pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10193 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Coronal Mass Ejection and Heliospheric Current Sheet Interaction Causing a Long-Duration Magnetic Field Sector Transition

Manuela Temmer , Stephan G. Heinemann , Nina Dresing , Mateja Dumbovic , Eleanna Asvestari
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 03:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords coronal mass ejectionheliospheric current sheetmagnetic sector reversalsolar windin-situ observationsdrag-based modelsolar cycle 25
0
0 comments X

The pith

A sequence of coronal mass ejections from a persistent active region locally replaced the heliospheric current sheet, causing a magnetic sector reversal lasting more than 48 hours.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how coronal mass ejections interact with the heliospheric current sheet using both remote and in-situ observations. A series of eruptions from a long-lived nested active region on the Sun, peaking with a fast halo CME on October 3 2024, are tracked to Earth. The drag-based model links these to measurements showing CME and HCS structures traveling together from October 5 to 10. This interaction appears to replace the HCS locally with CME features, resulting in an unusually long magnetic field sector transition. The study underscores the links between solar surface activity, the large-scale magnetic field, and complex space weather events.

Core claim

By connecting near-Sun CME observations to in-situ data at Earth via the drag-based propagation model, the analysis reveals that the heliospheric current sheet is locally supplanted by signatures of the coronal mass ejections, producing a continuous sector reversal exceeding 48 hours during the October 5-10 2024 period.

What carries the argument

The drag-based CME propagation model, which determines the travel time and arrival of CMEs from solar observations to match specific in-situ magnetic field and plasma signatures at Earth.

Load-bearing premise

The drag-based CME propagation model accurately connects the near-Sun observations of multiple CMEs to the specific in-situ signatures detected over October 5-10 2024 without significant timing or structural mismatches.

What would settle it

In-situ solar wind data from October 5-10 2024 that shows either no sector reversal longer than a day or clear HCS crossings without accompanying CME plasma and magnetic signatures that match the model's predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10193 by Eleanna Asvestari, Manuela Temmer, Mateja Dumbovic, Nina Dresing, Stephan G. Heinemann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Solar surface and white-light structures from the three fastest and most likely Earth-directed CMEs during the activity period October 1–4, 2024. Top: LASCO/C2 white-light and inserted SDO/AIA 193 ˚A EUV running difference images. Bottom: SDO/AIA running ratio EUV images from combined channels of 211 ˚A, 193 ˚A, and 171 ˚A filters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: PFSS extrapolation using different magnetic field maps (see legend) taken on October 3, 2024, showing the HCS at a source surface height of 2.5 R⊙. The active region of interest, AR3842, is lying close to the neutral line of the global magnetic field. For the in-situ analysis we take measurements from OMNI in GSE (Geocentric Solar Ecliptic) coordinates, as 1- minute data time-shifted to the nose of the Ear… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: OMNI in-situ measurements in GSE coordinates. Top to bottom: azimuthal magnetic field angle (ϕB), total and vector magnetic field, proton bulk speed, and SYM-H index. Vertical dashed lines show DBM results for the predicted arrival times of the CMEs as given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In-situ measurements from OMNI in GSE coordinates, covering from top to bottom: electron PADs in the 175 eV energy range (Wind), polar and azimuthal magnetic field direction (θB and ϕB), plasma-beta, proton density, total magnetic field and vector components, proton bulk speed and temperature, He/p density ratio values, and the SYM-H index. The polarity change in the interplanetary magnetic field according… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Replacement or widening of the HCS by an expanding closed magnetic structure within the HCS (adapted from N. U. Crooker & T. S. Horbury 2006). Right: Illustration of sequence of shock, sheath, flux ropes (FR), and high plasma-beta structures (HB), in between a changing magnetic sector, with blue-shaded areas marking HPS-related structures (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a study that combines remote-sensing and in-situ observations of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) interacting with the nearby heliospheric current sheet (HCS). The sequence of eruptive events under study culminates in the largest directly observed flare of solar cycle 25 on 3 October 2024, producing a fast halo CME. Their source region can be linked to a so-called nested active region (or active longitude) that persisted over several solar rotations. Such long-lived regions reflect deep-seated magnetic structures that shape the global magnetic field configuration. By applying the drag-based CME propagation model, we connect the near-Sun observations from several CMEs during that activity period with in-situ measurements. While one of the CMEs propagated on the opposite side of the HCS from Earth, and therefore did not produce in-situ signatures near Earth, we detect, over the period October 5-10, 2024, a complex of HCS and CME structures propagating together with a shock ahead of them. The HCS seems to be locally replaced by the CME signatures, leading to a long-duration sector reversal of more than 48 hours. This event highlights the intrinsic connection between solar surface structures, the global magnetic field, and the evolution of complex eruptive events.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports remote-sensing and in-situ observations of multiple CMEs originating from a long-lived nested active region, culminating in the 3 October 2024 halo CME. Using the drag-based propagation model, the authors link near-Sun launches to Earth-directed structures observed 5–10 October 2024, concluding that CME signatures locally replace the HCS and produce a sector reversal lasting more than 48 hours.

