Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 92 references

This paper claims the photospheric magnetic flux feature distribution over a full solar cycle is best described by a smooth double power law, with a stable small-flux slope near −1.7 to −1.8 and a large-flux slope that steepens at solar min

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 22:06 UTC pith:3WTVWHNK

load-bearing objection Careful, honest statistical study: the smooth-double-power-law result and the stable α / cycle-varying β split mostly hold up, but the admitted arbitrariness of the 10^18 Mx truncation needs a sensitivity analysis before I'd trust the details. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15859 v1 pith:3WTVWHNK submitted 2026-07-17 astro-ph.SR

Solar Cycle Variation of the Distribution of Photospheric Magnetic Flux Features

Callan N. Noble , Clare E. Parnell , Thomas Neukirch This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords magnetic flux distributiondouble power lawsolar cyclephotospheric magnetic featuresSDO/HMIpower law indexfeature identificationgoodness-of-fit
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.

The paper analyzes 260 SDO/HMI magnetograms spanning May 2010 to March 2021 to determine how the distribution of magnetic flux in photospheric features changes across the solar cycle. After testing nine candidate probability density functions using statistical goodness-of-fit criteria, it concludes that a smooth double power law represents the data best at all phases of the cycle. The small-flux power-law index α remains near −1.7 to −1.8 with no long-term solar-cycle variation, while the large-flux index β steepens at solar minimum and flattens at solar maximum. If correct, this indicates that small-scale magnetic features are produced by a process that is largely independent of the solar cycle, while large-scale flux is cycle-dependent.

Core claim

The central claim is that the distribution of photospheric magnetic flux features (above 10^18 Mx) is a smooth double power law, not a single power law or any of the other eight distributions tested. The small-flux slope α stays roughly constant between −1.7 and −1.8 through the whole cycle, whereas the large-flux slope β varies systematically: near −2 at solar maximum and steeper than −3 at solar minimum. The transition location xc and smoothing parameter σ show no significant long-term trend. This is established by fitting the nine models to each magnetogram, computing p-values from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, and comparing relative AIC, Akaike weights, and relative log-likelihood ac

What carries the argument

The smooth double power law PDF, constructed by modeling the log-log derivative of the distribution as a hyperbolic tangent function controlled by four parameters (α, β, xc, σ), is the central fitting function. The clumping algorithm identifies contiguous same-signed pixels as magnetic features, with a two-threshold scheme to reduce noise and better estimate feature sizes. Model selection relies on p-values from the KS statistic and three additional goodness-of-fit measures.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis truncates all features below 10^18 Mx, assuming the low-flux turnover is purely an instrumental resolution effect; the authors call the cutoff 'somewhat arbitrary' and note that the MDI/HMI comparison is 'not a proof'.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of HMI-derived flux distributions with higher-resolution observations (such as Hinode/SOT or DKIST) taken on the same dates, showing that the low-flux turnover varies with solar cycle phase, or a re-analysis with a materially different cutoff that changes the fitted α or β trends, would undermine the double-power-law conclusion.

