Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 83 references

Observations of a Solar Jet Triggered by Reconnection between Super-penumbral Fibrils and a Mini-filament

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a solar jet on 2023 June 5 was triggered by magnetic reconnection between the sunspot's super-penumbral fibrils (chromospheric field threads) and a mini-filament, driven by the outward drift of a small magnetic featur

desk verdict A well-observed single-event case study whose central claim rests on a mini-filament identification the authors themselves hedge, and the appendix calls a cool loop. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26420 v1 pith:W7BPUDDI submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.SR

Liheng Yang , Xiaoli Yan , Qingmin Zhang , Zhike Xue , Zhe Xu , Jincheng Wang , Fangyu Xu , Yian Zhou
show 5 more authors
Defang Kong Weijie Meng Xinsheng Zhang Qiaoling Li Liping Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarjetsmagneticreconnectionmini-filamenteruptionsuper-penumbralfibrilsmovingfeaturesfluxcancellationchromospherecoronalheating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports a coronal jet observed on 2023 June 5 at the western edge of a sunspot group and argues that the eruption was brought on by a small-scale magnetic interaction, not by a large flare or a major filament eruption. The driver was a compact bipolar magnetic feature migrating away from the sunspot; its outward motion stretched super-penumbral fibrils—chromospheric threads that extend the sunspot's field—until they made contact with a mini-filament. At the contact site the authors find the expected signatures of magnetic reconnection: intense brightenings heated to roughly 2.5 million kelvin, a measured shift of the mini-filament's footpoint from pre-existing negative-polarity field to the sunspot, persistent magnetic flux cancellation below, and a cool jet component that rotated clockwise. If the interpretation is right, it shows that tiny moving magnetic structures near sunspots can accumulate enough stress to launch a coronal jet, and it supports the view that flux cancellation, rather than flux emergence, is the controlling trigger in many jet events. The event also stands out as a relatively low-energy jet, with slower speeds and cooler footpoints than typical active-region jets, so it offers a useful lower anchor for how jets are powered.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pair of interacting magnetic structures: super-penumbral fibrils (dark chromospheric threads that trace a sunspot's magnetic field into the surrounding atmosphere) and a mini-filament (a small, cool, dark magnetic structure). The load-bearing mechanism is magnetic reconnection between them, set up by the outward drift of a Type I moving magnetic feature—a compact bipole migrating through the sunspot's moat at roughly 300 meters per second. That drift stretched the fibrils until they touched the mini-filament's field; reconnection then swapped the footpoints, moving one end of the mini-filament's field from the pre-existing negative polarity to the sunspot, releasing

What would settle it

Resolve the southern end of the supposed mini-filament in high-cadence, high-resolution chromospheric images and track its footpoint in simultaneous magnetograms: if the structure never erupts as a coherent cool thread, or its footpoint never transfers from the pre-existing negative polarity to the sunspot at the time of the brightenings, then the central reconnection event is not happening.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 2023 June 5 coronal jet resulted from magnetic reconnection between super-penumbral fibrils and a mini-filament at the western edge of active region 13323. Super-penumbral fibrils are the chromospheric extensions of a sunspot's penumbral magnetic field, appearing as dark, radially oriented threads; here one end of each fibril was rooted in the sunspot's negative polarity and the other in the positive polarity of a Type I moving magnetic feature, a small bipolar magnetic element being carried outward through the sunspot's moat. As the positive polarity drifted outward, the fibrils lengthened until they met a mini-filament whose opposite footpoint was anchored in