Significance. If the timing and structural attribution holds, the work supplies a concrete, multi-instrument case study of CME–HCS interaction and its effect on heliospheric sector structure, illustrating how persistent active longitudes can drive complex eruptive sequences with extended in-situ consequences.

major comments (2)
  1. [Propagation modeling and in-situ linkage (abstract and associated results section)] The central attribution of the >48 h sector reversal to local HCS replacement by CME structures rests on the drag-based model correctly mapping the 3 Oct halo CME and preceding events to the specific in-situ magnetic and plasma signatures. No sensitivity tests, alternative drag-coefficient values, or uncertainty ranges on predicted arrival times are reported, leaving open the possibility that the observed reversal arises instead from HCS warping combined with a single CME sheath (see skeptic note on timing offsets of hours to a day in interacting structures).
  2. [Drag-based CME propagation model application] The manuscript provides no quantitative validation of the drag-based model output against the observed in-situ shock and magnetic field signatures, nor does it compare the model predictions with an independent propagation method or ensemble run. This omission is load-bearing because the claim of “local replacement” is defined by the precise temporal and structural coincidence produced by the model.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that one CME “propagated on the opposite side of the HCS from Earth” but does not specify the observational basis (e.g., source-region polarity or coronagraph geometry) used to assign its side; a brief clarification would improve traceability.
  2. [In-situ observations] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the time window and spacecraft used for the in-situ sector-reversal measurement to allow readers to verify the >48 h duration claim directly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and for recognizing the potential value of this multi-instrument case study. We have addressed the concerns about the drag-based model application and its linkage to in-situ data. Our point-by-point responses follow, and the revised manuscript will incorporate the suggested improvements to the modeling section.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Propagation modeling and in-situ linkage (abstract and associated results section)] The central attribution of the >48 h sector reversal to local HCS replacement by CME structures rests on the drag-based model correctly mapping the 3 Oct halo CME and preceding events to the specific in-situ magnetic and plasma signatures. No sensitivity tests, alternative drag-coefficient values, or uncertainty ranges on predicted arrival times are reported, leaving open the possibility that the observed reversal arises instead from HCS warping combined with a single CME sheath (see skeptic note on timing offsets of hours to a day in interacting structures).

    Authors: We agree that the absence of sensitivity tests and uncertainty ranges weakens the robustness of the timing attribution. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection presenting drag-based model runs with a range of drag coefficients (0.5–2.0) and initial speed uncertainties drawn from the remote-sensing observations. We will report the resulting spread in predicted Earth-arrival times and demonstrate that the >48 h sector reversal remains temporally coincident with the modeled CME–HCS complex across this parameter space, thereby reducing the likelihood that the reversal is produced solely by HCS warping plus a single sheath. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Drag-based CME propagation model application] The manuscript provides no quantitative validation of the drag-based model output against the observed in-situ shock and magnetic field signatures, nor does it compare the model predictions with an independent propagation method or ensemble run. This omission is load-bearing because the claim of “local replacement” is defined by the precise temporal and structural coincidence produced by the model.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current version lacks explicit quantitative validation and cross-method comparison. The revised manuscript will include a direct comparison of the model-predicted shock arrival times and magnetic polarity transitions with the in-situ Wind and ACE measurements, quantifying the timing offsets. We will also add a brief discussion of consistency with a simple ballistic propagation estimate using the same initial conditions, providing an independent check on the drag-based results and supporting the structural attribution of local HCS replacement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational case study applies standard model without self-referential derivation

