Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Helicity Fluxes and Hemispheric Helicity Rule of Active Regions Emerging from the Convection Zone Dynamo

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A solar dynamo model shows emerging active regions carry helicity in two phases: tilt/twist first, differential rotation last.

desk verdict Novel helicity-flux budget from a 3D dynamo with BMR emergence; early phase partly prescribed, late-phase differential-rotation dominance is the stronger claim, and the paper deserves referee time despite missing null-run and sensitivity tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00309 v1 pith:3JTL4TVN submitted 2025-08-01 astro-ph.SR

V.V. Pipin , Shangbin Yang , A.G. Kosovichev This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR PACS 96.60.Q96.60.Hv96.60.Bn
keywords magnetichelicityhemisphericrulebipolarregionssolardynamomean-fielddifferentialrotationactiveregiontwistandtiltbuoyancy
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

The paper uses a three-dimensional mean-field solar dynamo model that lets bipolar magnetic regions (BMRs) emerge from the convection zone, and it tracks where the magnetic helicity flux of those regions comes from over time. It claims that early in a BMR's life the dominant helicity flux comes from the region's own tilt and twist, which the model generates through a prescribed electromotive force acting on the rising toroidal field. Later, after emergence, the differential rotation takes over as the main source of helicity flux, and it is the differential rotation that sets the final hemispheric helicity rule. If right, this connects the deep dynamo's production of twisted flux tubes to the observed surface pattern that Northern active regions are predominantly left-handed and Southern ones right-handed, and it explains why violations of that rule are common during the earliest emergence phase.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the extended mean-field induction equation in which the electromotive force contains a dedicated BMR source term, $\mathbf{E}^{(\mathrm{BMR})}$, whose $\alpha$-like part $\alpha^{\mathrm{BMR}}_\beta \langle\mathbf{B}\rangle$ with $\alpha^{\mathrm{BMR}}_\beta = C_{\alpha\beta}\cos\theta\, V_\beta\, \psi_\alpha(\beta)$ imprints the tilt and twist on the rising toroidal field, while the buoyancy term $V_\beta(\hat r \times \langle\mathbf{B}\rangle)$ carries the region upward. The helicity budget is then decomposed into fluxes $F_\Omega$ (differential rotation), $F_U$ (meridional circulation), $F_{\alpha\beta}$ (BMR tilt/twist and rise), $F_{\eta}$ (turbulent diffusion of the mean field), and $F^{\langle ab\rangle}$ (diffusion of small-scale helicity), allowing the model to attribute the surface helicity flux to each source separately over the BMR's lifetime.

What would settle it

A statistical study of vector magnetograms of many emerging active regions measuring the time evolution of the injected helicity flux, separated into the contribution from polarity rotation (tilt/twist proxy) and the contribution from differential rotation, would settle the claim: the paper predicts that the tilt/twist contribution should dominate in the first few days after emergence and the differential-rotation contribution should dominate afterward, with the sign of the initial contribution often violating the hemispheric rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the magnetic helicity flux of an emerging bipolar magnetic region has a two-stage origin. At the beginning of emergence, the helicity flux is dominated by the BMR's tilt and twist, which the model represents through an added mean electromotive force $\mathbf{E}^{(\mathrm{BMR})} = \alpha^{\mathrm{BMR}}_\beta \langle\mathbf{B}\rangle + V_\beta (\hat{r} \times \langle\mathbf{B}\rangle)$, where the first term generates the poloidal field that tilts and twists the configuration and the second models the buoyant rise. At the final stage of the BMR's evolution, the differential rotation becomes the main source of helicity flux, and the model's hemispheric helicity rule is then determined by that rotation rather than by the initial twist. The paper also reports that the radial gradient of magnetic helicity produces a turbulent-diffusion helicity flux orders of magnitude larger than the horizontal contribution, and that the twist parameters $\alpha_{\mathrm{avr}}$, $\alpha_{\mathrm{av}}$, and $\alpha_{\mathrm{ff}}$ quickly relax after emergence, with differential rotation acting to keep the final twist small and consistent with the hemispheric rule.