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the thin, dark structure at the jet base is actually a mini-filament (a thin mini-filament 'strand') anchored in pre-existing negative-polarity field; the paper itself notes that the southern part is extremely thin and hard to classify, so if that feature is instead an unrelated cool loop or a projection artifact, the claimed fibril–mini-filament reconnection loses its target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Moving magnetic features near sunspots can act as remote triggers for coronal jets: their outward drift stretches overlying chromospheric fibrils until those fibrils reconnect with nearby cool structures.
  • Flux cancellation rates as low as a few times 10^17 maxwells per hour—about an order of magnitude below typical active-region jet values—can still destabilize a mini-filament and launch a jet.
  • The coexistence of a hot narrow jet and a cooler broader jet, with opposite Doppler shifts across the jet body, indicates that magnetic twist is transferred from the mini-filament system to the jet during reconnection.
  • This event's low propagation speed, low footpoint temperature, and low flux-cancellation rate imply a weaker energy release than typical active-region jets, consistent with a comparatively low-energy jet.
  • The eruption fits a mini-filament-eruption scenario rather than a direct flux-emergence scenario, with flux convergence and cancellation progressively destabilizing the field that hosted the mini-filament.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if this mechanism generalizes, many small jets at sunspot peripheries currently attributed to flux emergence may actually be driven by migrating magnetic features stretching fibrils; the distinguishing signatures appear only in high-cadence chromospheric images, so existing catalogues could be biased.
  • Beyond the paper, the event's low energy hints at a population of very weak jets that deposit small amounts of mass and twist into the corona; a statistical census in continuous chromospheric and EUV data would show whether such events contribute to coronal heating.
  • Beyond the paper, the clockwise rotation is a signed twist diagnostic: if the rotation sense correlates with sunspot polarity across many events, it would indicate that moving magnetic features preferentially inject one helicity into the corona.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. Using NVST Hα and He I 10830 Å imaging, CHASE Hα spectroscopy, and SDO/AIA-HMI observations, the paper reports a coronal jet on 2023 June 5 in NOAA 13323. It argues that the outward migration of a Type I MMF's positive polarity stretched super-penumbral fibrils rooted in a sunspot; these fibrils then interacted with a dark mini-filament, triggering reconnection evidenced by localized brightenings (DEM peak log T ≈ 6.4), a switch of a filament footpoint from pre-existing negative polarity to the sunspot, and a hot narrow jet plus a broader cool jet with clockwise rotation. Magnetic flux cancellation at the base (3.9 × 10^17 Mx hr^-1, total ~7.8 × 10^17) is interpreted as the trigger. The jet front is fitted with quadratic kinematics; line-of-sight Doppler shifts from CHASE and NVST show ascent/descent and rotation.

