Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 58 references

The Role of Far-side Magnetic Structures in Modeling 2024 Solar Eclipse

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 In simulations of the April 2024 total eclipse, filling in the Sun's hidden magnetic hemisphere with later magnetograms shifts the simulated current sheet and streamers, improving agreement with white-light observations.

desk verdict A clean controlled simulation showing far-side boundary data matter; the 'GJ2 best' claim leans on a weak metric, but the qualitative result holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02911 v1 pith:DVDUTLTQ submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.SR

Guanglu Shi , Jiahui Shan , Li Feng , Jun Chen , Weiqun Gan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarcoronatotaleclipsesynopticmapfar-sidemagneticfieldmagnetohydrodynamicsheliosphericcurrentsheetstreamerdeflectionphotosphericmagnetogram
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

Synoptic maps used to drive global coronal simulations are stitched together from Earth-view magnetograms, so the hemisphere just over the Sun's limb is filled in by older or extrapolated data. This paper tests whether that blind spot matters by rebuilding the map for the 8 April 2024 eclipse: it replaces the far-side active-region field with full-disk magnetograms taken four and eight days later, once that region had rotated into view. The simulations show a local far-side patch can move the heliospheric current sheet and alter density, temperature, and speed across the corona, including at the poles. Matching the synthesized white-light corona to eclipse and coronagraph images, the four-day patch gives the best streamer deflection directions, while the eight-day patch overdeflects them—evidence that the correction works better than the standard map but is sensitive to how quickly the unseen region evolves. The larger point is that single-view magnetic boundary data are not enough; far-side field knowledge is a first-order input to coronal structure.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is a synoptic-map correction: the unseen far-side sector of the standard Carrington map is overwritten with a later full-disk magnetogram of the same region, under the assumption that the region's magnetic structure stays nearly unchanged for four to eight days. The corrected map is then used as the photospheric boundary for a global Alfvén-wave-driven MHD corona model. The work this mechanism does is to make the global flux balance and the initial potential-field extrapolation depend on the actual, time-resolved active-region field instead of an Earth-view interpolation. The downstream diagnostic carrying the comparison is the position of the heliospheric current sheet—the

What would settle it

Use an actual simultaneous far-side magnetogram from a second viewpoint for the same April 2024 active region, patch the same standard map with it, and compare the resulting streamer deflections to the four-day and eight-day runs. If the simultaneous-patch simulation does not reproduce the observed streamer directions at least as well as the four-day patch, the claimed improvement is not from recovering the true far-side field but from a time-lag-specific alteration; if it does match, the eclipse data would confirm that far-side boundary information is the controlling factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the far-side magnetic structure of an active region—one not yet visible from Earth at eclipse time—can control global coronal structure in an MHD model, chiefly by displacing the heliospheric current sheet and by changing the north-south magnetic pressure balance near the poles. To demonstrate this, the authors build composite synoptic maps from the standard daily map by splicing in full-disk magnetograms recorded four and eight days after April 8, then run the Alfvén-wave-driven coronal model to steady state. Relative to the standard map, the corrected maps shift streamer deflection directions poleward by 3.6 degrees (four-day patch) and 16.8 degrees (eight