full rationale

The paper is an observational case study that combines remote-sensing and in-situ data for a specific solar event sequence. It applies the established drag-based CME propagation model (a standard tool in the field, not derived or fitted within this work) to link near-Sun launches to later in-situ signatures. No equations are presented that reduce the target claim (local HCS replacement by CME signatures producing >48h sector reversal) to inputs by construction. There are no self-definitional steps, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations for uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes smuggled via prior author work. The central claim rests on direct multi-instrument observations and a pre-existing propagation model applied to this event, making the analysis self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of the drag-based model and the correct identification of the source region as a persistent nested active region; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • drag coefficient
    Used within the drag-based propagation model to link near-Sun CME observations to in-situ arrival times.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The source region of the eruptions is a nested active region persisting over several solar rotations.
    Invoked to explain the sequence of events and global magnetic configuration.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5552 in / 1167 out tokens · 52077 ms · 2026-05-12T03:04:07.246788+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I., Suni, J., et al

    Ala-Lahti, M., Pulkkinen, T. I., Suni, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d44

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d44 2025

  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 Auch` ere, F., Cook, J. W., Newmark, J. S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 625, 1036, doi:...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3395870 2010

  3. [3]

    V., & Tuominen, I

    Berdyugina, S. V., & Tuominen, I. 1998, A&A, 336, L25

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    V., & Usoskin, I

    Berdyugina, S. V., & Usoskin, I. G. 2003, A&A, 405, 1121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030748

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030748 2003

  5. [5]

    2011, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 73, 1339, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2010.10.014

    Medina, J. 2011, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 73, 1339, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2010.10.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.10.014 2011

  6. [6]

    E., Howard, R

    Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J., et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 357, doi: 10.1007/BF00733434 ˇCalogovi´ c, J., Dumbovi´ c, M., Sudar, D., et al. 2021, Solar Physics, 296, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01859-5

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00733434 1995

  7. [7]

    2011, A&A, 534, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116790

    Zhang, J. 2011, A&A, 534, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116790

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116790 2011

  8. [8]

    2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 461, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.01.095

    Cremades, H., Bothmer, V., & Tripathi, D. 2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 461, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.01.095

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2005.01.095 2006

  9. [9]

    U., & Horbury, T

    Crooker, N. U., & Horbury, T. S. 2006, SSRv, 123, 93, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9014-0 de Toma, G., White, O. R., & Harvey, K. L. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 529, doi: 10.1086/308299

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-9014-0 2006

  10. [10]

    2025, ApJL, 985, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add32c

    Ding, T., Zhang, J., & Hou, Y. 2025, ApJL, 985, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add32c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add32c 2025

  11. [11]

    Domingo, V., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, SoPh, 162, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00733425 Dumbovi´ c, M.,ˇCalogovi´ c, J., Martini´ c, K., et al. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.639986 Dumbovi´ c, M., Veronig, A. M., Podladchikova, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140752

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00733425 1995

  12. [12]

    Finley, A. J. 2024, A&A, 692, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451896

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451896 2024

  13. [13]

    J., Brun, A

    Finley, A. J., Brun, A. S., Strugarek, A., & Perri, B. 2025, A&A, 697, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554323

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554323 2025

  14. [14]

    J., Balogh, A., Smith, E

    Forsyth, R. J., Balogh, A., Smith, E. J., & Gosling, J. T. 1997, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 3101, doi: 10.1029/97GL03099

    work page doi:10.1029/97gl03099 1997

  15. [15]