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

If this is right

  • The constant small-flux slope α indicates that small-scale magnetic features are continually generated by a process that does not vary with the solar cycle, supporting the idea of a small-scale dynamo.
  • The varying large-flux slope β tracks the rise and fall of active regions, connecting the distribution's tail directly to the solar-cycle dynamo.
  • The smooth (rather than sharp) double power law provides a quantitative target for numerical dynamo and surface-flux-transport models to reproduce.
  • The single power law, which has been used in previous studies, is shown to be an inadequate model at solar minimum, so cycle-averaged power-law indices must be treated cautiously.
  • The study establishes a baseline for comparing the current solar cycle with future cycles and with stellar magnetic flux distributions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 10^18 Mx cutoff is indeed instrumental, then the double-power-law result should be robust to the choice of cutoff; a re-analysis with a lower cutoff using higher-resolution data (e.g., Hinode or DKIST) would test this directly.
  • The stability of α could be an artifact of the truncation: a mild real turnover at low flux could be masked by the fixed cutoff, so the true distribution might be a single power law with a low-flux rollover.
  • The β-variation might be predictable from sunspot number or total magnetic flux, offering a simple proxy to extend the result back before 2010 using other magnetogram series.
  • The same goodness-of-fit framework applied to stellar magnetograms could reveal whether smooth double power laws are a universal feature of solar-type magnetic fields.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyses 260 SDO/HMI full-disk line-of-sight magnetograms from May 2010 to March 2021. Magnetic flux features are identified with a modified version of the clumping algorithm of Parnell (2002), using fixed noise-based thresholds. After excluding all features with flux below 10^18 Mx, the resulting flux distributions are fitted by maximum likelihood with nine candidate probability density functions. Plausibility is assessed with Clauset-style Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-values; the surviving models are then compared using the KS statistic, relative AIC, Akaike weights, and relative log-likelihood. The authors conclude that a smooth double power law is the best representation of the flux distribution over the full solar cycle, with a small-flux exponent α around -1.7 to -1.8 that shows no long-term cycle trend, while the large-flux exponent β varies from roughly -2 at solar maximum to -3 or steeper at minimum. They discuss possible small-scale versus large-scale dynamo implications.