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the far-side active region's magnetic structure stays nearly unchanged for the four to eight days between the eclipse and the later magnetogram used to patch the map; if the region evolves during that window, the 'correction' inserts the wrong epoch's field into the eclipse-time boundary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, single-view synoptic maps are a systematic source of error in global coronal and solar-wind models, and far-side knowledge is not a refinement but a boundary condition.
  • The four-day patched map outperforming the eight-day patched map means the method's accuracy is bounded by magnetic evolution; the best lag could be tuned only with better knowledge of active-region lifetimes.
  • The simulated current-sheet position and streamer deflection offer a remote probe of the unseen hemisphere: features on the visible limb encode far-side magnetic structure.
  • The correction improves streamer directions and some in situ plasma parameters but leaves the open flux problem essentially untouched, so far-side field and polar field address different model errors.
  • Success in the eclipse case supports developing multi-view or stereoscopic photospheric magnetic-field observations as routine inputs to coronal modeling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the optimal four-day lag could be a coincidence tied to one active region's evolution; a robust version of the method would repeat the splice over many rotations and test whether the best lag tracks the region's flux emergence and decay rate.
  • Editorial extension: because far-side patches move the current sheet globally, the difference between the four-day and eight-day runs could be used as a sensitivity experiment to separate how much of the April 8 corona was determined by hidden active regions versus the global polar field.
  • Editorial extension: the paper's intensity comparison is weaker than its direction comparison because the eclipse-image radiometric calibration is itself uncertain; a future test could rely only on streamer positions and directions, avoiding absolute polarized-brightness values.
  • Editorial extension: carrying out the same experiment with an actual simultaneous far-side magnetogram, rather than a time-lagged one, would cleanly test the stability assumption and quantify how much of the claimed gain comes from replacing the blind spot versus from using a different data source.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the impact of far-side photospheric magnetic structure on global MHD coronal modeling for the 2024 April 8 total solar eclipse. Using the AWSoM-R model in SWMF, the authors compare four boundary conditions: an ADAPT-GONG map (AG), a standard GONG Janus daily synoptic map (GJ1), and two composite maps (GJ2, GJ3) where the far-side region in GJ1 is replaced by GONG full-disk magnetograms observed 4 and 8 days after the eclipse. They find that the local far-side active region affects the global coronal solution, shifting the heliospheric current sheet, streamer orientations, and plasma parameters even in polar regions. Comparisons with white-light TSE/LASCO C2 observations and PSP in-situ data lead the authors to conclude that the 4-day composite map (GJ2) provides the best agreement with observed streamer deflection directions and that composite synoptic maps improve coronal modeling accuracy.

