Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 84 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Flare power follows magnetic size, not rule compliance

2026-07-10 00:55 UTC pith:3VQPKPNU

load-bearing objection Solid negative finding on empirical-law compliance vs. flare productivity, with one positive exception that needs the same confound check the authors already applied elsewhere. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08053 v1 pith:3VQPKPNU submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.SR

Investigation on the Relation between Active Regions' Compliance with Empirical Laws and Flare Productivity

Jinhui Pan , Rui Liu , Jiangtao Su , Jie Jiang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR PACS 96.60.qe96.60.ph96.60.Ly
keywords flarecomplianceempiricallawsmagneticproductivitycycledistance
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.

Solar active regions follow several empirical patterns — Hale's polarity law, Joy's tilt law, and the hemispheric helicity rule — that describe how magnetic field configurations are organized on the Sun. Whether an active region breaks or obeys these rules tells us something about the turbulent conditions the magnetic flux tube experienced while rising through the solar interior. This paper asks a direct question: do rule-following active regions produce more flares than rule-breaking ones? Using automated detection on magnetograms spanning Solar Cycle 24 and the ascending phase of Cycle 25, the authors classify over 2,600 active regions by their compliance with all three laws and compare each region's flare productivity, measured by a daily flare index built from GOES C-class-and-above events. The answer is largely negative. Flare productivity shows no significant difference across compliance groups, with one cycle-specific exception: in Cycle 24, regions that obeyed Hale's and Joy's laws but violated the hemispheric helicity rule showed elevated flaring, though the effect size was small. What does separate flare-productive from flare-quiet regions is simpler and more physical: a minimum spatial extent (centroid distance above 50.5 Mm between opposite polarities) and a minimum total unsigned magnetic flux (above 0.58 × 10^22 Mx). Below these thresholds, the median flare index drops to zero. The authors conclude that flare productivity is governed by whether a magnetic system is large and strong enough to store free energy, not by whether its configuration respects the statistical patterns imposed by the solar dynamo and Coriolis force.

Core claim

The paper's central negative result is that compliance with Hale's law, Joy's law, and the hemispheric helicity rule does not reliably predict flare productivity. The one statistically significant exception — Cycle 24 regions obeying Hale's and Joy's laws but violating the hemispheric helicity rule — showed higher flaring, but the effect size was below 0.1, and the authors attribute part of this signal to the uncontrolled variable of magnetic complexity (delta-type spot configurations). The positive discovery is the identification of dual empirical thresholds — 50.5 Mm in centroid distance and 0.58 × 10^22 Mx in total unsigned magnetic flux — below which binned median flare index is zero. In

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three measured quantities: the tilt angle (computed from flux-weighted polarity centroids in heliographic coordinates, classifying compliance with Hale's and Joy's laws), the force-free parameter alpha_best (a least-squares fit of the current-to-field ratio across the active region, classifying compliance with the hemispheric helicity rule), and the flare index (a weighted daily rate of C, M, and X-class flares normalized by the time span of flaring activity). The statistical engine is the Mann-Whitney U test, a nonparametric rank-based comparison that handles the heavily zero-inflated, highly skewed flare index distribution without assuming normality. The dual-thi

Load-bearing premise

The study assigns each active region a single compliance label by majority vote across all its daily detections during disk transit. If flare-productive regions evolve more rapidly — through flux cancellation, rotation, or polarity migration — their majority-vote label may not capture the magnetic configuration actually present at the time of flare triggering, which could blur the comparison between compliance groups.

What would settle it

If a reanalysis using time-resolved compliance labels (updated daily rather than majority-voted) found that flare-productive regions systematically shift their compliance class in the days preceding major flares, the conclusion that compliance is irrelevant to flaring would be weakened, because the relevant configuration would be the pre-flare one, not the disk-transit average.