Significance. The dataset and overall approach are well matched to the question, and the systematic comparison of nine candidate models with formal maximum-likelihood fitting and plausibility testing is a genuine strength. If the results are robust, they would reconcile earlier conflicting claims (single power law vs broken power law) and provide a quantitative, cycle-resolved description of photospheric flux populations, with direct implications for dynamo modelling. The central conclusion, however, is conditioned on a truncation boundary that is admittedly arbitrary and not sensitivity-tested, and the quoted parameter trends are presented without uncertainty estimates. These points must be addressed before the paper's headline claims can be regarded as fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eqs. 1, 22, 24] The truncation at x0 = 10^18 Mx is load-bearing. All candidate PDFs are normalised and fitted on [x0, ∞), so the fitted α, β, and the model-selection statistics in Tables 2 and 3 are conditional on this boundary. The authors state that the cutoff is 'chosen somewhat arbitrarily' and that the MDI/HMI comparison in Fig. 4 is 'not a proof.' If any part of the low-flux turnover is physical, the smooth double power law may simply be absorbing that curvature. I request a sensitivity analysis: repeat the fits and model comparisons for several values of x0 (e.g. 5×10^17, 1×10^18, 2×10^18, 5×10^18 Mx) and report how α, β, xc, σ, and the model ranking change. Alternatively, an explicit detection-completeness correction or a statement quantifying the fraction of excluded features would partly mitigate this concern.
  2. [§4, Fig. 9] The cycle trends in α and β are inferred from point estimates with no error bars or confidence intervals. The paper itself notes the lower bound β = -5 and upper bound σ = 15 are hit by the optimisation, so some parameter estimates are censored. Without bootstrap or profile-likelihood uncertainties, it is not possible to tell whether the apparent stability of α and the cycle dependence of β are statistically meaningful. Please add confidence bands or comparable uncertainty quantification to Fig. 9, and state explicitly which claims survive the uncertainties.
  3. [§3, Tables 2 and 3] The model-selection step would be strengthened by quantifying the uncertainty in the comparison itself. Table 3 shows that the smooth double power law wins only 47.7% of the KS-statistic comparisons, and its average Akaike weight is 0.577, leaving substantial support for the other plausible models. This does not invalidate the choice of Smooth-DPL as the best on average, but it is stronger than the wording 'best representation of the true distribution' suggests. A bootstrap distribution of ΔAIC or a statement of the degree of support for the second-best model would make the selection step more convincing.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1.3, Fig. 2] The text says the example magnetogram has a noise level of approximately 8.131 G, while the caption says approximately 7.6 G. Please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [§5] Typos: 'probablity', 'expontial', and 'transiation' should be corrected. Also in §3, 'difficult' should be 'difficult'.
  3. [Appendix A.5.2, Eq. (20)] The prefactor in Eq. (20) is written with xc^{(α+β)/2}/2^{(β-α)/σ}; this is a constant for normalisation but its form is not immediately intuitive. A brief note explaining that the prefactor is absorbed into K would improve readability.
  4. [Data Availability] The availability statement gives only the JSOC URL. For reproducibility, please specify the exact HMI data products (e.g. hmi.M_45s or hmi.M_720s), the level of processing, and any custom code or parameter files used for feature detection and fitting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: model selection is externally benchmarked and the self-citations are methodological, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that a smooth double power law best represents the HMI flux-feature distribution and that α is roughly cycle-stable while β varies—comes from a model-selection procedure applied to observed histograms, not from an input assumption or a self-citation chain. Nine PDFs are fitted by maximum likelihood, then compared using KS-based plausibility p-values following Clauset, Shalizi, and Newman (2009), plus relative AIC, Akaike weights, and relative log-likelihood (Section 3, Tables 1–3). The Smooth-DPL is chosen because it wins the majority of those comparisons on average (Table 3), and the parameter curves in Figure 9 are fitted outputs, not predictions of an independently fitted quantity. The self-citations to Parnell (2002) and Parnell et al. (2009) supply the feature-detection algorithm and histogram convention; they do not force the double-power-law conclusion, and in fact Parnell et al. (2009) argued for a single power law, which this paper tests and rejects. The 10^18 Mx truncation is the main vulnerability: the paper states it is 'chosen somewhat arbitrarily' and that the MDI/HMI comparison is 'not a proof' (§3), so the fitted slopes are conditional on that boundary. But this is a data-selection/robustness limitation rather than circularity—no fitted parameter is equal by construction to the truncation, and the model-selection statistics are computed on the same truncated data rather than renamed as an independent prediction. The single-cycle and statistical-fluctuation caveats in §5 are also acknowledged limitations. Hence no circular step is established.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on four fitted distribution parameters plus hand-chosen data-selection thresholds, and on a series of observational/statistical assumptions about feature detection, instrumental noise, and the validity of the low-flux truncation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • α (small-scale slope) = ≈ −1.7 to −1.8
    MLE estimate of the Smooth-DPL small-flux power-law index for each magnetogram; the paper's key claim about cycle invariance rests on these values.
  • β (large-scale slope) = ≈ −2.0 at maximum to ≤ −3.0 at minimum; optimization lower bound −5
    MLE estimate of the large-flux index; the claimed cycle variation of β is the central new result. The −5 bound means true values may be lower.
  • xc (transition flux) = ≈ 10^19–10^20 Mx
    MLE estimate of the kink location between the two power laws; its cycle variation is reported but not deemed significant.
  • σ (smoothing width) = ≈ 2–4, with spikes to 0 and 15 (upper bound)
    MLE estimate controlling transition sharpness; the distinction between smooth and sharp DPL depends on this parameter.
  • Truncation limit = 10^18 Mx
    Hand-chosen lower bound on fluxes included in fitting (§3); motivated by perceived instrumental turnover but acknowledged as arbitrary.
  • Clump/growth threshold multipliers = 3× and 2× mean noise
    Hand-chosen in §2.1.3 via survival analysis; determines which pixels are counted as features and thus shapes the flux histogram.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The clumping algorithm's flux massifs correspond to physically meaningful magnetic features; alternative feature definitions would not change the distribution in a way that affects the conclusions.
