Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 50 references

High magnetic curvature in a giant chromospheric spiral drives multi-mode oscillations and an inverse period gradient that challenges the standard expanding-canopy model.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 04:02 UTC pith:SDM2N2IH

load-bearing objection Solid first statistical map of oscillatory threads in a giant pore spiral; curvature and intensity results stand, canopy story is under-constrained. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11660 v1 pith:SDM2N2IH submitted 2026-07-13 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Mapping Oscillatory Flows in a Giant Chromospheric Spiral

Yash.B.Saneshwar , Eamon Scullion , Gert J. J. Botha This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph
keywords solar chromospheresolar magnetic fieldsmagnetohydrodynamicssolar oscillationschromospheric spiralmagnetic curvatureoscillatory flows
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper maps thousands of plasma-flow channels inside a giant spiral in the solar chromosphere that is anchored to a magnetic pore. Using an automated pipeline that traces the channels, follows fine-scale threads along them, and fits multi-component oscillations, the authors show that the most tightly curved parts of the spiral host more complex (higher-order) oscillations, brighter emission, and longer periods than the straighter outer arms. The period gradient runs the opposite way from the usual sunspot picture: roughly 3.5 minutes near the pore and about 3 minutes farther out. They interpret this as the signature of an overlying trans-equatorial coronal loop system that flattens the field lines above the pore and lets them return more vertically in the outer spiral, rather than a simple expanding canopy. The oscillating threads themselves sit as bright channels inside cooler, darker loop material, pointing to localised energy deposition along the curved magnetic structure.

Core claim

In a giant chromospheric spiral, magnetic curvature is statistically linked to oscillatory complexity: high-curvature regions show a clear excess of higher-order modes (rising from 7.5 percent in straight channels to 15.7 percent in the most curved), higher mean intensity, and longer primary periods near the pore. The resulting inverse period gradient is read as evidence that an overlying quadrupolar coronal canopy compresses the pore field into a near-horizontal orientation, challenging the standard expanding-canopy model.

What carries the argument

An end-to-end automated pipeline that first traces spiral flow channels with OCCULT-2, filters them by size and overlap, extracts space-time cuts, detects fine-scale oscillating threads by edge linking, and then fits each thread with up to three damped cosines selected by AIC/BIC; the resulting mode, period, and intensity catalogues are stratified by local loop curvature.

Load-bearing premise

The inverse period gradient is produced by an overlying coronal canopy that forces the field nearly horizontal above the pore and more vertical in the returning outer arms, even though the supporting field map is only a potential-field extrapolation that omits currents and shear.

What would settle it

A non-linear force-free field reconstruction of the same region that recovers vertical or expanding field geometry above the pore, or independent high-resolution vector magnetograms and Doppler maps that show no canopy-induced horizontal compression and no corresponding period gradient.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a high-resolution SST/CRISP Hα analysis of a long-lived (~37 min), ~20 Mm chromospheric spiral anchored to a magnetic pore. An end-to-end pipeline (derotation, dual-polarity OCCULT-2 tracing, multi-stage filtering, graph-based thread tracking in XT cuts, and multi-component damped-cosine fits with AIC/BIC selection) yields catalogues of loops and 10^4-scale threads. Three main results are claimed: (i) higher local curvature correlates with a larger fraction of higher-order oscillatory components, higher mean Hα intensity, and longer primary periods (Table 2; Fig. 9); (ii) the primary period decreases from ~3.5 min near the pore to ~3 min in the outer arms, opposite the usual expanding-canopy trend, and is interpreted via compression by an overlying trans-equatorial quadrupolar system into near-horizontal fields above the pore (potential-field extrapolation, Fig. 10; §5.2); (iii) oscillating threads are systematically brighter than the cooler, absorbing loop material that hosts them (Fig. 8). The work is framed as the first statistical map of oscillatory flows in a large-scale chromospheric spiral.