Significance. If fully established, the result is significant for space weather modeling because routine single-view synoptic maps contain a systematic far-side blind spot, and the paper demonstrates a simple correction with potentially large global effects. The within-GJ comparison is clean: the three simulations share the same heating parameter (SA/B)_sun = 8e5, the same map family, and differ only in the replaced far-side region, so the reported sensitivity of the HCS, streamers, and open-flux fractions to this region is robust as a qualitative finding. The external validation data (TSE, LASCO C2, PSP) are independent of the boundary construction. However, the quantitative claim that GJ2 is the best and that the composite map improves accuracy currently rests on an unreported streamer-position metric and on a PSP comparison with a significant temporal mismatch. The central idea is plausible and publishable, but the validation needs to be made reproducible and temporally consistent.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Fig. 6(c)] The central quantitative conclusion that the GJ2 map 'provides the best agreement with observations in terms of streamer deflection direction' is based on mean poleward deflections of 3.6° (GJ2) and 16.8° (GJ3) relative to GJ1. However, the paper does not specify how the streamer position angles were measured from the pB profiles in Fig. 6(c), how peaks were identified (especially for S3, which shows two peaks in GJ2), or what uncertainty is attached to those positions. Given that the model angular resolution is 0.7° and the observed pB profiles are binned in position angle, a 3.6° shift may be within the combined measurement and simulation uncertainty. Without a reproducible metric (e.g., Gaussian fitting with covariance, or a quantitative PA-by-PA error norm between observed and simulated pB), the claim that GJ2 outperforms GJ1 is not falsifiable and the phrase 'improves the accuracy o
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 5] The PSP validation compares a steady-state simulation whose photospheric boundary is the 2024 April 8 synoptic map with in-situ measurements taken by PSP during March 29–31, 2024, i.e., roughly ten days before the boundary epoch. The solar wind observed at PSP on March 30 originated from photospheric regions that had rotated and evolved before April 8; a steady-state solution based on the April 8 map is not an appropriate simultaneous comparison unless stationarity over that interval is demonstrated and justified. The paper does not provide such a justification, and the 'time shifts between peak and trough values' acknowledged in the text suggest non-stationarity is non-negligible. Please either use PSP data contemporaneous with the simulation epoch (or map the observed solar wind back to its source region with a suitable model), or clearly state that the PSP comparison tests only the la
  3. [Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 4] The method assumes that far-side magnetic structures 'remain nearly stable in the next 8 days' and then interprets GJ2/GJ3 as corrections to the eclipse-time boundary. The paper's own result that GJ3 (8-day splice) is worse than GJ2 (4-day splice), together with the summary statement that 'the far-side magnetic field undergoes dynamic changes over time,' shows that the stability assumption is not generally valid. This is load-bearing because the claimed improvement of GJ2 over GJ1 could reflect a specific 4-day snapshot that accidentally produces better streamer positions, rather than an accurate reconstruction of the eclipse-time far-side field. The authors should test the assumption, e.g., by comparing with SolO/PHI far-side observations if available, by using ADAPT or a flux-transport model to evolve the earlier data forward to April 8, or by demonstrating insensitivity of the ranking
  4. [Sec. 2.2] The heating parameter (SA/B)_sun is set separately for the AG map (7×10^5 W m^-2 T^-1) and the GJ1–GJ3 maps (8×10^5 W m^-2 T^-1), with the statement that these values were 'determined' by comparing simulation results, but no tuning criterion, searched range, or quantitative metric is given. This makes absolute comparisons between AG and the GJ family ambiguous: differences in pB magnitude, PSP agreement, and other variables could be partly due to the different heating parameter rather than to the photospheric map. The within-GJ comparison is not affected because all three use the same value, but the broader claim that the composite map 'improves the accuracy of coronal modeling' relative to AG needs a transparent tuning protocol and, ideally, a sensitivity test showing that the ranking of maps is stable across a reasonable range of (SA/B)_sun. Please report the metric used (e.g., pB morp
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 2.2] The abstract and introduction describe the method as establishing a foundation for 'multi-view, stereoscopic measurements.' Since the actual correction uses time-shifted single-view GONG magnetograms rather than simultaneous multi-view data, the wording is misleading. Please clarify that the paper uses a time-shifted approximation, with true stereoscopic observations as a future prospect.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The sentence 'the only viable solution for measuring the evolution of the magnetic field in the far-side active region ... is to incorporate multi-view observations from PHI' is confusing because the paper itself uses GONG data without PHI. Please rephrase to distinguish the ideal future solution from the approximate method used here.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The sign convention for 'northward' and 'southward' streamer deflections and the reference frame for position angles should be defined explicitly. A reader cannot reproduce the 3.6° and 16.8° numbers without this information.
  4. [Sec. 3.1, Fig. 3(b)] The gravitational potential energy density Eg in Eq. (B7) is negative, but the plotted profiles appear to show positive values. Please clarify whether the absolute value is plotted or whether the convention is different from the written equation, and ensure axis labels are consistent.
  5. [Sec. 3.2] The Dist index values are said to be shown in the corner of each panel, but the text does not report them or state which of the four variables quantitatively favors which map. Please list the numerical Dist values and discuss their statistical significance, especially since the conclusion drawn from PSP is mixed (AG better for speed and B_r; GJ2 better for density and temperature).
  6. [Sec. 3.1] The open-field area fractions for GJ1–GJ3 differ by less than 0.8 percentage points (14.22%, 14.13%, 14.90%). The text calls this a significant change, but no numerical uncertainty is given. If this difference is within the numerical noise of the AMR grid or the PFSS truncation, the claim should be softened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the far-side boundary comparison is a controlled MHD experiment validated against external observations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that replacing the far-side magnetic boundary with later GONG magnetograms changes the global coronal solution and that the 4-day composite (GJ2) best matches observed streamer deflections—is not circular by construction. The comparison among GJ1, GJ2, and GJ3 is a controlled experiment: all three simulations share the same heating parameter value (8×10^5 W m−2 T−1 for GJ1–GJ3), so differences in the resulting corona trace to the changed boundary condition, not to per-map fitting. The validation data are external to the map-construction procedure: PSP in situ measurements, 2024 TSE pB observations, and LASCO C2 white-light images. The (S_A/B)_⊙ parameter is tuned, but it is a global heating calibration, not a parameter fitted to the specific streamer-deflection metric used to rank GJ2; the paper even notes that adjusting it to match pB magnitude would degrade morphological agreement. The far-side stability assumption ('we assume their magnetic structures remain nearly stable in the next 8 days') is an empirical approximation, not a circular definition of the result. Self-citations (e.g., Shi et al. 2024 for polar-field effects, Chen et al. 2025 for FastQSL) are ancillary and not load-bearing for the paper's core inference. The lack of a precisely specified streamer-position metric and uncertainty estimates is a rigor/reproducibility concern, but it is not a circularity: the simulation outputs are not equivalent to the boundary inputs by any equation in the paper. The claim that far-side structure alters the HCS and global plasma parameters is a genuine MHD response, not a renaming of the input map. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The composite maps (GJ2, GJ3) are new data products, not entities: they are re-arrangements of existing observations in time, not invented physics. The load-bearing inputs the reader pays for upstream are the AWSoM-R model physics, the PFSS initialization, the stability assumption, the near-limb magnetogram projection, and the eclipse radiometric calibration.