Significance. If the mini-filament identification holds, this is a valuable multi-instrument case study linking a moving magnetic feature to a mini-filament eruption and coronal jet. The quantitative DEM, spectroscopic Doppler measurements, time-distance kinematics, and tracking of the MMF are strengths; the descriptive fits and flux-loss measurements do not by themselves pre-determine the reconnection conclusion, and the use of the Yang et al. (2013) MHD simulation for interpretation is appropriate rather than circular. However, the paper's title and abstract assert a mini-filament eruption while the only definitional evidence is hedged in §3.1. Given that the whole scenario—twist transfer, breakout jet, flux-cancellation trigger—depends on that object, the claim as written is not yet demonstrated. The low cancellation rate is also presented inconsistently between §3.4 and §4.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1, Fig. 1(c)] The central object of the paper is introduced with an explicit caveat: the southern part is 'extremely thin, making it difficult to identify it as a typical mini-filament ... may represent a mini-filament.' The abstract and title nevertheless state as established that a mini-filament erupted. Every subsequent inference—reconnection at the fibril–filament interface, transfer of twist, breakout-jet interpretation—requires this object to be a genuine mini-filament. If it is a cool loop or a projection of unrelated fibrils, the reconnection scenario loses its erupting object. Please provide direct evidence: continuous Hα/He I tracking of the structure before and during the eruption; a demonstration that it has two identifiable footpoints rooted in opposite-polarity fields at the relevant times; and a measurement of its rise/eruption velocity. Alternatively, if such evidence is unavailable, t
  2. [§3.4 vs §4] The text reports a flux-loss rate of 3.9 × 10^17 Mx hr^-1 (total cancellation ~7.8 × 10^17 Mx hr^-1) and notes this is more than an order of magnitude below typical active-region jet values (~10^19 Mx hr^-1). Section 3.4 ends with 'may have served as the trigger,' but Section 4 asserts cancellation 'is considered the primary driver of the jet eruption.' This is an internal inconsistency in a load-bearing claim. Please either quantify how this low rate is sufficient (e.g., accumulated flux, available free energy, location of cancellation relative to the filament footpoint) or soften the Section 4 conclusion to a contributing factor.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The time label '60:5T:01' appears garbled and should presumably be '01:56:05' or similar.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] 'X(arcsecs)' should read 'X (arcsec)' for consistency with other panels.
  3. [§3.2] The phrase 'The hot component might be consists of plasma heated...' should read 'might consist of plasma heated...'.
  4. [§4] The sentence 'Similar to the cases reported by the cases of Moore et al. (2015)' contains a duplicated phrase; remove 'by the cases'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kinematic, DEM, and flux-evolution measurements are descriptive; the one self-citation (Yang et al. 2013) is interpretive rather than load-bearing; and the central reconnection claim rests on independent multi-instrument observations.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the observed brightenings, DEM peak, footpoint connectivity changes, Doppler shifts, and photospheric flux evolution to the conclusion that a jet was triggered by reconnection between super-penumbral fibrils and a mini-filament. None of these steps reduces to a fitted parameter or to a quantity defined in terms of the conclusion. The quadratic jet-front fits and the flux-loss rate are empirical descriptions of the event, not inputs that force the reconnection interpretation. The mini-filament identification is explicitly hedged in Section 3.1 ('The southern portion of this structure is extremely thin, making it difficult to identify it as a typical mini-filament... Therefore, this feature may represent a mini-filament'), and it is supported by an external citation (Sterling et al. 2024), not by redefinition. This is a genuine classification uncertainty, but it is not a circular step. The one potentially self-referential element is the comparison with Yang et al. (2013), a 2.5D MHD simulation by a coauthor; however, the paper uses that simulation only as an interpretive comparison for the two-component jet and MMF driver, and it explicitly distinguishes its own twist-transfer interpretation from the simulation's Alfven-wave interpretation. The observed Doppler shifts, DEM, and connectivity changes are independent evidence and do not require the simulation to be true. Thus, there is no fitting-versus-prediction loop, no self-definitional relation, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The paper would clearly be strengthened by a higher-confidence mini-filament identification, but that concern belongs to correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no invented physical entities and no ad hoc free parameters. It rests on standard interpretive assumptions: H-alpha fibrils trace field lines, brightenings/DEM mark reconnection, Doppler asymmetries mark twist, and slow flux cancellation can destabilize a mini-filament. These are domain conventions invoked without independent proof inside the paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Super-penumbral fibrils trace magnetic field lines, so their apparent endpoints mark magnetic connectivity.
    Used throughout Sections 3.1-3.2 to infer footpoint anchoring and connectivity change; if fibrils are not field-aligned, the reconnection topology claim weakens.
  • domain assumption The thin dark structure is a mini-filament despite its atypical morphology.
    Section 3.1 admits difficulty classifying the structure, then invokes Sterling et al. (2024)'s thin-strand category. This identification is load-bearing for the title claim.
  • domain assumption Base brightenings with DEM peaking near 2.5 MK indicate magnetic reconnection heating.
    Sections 3.2-3.3 use brightenings and EM maps as reconnection diagnostics rather than as proven signatures unique to reconnection.
  • domain assumption Adjacent blueshift and redshift across the jet body indicates clockwise rotation and transfer of magnetic twist.
    Sections 3.3 and 4 infer rotation from H-alpha Dopplergrams and compare to prior jet studies; no quantitative twist or helicity calculation is provided.
  • domain assumption Persistent magnetic flux cancellation at roughly 8e17 Mx/hr can build stress and trigger a mini-filament eruption.
    Section 3.4 and 4 invoke slow flux cancellation as the trigger even though the rate is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the active-region jet rates cited from Sterling et al. (2017) and Panesar et al. (2025).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observations of a Solar Jet Triggered by Reconnection between Super-penumbral Fibrils and a Mini-filament." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W7BPUDDI

@misc{pith2026260726420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observations of a Solar Jet Triggered by Reconnection between Super-penumbral Fibrils and a Mini-filament},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W7BPUDDI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26420}
}
abstract