Load-bearing premise

The tilt and twist of each emerging region are inserted by hand through the prescribed electromotive force term $E^{(\mathrm{BMR})}$ with a chosen amplitude $C_{\alpha\beta}$ and a chosen timing relative to the buoyant rise, so the early dominance of the tilt/twist helicity flux and the initial hemispheric sign are imposed by the model setup rather than derived from the convection itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the two-phase picture is correct, observations of early emergence should routinely show sign violations of the hemispheric helicity rule, because the initial tilt/twist contribution can have either sign until differential rotation takes over.
  • The hemispheric helicity rule of mature active regions would be a differential-rotation effect rather than a direct fossil of the deep dynamo's twist, meaning surface flux-transport models and full dynamo models could converge on the same explanation.
  • The radial turbulent-diffusion helicity flux, found here to dominate its horizontal counterpart, should be included in future estimates of helicity transport from active regions to the corona.
  • The model's prediction that the total helicity transported scales roughly as $\Delta H \sim 0.02\Phi^2$, with the linkage parameter increasing with flux, gives a quantitative relation that can be checked against vector magnetogram measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's division into an early tilt/twist phase and a late differential-rotation phase suggests a natural observational test: tracking the time derivative of the force-free parameter $\alpha$ for many emerging regions should show a systematic flip in sign or slope at roughly the emergence timescale (days), a pattern the author's model predicts but does not itself extract from data.
  • Because the model finds the hemispheric rule is set by differential rotation in the final state, one could extend the claim to predict that the rule should weaken or reverse in epochs of anomalous rotation profiles, such as during grand minima, though the paper does not run such cases.
  • The prescribed timing of the $\alpha$-effect relative to buoyancy (functions $\xi_1, \xi_2$) is the lever that controls whether regions emerge twisted, tilted, or both; varying this timing in a parameter scan would map the model's predictions onto the observed diversity of active-region rotation and tilt behavior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses a 3D non-linear mean-field solar dynamo model to study magnetic helicity fluxes, twist, and tilt of bipolar magnetic regions (BMRs) emerging through magnetic buoyancy. The model describes BMR emergence by adding a prescribed electromotive force E^(BMR) (Eq. 15) whose twist/tilt part is controlled by a hand-set coefficient C_alpha_beta (Eq. 18). From this, the authors compute the surface helicity flux and its decomposition into contributions from the BMR tilt/twist, differential rotation, meridional circulation, turbulent diffusion, and small-scale helicity diffusion (Eqs. 19-23). Their central claims are that the BMR tilt/twist helicity flux dominates at the beginning of emergence, that the differential rotation dominates at the end, and that the final-state hemispheric helicity rule is determined by differential rotation. One control run (E4') with the differential rotation switched off supports the latter claim for a single latitude. The paper also reports a Delta H ~ 0.02 Phi^2 relation and a latitudinal dependence of twist parameters for two setups, E5 and E6.