Significance. If the observational correlations hold, this is a valuable first statistical characterisation of oscillatory flows in a rare, pore-anchored giant spiral, with a carefully staged automated pipeline that is itself a useful contribution for chromospheric fine-structure studies. The curvature–mode and intensity trends (Table 2) are independent of the large-scale topology and would be of interest for mode conversion / phase-mixing discussions in curved chromospheric fields. The inverse period map is an empirical result that challenges the standard expanding-canopy picture and motivates multi-scale magnetic context. Strengths include residual diagnostics on fits, explicit pulse-vs-oscillation handling, and clear intensity separation between loops and threads. The canopy interpretation elevates the period result from an empirical map to a physical narrative; that step is the main interpretive risk and should be treated as provisional rather than definitive.

major comments (4)
  1. §5.2 and Fig. 10: The inverse period gradient is a solid observational result, but its physical explanation (overlying quadrupolar canopy forcing θ ≈ 68.8° ± 11.1° above the pore and more vertical returning legs outside) rests entirely on a potential-field extrapolation that the authors themselves state (Introduction and §5.2) does not capture currents, shear, or non-potential structure important near pores. Pores and emerging flux commonly carry free energy; if the true chromospheric field is more vertical above the pore or lacks the claimed returning connectivity, the acoustic cut-off narrative fails even though the period map remains valid. Please either (a) strengthen the topology with NLFFF or independent inclination diagnostics co-spatial with the spiral, or (b) clearly demote the canopy model to a working hypothesis and present the inverse period map as the primary, model-independ
  2. Abstract and §4.5.1 / Table 2: The abstract asserts a 'statistically significant excess' of higher-order modes with curvature (7.5% → 10.0% → 15.7%). No hypothesis test, confidence intervals, or uncertainty on the fractions is reported. Band 3 is also an order of magnitude smaller (N = 978) than Bands 1–2 (N ≈ 6600–6900), so raw percentages alone do not establish significance or rule out selection/seeing effects concentrated near the pore. Please report a proper proportion test (or bootstrap CIs) for the mode fractions, and test whether the period and intensity trends remain after controlling for radial distance from the pore (curvature and radius are spatially confounded; Fig. 9a).
  3. §3.3, §3.6–3.7 and free parameters: Several load-bearing thresholds are post-hoc and untested for sensitivity: >70% overlap for the oscillating catalogue, minimum loop length 8 Mm, minimum thread length 10 frames, seeing cut at 3500 threads (Fig. 5), curvature band edges 0.2 and 0.508 Mm⁻¹, AIC/BIC improvement ≥4, and the [1.5, 15] min period band. The curvature–mode and period results could shift if these cuts change. A short sensitivity appendix (or table) showing that the Table 2 trends are stable under reasonable variations of the main cuts is needed before the correlations can be treated as robust.
  4. §3.7 and Table 1: Clarify what the fitted 'amplitude' in km physically measures. The model (Eq. 2) is applied to thread trajectories in XT space; amplitudes of ~10²–10³ km then imply velocity scales via 2πA/P that should be stated and compared to expected chromospheric flow speeds. Without that conversion and a statement that these are longitudinal intensity-feature displacements (not transverse loop displacements), readers may misread the kinematics. Also reconcile the pulse vs multi-component decision rule (~1.5–2 cycles) with the reported periods so that short threads are not systematically biased into the 'pulse' class near the pore.
minor comments (7)
  1. Fig. 7 caption vs text: panel (b) is labelled 'thread 48' in the figure caption block but 'thread 64' in the body and Table 1. Align labels throughout.
  2. Eq. (1): s is defined as 'pixel index number'. State whether coordinates are converted to physical units before differentiation and whether any smoothing is applied; raw second differences on pixel indices can be noisy for κ.
  3. Abstract claims '2255 plasma flows (loops)' but the thread statistics in Table 2 total ~1.4×10⁴ threads; a single sentence linking loop count, evolution IDs, and thread count would avoid confusion.
  4. §3: Full algorithmic detail is deferred to Saneshwar et al. (2026). For reproducibility, at least the key OCCULT-2 parameter ranges, Canny thresholds, and cost-function weights for graph tracking should appear in an appendix or supplementary material of this paper.
  5. Fig. 10: Magnetogram orientation is noted as rotated 90° relative to Fig. 1c; a small compass or shared coordinate annotation would help readers match the pore and spiral arms across figures.
  6. Terminology: 'loops', 'threads', 'pulses', and 'flows' are defined in §3, which is helpful; ensure the abstract's '2255 plasma flows (loops)' uses the same vocabulary consistently.
  7. References: companion methodology paper is listed as 'Saneshwar, Y., Eamon Scullion, & Gert Botha. 2026' without venue; update when available or mark as 'in prep.' with a stable identifier if possible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: independent geometric measurements, data-driven oscillatory fits, and post-hoc topological interpretation of an external magnetogram.