    L., Harvey, J

    Gaizauskas, V., Harvey, K. L., Harvey, J. W., & Zwaan, C. 1983, ApJ, 265, 1056, doi: 10.1086/160747

    work page doi:10.1086/160747 1983

  16. [16]

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

    Yashiro, S. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 114, A00A22, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013686

    work page doi:10.1029/2008ja013686 2009

  17. [17]

    2018, Space Weather, 16, doi: 10.1029/2018SW001973

    Guo, J., Dumbovi´ c, M., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R., et al. 2018, Space Weather, 16, doi: 10.1029/2018SW001973

    work page doi:10.1029/2018sw001973 2018

  18. [18]

    W., Hill, F., Hubbard, R

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.272.5266.1284 1996

  19. [19]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9335

    Hayakawa, H., Ebihara, Y., Mishev, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9335

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9335 2025

  20. [20]

    G., Pomoell, J., & Temmer, M

    Heinemann, S. G., Pomoell, J., & Temmer, M. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    G., Temmer, M., Farrugia, C

    Heinemann, S. G., Temmer, M., Farrugia, C. J., et al. 2019, Solar Physics, 294, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1515-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-019-1515-6 2019

  22. [22]

    M., Scherrer, P

    Henning, H. M., Scherrer, P. H., & Hoeksema, J. T. 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 11055, doi: 10.1029/JA090iA11p11055

    work page doi:10.1029/ja090ia11p11055 1985

  23. [23]

    A., & Tappin, S

    Howard, T. A., & Tappin, S. J. 2005, A&A, 440, 373, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053109

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053109 2005

  24. [24]

    H., Rees, A., Balogh, A., & Forsyth, R

    Jones, G. H., Rees, A., Balogh, A., & Forsyth, R. J. 2002, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1520, doi: 10.1029/2001GL014110

    work page doi:10.1029/2001gl014110 2002

  25. [25]

    Kilpua, E. K. J., Good, S. W., Ala-Lahti, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142191

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142191 2022

  26. [26]

    Kilpua, E. K. J., Isavnin, A., Vourlidas, A., Koskinen, H. E. J., & Rodriguez, L. 2013, Annales Geophysicae, 31, 1251, doi: 10.5194/angeo-31-1251-2013

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-31-1251-2013 2013

  27. [27]

    H., & Papitashvili, N

    King, J. H., & Papitashvili, N. E. 2005, 110, A02104, doi: 10.1029/2004JA010649

    work page doi:10.1029/2004ja010649 2005

  28. [28]

    2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 646, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039003 12

    Koller, F., Leitzinger, M., Temmer, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 646, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039003 12

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039003 2021

  29. [29]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05979, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05979

    Kontogiannis, I., Zhu, Y., Barczynski, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05979, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05979

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.05979 2025

  30. [30]

    2020, ApJL, 894, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2d

    Lavraud, B., Fargette, N., R´ eville, V., et al. 2020, ApJL, 894, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2d 2020

  31. [31]

    R., Title, A

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8 2012

  32. [32]

    P., Anderson, K

    Lin, R. P., Anderson, K. A., Ashford, S., et al. 1995, SSRv, 71, 125, doi: 10.1007/BF00751328

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00751328 1995

  33. [33]

    2012, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 746, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/746/2/L15

    Liu, Y., Luhmann, J., M¨ ostl, C., et al. 2012, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 746, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/746/2/L15

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/746/2/l15 2012

  34. [34]

    D., Zhu, B., Ran, H., et al

    Liu, Y. D., Zhu, B., Ran, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e56

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e56 2024

  35. [35]

    G., & Hudson, H

    Loumou, K., Hannah, I. G., & Hudson, H. S. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 618, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731050

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731050 2018

  36. [36]

    J., Smith, C

    Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., Smith, C. W., & Paulson, K. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 2409, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020848

    work page doi:10.1002/2014ja020848 2015

  37. [37]

    Millward, G., Biesecker, D., Pizzo, V., & de Koning, C. A. 2013, Space Weather, 11, 57, doi: 10.1002/swe.20024 M¨ ostl, C., Weiss, A. J., Bailey, R. L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb9a1

    work page doi:10.1002/swe.20024 2013

  38. [38]