free parameters (6)
  • (S_A/B)_sun, Alfven wave Poynting flux to magnetic field ratio = 7e5 W m-2 T-1 (AG map), 8e5 W m-2 T-1 (GJ1-GJ3 maps)
    Sec 2.2: 'we determine that the optimal value is' by comparing simulation results, with the comparison target unspecified; different values per map family confound the AG-vs-GJ validation comparison.
  • L_perp * sqrt(B), Alfven wave correlation length constant = 1.5e5 m sqrt(T)
    Sec 2.2: adjustable parameter controlling Alfven wave turbulence and heating.
  • Stochastic heating exponent and amplitude (Chandran et al. 2011) = 0.21 and 0.18
    Sec 2.2: energy partitioning between electrons and protons; values taken as adjustable.
  • Inner boundary temperature and number density = T_sun = 5e4 K, N_sun = 2e11 cm-3
    Sec 2.2: chosen to avoid chromospheric evaporation; the paper states they do not influence final results.
  • PFSS source surface radius and harmonic order = Rss = 25 R_sun, Nmax = 180
    Sec 2.2: nonstandard Rss chosen to minimize numerical artifacts in the SC domain, following Sachdeva et al. 2021.
  • Magnetogram splice time offsets and longitude spans = 4 and 8 days; -60 to +15 deg (GJ2) and -60 to +45 deg (GJ3) about the central meridian, latitudes -60 to +60 deg
    Sec 2.2 and Fig 2: hand-selected design choices; the conclusion that 4 days is optimal emerges from testing only these two offsets.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Far-side magnetic structures remain nearly stable over the 4 to 8 day interval between the eclipse and the replacement magnetograms.
    Stated in Sec 2.2 ('we assume their magnetic structures remain nearly stable in the next 8 days') and Sec 4; this legitimizes splicing future magnetograms into the eclipse-time map. The paper's own GJ3 result (8-day splice degrades agreement) shows evolution over this timescale is non-negligible.
  • domain assumption AWSoM-R describes coronal heating and solar wind acceleration faithfully (Alfven wave turbulence, stochastic heating, separate electron and proton temperatures, low-beta steady-state approximation).
    The whole simulation pipeline relies on the model of Sokolov et al. 2021 (Appendix A); the paper contributes no independent validation of the model physics.
  • domain assumption PFSS extrapolation with Rss = 25 R_sun and Nmax = 180 gives an acceptable initial coronal magnetic field.
    Sec 2.2: the boosted source surface is chosen to remove non-zero curl in the SC domain, but the adequacy of this initial condition for the final steady state is assumed.
  • domain assumption The van de Hulst inversion (axisymmetric polynomial pB fit) recovers the true radial electron density profile from eclipse pB.
    Sec 3.1: defines the observed density profile against which simulations are judged; axisymmetry is approximate in a structured corona, and the paper itself attributes a PA 230-270 deg discrepancy to LoS integration.
  • domain assumption GONG full-disk magnetograms, after 1-hour averaging and projection into the Carrington grid, faithfully represent the photospheric radial field at the inserted longitudes, including near the limb and at up to +/-60 deg latitude.
    Sec 2.2: the composite map construction depends on stitching magnetograms taken at different viewing angles; center-to-limb and projection corrections are not described.
  • domain assumption The eclipse pB/tB radiometric calibration is accurate despite possible attenuation error.
    Sec 2.1: the paper states the attenuator's nominal attenuation of 1e-5 'may be underestimated due to possible abrasion. Consequently, both pB and tB may be underestimated,' which undercuts the absolute pB comparisons including the 39.8% underestimate claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Role of Far-side Magnetic Structures in Modeling 2024 Solar Eclipse." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DVDUTLTQ