full rationale

The paper is a high-resolution observational study whose core results (curvature-stratified higher-order mode fractions, intensity contrasts, and the inverse period gradient) are extracted by applying OCCULT-2 tracing, independent curvature calculation (Eq. 1), automated thread detection in XT cuts, and multi-component damped-cosine fitting with AIC/BIC model selection directly to the SST/CRISP time series. None of these steps defines a quantity in terms of the claimed correlation, nor does the paper fit a free parameter on a subset and then re-label a related statistic as a prediction. The canopy interpretation of the period map is an after-the-fact reading of a potential-field extrapolation of public HMI data plus an external citation (Sun et al. 2014); the authors themselves flag the extrapolation as topological only. The single self-reference (Saneshwar et al. 2026) merely defers algorithmic implementation details and is not load-bearing for any scientific claim. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the data and contains no circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard solar-atmosphere assumptions (magnetic guidance of plasma, inclination-dependent acoustic cut-off, Hα as a geometric proxy) plus a suite of analysis thresholds chosen for this dataset and a potential-field topological model used only interpretively. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are pipeline cut-offs and band edges that control sample membership and therefore the reported fractions and means.

free parameters (7)
  • curvature band edges = 0.2 and 0.508 Mm⁻¹
    Bands defined at κ ≤ 0.2, 0.2 < κ ≤ 0.508, κ > 0.508 Mm⁻¹ control the reported mode fractions, intensities, and periods (Table 2, Fig. 9); edges appear chosen from the observed distribution rather than a priori theory.
  • loop overlap threshold = >70%
    Partial-overlap catalogue retains loops with >70% spatial overlap; authors note lower/higher values change continuity vs morphology trade-off (§3.3).
  • minimum loop length = 8 Mm
    Size filter removes features shorter than 8 Mm to exclude jets (§3.3).
  • minimum thread length = 10 frames
    Threads restricted to ≥10 frames to avoid small jets (§3.6).
  • seeing quality cut = 3500 threads
    Timesteps with <3500 detected threads are dropped (66 frames removed) to isolate good seeing (§4).
  • AIC/BIC improvement threshold = ≥4
    Additional oscillatory components accepted only if both AIC and BIC improve by ≥4 (§3.7).
  • period search band = [1.5, 15] min
    FFT seeding restricted to [1.5, 15] minutes (§3.7).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Chromospheric fibrils and flow channels are usable proxies for the projected magnetic-field geometry guiding plasma and waves.
    Stated in Introduction with citations noting the correspondence is not always one-to-one; underpins all loop-as-field-line analysis.
  • domain assumption The effective acoustic cut-off frequency decreases with increasing magnetic inclination, allowing longer-period waves along more horizontal fields.
    Used to interpret both the standard canopy expectation and the inverse gradient via canopy compression (§1, §5.2).
  • ad hoc to paper A potential-field extrapolation of the HMI magnetogram adequately captures the large-scale topology (closed returning loops + overlying canopy) for interpretive purposes even though it omits currents and shear.
    Explicitly limited by the authors (Introduction, §5.2, Fig. 10) yet load-bearing for the canopy-compression explanation of the period gradient.
  • domain assumption Multi-component exponentially damped cosines selected by AIC/BIC with residual diagnostics correctly recover the physical oscillatory content of threads rather than noise or projection artifacts.
    Core of the mode-complexity claim (§3.7, Table 1, Fig. 7).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 19937 in / 3743 out tokens · 34137 ms · 2026-07-14T04:02:17.043753+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The solar chromosphere is permeated by complex magnetic fields that guide plasma flows and energy into the corona. This work presents a detailed analysis of a unique, high-resolution observation of a giant chromospheric spiral structure that emerges due to a large magnetic pore, captured by the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope (SST). A comprehensive data analysis pipeline is developed to automatically detect the edges of 2255 plasma flows (loops) that constitute the spiral, and these are used to extract the kinematics of flows propagating along the magnetic field. The analysis reveals three primary insights into the spiral's physics. First, magnetic curvature is correlated with oscillatory flow dynamics, i.e. regions of high loop curvature exhibit a statistically significant excess of higher-order oscillation modes compared to straighter loops; it is also correlated with higher intensity and longer periods. Second, spatial distribution of oscillation period shows an inverse trend, decreasing from $\sim$3.5 minutes in the pore to $\sim$3 minutes in the outer spiral arms. This is interpreted as a signature of the overlying trans-equatorial quadrupolar