    Dismissed in §2.1.1 based on resolution robustness; no quantitative comparison of resulting distributions.
  • ad hoc to paper The low-flux turnover in the flux histograms is entirely due to instrumental resolution, and the true underlying distribution continues as a power law below 10^18 Mx.
    Stated in §3 with a qualitative MDI comparison ('not a proof'); this justifies the truncation that defines the fitted dataset.
  • domain assumption HMI line-of-sight magnetograms, after radial cosine correction and limb masking, give an unbiased estimate of radial magnetic flux.
    Standard calibration assumption in §2; any systematic error in the radial correction would propagate into flux values.
  • domain assumption The noise level of each magnetogram is well-estimated by the HWHM of a Gaussian fit to the core of the pixel-value histogram, and using average pre/post-mod-L noise gives uniform thresholds.
    §2.1.3; the thresholds depend on this estimate, which directly affects feature detection.
  • standard math The Clauset–Shalizi–Newman KS p-value procedure, generating synthetic data from the fitted model, is a valid test of plausibility for these nine PDFs.
    Adopted in §3 following Clauset et al. (2009); standard but relies on synthetic-data generation being representative, especially for truncated and numerically normalized PDFs.
  • ad hoc to paper The smooth double power law form (Eq. 20), derived from a hyperbolic-tangent derivative model (Eq. 19), is flexible enough to capture the true distribution without being so flexible that it overfits.
    The functional form is introduced in Appendix A.5; the conclusion that it is 'best' depends on the model family being adequate.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17555 in / 16418 out tokens · 143073 ms · 2026-08-01T22:06:23.240988+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We use statistical tools to analyse data from the Solar Dynamics Observatory Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager to determine the distribution of the magnetic flux of photospheric magnetic features and its variation over a full solar cycle. In particular, we use statistical figures of merit to test how well different types of probability density function represent the magnetic flux distribution inferred from the data and how their shape changes over the solar cycle. Our analysis shows that a double power law provides the best representation of the data over the full solar cycle and we present the dependence of the power law exponents on the phase of the solar cycle. The nature of the observed flux distributions at different times during the solar cycle is significant because it could be used to try and infer information about solar magnetic field generation mechanisms. We discuss potential implications of a double power law distribution for solar magnetic field generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15859 by Callan N. Noble, Clare E. Parnell, Thomas Neukirch.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) A cartoon illustration of three common feature identification algorithms. The clumping method, as originally devised by Parnell (2002), uses a single lower cut-off and identifies two separate features. The downhill method splits the larger feature into two separate features at the local minimum (in 3D this would be a saddle point). The curvature method only identifies two small features; the peak at th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) A histogram (black solid line) of the magnetic field strength of the pixels is created. A Gaussian curve (blue solid) is fitted to the core of the histogram (any bins with count greater than or equal to 0.5). The full width at half maximum (FWHM) is also plotted (dotted). The noise of the magnetogram is estimated as the half width at half maximum (HWHM). For this magnetogram the noise level is approxim… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The noise level across the full data set. The drop in noise level is caused by a change in the way HMI takes measurements (Liu et al. 2016) which reduced the noise associated with magnetograms. The dashed lines show the average value of the noise level before and after the drop; approximately 7.993 G and 5.974 G, respectively. There is no obvious correlation between noise level and solar cycle so we use th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of frequency density of magnetic flux features detected in SDO HMI magnetogram taken at midnight on 16 March 2011 (red) and detected in a SOHO MDI magnetogram taken at approximately the same time (blue). the difference in measurement between MDI and HMI, see Liu et al. 2016). As one can see in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histogram of magnetic flux features and a fitted power law model at different times in the solar cycle. (a) 16 March 2011 representing rising activity. (b) 01 July 2014 representing solar maximum. (c) 16 August 2017 representing declining activity. (d) 16 August 2020 representing solar minimum. We have picked a (single) power law based on a purely subjective inter￾pretation of the data. Clearly, more sophi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example P-P plots for the nine model PDFs considered in the paper. These plots use data from 1 July 2014, which is around solar maximum. The solid line in each plot is the main diagonal and the dashed line is the curve generated by plotting the theoretical CDF against the empiral distribution function. See main text for more details. • Sharp Double Power Law PDF (abbreviated as Sharp-DPL from now on) • Smo… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variation of p-values for the remaining six PDF models over the full solar cycle. The dashed line shows the 0.1 significance level which plausible models must exceed. Obviously, one should not base the rejection of a probability density function on a comparison with a single data set. Therefore we have calculated the p-values for all models over the complete data set covering the full solar cycle. It turns… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Histograms of the same data as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Temporal variation of the parameters of the smooth double power law model over the solar cycle. Panel (a) shows α, panel (b) shows β, panel (c) shows xc, and panel (d) shows σ. but whether this is a real feature of the distribution or the result of statistical fluctuations is unclear. This question could be investigated further in the future. Finally, in panel (d) we see the temporal variation of the smoot… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) A typical double power law will have the same structure as shown in the graph, constrained by four parameters; on a log-log scale the function will display two different straight line behaviours. The lines represent different power laws which transition from one to the other at some location, xc, which we call the ‘kink’ location. To the left of the kink we have a power law with index α and to the rig… 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