@misc{pith2026250902911,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Role of Far-side Magnetic Structures in Modeling 2024 Solar Eclipse},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DVDUTLTQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02911}
}
read the original abstract

The corona is a crucial region that connects the solar surface to the solar wind and serves as the primary site of solar activity. The 2024 total solar eclipse (TSE) provides a unique opportunity to investigate the large-scale coronal structure. Combined with TSE observations, we study the impact of the magnetic structure of the far-side active region, located in the eastern hemisphere of the Sun that has not yet rotated into the Earth Field-of-View (FoV), on a global Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation. To address the limitation of single-view measurements in the routine synoptic map, we correct the magnetic field in the far-side region by incorporating full-disk magnetograms measured several days after the TSE, allowing us to capture the temporal evolution of the photospheric magnetic field in near real-time. Simulation results demonstrate that the local magnetic field in the far-side active region can significantly influence the global coronal structure by altering the position of the heliospheric current sheet (HCS), and further affect the global distribution of plasma parameters, even in polar regions. A comparison of the simulation results with white-light (WL) TSE + LASCO C2 observations and in situ measurements by the Parker Solar Probe (PSP) reveals that the composite synoptic map improves the accuracy of coronal modeling. This work provides robust support for advancing our understanding of coronal evolution, as well as deepens the link between the photosphere and large-scale coronal structure. Furthermore, it establishes a theoretical foundation for the future development of multi-view, stereoscopic measurements of the photospheric magnetic field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02911 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. WL observations of the 2024 TSE enhanced by the WOW algorithm (left column) and radial filtering method (right column). Panel (a) presents a composite image of the coronal pB and the solar disk with a FoV of 2.45 R⊙, where the coronal structures are observed using polarizers oriented at three angles of −60◦ (b), 0 (c), and +60◦ (d), respectively. Each polarized image, shown in different colors, has been corrected fo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Synoptic maps used in the 2024 TSE simulation. The 7th realization of the ADAPT-GONG map (a, labeled as AG) at 18:00 UT and the standard GONG Janus daily synoptic map (b, labeled as GJ1) at 19:04 UT on 2024 April 8. The black dashed box represents the region where a 1-hour averaged full-disk magnetogram is replaced in the original GJ1 map. The composite synoptic maps, labeled as GJ2 (c) and GJ3 (d), generated by rep… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparisons of plasma parameters and energy density derived from AWSoM-R model using different synoptic maps. (a) Plasma parameter distributions of the radial magnetic field (first row), electron number density (second row), radial speed (third row), and electron temperature (fourth row) on the spherical shell at a heliocentric distance of 1.5 R⊙. The left to right columns present results of the AG and GJ1–GJ3 maps,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of simulated plasma parameters on the PoS. (a) Distributions of plasma parameters in the low corona (−6.0 ∼ 6.0 R⊙) as viewed from Earth. The top to bottom rows represent the total magnetic field strength, electron number density, radial speed, and electron …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of plasma parameters measured in situ by PSP (black line) with simulation results based on the AG and GJ1-GJ3 maps (colored lines). The Dist index marked in the corners quantifies the agreement between the observations and the model predictions. map, althoug…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of simulated and observed WL images within the FoV of TSE and LASCO C2. (a) Composite observations of TSE and LASCO C2, and an image enhanced using the WOW algorithm. The zoomed-in region, indicated by the purple box, is overplotted with the magnetic field l…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., & Newkirk, G

    Altschuler, M. D., & Newkirk, G. 1969, SoPh, 9, 131, doi: 10.1007/BF00145734

    doi:10.1007/bf00145734 1969

  2. [2]