coronal loop system compressing the pore's field lines into a near-horizontal orientation, producing a period gradient that challenges the standard expanding canopy model. Finally, the emission signature confirms that oscillating threads represent localised channels of brightness that lie within cooler, absorbing loop material. This study provides the first statistical analysis of oscillatory flows in a large-scale spiral, probing energy flow through the chromosphere through curved magnetic structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11660 by Eamon Scullion, Gert J. J. Botha, Yash.B.Saneshwar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Multi-scale context of the giant chromospheric spiral observed on 8 October 2012. Top row: (a) AIA 304 ˚A full-disk image showing the location of the pore near the solar equator. The cyan contour indicates the SST field-of-view (FOV). (b) AIA 171 ˚A zoomed view revealing the large-scale trans-equatorial quadrupolar coronal loop structure. The coronal loops span both solar hemispheres. (c) HMI line-of-sight… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The end-to-end data analysis pipeline. 3.4. Statistical Properties of Detected Loops (S4) We analysed the statistical properties of the final fil￾tered loop catalogue. To understand the geometry of each loop, we calculated its curvature, κ. For a two￾dimensional curve parametrised as r(s) = (x(s), y(s)), where s is pixel index number, the curvature is defined as κ(s) = |x ′ (s)y ′′(s) − y ′ (s)x ′′(s)| [P… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of the detected loops after filtering. Left: The SST observation. Right: The unique loop catalogue produced after the four-stage filtering pipeline (step S3, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scatter plot of mean loop curvature versus loop length. Obtained after step 4 of the analysis pipeline. and 3.20 min (83.40 km; damping time 8.13 min) (Ta￾ble 1). This is basically the cleanest demonstration of why the multi-component approach is needed in some threads, and how the AIC/BIC criteria stop the model from adding extra components unless they are statisti￾cally justified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Atmospheric seeing quality diagnostic based on primary thread detection counts. Green shading indicates timesteps with good seeing (≥ 3500 threads) that were retained for analysis, while red shading shows timesteps with poor seeing (< 3500 threads) that were excluded. (a) Loop 1409 XT cut, after preprocessing. (b) Detected threads overlaid on the same XT cut [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of the thread detection pipeline output after S6 for Loop 1409. Panel (a) shows the contrast-enhanced, denoised XT diagram. Panel (b) shows the output after edge extraction and graph tracking; 132 threads were found. The grayscale in the panels represents Hα intensity in detector counts (DN). 3. Mode dependence: Both panels suggest a rela￾tionship between mode complexity and intensity. Threads with… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Multi-component fitting examples for loop in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Intensity signatures of the spiral structure. (a) Aggregate pixel distribution. The distribution of raw pixel intensities across the entire dataset, showing the broader spread of values. (b) Temporal averaged intensity. This histogram displays the distribution of the averaged intensity calculated for each category at every timestep. By averaging all pixels within a category for each frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Summary of curvature analysis. Threads are grouped into three curvature bands: Band 1 (blue), Band 2 (green), and Band 3 (Red).Row 1: Spatial context and curvature classification. (a) H-alpha chromosphere with spatial distribution of detected threads colour-coded by curvature band. (b) Curvature distribution histogram with threshold boundaries marked by dashed lines. (c) Component distribution of higher or… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Magnetic field structure of the solar pore and its surrounding chromosphere. (a) Full field-of-view HMI line-of-sight magnetogram (Bz). The orange box marks the HMI FOV shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716, doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 Alfv´ en, H

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716, doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 Alfv´ en, H. 1942, Nature, 150, 405, doi: 10.1038/150405d0

    doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 1974

  2. [2]

    J., De Pontieu, B., & Katrukha, E

    Aschwanden, M. J., De Pontieu, B., & Katrukha, E. A. 2013, Entropy, 15, 3007, doi: 10.3390/e15083007

    work page doi:10.3390/e15083007 2013

  3. [3]

    J., Nightingale, R

    Aschwanden, M. J., Nightingale, R. W., & Alexander, D. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 541, 1059, doi: 10.1086/309486

    doi:10.1086/309486 2000

  4. [4]

    Beck, C., & Choudhary, D. P. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab75bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab75bd 2020

  5. [5]