Coronal jets are highly dynamic phenomena in the solar atmosphere, yet their driving mechanisms remain an active topic of investigation. In this paper, we report a coronal jet triggered by the interaction between super-penumbral fibrils and a mini-filament, based on coordinated observations from the New Vacuum Solar Telescope (NVST), the Chinese H$\alpha$ Solar Explorer (CHASE), and the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). The fibrils were anchored between the negative-polarity region of a sunspot and an emerging positive-polarity region associated with a moving magnetic feature (MMF). As the positive polarity migrated outward, the fibrils elongated and interacted with the mini-filament, one of whose footpoints was rooted in pre-existing negative-polarity fields. Intense brightenings at the interaction site, together with changes in the connectivity of the mini-filament footpoint from the pre-existing negative polarity to the sunspot, indicate the occurrence of magnetic reconnection. The event produced a narrow hot jet accompanied by a broader cool component. The cool plasma exhibited a clockwise rotation, providing evidence for the transfer of magnetic twist during reconnection. Persistent magnetic flux cancellation was observed before and during the jet eruption. These observations demonstrate that small-scale magnetic structures, such as MMFs, can significantly influence mini-filament eruptions and highlight the important role of flux cancellation in triggering coronal jet activity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26420 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Appearance of the active region producing the jet. Panels (a) and (b) show the HMI line-of-sight magnetogram and the SDO/AIA 193 ˚A image, respectively, indicating the location of the jet. Panels (c)-(e) present the magnetic configuration prior to the jet, as observed in NVST Hα line-center, NVST He I 10830 ˚A, and SDO/AIA 193 ˚A images. The zoomed-in image in panel (a) shows the SDO/HMI vertical magnetogram, with t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnetic reconnection process between the super-penumbral fibrils and the mini-filament. Panels (a1) – (a4), (b1) – (b4), (c1) – (c4), and (d1) – (d4) show this process in SDO/AIA 1600 ˚A, NVST Hα line-center, NVST He i 10830 ˚A, and SDO/AIA 304 ˚A images, respectively. Arrows in panels (a2) – (a4) and (c2) – (c3) mark the brightenings at the jet base. The “+” and “-” in panel (c) indicate the positive and the negat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Emission measure and DEM diagnostics of jet-associated brightenings. Panels (a) and (b) show the brightenings produced by ongoing magnetic reconnection in the constructed emission measure images at 01:58 UT and 02:02 UT, respectively. Panels (c) and (d) present the pre-event-subtracted (01:56 UT) average DEM distributions of the brightenings outlined by the black boxes in panels (a) and (b). The black curves represe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The temporal evolution of the jet across multiple wavelengths. Panels (a1)-(a5) show the NVST Hα line-center images, where the white arrows mark the primary jet eruption. Panels (b1)-(b5) present the NVST Hα Dopplergrams, with red and blue arrows in panels (b2)-(b3) hi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CHASE/HIS Hα spectral observations. Panels (a) and (b) show the jet in a composite Hα line-center intensity image and the corresponding Dopplergram, respectively, derived from scanning spectral data acquired around 02:14 UT. Panel (c) displays the Hα line profile extra…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Jet kinematics parameter derived from time–distance analysis. Panels (a)–(f) show time–distance diagrams along the line “A” – “B” (as indicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the magnetic field at the jet base and the corresponding magnetic flux changes. Panels (a)–(h) show a sequence of SDO/HMI line-of-sight magnetograms of the jet base. Panel (i) shows the time–distance diagram along the line “C” – “D” indicated in panel (e).…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cartoon illustrating the generation process of the jet. (a) Magnetic field topology prior to the jet. The large gray-filled circle denotes the sunspot. The “+” and “–” symbols denote the positive and the negative magnetic polarities, respectively. The negative and the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1086/497533

    Archontis, V., Moreno-Insertis, F., Galsgaard, K., et al.\ 2005, , 635, 2, 1299. doi:10.1086/497533

    work page doi:10.1086/497533 2005

  2. [2]

    H., Kurokawa, H., & Berger, T

    Brooks, D. H., Kurokawa, H., & Berger, T. E.\ 2007, , 656, 2, 1197. doi:10.1086/510144

    work page doi:10.1086/510144 2007

  3. [3]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac69b9

    Cai, Y.-F., Yang, X., Xiang, Y.-Y., et al.\ 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 6, 065010. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac69b9