    N., Henney, C

    Arge, C. N., Henney, C. J., Koller, J., et al. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1216, Twelfth International Solar Wind Conference, ed. M. Maksimovic, K. Issautier, N. Meyer-Vernet, M. Moncuquet, & F. Pantellini (AIP), 343–346, doi: 10.1063/1.3395870

    doi:10.1063/1.3395870 2010

  3. [3]

    N., & Pizzo, V

    Arge, C. N., & Pizzo, V. J. 2000, JGR, 105, 10465, doi: 10.1029/1999JA000262

    doi:10.1029/1999ja000262 2000

  4. [4]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2005, Physics of the Solar Corona. An Introduction with Problems and Solutions (2nd edition) (New York: Springer) Auch` ere, F., Soubri´ e, E., Pelouze, G., & Buchlin,´E. 2023, A&A, 670, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245345

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245345 2005

  5. [5]

    D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P

    Bale, S. D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P. R., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 49, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5 2016

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b8

    Bemporad, A. 2023, ApJ, 946, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b8 2023

  7. [7]

    F., Boe, B., & Habbal, S

    Benavitz, L. F., Boe, B., & Habbal, S. R. 2024, ApJ, 974, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c6 2024

  8. [8]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd10b

    Boe, B., Downs, C., & Habbal, S. 2023, ApJ, 951, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd10b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd10b 2023

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abea79

    Boe, B., Habbal, S., Downs, C., & Druckm¨ uller, M. 2021, ApJ, 912, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abea79

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8101

    Boe, B., Habbal, S., Downs, C., & Druckm¨ uller, M. 2022, ApJ, 935, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8101

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    E., Howard, R

    Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J., et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 357, doi: 10.1007/BF00733434

    1995 doi

  4. [12]

    Chandran, B. D. G., Dennis, T. J., Quataert, E., & Bale, S. D. 2011, ApJ, 743, 197, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/197

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    Y., Zhang, H

    Deng, Y. Y., Zhang, H. Y., Yang, J. F., et al. 2019, RAA, 19, 157, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/157

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Y., Tian, H., Jiang, J., et al

    Deng, Y. Y., Tian, H., Jiang, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20502, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20502

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Landi, E., Mason, H

    Dere, K. P., Landi, E., Mason, H. E., Monsignori Fossi, B. C., & Young, P. R. 1997, A&AS, 125, 149, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997368

    1997 doi

  8. [16]

    Domingo, V., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, SoPh, 162, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00733425

    1995 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Caplan, R

    Downs, C., Linker, J. A., Caplan, R. M., et al. 2025, Science, 388, 1306, doi: 10.1126/science.adq0872

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 059, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/4/59

    Feng, L., Li, H., Inhester, B., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 059, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/4/59

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, SoPh, 298, 68, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02166-x 15

    Gan, W., Zhu, C., Deng, Y., et al. 2023, SoPh, 298, 68, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02166-x 15

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1458746, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1458746

    Hanaoka, Y., Sakai, Y., & Masuda, Y. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1458746, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1458746

    2024

  14. [22]

    2021, SoPh, 296, 158, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01907-0

    Hanaoka, Y., Sakai, Y., & Takahashi, K. 2021, SoPh, 296, 158, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01907-0

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Hill, F., Hubbard, R

    Harvey, J. W., Hill, F., Hubbard, R. P., et al. 1996, Sci, 272, 1284, doi: 10.1126/science.272.5266.1284

    1996

  16. [24]

    S., Godinez, H

    Hickmann, K. S., Godinez, H. C., Henney, C. J., & Arge, C. N. 2015, SoPh, 290, 1105, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0666-3

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al

    Kasper, J. C., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 131, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0206-3

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, RAA, 19, 165, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/165

    Li, C., Fang, C., Li, Z., et al. 2019, RAA, 19, 165, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/165

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Miki´ c, Z., Biesecker, D

    Linker, J. A., Miki´ c, Z., Biesecker, D. A., et al. 1999, JGR, 104, 9809, doi: 10.1029/1998JA900159

    1999 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Caplan, R

    Linker, J. A., Caplan, R. M., Downs, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a70

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    A., & Miki´ c, Z

    Lionello, R., Linker, J. A., & Miki´ c, Z. 2009, ApJ, 690, 902, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/902