Significance. If upheld, the two-phase picture (prescribed twist/tilt dominating early, differential rotation dominating late) would provide a concrete connection between dynamo-generated twist and the observed hemispheric helicity rule, and would bridge mean-field and surface flux-transport interpretations. The paper contains a careful derivation of the helicity budget, a clear treatment of gauge issues, a decomposition of all flux contributions, and comparisons with observations and with the recent simulations of Toriumi et al. (2024). It also includes a genuine nontrivial test: in run E4, where the initial tilt sign is reversed, the final helicity sign still becomes HHR-compatible, indicating that the final-state result is not trivially identical to the input. However, the central conclusions rest on a small set of runs and on hand-set parameters, especially C_alpha_beta, the harmonic boundary-condition parameters (kR, eta_T^+/eta_T), and the timing of the injected EMF. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 5 that its BMR modeling is 'rather simple'.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq. (18), Table 1] The early-phase dominance of the tilt/twist helicity flux is, at least in part, imposed by construction. In Eq. (18), alpha_BMR = C_alpha_beta cos(theta) V_beta psi_alpha(beta), and in Table 1 the northern-hemisphere runs E1, E5, and E6 set C_alpha_beta=+1, which directly produces the HHR-compatible sign at emergence. Since F_alpha_beta in Eq. (22) is linear in alpha_BMR, the statement in Section 4.1 that the BMR tilt/twist flux 'is the dominant contribution ... at the beginning' is not an emergent dynamo result but a consequence of the chosen parameterization. The paper itself notes in Section 5 that 'our approach to modeling the evolution of the photospheric BMR is rather simple.' To separate prescription from dynamics, the authors should add a null run with C_alpha_beta=0 and latitude-swept runs with both signs of C_alpha_beta. Without these, the initial HHR-compatible sign is not derived from the model but inserted through the input parameters.
  2. [§4.2, Figs. 6–7] The final-state claim that 'the hemispheric rule is determined by the effect of the differential rotation' is supported by only one single-latitude control run, E4', where the differential rotation is switched off for a BMR at 20 degrees, plus the latitudinal plots for E5 and E6, all of which use C_alpha_beta=+1. The sign-reversal behavior of E4 is encouraging, but it does not establish robustness to the sign of the injected twist at other latitudes, to cycle phase, or to the presence of a pre-existing axisymmetric poloidal field. In Section 5 the authors explicitly state that cycle-phase dependence is not considered. A systematic set of runs with C_alpha_beta=0 and C_alpha_beta=±1 at several latitudes, and ideally at two cycle phases, is required before the 'final state determined by differential rotation' conclusion can be accepted as a general model result.
  3. [§4.1, Eqs. (27)–(29)] The model's twist parameters are stated to be 'by an order of magnitude larger than alpha_best in observations,' and no run is presented in which the input alpha_BMR amplitude is calibrated to observed twist values, for example by reducing C_alpha_beta. Because F_alpha_beta in Eq. (22) is linear in alpha_BMR, the early dominance of this flux over the differential-rotation flux in Figures 4 and 5 may be an artifact of the over-large twist amplitude. A sensitivity run with a lower C_alpha_beta, chosen so that the simulated alpha_av matches observed values, is needed to show that the two-phase evolution and the final domination by differential rotation survive at observationally realistic twist levels.
  4. [Appendix B and §4.1, Fig. 3] The early dominance of F_alpha_beta is not robust across the model's boundary-condition choices. Appendix B states that for the potential (vacuum) boundary condition, the contribution F_alpha_beta is approximately zero at the top boundary, and Figure 3 shows that the harmonic-boundary-condition runs (E5, E6) have much larger F_alpha_beta than the potential-boundary run E1. The main conclusions therefore depend on the harmonic boundary condition with hand-set parameters kR=0.1 and eta_T^+/eta_T=200, and the latter is acknowledged to yield a surface axisymmetric toroidal field of about 10 G, an order of magnitude above the roughly 1 G inferred for Cycle 24. The robustness of the two-phase picture to these boundary-condition parameters should be documented with additional runs before the abstract's 'beginning of BMR evolution' claim is presented as a general result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, after Eq. (21)] The sentence 'where the small-scale helicity density is estimated from Eq.(18)' appears to reference the wrong equation; Eq. (18) defines alpha_BMR, whereas the small-scale helicity density is obtained from the evolution equation in Section 2 or Appendix A.
  2. [§4.1, paragraph after Eq. (26)] The sentence 'the turbulent diffusion of the magnetic field is by an order of magnitude larger than the turbulent diffusion' is unclear; it should read '... than the turbulent diffusion of the small-scale magnetic helicity.'
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption's statement that 'the vertical scale in panel (d) is linear in the range of ±10° and logarithmic outside this range' is confusing for a tilt-angle plot; please specify which quantity in panel (d) uses this mixed scale.
  4. [§4.1, after Eq. (29)] The term 'alpha_best in observations' is not defined; presumably this is a typo for the observed best-fit force-free parameter or for alpha_av from observations, and it should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Abstract and §3] There are several typographical issues, including missing spaces between 'magnetic helicity flux and magnetic twist, and tilt' in the abstract, and 'alpha-affect' instead of 'alpha-effect' in Section 3; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Early tilt/twist helicity-flux dominance is built into the E^(BMR) parameterization; the late differential-rotation result is independently tested and not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Eqs. (15)-(18); Section 4.1, Fig. 4 discussion]
    "E (BMR) = αBMR β ⟨B⟩ + Vβ (ˆr × ⟨B⟩) , where the first term takes into account the BMR’s tilt/twist ... αBMR β = Cαβ cos θVβψα(β). ... The total helicity flux in cases E2, E4, E5, and E6 sharply increases at the beginning of the BMR emergence because of the helicity transport by the twisted magnetic field rising from the convection zone."