    1977, A&A, 55, 239

    Bel, N., & Leroy, B. 1977, A&A, 55, 239

    1977

  6. [6]

    S., Nightingale, R

    Brown, D. S., Nightingale, R. W., Alexander, D., et al. 2003, SoPh, 216, 79, doi: 10.1023/A:1026138413791

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1026138413791 2003

  7. [7]

    S., & Goossens, M

    Cally, P. S., & Goossens, M. 2008, SoPh, 251, 251, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9086-3

    doi:10.1007/s11207-007-9086-3 2008

  8. [8]

    1986, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-8, 679, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851

    Canny, J. 1986, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-8, 679, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851

    doi:10.1109/tpami.1986.4767851 1986

  9. [9]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 663, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243236 de la Cruz Rodr´ ıguez, J., L¨ ofdahl, M

    Kontogiannis, I. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 663, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243236 de la Cruz Rodr´ ıguez, J., L¨ ofdahl, M. G., S¨ utterlin, P.,

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243236 2022

  10. [10]

    2015, A&A, 573, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424319 de la Cruz Rodr´ ıguez, J., & Socas-Navarro, H

    Hillberg, T., & Rouppe van der Voort, L. 2015, A&A, 573, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424319 de la Cruz Rodr´ ıguez, J., & Socas-Navarro, H. 2011, A&A, 527, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016018 De Moortel, I., & Nakariakov, V. M. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370, 3193–3216, doi...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424319 2015

  11. [11]

    2019, A&A, 621, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834367

    Felipe, T., Kuckein, C., Khomenko, E., & Thaler, I. 2019, A&A, 621, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834367

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834367 2019

  12. [12]

    1978, Proceedings of the IEEE, 66, 51, doi: 10.1109/PROC.1978.10837

    Harris, F. 1978, Proceedings of the IEEE, 66, 51, doi: 10.1109/PROC.1978.10837

    doi:10.1109/proc.1978.10837 1978

  13. [13]

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

    1983

  14. [14]

    Ionson, J. A. 1978, ApJ, 226, 650, doi: 10.1086/156648

    doi:10.1086/156648 1978

  15. [15]

    M., McIntosh, S

    Jefferies, S. M., McIntosh, S. W., Armstrong, J. D., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 648, L151, doi: 10.1086/508165

    work page doi:10.1086/508165 2006

  16. [16]

    B., Morton, R

    Jess, D. B., Morton, R. J., Verth, G., et al. 2015, SSRv, 190, 103, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0141-3

    doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0141-3 2015

  17. [17]

    B., Reznikova, V

    Jess, D. B., Reznikova, V. E., Van Doorsselaere, T., Keys, P. H., & Mackay, D. H. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 779, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/168

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/168 2013

  18. [18]

    M., et al

    Kang, J., Chae, J., Nakariakov, V. M., et al. 2019, ApJL, 877, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f6c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f6c 2019

  19. [19]

    2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 6, doi: 10.1007/lrsp-2015-6

    Khomenko, E., & Collados, M. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 6, doi: 10.1007/lrsp-2015-6

    doi:10.1007/lrsp-2015-6 2015

  20. [20]

    Klimchuk, J. A. 2006, SoPh, 234, 41, doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0055-z

    doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0055-z 2006

  21. [21]

    Leenaarts, J., Carlsson, M., & Voort, L. R. v. d. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/136

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/2/136 2015

  22. [22]

    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

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

  23. [23]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 752, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/2/L22

    Li, X., Morgan, H., Leonard, D., & Jeska, L. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 752, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/2/L22

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/2/l22 2012

  24. [24]

    2024, A&A, 690, A242, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450343

    Madjarska, Maria S., Wiegelmann, Thomas, D´ emoulin, Pascal, & Galsgaard, Klaus. 2024, A&A, 690, A242, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450343

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450343 2024

  25. [25]

    B., & Erd´ elyi, R

    Mathioudakis, M., Jess, D. B., & Erd´ elyi, R. 2013, SSRv, 175, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9944-7

    doi:10.1007/s11214-012-9944-7 2013

  26. [26]

    W., & Jefferies, S

    McIntosh, S. W., & Jefferies, S. M. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 647, L77, doi: 10.1086/507425

    doi:10.1086/507425 2006

  27. [27]

    Botha, G. J. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada26f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada26f 2025

  28. [28]

    J., & Henriques, V

    Mooroogen, K., Morton, R. J., & Henriques, V. 2017, A&A, 607, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730926