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

If this is right

  • Flare forecasting models that weight compliance with empirical laws as a feature may gain little predictive power; replacing or supplementing such features with simple flux and spatial-extent thresholds could improve performance.
  • The Cycle 24 exception — regions with standard bipolar orientation but anomalous twist showing elevated flaring — is consistent with flare trigger models where opposite-signed helicity interaction drives reconnection, and warrants targeted study with helicity injection measurements.
  • The finding that compliance rates increase with centroid distance and are higher during the ascending phase of a solar cycle constrains flux-emergence simulations: models must reproduce not just the average tilt or twist but also how compliance depends on flux-tube strength and cycle phase.
  • The dual-threshold result provides a concrete, testable separability criterion: if an active region falls below both the 50.5 Mm and 0.58 × 10^22 Mx thresholds, its median flare productivity is statistically zero, regardless of magnetic configuration.

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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a comprehensive statistical analysis of 2616 active regions (ARs) spanning Solar Cycle 24 and the ascending phase of Cycle 25, investigating whether compliance with Hale's law, Joy's law, and the Hemispheric Helicity Rule (HHR) correlates with flare productivity as measured by the flare index (FI). ARs are detected automatically from MDI and HMI magnetograms using the deep-learning-based SARD model, cross-matched with NOAA SRS records. Tilt angles are computed from flux-weighted polarity centroids, magnetic twist is estimated via the force-free parameter alpha_best, and flare productivity is quantified using GOES C-class-and-above events. The authors find that the majority of ARs comply with all three empirical laws (~67%), that compliance rates increase with centroid distance and (for Hale's law) with unsigned flux, and that overall FI does not differ significantly across compliance groups. The one exception is that SC24 ARs obeying Hale's and Joy's laws but violating the HHR (NOR|0) show statistically higher FI. The authors also identify empirical thresholds (50.5 Mm centroid distance, 0.58x10^22 Mx unsigned flux) below which median FI drops to zero. The central conclusion is that flare productivity depends on magnetic system size and strength rather than on compliance with empirical laws.

Significance. The study addresses a well-motivated question with a large, well-curated dataset and appropriate non-parametric statistical methods. The use of the Mann-Whitney U test with effect sizes is well-suited to the highly skewed FI distribution. The systematic uncertainty estimation via threshold variation, patch-size variation, and cycle-boundary variation is commendable and adds robustness. The identification of empirical flux and distance thresholds for flare productivity is a useful, falsifiable result. The transparent acknowledgment that the AHJ group's elevated FI in SC24 is likely a magnetic-complexity confound rather than an intrinsic property demonstrates scientific honesty. The negative central claim is inherently non-circular and well-supported by the data.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.2, Table 2: The paper identifies a statistically significant result that SC24 NOR|0 ARs (obeying Hale's and Joy's laws but violating HHR) exhibit higher FI than other groups (z = -2.333 for NOR|1 vs NOR|0; z = 2.273 for NOR|0 vs 'Other'). The authors interpret this physically via helicity annihilation (§4, citing Kusano et al. 2003). However, the paper itself demonstrates that the elevated FI of the AHJ group in SC24 is confounded by a disproportionate presence of delta-type (magnetically complex) ARs—4 of 36 AHJ ARs are delta-type with high FI, while SC25 AHJ ARs lack delta-types and are quiescent. The critical gap is that this same delta-type confound check is performed for AHJ but NOT for the NOR|0 group (n=257 in SC24). If the NOR|0 group also contains a disproportionate number of delta-type ARs, the significant z-score could be driven by magnetic complexity rather than HHR-violat
  2. §2, paragraph beginning 'SARD is applied to each LoS magnetogram': The majority-vote assignment of a single compliance label per AR across all disk-transit detections assumes that temporal evolution of tilt, twist, and polarity configuration during disk passage does not systematically bias the classification in a manner correlated with flare productivity. Flare-productive ARs may evolve more rapidly through flux cancellation, rotation, or emergence of new flux, potentially shifting their majority-vote label away from the configuration relevant at the time of flare triggering. The authors should discuss this potential confound and, if feasible, quantify how often ARs change compliance status across detections. If the fraction of 'flipping' ARs is small, a sensitivity check excluding them would strengthen the analysis.
  3. §3.3, Figure 7: The empirical thresholds (50.5 Mm, 0.58x10^22 Mx) are derived from the same dataset used to evaluate their discriminative power. The reported 60.9-62.8% true-positive rate and 72.1-72.7% precision are in-sample performance metrics and will be optimistically biased. The authors should either (a) use a cross-validation or split-sample approach to estimate out-of-sample performance, or (b) explicitly state that these thresholds are descriptive rather than predictive and require validation on independent data.
minor comments (7)
  1. §2: The flux imbalance ratio threshold R > 0.5 for flagging unipolar ARs is stated without justification. A brief citation or sensitivity note would help the reader assess robustness.
  2. Table 1: The HHR compliance rate for the full sample is listed as 67.3% in the table but 67.5% in the abstract and conclusion text. Please reconcile.
  3. Figure 2 caption: The tilt-angle ranges for each classification (NOR, AH, AJ, AHJ) are described in the text but the figure annotation is referenced as 'annotated in the figure'—ensure the ranges are clearly legible in the final figure.
  4. §3.2: The phrase 'the correlation between the AR types and the flare productivity is quite weak, as indicated by the ES values (all less than 0.1)' should note that this applies to the HHR-only and three-law tests, but the AH vs AHJ test in SC24 has ES = 0.306 (medium), which is not negligible.
  5. §4, final paragraph: 'minimal spacial scale' should read 'minimal spatial scale'.
  6. References: Li (2018a) and Li (2018b) appear to be the same paper (same ApJ reference, same doi). Please verify and consolidate.
  7. Figure 7a: The color-coded FI values span several orders of magnitude; consider using a logarithmic color scale to improve visibility of the moderate-FI ARs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the paper's central claim is a negative statistical result that cannot be forced by construction