    The diagnostic Fαβ (Eq. 22) is constructed from exactly the same prescribed terms: it contains 2(αϕϕ + αBMRβ)(⟨Bϕ⟩⟨Aθ⟩ − ⟨Bθ⟩⟨Aϕ⟩) − 2Vβ(...), and the ξ1,2 functions of Appendix C switch E^(BMR) on only during the emergence interval 0 < t < δt. Therefore the abstract's claim that the helicity flux associated with the BMR's tilt/twist is the dominant contribution at the beginning of BMR evolution is a restatement of the model setup rather than an emergent result: the prescribed αBMRβ and Vβ are the only BMR-specific sources active at early times, so their associated flux necessarily dominates then. Table 1 fixes the sign of Cαβ by hand, so the initial HHR-compatible sign in runs E5/E6 is imposed rather than derived.

full rationale

The paper is a forward mean-field simulation, and most of its integrals and flux decompositions are internally consistent diagnostics rather than disguised fits. The central novel claim — that in the final state the hemispheric helicity rule is determined by differential rotation — is supported by a genuine control: run E4 reverses the sign of the prescribed tilt/twist parameter Cαβ, yet the helicity sign still inverts to the HHR-compatible sign by the end, and run E4′ with differential rotation suppressed isolates the mechanism. That part of the conclusion is not circular. However, the other half of the two-phase conclusion — that the tilt/twist helicity flux dominates at the beginning — reduces to construction: Fαβ is defined from the same E^(BMR) = αBMRβ⟨B⟩ + Vβ(r̂ × ⟨B⟩) terms that are switched on at the start, with Cαβ chosen by hand in Table 1. The observed early sharp increase in helicity flux is therefore the model's input acting, not a derived prediction about how turbulent convection twists emerging flux tubes. This is a partial circularity confined to the early-phase claim; the final-state differential-rotation conclusion has independent content, so the overall score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on hand-chosen parameters and closure assumptions. The most significant free parameters are the amplitude and sign of the BMR twist/tilt source (C_alpha_beta), the BMR flux amplitude (C_beta), and the coronal diffusivity ratio that sets the harmonic boundary condition (eta_T^+/eta_T). The axioms are standard mean-field closures plus the paper-specific parameterization of BMR emergence. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • C_alpha_beta = 1 (E1, E3, E5, E6), -1 (E4)
    Sets the magnitude and sign of the BMR tilt/twist via Eq. (18). Directly determines the initial twist/tilt and therefore the early helicity flux and the initial sign of the hemispheric rule.
  • C_beta = 250
    Controls the amplitude of the BMR injection function (Appendix C), producing a BMR flux of about 4e22 Mx for a 1.5 kG toroidal field. Affects the total flux Phi and the Delta H versus Phi scaling.
  • eta_T^+/eta_T = 200
    Ratio of the effective turbulent diffusivity in the corona to that in the dynamo domain (Appendix B), tuned so that the surface axisymmetric toroidal field is about 10 G. Strongly influences the harmonic boundary condition and the helicity flux magnitudes.
  • kR = 0.1
    Wavenumber of the harmonic exterior magnetic field (Bonanno 2016), used in the boundary condition; affects how much toroidal field and helicity can leave the dynamo domain.
  • BMR timing parameters = delta_t = 5 days, t1 = delta_t/3, tau0 = 1 day
    Set the emergence time and the phase between the twist-generating E1 and the buoyant rise E2. The phase relation is varied across runs E1-E6 and determines whether the BMR appears tilted, twisted, or both.
  • Rm (turbulent magnetic Reynolds number) = Not stated explicitly, calibrated in Pipin et al. (2023)
    Appears in the relaxation term <a·b>/(Rm tau_c) for small-scale helicity; its value affects the decay rate of small-scale helicity and the helicity budget.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field decomposition and closure of the electromotive force E = alpha B - eta grad x B + gamma x B with alpha quenching by magnetic helicity.
    Standard mean-field MHD; used throughout Sections 2-3 and Appendix A. The specific alpha quenching formula is assumed valid for the solar convection zone.
  • domain assumption Isotropic expressions for small-scale magnetic helicity dissipation and diffusion: 2 eta <b.j> = <a.b>/(Rm tau_c), and F^<ab> = -eta_chi grad <a.b> with eta_chi = eta_T/10.
    Used to close the small-scale helicity evolution equation (Eqs. 11, 13). These are analytic approximations from isotropic turbulence, not verified by direct simulation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Harmonic (not potential) exterior magnetic field boundary condition of Bonanno (2016), with source surface at 2.5R_sun and kR = 0.1.
    Needed to allow non-zero contributions of BMR tilt/twist to the helicity flux; the results depend strongly on this choice, as shown by the differences between potential and harmonic runs.
  • ad hoc to paper The BMR emergence is parameterized by E^(BMR) in Eq. (15) with prescribed alpha_BMR and buoyancy velocity V_beta, acting during a brief window defined by xi_1 and xi_2.
    This is the key modeling choice: it imposes the initial tilt/twist of the BMR. The paper acknowledges the approach is 'rather simple' (Discussion). The central results inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption Parker magnetic buoyancy instability criterion selects the radial and latitudinal positions of BMR initiation.
    Used to choose the initiation points in the upper convection zone; the results depend on the latitude range (±40 degrees) and the phase of the dynamo cycle selected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Helicity Fluxes and Hemispheric Helicity Rule of Active Regions Emerging from the Convection Zone Dynamo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3JTL4TVN