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730926 2017

  29. [29]

    J., Mooroogen, K., & Henriques, V

    Morton, R. J., Mooroogen, K., & Henriques, V. M. J. 2020, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:

    2020

  30. [30]

    Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 379, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0183

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0183 2020

  31. [31]

    A., Billings, D

    Nakagawa, Y., Raadu, M. A., Billings, D. E., & McNamara, D. 1971, SoPh, 19, 72, doi: 10.1007/BF00148825

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00148825 1971

  32. [32]

    Saneshwar, Y., Eamon Scullion, & Gert Botha. 2026

    2026

  33. [33]

    B., Bjelksjo, K., Korhonen, T

    Scharmer, G. B., Bjelksjo, K., Korhonen, T. K., Lindberg, B., & Petterson, B. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4853, Innovative Telescopes and Instrumentation for Solar Astrophysics, ed. S. L. Keil & S. V. Avakyan, 341–350, doi: 10.1117/12.460377

    doi:10.1117/12.460377 2003

  34. [34]

    B., Narayan, G., Hillberg, T., et al

    Scharmer, G. B., Narayan, G., Hillberg, T., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 689, L69, doi: 10.1086/595744

    doi:10.1086/595744 2008

  35. [35]

    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

    doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2 2012

  36. [36]

    A., & Dere, K

    Schmieder, B., Demoulin, P., Raadu, M. A., & Dere, K. P. 1989, A&A, 213, 402

    1989

  37. [37]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    Schwarz, G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    1978

  38. [38]

    D., Banerjee, D., Doyle, J

    Scullion, E., Popescu, M. D., Banerjee, D., Doyle, J. G., & Erd´ elyi, R. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, 1385, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1385 16

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/2/1385 2009

  39. [39]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf9

    Shetye, J., Verwichte, E., Stangalini, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf9 2019

  40. [40]

    2024, A&A, 685, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346670

    Shrivastav, Arpit Kumar, Pant, Vaibhav, Berghmans, David, et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346670

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346670 2024

  41. [41]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 511, 436, doi: 10.1086/306671

    Hirzberger, J. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 511, 436, doi: 10.1086/306671

    work page doi:10.1086/306671 1999

  42. [42]

    W., Archontis, V., & McNeill, C

    Sturrock, Z., Hood, A. W., Archontis, V., & McNeill, C. M. 2015, A&A, 582, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526521

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526521 2015

  43. [43]

    T., Ji, K

    Su, J. T., Ji, K. F., Cao, W., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 117, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/117

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/117 2016

  44. [44]

    Q., Cheng, X., Guo, Y., Ding, M

    Sun, J. Q., Cheng, X., Guo, Y., Ding, M. D., & Li, Y. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 787, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L27

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/l27 2014

  45. [45]

    W., Keil, S

    Tomczyk, S., McIntosh, S. W., Keil, S. L., et al. 2007, Science, 317, 1192, doi: 10.1126/science.1143304

    doi:10.1126/science.1143304 2007

  46. [46]

    2023, SSRv, 219, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11214-022-00946-8

    Tziotziou, K., Scullion, E., Shelyag, S., et al. 2023, SSRv, 219, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11214-022-00946-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00946-8 2023

  47. [47]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/22 Wedemeyer-B¨ ohm, S., & Rouppe van der Voort, L

    Vissers, G., & Rouppe van der Voort, L. 2012, ApJ, 750, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/22 Wedemeyer-B¨ ohm, S., & Rouppe van der Voort, L. 2009, A&A, 507, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913380 Wedemeyer-B¨ ohm, S., Scullion, E., Steiner, O., et al. 2012, Nature, 486, 505, doi: 10.1038/nature11202

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/22 2012

  48. [48]

    2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41116-020-00027-4

    Wiegelmann, T., & Sakurai, T. 2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41116-020-00027-4

    doi:10.1007/s41116-020-00027-4 2021

  49. [49]

    E., & Nakariakov, V

    Yuan, D., Sych, R., Reznikova, V. E., & Nakariakov, V. M. 2014, A&A, 561, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220208

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220208 2014

  50. [50]

    Zuiderveld, K. J. 1994, in Graphics Gems IV, ed. P. S. Heckbert (Boston: Academic Press), 474–485, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-336156-1.50061-6

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-336156-1.50061-6 1994