92 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13956-8 , adsurl =

    New Millennium. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13956-8 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13956-8

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    25 Years of Self-Organized Criticality: Solar and Astrophysics. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0054-6 , archivePrefix =. 1403.6528 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    The Topology of the

    Babcock, H W , journal=. The Topology of the

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Self-organized criticality: An explanation of the 1/f noise. , keywords =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.381 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.381

  5. [5]

    On the size distribution of sunspot groups in the

    Baumann, Ingo and Solanki, SK , journal=. On the size distribution of sunspot groups in the. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Quiet Sun magnetic fields: an observational view. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s41116-018-0017-1 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1007/s41116-018-0017-1

  7. [7]

    , volume=

    Distribution of sunspot umbral areas 1917-1982 , author=. , volume=

    1917

  8. [8]

    , volume=

    The case for a distributed solar dynamo shaped by near-surface shear , author=. , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  9. [9]

    Physics Reports , volume=

    Astrophysical magnetic fields and nonlinear dynamo theory , author=. Physics Reports , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  10. [10]

    , volume=

    Current status of turbulent dynamo theory , author=. , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Magnetism, dynamo action and the solar-stellar connection. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s41116-017-0007-8 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1007/s41116-017-0007-8

  12. [12]

    An update of

    Cameron, R H and Sch. An update of. , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  13. [13]

    , volume=

    The global solar dynamo , author=. , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  14. [14]

    Volume I

    Handbook of Methods of Applied Statistics , volume = "Volume I", publisher =

  15. [15]

    , volume =

    Charbonneau, Paul , title =. , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Dynamo models of the solar cycle. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s41116-020-00025-6 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1007/s41116-020-00025-6

  17. [17]

    Stochastic fluctuations in a

    Charbonneau, Paul and Dikpati, Mausumi , journal=. Stochastic fluctuations in a. 2000 , publisher=

    2000

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Statistical Comparison Between Pores and Sunspots by Using SDO/HMI. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/49 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/1/49

  19. [19]

    SIAM review , volume=

    Power-law distributions in empirical data , author=. SIAM review , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  20. [20]

    Solar magnetic tracking

    DeForest, CE and Hagenaar, HJ and Lamb, DA and Parnell, CE and Welsch, BT , journal=. Solar magnetic tracking. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  21. [21]

    Dikpati, Mausumi and Charbonneau, Paul , journal=. A. 1999 , publisher=

    1999

  22. [22]

    Structure and Development of Solar Active Regions , year = 1968, editor =

    The Supergranular Pattern and the Stable Stages of Sunspot Groups. Structure and Development of Solar Active Regions , year = 1968, editor =

    1968

  23. [23]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series I , year = 1879, month = jan, volume =

    The Geometric Mean, in Vital and Social Statistics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series I , year = 1879, month = jan, volume =

  24. [24]

    Gibbons, Jean Dickinson and Chakraborti, Subhabrata , year=

  25. [25]

    , volume=

    Dispersal of magnetic flux in the quiet solar photosphere , author=. , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

    1999

  26. [26]

    , volume=

    Properties and emergence patterns of bipolar active regions , author=. , volume=. 1993 , publisher=

    1993

  27. [27]

    Hathaway, David H. , year=. The Solar Cycle , volume=. doi:10.1007/lrsp-2015-4 , journal=

    doi:10.1007/lrsp-2015-4 2015

  28. [28]

    , year = 1948, month = mar, volume =

    Statistical investigations concerning the magnetic fields of sunspots I. , year = 1948, month = mar, volume =

    1948

  29. [29]

    , keywords =

    Statistical Properties of Photospheric Magnetic Elements Observed by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager onboard the Solar Dynamics Observatory. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11207-017-1189-x , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-017-1189-x