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. (1) Compliance labels (NOR, AH, AJ, AHJ, HHR|1, HHR|0) are computed from observable magnetic properties—tilt angles via flux-weighted centroids (Eq. 1) and magnetic twist via α_best (Eq. 2)—which are independent of the flare index. (2) The flare index (Eq. 4) is computed from GOES C-class-and-above flare events catalogued in HEK, an independent data source. (3) The Mann-Whitney U test (Eqs. 5–7) is a standard non-parametric test applied to compare FI distributions across compliance groups; no parameter is fitted to the outcome being tested. (4) The empirical thresholds (50.5 Mm, 0.58×10^22 Mx) are derived from binned median FI distributions but are explicitly labeled 'empirical' and not presented as theoretical predictions—they are descriptive observations from the data. (5) Self-citations (Pan et al. 2025a for the SARD detection model; Pan & Liu 2025 for the Mann-Whitney methodology) are methodological tools that are externally verifiable and do not constitute the load-bearing theoretical claim. The central claim is a negative result (no significant FI difference across compliance groups), which is inherently non-circular: it cannot be forced by parameter choices or definitions. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. All parameters are standard in solar physics and are either adopted from prior literature or chosen with sensitivity analysis. The free parameters are processing thresholds rather than theoretical fitting parameters. The axioms are domain-standard approximations rather than ad-hoc postulates.

free parameters (5)
  • Magnetic field threshold for polarity centroid and alpha_best = 100 G (fiducial), varied to 150 G
    Chosen to exclude weak-field noise; affects tilt angle and alpha_best computation. Sensitivity is checked but the fiducial value is a free choice.
  • Flux imbalance ratio threshold R = 0.5
    ARs with R>0.5 are flagged as unipolar and excluded. This cutoff is adopted from prior literature (Virtanen et al. 2017) but is a parameter choice affecting sample composition.
  • Longitude range for AR retention = [-30°, 30°]
    Chosen to mitigate projection effects; affects which detections are retained.
  • Number of bins for FI threshold identification = 80 (fiducial), varied 70-90
    Determines the empirical flux and distance thresholds; sensitivity is checked but the bin count is a free parameter.
  • Cycle boundary between SC24 and SC25 = 2019 December 1
    Varied from 2018 Dec to 2020 Dec to estimate uncertainty; the fiducial choice affects cycle-specific statistics.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The force-free approximation (nabla x B = alpha*B) is valid for computing alpha_best as a twist proxy in photospheric vector magnetograms.
    Section 2, Equation 2. The photosphere is not force-free, but alpha_best is used as a proxy following Seehafer 1990 and Leka 1999. This is standard in the field but is an approximation.
  • domain assumption The majority-vote label across multiple disk-transit detections represents the intrinsic compliance state of an AR.
    Section 2, paragraph on SARD application. Assumes temporal evolution does not systematically bias the classification.
  • domain assumption The flare index (FI) as defined in Equation 4 is a valid proxy for flare productivity.
    Section 3.2, Equation 4. FI normalizes by the time range between first and last flare, which may bias ARs with only one flare (tau is undefined or zero).
  • domain assumption GOES C-class-and-above flares from the HEK catalog represent a complete sample of each AR's flare productivity.
    Section 3.2. Assumes complete association of flares to ARs and complete detection above C-class.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 25155 in / 3103 out tokens · 280565 ms · 2026-07-10T00:55:00.547506+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