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac69b9 2022

  4. [4]

    C., Reardon, K

    Canfield, R. C., Reardon, K. P., Leka, K. D., et al.\ 1996, , 464, 1016. doi:10.1086/177389

    doi:10.1086/177389 1996

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1086/311910

    Chae, J., Qiu, J., Wang, H., et al.\ 1999, , 513, 1, L75. doi:10.1086/311910

    doi:10.1086/311910 1999

  6. [6]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb1c1

    Chen, H., Hong, J., Yang, B., et al.\ 2020, , 902, 1, 8. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb1c1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb1c1 2020

  7. [7]

    doi:10.3389/fspas.2021.786856

    Chen, J., Erd \'e lyi, R., Liu, J., et al.\ 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 238. doi:10.3389/fspas.2021.786856

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/71

    Chen, J., Su, J., Yin, Z., et al.\ 2015, , 815, 1, 71. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/71

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/71 2015

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    H., et al.\ 2012, , 761, 1, 62

    Cheng, X., Zhang, J., Saar, S. H., et al.\ 2012, , 761, 1, 62. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/62

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Cheung, M. C. M., De Pontieu, B., Tarbell, T. D., et al.\ 2015, , 801, 2, 83. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/83

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Zhukov, A

    Chitta, L. P., Zhukov, A. N., Berghmans, D., et al.\ 2023, Science, 381, 6660, 867. doi:10.1126/science.ade5801

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad24f3

    Duan, Y., Tian, H., Chen, H., et al.\ 2024, , 962, 2, L38. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad24f3

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321229

    Guo, Y., D \'e moulin, P., Schmieder, B., et al.\ 2013, , 555, A19. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321229

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz084

    Hinode Review Team, Al-Janabi, K., Antolin, P., et al.\ 2019, , 71, 5, R1. doi:10.1093/pasj/psz084

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/35

    Hong, J., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., et al.\ 2017, , 835, 1, 35. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/35

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Li, T., Zhong, S

    Hou, Y. J., Li, T., Zhong, S. H., et al.\ 2020, , 642, A44. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038668

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Bu c \' k, R., Guo, L.-J., et al.\ 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 10, 1024

    Innes, D. E., Bu c \' k, R., Guo, L.-J., et al.\ 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 10, 1024. doi:10.1002/asna.201612428

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Chandra, R., Guo, Y., et al.\ 2017, , 362, 1, 10

    Joshi, N. C., Chandra, R., Guo, Y., et al.\ 2017, , 362, 1, 10. doi:10.1007/s10509-016-2983-x

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Chen, H

    Jiang, Y. C., Chen, H. D., Li, K. J., et al.\ 2007, , 469, 1, 331. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053954

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b44

    Jing, J., Li, Q., Liu, C., et al.\ 2019, , 880, 2, 143. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b44

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Archontis, V., & Hood, A

    Lee, E. J., Archontis, V., & Hood, A. W.\ 2015, , 798, 1, L10. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L10

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al.\ 2012, , 275, 1-2, 17. doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    doi:10.1007/s11433-022-1893-3

    Li, C., Fang, C., Li, Z., et al.\ 2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 8, 289602. doi:10.1007/s11433-022-1893-3

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab18aa

    Li, Q., Deng, N., Jing, J., et al.\ 2019, , 876, 2, 129. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab18aa

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    doi:10.1038/s41598-018-26581-4

    Li, X., Zhang, J., Yang, S., et al.\ 2018, Scientific Reports, 8, 8136. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-26581-4

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc9ba

    Li, X., Keppens, R., & Zhou, Y.\ 2023, , 947, 1, L17. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc9ba

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/735/1/L18

    Liu, C., Deng, N., Liu, R., et al.\ 2011, , 735, 1, L18. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/735/1/L18

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac7cba

    Liu, H., Jin, Z., Xiang, Y., et al.\ 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 9, 095005. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac7cba

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/150

    Liu, J., Wang, Y., Erd \'e lyi, R., et al.\ 2016, , 833, 2, 150. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/150