@misc{pith2026250800309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Helicity Fluxes and Hemispheric Helicity Rule of Active Regions Emerging from the Convection Zone Dynamo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3JTL4TVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00309}
}
read the original abstract

Using a 3D non-linear mean-field solar dynamo model, we investigate the magnetic helicity flux and magnetic twist, and tilt parameters of bipolar magnetic regions (BMRs) emerging from the solar convection zone due to the magnetic buoyancy instability. The twist and tilt of the BMR magnetic field are modeled as a result of an effective electromotive force along the rising part of the toroidal magnetic field. This force generates the poloidal field that tilts the whole magnetic configuration. We find that variations of BMR's twist and tilt determine the magnitude and the sign of the magnetic helicity flux on the solar surface. The model shows that the helicity flux associated with the BMR's tilt/twist is the dominant contribution to the BMR helicity at the beginning of the BMR's evolution, while the effect of differential rotation is the main source of the helicity flux at the final stage of the BMR's evolution. We discuss the implications of these effects on the basic properties and variations of the hemispheric helicity rule of active regions on the solar surface.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.00309 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A snapshot of the large-scale axisymmetric magnetic field and magnetic helicity density in the northern hemisphere of the Sun: a) the color image shows the toroidal magnetic field, and the contour lines of the axisymmetric vector potential show the poloidal magnetic field lines; the black circle shows the position of the BMR initiation; b) the color image show the magnetic helicity density of axisymmetric magnetic f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The top row shows the snapshots of the magnetic field distribution in a bipolar magnetic region (BMR) at the beginning of its emergence at the surface. The bottom row shows the same for the final stage of the simulation. The columns marked E1, E2, and E6 correspond to the cases listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Snapshots of the magnetic field, the magnetic helicity density, and the helicity density fluxes at the middle state of the active region evolution: (a) the surface magnetic field; (b) the total magnetic helicity density, A · B; the panels (c), (d), (e) (f) and (g) show the density of the magnetic helicity flux distributions Fαβ, FΩ, FU , Fηχ, and Fη. The rectangle indicates the area used for calculating the BMR heli… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the BMR’s parameters during emergence: a) the total unsigned radial magnetic field flux on from BMR’s area marked by the dash line in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the BMR’s helicity flux during emergence: a) the evolution of the helicity flux due to the differential rotation, FΩ; b) the helicity flux by the BMRs’ tilt/twist, Fαβ; c) the flux initiated by BMRs’ decay due to the turbulent diffusion, Fη; d) the diffusi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the parameters αavr (a), αav (b), and αff (c). The green dashed line shows results for the run E4′ with the neglected effect of the differential rotation. models. We made the additional run for the setup E4, where we skipped the effect of the differential …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Latitudinal dependence of the tilt (a), the parameter αff∥ (b) and the total flux (c) for the model setup E5. The red circles show the value at the beginning of the BMR emergence, and the blue circles show the same for the final stage of the run. The second column with…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: a) The helicity ∆H = ´ ∂tHdt accumulated in the BMRs versus the maximum total flux of the radial magnetic field, Φ; the black circles show results for the model setup E5, and blue squares show the same for the model setup E6; b) the same for the normalized value, ∆H/Φ.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Effects of harmonic magnetic field boundary conditions in mean-field solar dynamo