It remains evasive whether solar active regions (ARs) obeying or violating Hale's polarity law, Joy's tilt law, and the hemispheric helicity rule (HHR) differ in flare productivity. Here we conduct a comprehensive statistical analysis of ARs during the Solar Cycle 24 and the ascending phase of Cycle 25. ARs are automatically detected from full-disk line-of-sight magnetograms acquired by the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) and the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI). We calculate tilt angles via flux-weighted polarity centroids, estimate magnetic twist by the force-free parameter $\alpha_{\mathrm{best}}$ from HMI vector magnetograms, and measure flare productivity using the flare index (FI) built from GOES C-class-and-above events. Our results substantiate that the majority of ARs follow the aforementioned three empirical laws. The compliance rate tends to be higher for ARs emerging at higher latitudes or having larger centroid distance, while total unsigned magnetic flux exerts limited influence, with a clear positive correlation only for Hale's law. Overall, FI shows no significant discrepancies across different compliance groups, except that Cycle 24 ARs that satisfy Hale's and Joy's laws but violate the HHR exhibit higher FI than other groups. We also identify empirical thresholds for centroid distance and total unsigned flux, above which the median FI of binned ARs becomes nonzero. Combining the flux and distance thresholds effectively separates flare-productive from flare-quiet ARs. We hence conclude that the flare productivity of ARs is not dependent on the compliance with the empirical laws, but more closely associated with sufficiently large and strong magnetic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08053 by Jiangtao Su, Jie Jiang, Jinhui Pan, Rui Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Data processing pipeline. (a) SARD detection results on the full-disk LoS magnetogram on 2014 October 22, which are calibrated with the AR information from the NOAA SRS catalog. The detected ARs are indicated by yellow bounding boxes (Bbox) , whose centers are marked by red dots, in comparison with the AR locations in the NOAA SRS catalog, as marked by blue asterisks. (b) (Br, Bθ, Bϕ) maps of AR 12192 in t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Definitions of the tilt angles for SC24. The left panel shows the adopted sign convention for the tilt angle, which spans (−180◦ , 180◦ ]. P denotes the positive polarity and N denotes the negative polarity. The right panel illustrates the classification of ARs according to their compliance with Hale’s law and Joy’s law. ‘NOR’ (normal) denotes ARs that obey both Hale’s law and Joy’s law, ‘AH’ (Anti-Hale) d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Frequency distribution of ARs with respect to latitude. The left, middle, and right column show the compliance state with Hale’s law, Joy’s law, and the HHR, respectively, for the full dataset (top row), SC24 (middle row), and SC25 (bottom row). The red (blue) bars, as scaled by the left y-axis, represent the number of ARs that obey (violate) the empirical laws; black dots, as scaled by the right y-axis, s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frequency distribution of ARs that obey/violate Hale’s law (top), Joy’s law (middle), and the HHR (bottom), respectively. The red (blue) bars, as scaled by the left y-axis, represent the number of ARs that obey (violate) the empirical laws; black dots, as scaled by the right y-axis, show the yearly compliance rate. Error bars show the range of compliance rates obtained by varying the magnetic field thresho… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Frequency distribution of ARs with respect to centroid distance between opposite polarities. The left, middle, and right column show the compliance state with Hale’s law, Joy’s law, and the HHR, respectively, for the full dataset (top row), SC24 (middle row), and SC25 (bottom row). The red (blue) bars, as scaled by the left y-axis, represent the number of ARs that obey (violate) the empirical laws; black d… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Frequency distribution of ARs with respect to total unsigned magnetic flux. The left, middle, and right column show the compliance state with Hale’s law, Joy’s law, and the HHR, respectively, for the full dataset (top row), SC24 (middle row), and SC25 (bottom row). The red (blue) bars, as scaled by the left y-axis, represent the number of ARs that obey (violate) the empirical laws; black dots, as scaled by… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distribution of FI with respect to centroid distance and unsigned flux. (a) Scatter plot of unsigned flux versus centroid distance for all ARs, color-coded by FI. The vertical and horizontal dashed lines mark the flux and distance thresholds identified from the binned median FI distributions in panels (b) and (c). The dot-dashed line indicates the linear fitting between unsigned flux and centroid dista… 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