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/009

    Liu, Z., Xu, J., Gu, B.-Z., et al.\ 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 6, 705-718. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/009

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    E.\ 1968, , 5, 4, 489

    Loughhead, R. E.\ 1968, , 5, 4, 489. doi:10.1007/BF00147015

    1968 doi

  24. [32]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab530c

    Lu, L., Feng, L., Li, Y., et al.\ 2019, , 887, 2, 154. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab530c

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    B., et al.\ 2018, , 869, 1, 39

    Miao, Y., Liu, Y., Li, H. B., et al.\ 2018, , 869, 1, 39. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeac1

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    doi:10.1086/527560

    Moreno-Insertis, F., Galsgaard, K., & Ugarte-Urra, I.\ 2008, , 673, 2, L211. doi:10.1086/527560

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Cirtain, J

    Moore, R. L., Cirtain, J. W., Sterling, A. C., et al.\ 2010, , 720, 1, 757. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/757

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Sterling, A

    Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., & Falconer, D. A.\ 2015, , 806, 1, 11. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/11

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Tripathi, D., Del Zanna, G., et al.\ 2016, , 589, A79

    Mulay, S. M., Tripathi, D., Del Zanna, G., et al.\ 2016, , 589, A79. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527473

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    K., & DeVore, C

    Pariat, E., Antiochos, S. K., & DeVore, C. R.\ 2009, , 691, 1, 61. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/61

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    K., Sterling, A

    Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., et al.\ 2016, , 832, 1, L7. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/L7

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    K., Sterling, A

    Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., & Moore, R. L.\ 2018, , 853, 2, 189. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e9

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Tiwari, S

    Panesar, N. K., Tiwari, S. K., Moore, R. L., et al.\ 2022, , 939, 1, 25. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d65

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    K., Sterling, A

    Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., et al.\ 2025, , 994, 2, 164. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0d90

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    & Archontis, V.\ 2025, , 699, A87

    Patsourakos, S. & Archontis, V.\ 2025, , 699, A87. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554580

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C.\ 2012, , 275, 1-2, 3. doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    I., Priest, E

    Pontin, D. I., Priest, E. R., Chitta, L. P., et al.\ 2024, , 960, 1, 51. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad03eb

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141401

    Qi, Y., Huang, Z., Xia, L., et al.\ 2022, , 657, A118. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141401

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    doi:10.1007/s11433-022-1900-5

    Qiu, Y., Rao, S., Li, C., et al.\ 2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 8, 289603. doi:10.1007/s11433-022-1900-5

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/210

    Rao, C., Zhu, L., Rao, X., et al.\ 2016, , 833, 2, 210. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/210

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al.\ 2016, , 201, 1-4, 1

    Raouafi, N. E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al.\ 2016, , 201, 1-4, 1. doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0260-5

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al.\ 2012, , 275, 1-2, 207. doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    doi:10.1016/j.asr.2021.12.013

    Schmieder, B., Joshi, R., & Chandra, R.\ 2022, Advances in Space Research, 70, 6, 1580. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2021.12.013

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    W., et al.\ 1992, , 44, L173

    Shibata, K., Ishido, Y., Acton, L. W., et al.\ 1992, , 44, L173

    1992

  45. [53]

    doi:10.1126/science.1146708

    Shibata, K., Nakamura, T., Matsumoto, T., et al.\ 2007, Science, 318, 5856, 1591. doi:10.1126/science.1146708

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    & Title, A.\ 2000, Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2038

    Shine, R. & Title, A.\ 2000, Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2038. doi:10.1888/0333750888/2038

    2000 doi

  47. [55]

    C., Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., Falconer, D. A., et al.\ 2015, , 523, 7561, 437. doi:10.1038/nature14556

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    C., Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., Falconer, D. A., et al.\ 2017, , 844, 1, 28. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7945

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    C., Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., & Panesar, N. K.\ 2024, , 960, 2, 109. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acff6b

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    K.\ 2003, , 11, 2-3, 153

    Solanki, S. K.\ 2003, , 11, 2-3, 153. doi:10.1007/s00159-003-0018-4

    2003 doi

  51. [59]