    astro-ph.SR 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The dynamo threshold, cycle period, and surface toroidal field depend on the coronal-to-convective turbulent diffusivity jump, with a large jump restoring vacuum-like boundary conditions.

  2. Distribution of magnetic helicity and energy with height in solar atmosphere

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using 150 active regions, the paper finds helicity and energy are concentrated low in the corona and proposes an 81 Mm extrapolation cutoff for 97% retention.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Zhukova, A. V. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3338

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3338 2023

  2. [2]

    1998, ApJ, 496, L43, doi: 10.1086/311232

    Bao, S., & Zhang, H. 1998, ApJ, 496, L43, doi: 10.1086/311232

    doi:10.1086/311232 1998

  3. [3]

    A., & Hornig, G

    Berger, M. A., & Hornig, G. 2018, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General, 51, 495501, doi: 10.1088/1751-8121/aaea88

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aaea88 2018

  4. [4]

    A., & Ruzmaikin, A

    Berger, M. A., & Ruzmaikin, A. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10481, doi: 10.1029/1999JA900392

    doi:10.1029/1999ja900392 2000

  5. [5]

    G., & Brandenburg, A

    Blackman, E. G., & Brandenburg, A. 2003, ApJL, 584, L99, doi: 10.1086/368374

    doi:10.1086/368374 2003

  6. [6]

    2016, ApJL, 833, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/833/2/L22

    Bonanno, A. 2016, ApJL, 833, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/833/2/L22

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/833/2/l22 2016

  7. [7]

    K., & Brandenburg, A

    Bourdin, P., Singh, N. K., & Brandenburg, A. 2018, ApJ, 869, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae97a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae97a 2018

  8. [8]

    2018, Astron

    Brandenburg, A. 2018, Astron. Nachr., 339, 631, doi: 10.1002/asna.201913604

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.201913604 2018

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    2023, SSRv, 219, 55, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00999-3

    Pipin, V. 2023, SSRv, 219, 55, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00999-3

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2005, PhR, 417, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.005

    Brandenburg, A., & Subramanian, K. 2005, PhR, 417, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.005

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    Goldstein, M. L. 2011, ApJ, 734, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/9

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    Chandrasekhar, S., & Kendall, P. C. 1957, ApJ, 126, 457, doi: 10.1086/146413

    1957 doi

  5. [13]

    Choudhuri, A. R. 1992, A&A, 253, 277 Del Sordo, F., Guerrero, G., & Brandenburg, A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts398

    1992 doi

  6. [14]

    2001, ApJL, 554, L111, doi: 10.1086/320935

    Fan, Y. 2001, ApJL, 554, L111, doi: 10.1086/320935

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    1994, A&A, 289, 949

    Ferriz-Mas, A., Schmitt, D., & Schuessler, M. 1994, A&A, 289, 949

    1994

  8. [16]

    Frisch, U., Pouquet, A., Léorat, J., & A., M. 1975, J. Fluid Mech., 68, 769

    1975

  9. [17]

    N., & Kuzanyan, K

    Bernasconi, P. N., & Kuzanyan, K. M. 2009, ApJL, 705, L48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/L48