84 extracted references · 84 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/311232 1998

  2. [2]

    C., Schunker, H., Cameron, R

    Baumgartner, C., Birch, A. C., Schunker, H., Cameron, R. H., & Gizon, L. 2022, A&A, 664, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243357

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243357 2022

  3. [3]

    A., & Field, G

    Berger, M. A., & Field, G. B. 1984, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 147, 133, doi: 10.1017/S0022112084002019

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112084002019 1984

  4. [4]

    A., & Ruzmaikin, A

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

    work page doi:10.1029/1999ja900392 2000

  5. [5]

    W., Evenson, P., & Matthaeus, W

    Bieber, J. W., Evenson, P., & Matthaeus, W. H. 1987, Geophys. Res. Lett., 14, 864, doi: 10.1029/GL014i008p00864

    work page doi:10.1029/gl014i008p00864 1987

  6. [6]

    G., Sun, X., Hoeksema, J

    Bobra, M. G., Sun, X., Hoeksema, J. T., et al. 2014, SoPh, 289, 3549, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0529-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0529-3 2014

  7. [7]

    R., & Greisen, E

    Calabretta, M. R., & Greisen, E. W. 2002, A&A, 395, 1077, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021327

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021327 2002

  8. [8]

    1995, ApJ, 441, 886, doi: 10.1086/175410

    Caligari, P., Moreno-Insertis, F., & Schussler, M. 1995, ApJ, 441, 886, doi: 10.1086/175410

    work page doi:10.1086/175410 1995

  9. [9]

    C., Hudson, H

    Canfield, R. C., Hudson, H. S., & McKenzie, D. E. 1999, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 627, doi: 10.1029/1999GL900105

    work page doi:10.1029/1999gl900105 1999

  10. [10]

    2021, SoPh, 296, 150, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01895-1

    Chen, A., Ye, Q., & Wang, J. 2021, SoPh, 296, 150, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01895-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01895-1 2021

  11. [11]

    Q., & Wang, J

    Chen, A. Q., & Wang, J. X. 2012, A&A, 543, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118037

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118037 2012

  12. [12]

    1988, Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9780203771587

    Cohen, J. 1988, Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9780203771587

    work page doi:10.4324/9780203771587 1988

  13. [13]

    W., & Foreman, D

    Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. 2009, (No Title), doi: 10.1002/9781118165881

    work page doi:10.1002/9781118165881 2009

  14. [14]

    K., Krivova, N

    Dasi-Espuig, M., Solanki, S. K., Krivova, N. A., Cameron, R., & Pe˜ nuela, T. 2010, A&A, 518, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014301 D´ emoulin, P., Mandrini, C. H., Van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., Lopez Fuentes, M. C., & Aulanier, G. 2002, SoPh, 207, 87, doi: 10.1023/A:1015531804337 D’Silva, S., & Choudhuri, A. R. 1993, A&A, 272, 621