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    B., et al

    Liu, X., Liu, W., Manchester, IV, W. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.10974, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.10974

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Z., et al

    Liu, Z., Xu, J., Gu, B. Z., et al. 2014, RAA, 14, 705, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/009

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    E., Kasper, J

    Livi, R., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93f5

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    H., Zank, G

    Matthaeus, W. H., Zank, G. P., Oughton, S., Mullan, D. J., & Dmitruk, P. 1999, ApJL, 523, L93, doi: 10.1086/312259

    1999 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, ApJS, 262, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8551

    Mayank, P., Vaidya, B., & Chakrabarty, D. 2022, ApJS, 262, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8551

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Meng, X., van der Holst, B., T´ oth, G., & Gombosi, T. I. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2249 Miki´ c, Z., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2018, NatAs, 2, 913, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0562-5

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Casini, R., Bryans, P., Berkey, B., & Tyson, K

    Molnar, M. E., Casini, R., Bryans, P., Berkey, B., & Tyson, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.01009, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.01009 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    2025 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    J., & Arge, C

    Odstrcil, D., Pizzo, V. J., & Arge, C. N. 2005, JGRA, 110, A02106, doi: 10.1029/2004JA010745

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7237

    Perri, B., Leitner, P., Brchnelova, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7237

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Thompson, B

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

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    2018, JSWSC, 8, A35, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2018020

    Pomoell, J., & Poedts, S. 2018, JSWSC, 8, A35, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2018020

    2018

  33. [41]

    A., Mikic, Z., et al

    Riley, P., Linker, J. A., Mikic, Z., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a98

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Warner, M., Keil, S

    Rimmele, T. R., Warner, M., Keil, S. L., et al. 2020, SoPh, 295, 172, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01736-7

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    B., et al

    Sachdeva, N., van der Holst, B., Manchester, W. B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f5e

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    B., et al

    Sachdeva, N., T´ oth, G., Manchester, W. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac307c10.1002/essoar.10507983.3

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    H., Wilcox, J

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

    1969 doi

  38. [46]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 207, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5200

    Shi, G., Feng, L., Ying, B., Li, S., & Gan, W. 2024, ApJ, 970, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5200

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    V., van der Holst, B., Oran, R., et al

    Sokolov, I. V., van der Holst, B., Oran, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/23

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    V., Holst, B

    Sokolov, I. V., Holst, B. v. d., Manchester, W. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc000

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    K., del Toro Iniesta, J

    Solanki, S. K., del Toro Iniesta, J. C., Woch, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935325 T´ oth, G., van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I. V., et al. 2012, JCoPh, 231, 870, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.02.006 van de Hulst, H. C. 1950, BAN, 11, 135 van der Holst, B.,...

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    Kasper, J. C. 2019, ApJL, 872, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab04a5 van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I. V., Meng, X., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/81 van der Holst, B., Huang, J., Sachdeva, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3d34

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    1989, PhRvL, 63, 1807, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.1807

    Velli, M., Grappin, R., & Mangeney, A. 1989, PhRvL, 63, 1807, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.1807

    1989 doi

  45. [53]

    G., & Pomoell, J

    Wagner, A., Asvestari, E., Temmer, M., Heinemann, S. G., & Pomoell, J. 2022, A&A, 657, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141552

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    M., & Sheeley, Jr., N

    Wang, Y. M., & Sheeley, Jr., N. R. 1990, ApJ, 355, 726, doi: 10.1086/168805

    1990 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Dolch, T

    Young, O. R., Dolch, T. E., Helmboldt, J. F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada26e

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    P., Dosch, A., Hunana, P., et al

    Zank, G. P., Dosch, A., Hunana, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/35

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    P., Matthaeus, W

    Zank, G. P., Matthaeus, W. H., & Smith, C. W. 1996, JGR, 101, 17093, doi: 10.1029/96JA01275

    1996 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Chen, J., Liu, R., & Wang, C

    Zhang, P. J., Chen, J., Liu, R., & Wang, C. B. 2022, ApJ, 937, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d61

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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