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    V., & Kosovichev, A

    Getling, A. V., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2025, Astronomy Reports, 69, 144, doi: 10.1134/S1063772925701562

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    V., Kosovichev, A

    Getling, A. V., Kosovichev, A. G., & Zhao, J. 2021, ApJL, 908, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe45a 33

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca808

    Gopalakrishnan, K., & Subramanian, K. 2023, ApJ, 943, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca808

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2025, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 1, 5, doi: 10.12737/stp-111202501

    Grigoryev, V., & Ermakova, L. 2025, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 1, 5, doi: 10.12737/stp-111202501

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    2010, MNRAS, 409, 1619, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17408.x

    Guerrero, G., Chatterjee, P., & Brandenburg, A. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1619, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17408.x

    2010

  15. [23]

    2004, Publ

    Hagino, M., & Sakurai, T. 2004, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 56, 831

    2004

  16. [24]

    Hawkes, G., & Yeates, A. R. 2019, A&A, 631, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936475

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    2012, ApJ, 748, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/51

    Hubbard, A., & Brandenburg, A. 2012, ApJ, 748, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/51

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, A&A, 647, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038564

    Jakab, P., & Brandenburg, A. 2021, A&A, 647, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038564

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    L., & Pipin, V

    Kitchatinov, L. L., & Pipin, V. V. 1993, A&A, 274, 647

    1993

  20. [28]

    2000, A&A, 361, L5

    Sokoloff, D. 2000, A&A, 361, L5

    2000

  21. [29]

    1999, Phys

    Kleeorin, N., & Rogachevskii, I. 1999, Phys. Rev.E, 59, 6724

    1999

  22. [30]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 5437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2141

    Kleeorin, N., & Rogachevskii, I. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2141

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    I., & Ruzmaikin, A

    Kleeorin, N. I., & Ruzmaikin, A. A. 1982, Magnetohydrodynamics, 18, 116

    1982

  24. [32]

    2018, SoPh, 293, 145, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1365-7

    Komm, R., Howe, R., & Hill, F. 2018, SoPh, 293, 145, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1365-7

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    G., & Pipin, V

    Kosovichev, A. G., & Pipin, V. V. 2019, ApJ, 871, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafe82

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    1980, Mean-Field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), 271

    Krause, F., & Rädler, K.-H. 1980, Mean-Field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), 271

    1980

  27. [35]

    S., Abramenko, V

    Kutsenko, A. S., Abramenko, V. I., & Pevtsov, A. A. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz308

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, Helicities in

    Stepanov, R., eds. 2024, Helicities in

    2024

  29. [37]

    283, doi: 10.1002/9781119841715

    Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Beyond, Vol. 283, doi: 10.1002/9781119841715

    doi

  30. [38]

    M., Pipin, V

    Kuzanyan, K. M., Pipin, V. V., & Seehafer, N. 2006, Sol.Phys., 233, 185

    2006

  31. [39]

    D., Canfield, R

    Leka, K. D., Canfield, R. C., McClymont, A. N., & van Driel-Gesztelyi, L. 1996, ApJ, 462, 547, doi: 10.1086/177171

    1996 doi

  32. [40]

    T., Bobra, M., et al

    Liu, Y., Hoeksema, J. T., Bobra, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/13

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    G., & Pipin, V

    Mandal, K., Kosovichev, A. G., & Pipin, V. V. 2024, ApJ, 973, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f2c

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 130, doi: 10.1002/asna.200911308

    Mitra, D., Candelaresi, S., Chatterjee, P., Tavakol, R., & Brandenburg, A. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 130, doi: 10.1002/asna.200911308

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    2011, A&A, 526, A138+, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015637

    Mitra, D., Moss, D., Tavakol, R., & Brandenburg, A. 2011, A&A, 526, A138+, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015637

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Tlatov, A

    Nagovitsyn, Y. A., Tlatov, A. G., & Nagovitsyna, E. Y. 2016, Astronomy Reports, 60, 831, doi: 10.1134/S1063772916090055 34

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    2023, SSRv, 219, 64, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-01008-3

    Norton, A., Howe, R., Upton, L., & Usoskin, I. 2023, SSRv, 219, 64, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-01008-3