    W., & Desch, M

    Ogilvie, K. W., & Desch, M. D. 1997, Advances in Space Research, 20, 559, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(97)00439-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0273-1177(97)00439-0 1997

  39. [39]

    J., & Forsyth, R

    Owens, M. J., & Forsyth, R. J. 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2013-5

    work page doi:10.12942/lrsp-2013-5 2013

  40. [40]

    D., Thompson , B

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3 2012

  41. [41]

    G., & Cane, H

    Richardson, I. G., & Cane, H. V. 1995, 100, 23397, doi: 10.1029/95JA02684

    work page doi:10.1029/95ja02684 1995

  42. [42]

    G., & Cane, H

    Richardson, I. G., & Cane, H. V. 2010, SoPh, 264, 189, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9568-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9568-6 2010

  43. [43]

    M., Braga, C

    Romeo, O. M., Braga, C. R., Badman, S. T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace62e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace62e 2023

  44. [44]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 540, doi: 10.1086/309303

    Sammis, I., Tang, F., & Zirin, H. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 540, doi: 10.1086/309303

    work page doi:10.1086/309303 2000

  45. [45]

    H., Bush, R

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9842-2 2012

  46. [46]

    Svalgaard, L., & Wilcox, J. M. 1976, SoPh, 49, 177, doi: 10.1007/BF00221492

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00221492 1976

  47. [47]

    M., Vrˇ snak, B., et al

    Temmer, M., Veronig, A. M., Vrˇ snak, B., et al. 2008, ApJL, 673, L95, doi: 10.1086/527414

    work page doi:10.1086/527414 2008

  48. [48]

    2025, A&A, 695, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451479

    Temmer, M., Dumbovi´ c, M., Martini´ c, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451479

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451479 2025

  49. [49]

    G., Berdyugina, S

    Usoskin, I. G., Berdyugina, S. V., & Poutanen, J. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 441, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053201 van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., & Green, L. M. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 1, doi: 10.1007/lrsp-2015-1 Vrˇ snak, B.,ˇZic, T., Vrbanec, D., et al. 2013, Solar Physics, 285, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-0035-4 Vrˇ snak, B., Temmer...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053201 2005

  50. [50]

    A., & Showalter, K

    Wanliss, J. A., & Showalter, K. M. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A02202, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011034

    work page doi:10.1029/2005ja011034 2006

  51. [51]

    B., Brosius, A

    Wilson, III, L. B., Brosius, A. L., Gopalswamy, N., et al. 2021, Reviews of Geophysics, 59, e2020RG000714, doi: 10.1029/2020RG00071410.1002/essoar.10504309.2

    work page doi:10.1029/2020rg00071410.1002/essoar.10504309.2 2021

  52. [52]

    M., Lugaz, N., Schwadron, N

    Winslow, R. M., Lugaz, N., Schwadron, N. A., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 6092, doi: 10.1002/2015JA022307

    work page doi:10.1002/2015ja022307 2016

  53. [53]

    Xu, F., & Borovsky, J. E. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 70, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020412

    work page doi:10.1002/2014ja020412 2015

  54. [54]

    B., Wang, H., Goode, P

    Yurchyshyn, V. B., Wang, H., Goode, P. R., & Deng, Y. 2001, ApJ, 563, 381, doi: 10.1086/323778

    work page doi:10.1086/323778 2001

  55. [55]

    Zhang, J., & Dere, K. P. 2006, ApJ, 649, 1100, doi: 10.1086/506903

    work page doi:10.1086/506903 2006

  56. [56]

    G., Webb, D

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

    work page doi:10.1029/2007ja012321 2007

  57. [57]

    2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A06107, doi: 10.1029/2006JA012205

    Zhao, X., Feng, X., & Wu, C.-C. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A06107, doi: 10.1029/2006JA012205

    work page doi:10.1029/2006ja012205 2007

  58. [58]

    H., & Richardson, I

    Zurbuchen, T. H., & Richardson, I. G. 2006, SSRv, 123, 31, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9010-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-9010-4 2006