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014301 2010

  15. [15]

    2008, ApJ, 676, 680, doi: 10.1086/527317

    Fan, Y. 2008, ApJ, 676, 680, doi: 10.1086/527317

    work page doi:10.1086/527317 2008

  16. [16]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 582, 1206, doi: 10.1086/344798

    Fan, Y., Abbett, W., & Fisher, G. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 582, 1206, doi: 10.1086/344798

    work page doi:10.1086/344798 2003

  17. [17]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/35

    Fan, Y., & Fang, F. 2014, ApJ, 789, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/35

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/1/35 2014

  18. [18]

    H., & Deluca, E

    Fan, Y., Fisher, G. H., & Deluca, E. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 390, doi: 10.1086/172370

    work page doi:10.1086/172370 1993

  19. [19]

    H., & McClymont, A

    Fan, Y., Fisher, G. H., & McClymont, A. N. 1994, ApJ, 436, 907, doi: 10.1086/174967

    work page doi:10.1086/174967 1994

  20. [20]

    G., & Lantz, S

    Fan, Y., Zweibel, E. G., & Lantz, S. R. 1998, ApJ, 493, 480, doi: 10.1086/305122

    work page doi:10.1086/305122 1998

  21. [21]

    H., Fan, Y., & Howard, R

    Fisher, G. H., Fan, Y., & Howard, R. F. 1995, ApJ, 438, 463, doi: 10.1086/175090

    work page doi:10.1086/175090 1995

  22. [22]

    A., & Hagyard, M

    Gary, G. A., & Hagyard, M. J. 1990, SoPh, 126, 21, doi: 10.1007/BF00158295

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00158295 1990

  23. [23]

    2006, The American Statistician, 60, 328, doi: 10.1198/000313006X152649

    Gelman, A., & Stern, H. 2006, The American Statistician, 60, 328, doi: 10.1198/000313006X152649

    work page doi:10.1198/000313006x152649 2006

  24. [24]

    K., & Rust, D

    Georgoulis, M. K., & Rust, D. M. 2007, ApJL, 661, L109, doi: 10.1086/518718

    work page doi:10.1086/518718 2007

  25. [25]

    Glatzmaier, G. A. 1985, ApJ, 291, 300, doi: 10.1086/163069

    work page doi:10.1086/163069 1985

  26. [26]

    2005, PASJ, 57, 481, doi: 10.1093/pasj/57.3.481

    Hagino, M., & Sakurai, T. 2005, PASJ, 57, 481, doi: 10.1093/pasj/57.3.481

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/57.3.481 2005

  27. [27]

    E., Ellerman, F., Nicholson, S

    Hale, G. E., Ellerman, F., Nicholson, S. B., & Joy, A. H. 1919, ApJ, 49, 153, doi: 10.1086/142452

    work page doi:10.1086/142452 1919

  28. [28]

    Hathaway, D. H. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 4, doi: 10.1007/lrsp-2015-4

    work page doi:10.1007/lrsp-2015-4 2015

  29. [29]

    H., Wilson, R

    Hathaway, D. H., Wilson, R. M., & Reichmann, E. J. 1994, SoPh, 151, 177, doi: 10.1007/BF00654090

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00654090 1994

  30. [30]

    Howard, R. F. 1991, SoPh, 136, 251, doi: 10.1007/BF00146534

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00146534 1991

  31. [31]

    2012, SoPh, 275, 67, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9624-2

    Hurlburt, N., Cheung, M., Schrijver, C., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 67, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9624-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9624-2 2012

  32. [32]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad197

    Jiang, J., Wang, J.-X., Jiao, Q.-R., & Cao, J.-B. 2018, ApJ, 863, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad197

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad197 2018

  33. [33]

    2010, ApJ, 713, 440, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/440

    Jing, J., Tan, C., Yuan, Y., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 440, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/440

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/1/440 2010

  34. [34]

    Anderson localization in an interacting fermionic system

    Johnson, V. 2019, The American Statistician, 73, 129, doi: 10.1080/00031305.2018.1518788