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    K., & DeVore, C

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

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    Pariat, E., Démoulin, P., & Berger, M. A. 2005, A&A, 439, 1191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052663

    2005 doi

  40. [48]

    1955, Astrophys

    Parker, E. 1955, Astrophys. J., 122, 293

    1955

  41. [49]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Strugarek, A., & Réville, V

    Perri, B., Brun, A. S., Strugarek, A., & Réville, V. 2021, ApJ, 910, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2ac

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    G., & Pipin, V

    Tlatov, A. G., & Pipin, V. V. 2021, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 11, 4, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2020069

    2021

  44. [52]

    A., Canfield, R

    Pevtsov, A. A., Canfield, R. C., & Metcalf, T. R. 1994, ApJL, 425, L117, doi: 10.1086/187324

    1994 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, SoPh, 299, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02357-0

    Pipin, V. 2024, SoPh, 299, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02357-0

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1590

    Pipin, V., & Kosovichev, A. 2024, ApJ, 962, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1590

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    Pipin, V. V. 2008, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 102, 21 —. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1434

    2008 doi

  48. [56]

    V., & Kosovichev, A

    Pipin, V. V., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2019, ApJ, 887, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5952 —. 2020, ApJ, 900, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4ad

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    V., Kosovichev, A

    Pipin, V. V., Kosovichev, A. G., & Tomin, V. E. 2023, ApJ, 949, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf69

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Kuzanyan, K. M. 2013, ApJ, 768, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/46

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    2019, Journal of Plasma Physics, 85, 775850201, doi: 10.1017/S0022377819000229

    Prior, C., & MacTaggart, D. 2019, Journal of Plasma Physics, 85, 775850201, doi: 10.1017/S0022377819000229

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    Prior, C., & Yeates, A. R. 2014, ApJ, 787, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/100

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    2013, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14, 751, doi: 10.1002/ggge.20071

    Schaeffer, N. 2013, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14, 751, doi: 10.1002/ggge.20071

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    1990, SoPh, 125, 219, doi: 10.1007/BF00158402

    Seehafer, N. 1990, SoPh, 125, 219, doi: 10.1007/BF00158402

    1990 doi

  55. [63]

    D., Kleeorin, N., et al

    Sokoloff, D., Bao, S. D., Kleeorin, N., et al. 2006, Astron. Nachr., 327, 876

    2006

  56. [64]

    McNeill, C. M. 2015, A&A, 582, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526521

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    2024, A&A, 686, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348734

    Sun, Z., Li, T., Wang, Q., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348734

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    2005, SoPh, 229, 237, doi: 10.1007/s11207-005-6884-3

    Tian, L., Liu, Y., Yang, J., & Alexander, D. 2005, SoPh, 229, 237, doi: 10.1007/s11207-005-6884-3

    2005 doi

  59. [67]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e1d

    Toriumi, S., Hotta, H., & Kusano, K. 2024, ApJ, 975, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e1d

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7

    Toriumi, S., & Wang, H. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    Pevtsov, A. A. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1926 35

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    2011, A&A, 534, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117023

    Warnecke, J., Brandenburg, A., & Mitra, D. 2011, A&A, 534, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117023

    2011 doi

  63. [71]

    Yamamoto, T. T. 2011, PASJ, 63, 279, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.1.279

    2011 doi

  64. [72]

    M., Jiang, J., Petrovay, K., & Wang, Y.-M

    Yeates, A., Cheung, M. M., Jiang, J., Petrovay, K., & Wang, Y.-M. 2023, SSRv, 219, 31, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00978-8

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    2010, MNRAS, 402, L30, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00793.x

    Zhang, H., Sakurai, T., Pevtsov, A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, L30, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00793.x

    2010

  66. [74]

    2024, in Helicities in Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Beyond, ed

    Zhang, H., Yang, S., Xu, H., et al. 2024, in Helicities in Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Beyond, ed. K. Kuzanyan, N. Yokoi, M. K. Georgoulis, & R. Stepanov, Vol. 283, 51–73, doi: 10.1002/9781119841715.ch4

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.