V., Cremades , H., et al. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 65, 1654, 10.1016/j.asr.2019.08.043

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2019.08.043 2020

  8. [8]

    2014 a , , 797, L15, 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L15

    Chen , H., Zhang , J., Cheng , X., et al. 2014 a , , 797, L15, 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L15

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/l15 2014

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    F., Harra , L

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

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    F., & Shibata , K

    Chen , P. F., & Shibata , K. 2000, , 545, 524, 10.1086/317803

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, , 933, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac73ef

    Chen , Y., Ye , J., Mei , Z., et al. 2022, , 933, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac73ef

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    D., Liu , Y., & Poomvises , W

    Cheng , X., Zhang , J., Ding , M. D., Liu , Y., & Poomvises , W. 2013, , 763, 43, 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/43

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, , 894, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab886a

    Cheng , X., Zhang , J., Kliem , B., et al. 2020, , 894, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab886a

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2010, , 718, 1388, 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1388

    D \'e moulin , P., & Aulanier , G. 2010, , 718, 1388, 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1388

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    Deng , M., & Welsch , B. T. 2017, , 292, 17, 10.1007/s11207-016-1036-5

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, , 647, A85, 10.1051/0004-6361/202040042

    Devi , P., D \'e moulin , P., Chandra , R., et al. 2021, , 647, A85, 10.1051/0004-6361/202040042

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    2009, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 114, A00A22, 10.1029/2008JA013686

    Gopalswamy , N., M \"a kel \"a , P., Xie , H., Akiyama , S., & Yashiro , S. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 114, A00A22, 10.1029/2008JA013686

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    2003, , 586, 562, 10.1086/367614

    Gopalswamy , N., Shimojo , M., Lu , W., et al. 2003, , 586, 562, 10.1086/367614

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    Gosling , J. T. 1993, , 98, 18937, 10.1029/93JA01896

    1993 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Schmieder , B., et al

    Guo , Y., Ding , M. D., Schmieder , B., et al. 2010 a , , 725, L38, 10.1088/2041-8205/725/1/L38

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    2010 b , , 714, 343, 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/343

    Guo , Y., Schmieder , B., D \'e moulin , P., et al. 2010 b , , 714, 343, 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/343

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    D., & Chen , P

    Guo , Y., Xia , C., Keppens , R., Ding , M. D., & Chen , P. F. 2019, , 870, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aafabf

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612649

    Inhester , B. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612649

    2006 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2016, , 833, 267, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/267

    Isavnin , A. 2016, , 833, 267, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/267

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    A., & McIntosh , P

    Joselyn , J. A., & McIntosh , P. S. 1981, , 86, 4555, 10.1029/JA086iA06p04555

    1981 doi

  18. [26]

    D., & Srivastava , N

    Joshi , A. D., & Srivastava , N. 2011, , 730, 104, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/104

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Joshi , B., & Mitra , P

    Joshi , N. C., Joshi , B., & Mitra , P. K. 2021, , 501, 4703, 10.1093/mnras/staa3480

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Srivastava , A

    Joshi , N. C., Srivastava , A. K., Filippov , B., et al. 2014, , 787, 11, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/11

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Kucera , T

    Kaiser , M. L., Kucera , T. A., Davila , J. M., et al. 2008, , 136, 5, 10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    D., & Kusano , K

    Kang , Y., Kaneko , T., Leka , K. D., & Kusano , K. 2024, , 974, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a54

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, , 673, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245359

    Keppens , R., Popescu Braileanu , B., Zhou , Y., et al. 2023, , 673, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245359

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2021, , 909, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/abda37

    Kliem , B., Lee , J., Liu , R., et al. 2021, , 909, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/abda37

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    N., van Ballegooijen , A

    Kliem , B., Su , Y. N., van Ballegooijen , A. A., & DeLuca , E. E. 2013, , 779, 129, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/129

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    2006, , 96, 255002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002

    Kliem , B., & T \"o r \"o k , T. 2006, , 96, 255002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

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

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

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    2011, , 739, 43, 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/43

    Li , T., Zhang , J., Zhang , Y., & Yang , S. 2011, , 739, 43, 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/43

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    2015, , 290, 3343, 10.1007/s11207-015-0794-9

    Liewer , P., Panasenco , O., Vourlidas , A., & Colaninno , R. 2015, , 290, 3343, 10.1007/s11207-015-0794-9

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, , 533, L25, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae057

    Liu , Q., Jiang , C., Feng , X., Zuo , P., & Wang , Y. 2024, , 533, L25, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae057

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 165, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/165

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

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, , 940, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac961a

    Liu , T., Fan , Y., Su , Y., et al. 2022, , 940, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac961a

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    I., Su , Y

    McCauley , P. I., Su , Y. N., Schanche , N., et al. 2015, , 290, 1703, 10.1007/s11207-015-0699-7

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    2010, , 718, 433, 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/433

    Olmedo , O., & Zhang , J. 2010, , 718, 433, 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/433

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    F., Velli , M., & Vourlidas , A