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1080/00031305.2018.1518788 2019

  35. [35]

    Jouve, L., & Brun, A. S. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1300, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1300

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/1300 2009

  36. [36]

    2003, Advances in Space Research, 32, 1931, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(03)90628-4

    Kusano, K., Yokoyama, T., Maeshiro, T., & Sakurai, T. 2003, Advances in Space Research, 32, 1931, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(03)90628-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0273-1177(03)90628-4 2003

  37. [37]

    2018, SoPh, 293, 159, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1381-7

    Lee, E.-J., Park, S.-H., & Moon, Y.-J. 2018, SoPh, 293, 159, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1381-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-018-1381-7 2018

  38. [38]

    Leka, K. D. 1999, SoPh, 188, 21, doi: 10.1023/A:1005130630873

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005130630873 1999

  39. [40]

    2018b, ApJ, 867, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae31a

    Li, J. 2018b, ApJ, 867, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae31a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae31a

  40. [41]

    Li, J., & Ulrich, R. K. 2012, ApJ, 758, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/115

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/115 2012

  41. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad66bd

    Liu, R., & Wang, W. 2024, ApJ, 973, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad66bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad66bd 2024

  42. [43]

    T., & Sun, X

    Liu, Y., Hoeksema, J. T., & Sun, X. 2014, ApJL, 783, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L1

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/l1 2014

  43. [44]

    Liu, Y., & Schuck, P. W. 2012, ApJ, 761, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/105

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/105 2012

  44. [45]

    W., Fisher, G

    Longcope, D. W., Fisher, G. H., & Pevtsov, A. A. 1998, ApJ, 507, 417, doi: 10.1086/306312

    work page doi:10.1086/306312 1998

  45. [46]

    W., & Klapper, I

    Longcope, D. W., & Klapper, I. 1997, ApJ, 488, 443, doi: 10.1086/304680 Mu˜ noz-Jaramillo, A., Navarrete, B., & Campusano, L. E. 2021, ApJ, 920, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac133b

    work page doi:10.1086/304680 1997

  46. [47]

    J., Brown, B

    Nelson, N. J., Brown, B. P., Sacha Brun, A., Miesch, M. S., & Toomre, J. 2014, SoPh, 289, 441, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-0221-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-012-0221-4 2014

  47. [48]

    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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-023-01008-3 2023

  48. [49]

    2025a, SoPh, 300, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02525-w

    Pan, J., Liu, J., Fang, S., & Liu, R. 2025a, SoPh, 300, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02525-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02525-w

  49. [50]

    2025b, Chinese Journal of Space Science, 45, 1650, doi: 10.11728/cjss2025.06.2025-0086

    Pan, J., LIU, J., & LIU, R. 2025b, Chinese Journal of Space Science, 45, 1650, doi: 10.11728/cjss2025.06.2025-0086

    work page doi:10.11728/cjss2025.06.2025-0086 2025

  50. [51]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7e

    Pan, J., & Liu, R. 2025, ApJ, 995, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7e 2025

  51. [52]

    2010, ApJ, 720, 1102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1102

    Park, S.-H., Chae, J., Jing, J., Tan, C., & Wang, H. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1102

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/2/1102 2010

  52. [53]

    D., & Kusano, K

    Park, S.-H., Leka, K. D., & Kusano, K. 2020, ApJ, 904, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbb93

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbb93 2020

  53. [54]

    D., & Kusano, K

    Park, S.-H., Leka, K. D., & Kusano, K. 2021, ApJ, 911, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abea13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abea13 2021

  54. [55]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/13

    Park, S.-H., Kusano, K., Cho, K.-S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/13

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/1/13 2013

  55. [56]

    Parker, E. N. 1994, ApJ, 433, 867, doi: 10.1086/174695

    work page doi:10.1086/174695 1994

  56. [57]

    A., Canfield, R

    Pevtsov, A. A., Canfield, R. C., & Metcalf, T. R. 1995, ApJL, 440, L109, doi: 10.1086/187773

    work page doi:10.1086/187773 1995

  57. [58]