  30. [30]

    The solar magnetic field since 1700 -

    Jiang, Jie and Cameron, Robert H and Schmitt, Dieter and Sch. The solar magnetic field since 1700 -. , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  31. [31]

    , volume=

    Flux transport dynamos: from kinematics to dynamics , author=. , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Solar-cycle variation of quiet-Sun magnetism and surface gravity oscillation mode. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243979 , archivePrefix =. 2205.04419 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    , year = 2017, month = dec, volume =

    Dynamic Characteristics of Area Variations of Small and Large Sunspots and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations in Solar Activity. , year = 2017, month = dec, volume =. doi:10.1134/S0016793217070118 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1134/s0016793217070118 2017

  34. [34]

    Byulletin Solnechnye Dannye Akademie Nauk SSSR , year = 1973, month = jan, volume =

    On two populations of sunspot groups. Byulletin Solnechnye Dannye Akademie Nauk SSSR , year = 1973, month = jan, volume =

    1973

  35. [35]

    Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia , volume=

    On two populations of sunspot groups , author=. Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia , volume=

  36. [36]

    Production of sunspots and their effects on the corona and solar wind:

    Kumar, Rohit and Jouve, Laur. Production of sunspots and their effects on the corona and solar wind:. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  37. [37]

    , keywords =

    Statistical Analysis of Sunspot Area and Magnetic Flux on Solar Disc During 2011 2023. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02537-6 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02537-6 2011

  38. [38]

    , volume=

    A magneto-kinematic model of the solar cycle , author=. , volume=

  39. [39]

    Liu, Yang and Baldner, Charles and Bogart, R S and Bush, R and Couvidat, S and Duvall, Thomas L and Hoeksema, Jon Todd and Norton, Aimee Ann and Scherrer, Philip H and Schou, Jesper , booktitle=. On

  40. [40]

    Solar interface dynamos

    MacGregor, K B and Charbonneau, P , journal=. Solar interface dynamos. 1997 , publisher=

    1997

  41. [41]

    , keywords =

    Tilt Angle and Footpoint Separation of Small and Large Bipolar Sunspot Regions Observed with HMI. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/7 , archivePrefix =. 1602.04154 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

    The Sun's Global Photospheric and Coronal Magnetic Fields: Observations and Models. , keywords =. doi:10.12942/lrsp-2012-6 , archivePrefix =. 1211.6545 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [43]

    , volume=

    Statistical properties of magnetic structures: Their dependence on scale and solar activity , author=. , volume=. 2003 , publisher=

    2003

  44. [44]

    Field Generation in Electrically Conducting Fluids , author=

  45. [45]

    , volume=

    Small-scale and global dynamos and the area and flux distributions of active regions, sunspot groups, and sunspots: A multi-database study , author=. , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  46. [46]

    , volume=

    On a possible explanation of the long-term decrease in sunspot field strength , author=. , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  47. [47]

    Astronomische Nachrichten , keywords =

    Long-term variations in sunspot magnetic field-area relation. Astronomische Nachrichten , keywords =. doi:10.1002/asna.201613035 , archivePrefix =. 1608.01132 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    , keywords =

    Bi-lognormal Distribution of Sunspot Group Areas. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc82d , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc82d

  49. [49]

    Power laws,

    Newman, Mark E J , journal=. Power laws,. 2005 , month =

    2005

  50. [50]

    , year = 1933, month = feb, volume =

    The Area of a Sun-Spot and the Intensity of Its Magnetic Field. , year = 1933, month = feb, volume =. doi:10.1086/124301 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1086/124301 1933

  51. [51]

    , keywords =

    Differences in the solar cycle variability of simple and complex active regions during 1996-2018. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935486 , archivePrefix =. 1908.02226 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  52. [52]

    The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review , volume=

    The solar dynamo , author=. The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review , volume=. 2003 , publisher=

    2003

  53. [53]