    Panasenco , O., Martin , S. F., Velli , M., & Vourlidas , A. 2013, , 287, 391, 10.1007/s11207-012-0194-3

    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]

    A., Balasubramaniam , K

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

    2003 doi

  39. [47]

    P., & Keppens , R

    Porth , O., Xia , C., Hendrix , T., Moschou , S. P., & Keppens , R. 2014, , 214, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/214/1/4

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    2020, , 901, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5b

    Qiu , Y., Guo , Y., Ding , M., & Zhong , Z. 2020, , 901, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5b

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, , 961, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1e4f

    Qiu , Y., Li , C., Guo , Y., et al. 2024, , 961, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1e4f

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 289603, 10.1007/s11433-022-1900-5

    Qiu , Y., Rao , S., Li , C., et al. 2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 289603, 10.1007/s11433-022-1900-5

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    S., Scullion , E., & Park , S

    Rees-Crockford , T., Bloomfield , D. S., Scullion , E., & Park , S. H. 2020, , 897, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab92a0

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    A., & C \'e cere , M

    Sahade , A., Vourlidas , A., Balmaceda , L. A., & C \'e cere , M. 2023, , 953, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace420

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    H., Wilcox , J

    Schatten , K. H., Wilcox , J. M., & Ness , N. F. 1969, , 6, 442, 10.1007/BF00146478

    1969 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 27, 10.1007/s41614-024-00166-3

    Schmieder , B., Guo , J., & Poedts , S. 2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 27, 10.1007/s41614-024-00166-3

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    H., Bush , R

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

    2012 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, , 964, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2349

    Shen , Y., Liu , D., Yao , S., et al. 2024, , 964, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2349

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    V., C \'e cere , M., Cremades , H., et al

    Sieyra , M. V., C \'e cere , M., Cremades , H., et al. 2020, , 295, 126, 10.1007/s11207-020-01694-0

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.04265, 10.48550/arXiv.1801.04265

    Sun , X. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.04265, 10.48550/arXiv.1801.04265

    2018 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    Thernisien , A., Vourlidas , A., & Howard , R. A. 2009, , 256, 111, 10.1007/s11207-009-9346-5

    2009 doi

  52. [60]

    2017, , 843, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa79f0

    Wang , D., Liu , R., Wang , Y., et al. 2017, , 843, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa79f0

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    F., & Howard , T

    Webb , D. F., & Howard , T. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 3, 10.12942/lrsp-2012-3

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    R., T \"o r \"o k , T., D \'e moulin , P., van Driel-Gesztelyi , L., & Kliem , B

    Williams , D. R., T \"o r \"o k , T., D \'e moulin , P., van Driel-Gesztelyi , L., & Kliem , B. 2005, , 628, L163, 10.1086/432910

    2005 doi

  55. [63]

    R., Tarbell , T

    Wuelser , J.-P., Lemen , J. R., Tarbell , T. D., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5171, Telescopes and Instrumentation for Solar Astrophysics, ed. S. Fineschi & M. A. Gummin , 111--122, 10.1117/12.506877

    2004 doi

  56. [64]

    2018, , 234, 30, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6c8

    Xia , C., Teunissen , J., El Mellah , I., Chan \'e , E., & Keppens , R. 2018, , 234, 30, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6c8

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    2024, , 682, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347053

    Xing , C., Aulanier , G., Schmieder , B., Cheng , X., & Ding , M. 2024, , 682, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347053

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    Xing , C., Cheng , X., & Ding , M. D. 2020, The Innovation, 1, 100059, 10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100059

    2020

  59. [67]

    2012, , 761, 52, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/52

    Xu , Y., Liu , C., Jing , J., & Wang , H. 2012, , 761, 52, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/52

    2012 doi

  60. [68]

    2020, , 892, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab791b

    Xu , Y., Zhu , J., & Guo , Y. 2020, , 892, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab791b

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    2018, , 862, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaccfd

    Yang , J., Dai , J., Chen , H., Li , H., & Jiang , Y. 2018, , 862, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaccfd

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    2012, Nature Communications, 3, 747, 10.1038/ncomms1753

    Zhang , J., Cheng , X., & Ding , M.-D. 2012, Nature Communications, 3, 747, 10.1038/ncomms1753

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    P., Howard , R

    Zhang , J., Dere , K. P., Howard , R. A., & Bothmer , V. 2003, , 582, 520, 10.1086/344611

    2003 doi

  64. [72]

    G., Webb , D

    Zhang , J., Richardson , I. G., Webb , D. F., et al. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A10102, 10.1029/2007JA012321

    2007 doi

  65. [73]

    Zhang , Q. M. 2021, , 653, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141982

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    Zhong , Z., Guo , Y., & Ding , M. D. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 2734, 10.1038/s41467-021-23037-8

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    P., Aulanier , G., & Gilchrist , S

    Zuccarello , F. P., Aulanier , G., & Gilchrist , S. A. 2015, , 814, 126, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/126

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    P., Bemporad , A., Jacobs , C., et al

    Zuccarello , F. P., Bemporad , A., Jacobs , C., et al. 2012, , 744, 66, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/66

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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