    E., Cranmer, S

    Tian, H., DeLuca, E. E., Cranmer, S. R., et al.\ 2014, Science, 346, 6207, 1255711. doi:10.1126/science.1255711

    2014 doi

  52. [60]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa89d

    Tian, H., Yurchyshyn, V., Peter, H., et al.\ 2018, , 854, 2, 92. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa89d

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    K., Moore, R

    Tiwari, S. K., Moore, R. L., De Pontieu, B., et al.\ 2018, , 869, 2, 147. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1b8

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    K., Panesar, N

    Tiwari, S. K., Panesar, N. K., Moore, R. L., et al.\ 2019, , 887, 1, 56. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab54c1

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    & Sheeley, N

    Wang, Y.-M. & Sheeley, N. R.\ 2002, , 575, 1, 542. doi:10.1086/341145

    2002 doi

  56. [64]

    doi:10.1023/B:SOLA.0000021799.39465.36

    Wiegelmann, T.\ 2004, , 219, 87. doi:10.1023/B:SOLA.0000021799.39465.36

    2004

  57. [65]

    doi:10.1007/s11207-006-2092-z

    Wiegelmann, T., Inhester, B., & Sakurai, T.\ 2006, , 233, 215. doi:10.1007/s11207-006-2092-z

    2006 doi

  58. [66]

    F., Antiochos, S

    Wyper, P. F., Antiochos, S. K., & DeVore, C. R.\ 2017, , 544, 7651, 452. doi:10.1038/nature22050

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    yuan ., Liu, Z., & Jin, Z.-

    Xiang, Y.-. yuan ., Liu, Z., & Jin, Z.-. yu .\ 2016, , 49, 8. doi:10.1016/j.newast.2016.05.002

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    doi:10.1007/s11431-019-1463-6

    Yan, X., Liu, Z., Zhang, J., et al.\ 2020, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 63, 9, 1656. doi:10.1007/s11431-019-1463-6

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab557e

    Yang, B., Yang, J., Bi, Y., et al.\ 2019, , 887, 2, 220. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab557e

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca66f

    Yang, J., Hong, J., Yang, B., et al.\ 2023, , 942, 2, 86. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca66f

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad23e5

    Yang, J., Chen, H., Hong, J., et al.\ 2024a, , 964, 1, 7. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad23e5

    doi

  64. [72]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/11/10/010

    Yang, L.-H., Jiang, Y.-C., Yang, J.-Y., et al.\ 2011, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11, 10, 1229. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/11/10/010

    2011 doi

  65. [73]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab55d7

    Yang, L., Yan, X., Xue, Z., et al.\ 2019, , 887, 2, 239. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab55d7

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb6f6

    Yang, L., Yan, X., Xue, Z., et al.\ 2023, , 945, 2, 96. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb6f6

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3876

    Yang, L., Yan, X., Xue, Z., et al.\ 2024b, , 528, 1, 1094. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3876

    doi

  68. [76]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addac1

    Yang, L., Yan, X., Zhang, J., et al.\ 2025, , 987, 2, 193. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addac1

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/16

    Yang, L., He, J., Peter, H., et al.\ 2013, , 777, 1, 16. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/16

    2013 doi

  70. [78]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4bcd

    Yuan, D., Shen, Y., Liu, Y., et al.\ 2019, , 884, 2, L51. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4bcd

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    & Shibata, K.\ 1995, , 375, 42

    Yokoyama, T. & Shibata, K.\ 1995, , 375, 42. doi:10.1038/375042a0

    1995 doi

  72. [80]

    doi:10.1117/12.2231955

    Zhang, L., Kong, L., Bao, H., et al.\ 2016, , 9909, 99092C. doi:10.1117/12.2231955

    2016 doi

  73. [81]

    doi:10.1007/s11433-022-2107-4

    Zhang, L., Bao, H., Rao, X., et al.\ 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 6, 269611. doi:10.1007/s11433-022-2107-4

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    Zhang, Q. M. & Ji, H. S.\ 2014, , 567, A11. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423698

    2014 doi

  75. [83]

    Zhang, Q. M. & Ni, L.\ 2019, , 870, 2, 113. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf391

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.