    A., & Longcope, D

    Pevtsov, A. A., & Longcope, D. W. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 236, Advanced Solar Polarimetry – Theory, Observation, and Instrumentation, ed. M. Sigwarth, 423

    work page 2001

  58. [59]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add93a

    Qin, L., Jiang, J., & Wang, R. 2025, ApJ, 986, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add93a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add93a 2025

  59. [60]

    S., McKillop, S

    Savcheva, A. S., McKillop, S. C., McCauley, P. I., Hanson, E. M., & DeLuca, E. E. 2014, SoPh, 289, 3297, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0469-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0469-3 2014

  60. [61]

    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

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

  61. [62]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00158402 1990

  62. [63]

    K., Karak, B

    Sreedevi, A., Jha, B. K., Karak, B. B., & Banerjee, D. 2023, ApJS, 268, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acec47

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acec47 2023

  63. [64]

    K., Karak, B

    Sreedevi, A., Jha, B. K., Karak, B. B., & Banerjee, D. 2024, ApJ, 966, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad34b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad34b8 2024

  64. [65]

    O., & Kosovichev, A

    Stenflo, J. O., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2012, ApJ, 745, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/129

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/129 2012

  65. [66]

    On the Coordinate System of Space-Weather HMI Active Region Patches (SHARPs): A Technical Note

    Sun, X. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1309.2392, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1309.2392

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1309.2392 2013

  66. [67]

    2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3

    Temmer, M. 2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3 2021

  67. [68]

    2005, SoPh, 229, 63, doi: 10.1007/s11207-005-3524-x

    Tian, L., Alexander, D., Liu, Y., & Yang, J. 2005, SoPh, 229, 63, doi: 10.1007/s11207-005-3524-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-005-3524-x 2005

  68. [69]

    1999, SoPh, 189, 305, doi: 10.1023/A:1005252617906

    Tian, L., Zhang, H., Tong, Y., & Jing, H. 1999, SoPh, 189, 305, doi: 10.1023/A:1005252617906

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005252617906 1999

  69. [70]

    2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7 van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., & Green, L

    Toriumi, S., & Wang, H. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7 van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., & Green, L. M. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 1

    work page doi:10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7 2019

  70. [71]

    Vemareddy, P., Ambastha, A., & Maurya, R. A. 2012, ApJ, 761, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/1/60 2012

  71. [72]

    Virtanen, I. O. I., Virtanen, I. I., Pevtsov, A. A., Yeates, A., & Mursula, K. 2017, A&A, 604, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730415

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730415 2017

  72. [73]

    2015, Science China

    Wang, J., Zhang, Y., He, H., et al. 2015, Science China

    work page 2015

  73. [74]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 58, 5682, doi: 10.1007/s11433-015-5682-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-015-5682-7

  74. [75]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acef1b

    Wang, R., Jiang, J., & Luo, Y. 2023, ApJS, 268, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acef1b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acef1b 2023

  75. [76]

    2013, ApJL, 775, L46, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/2/L46

    Wang, Y.-M. 2013, ApJL, 775, L46, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/2/L46

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/775/2/l46 2013

  76. [77]

    Wang, Y.-M., & Sheeley, Jr., N. R. 1989, SoPh, 124, 81, doi: 10.1007/BF00146521

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00146521 1989

  77. [78]

    A., & Fan, Y

    Weber, M. A., & Fan, Y. 2015, SoPh, 290, 1295, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0674-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-015-0674-3 2015

  78. [79]

    A., Fan, Y., & Miesch, M

    Weber, M. A., Fan, Y., & Miesch, M. S. 2011, ApJ, 741, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/11

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/11 2011

  79. [80]

    A., Fan, Y., & Miesch, M

    Weber, M. A., Fan, Y., & Miesch, M. S. 2013, SoPh, 287, 239, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-0093-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-012-0093-7 2013

  80. [81]

    W., Norton, A

    Will, L. W., Norton, A. A., & Hoeksema, J. T. 2024, ApJ, 976, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad82e3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad82e3 2024

Showing first 80 references.