    , author=

    Hydromagnetic dynamo models. , author=. , volume=

  54. [54]

    doi:10.1086/172631 , adsurl =

    A Solar Dynamo Surface Wave at the Interface between Convection and Nonuniform Rotation , journal =. doi:10.1086/172631 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1086/172631

  55. [55]

    Nature of the magnetic carpet--

    Parnell, C E , journal=. Nature of the magnetic carpet--. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  56. [56]

    , volume=

    A power-law distribution of solar magnetic fields over more than five decades in flux , author=. , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Solar Magnetic Activity Cycles, Coronal Potential Field Models and Eruption Rates. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/162 , archivePrefix =. 1303.1218 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    , volume=

    Solar cycle prediction , author=. , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  59. [59]

    , keywords =

    Cyclic and Long-Term Variation of Sunspot Magnetic Fields. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11207-012-0220-5 , archivePrefix =. 1301.5935 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    , keywords =

    Long-term studies of photospheric magnetic fields on the Sun. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/swsc/2020069 , adsurl =

    arXiv

  61. [61]

    , volume=

    The importance of physical structure in solar dynamo models , author=. , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  62. [62]

    The Sun as a Guide to Stellar Physics , pages=

    Magnetohydrodynamics and Solar Dynamo Action , author=. The Sun as a Guide to Stellar Physics , pages=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  63. [63]

    , keywords =

    Small-Scale Dynamos: From Idealized Models to Solar and Stellar Applications. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11214-023-00981-z , archivePrefix =. 2305.02787 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [64]

    Letters , volume=

    The Discovery of Solar-like Activity Cycles Beyond the End of the Main Sequence? , author=. Letters , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  65. [65]

    , keywords =

    Probability Distribution Functions of Sunspot Magnetic Flux. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca28a , archivePrefix =. 2211.13957 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [66]

    , volume=

    Structural invariance of sunspot umbrae over the solar cycle: 1993--2004 , author=. , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    1993

  67. [67]

    Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online , year=

    Maximum likelihood estimation , author=. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online , year=

  68. [68]

    Helioseismic studies of differential rotation in the solar envelope by the solar oscillations investigation using the

    Schou, J and Antia, H M and Basu, S and Bogart, R S and Bush, R I and Chitre, S M and Christensen-Dalsgaard, J and Di Mauro, M P and Dziembowski, W A and Eff-Darwich, A and others , journal=. Helioseismic studies of differential rotation in the solar envelope by the solar oscillations investigation using the. 1998 , publisher=

    1998

  69. [69]

    , volume=

    Sustaining the quiet photospheric network: The balance of flux emergence, fragmentation, merging, and cancellation , author=. , volume=. 1997 , publisher=

    1997

  70. [70]

    , keywords =

    Observational evidence in favor of scale-free evolution of sunspot groups. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832799 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832799

  71. [71]

    The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , volume=

    Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions , author=. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , volume=. 1948 , month =

    1948

  72. [72]

    , volume=

    The solar magnetic field , author=. , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  73. [73]

    , keywords =

    Solar cycle variation in the properties of photospheric magnetic concentrations. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346898 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346898

  74. [74]

    Nature , volume=

    Magnetic activity and variations in solar luminosity , author=. Nature , volume=. 1980 , publisher=

    1980

  75. [75]

    1994 , month =

    Dynamics in Solar Active Regions: Patterns in Magnetic-Flux Emergence , school =. 1994 , month =

    1994

  76. [76]

    , volume=

    A statistical study of active regions 1967--1981 , author=. , volume=. 1984 , publisher=

    1967

  77. [77]

    Small-scale flux emergence observed using

    Thornton, L M and Parnell, C E , journal=. Small-scale flux emergence observed using. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  78. [78]

    , keywords =

    The Characteristic Sizes of the Sunspots and Pores in Solar Cycle 24. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11207-019-1439-1 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-019-1439-1

  79. [79]

    Diffusivity quenching as a mechanism for

    Tobias, S M , journal=. Diffusivity quenching as a mechanism for

  80. [80]

    , author=

    The solar cycle: Parity interactions and amplitude modulation. , author=. Astronomy and Astrophysics , volume=

Showing first 80 references.