Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 65 references

A Study of Pre-Flare Solar Coronal Magnetic Fields: Magnetic Flux Ropes

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pre-flare solar flux ropes appear in over 90% of major flares, and two instability thresholds separate eruptive from confined events.

desk verdict A useful descriptive census of pre-flare flux ropes, but the headline discrimination claim is an in-sample fit, not a validated prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08643 v1 pith:5TTF47NM submitted 2019-08-23 astro-ph.SR

Aiying Duan , Chaowei Jiang , Wen He , Xueshang Feng , Peng Zou , Jun Cui This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarflaresmagneticfluxropeskinkinstabilitytorustwistdecayindexnonlinearforce-freefielderuptionprediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that major solar flares are usually preceded by a well-defined magnetic flux rope in the corona, and that two measurable properties of that rope decide whether the flare stays confined or erupts. Reconstructing the pre-flare coronal magnetic field for 45 major flares, the authors define a flux rope as a coherent bundle of field lines winding more than one full turn. They find that every event whose decay index reaches 1.3 erupted, that 11 of 13 events whose maximum twist number reaches 2 erupted, and that this two-parameter criterion discriminates eruptive from confined flares in over 70% of events. The result matters because both parameters can in principle be computed from pre-flare observations, so the same two numbers could feed eruption forecasting.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two computed quantities. The magnetic twist number $T_w$, defined as the line integral of $(\nabla\times\mathbf{B})\cdot\mathbf{B}/(4\pi B^2)$, measures how many turns neighboring field lines make; the maximum value $|T_w|_{\rm max}$ is the kink-instability parameter, and the field line attaining it is treated as the rope axis. The decay index $n=-d\log B_p/d\log r$ is computed along the oblique direction from the polarity inversion line to the rope apex, using only the poloidal component of a potential overlying field, making it the torus-instability parameter. The flux rope itself is identified as a coherent volume with $|T_w|\ge 1$, and this identification connects the two parameters to the physical instability mechanisms being tested.

What would settle it

Rerun the same measurement pipeline on a new set of major flares with an independently validated reconstruction method, especially one that tends to produce lower twist values, and check whether the $n=1.3$ and $|T_w|=2$ cuts still place all high-$n$ events in the eruptive group and classify more than 70% correctly; any substantial movement of events across the thresholds would refute the quantitative claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the pre-flare magnetic field of a major flare usually contains a flux rope, and that the rope's state near two ideal-MHD instability limits indicates whether the flare will be confined or eruptive. With a strict definition based on the magnetic twist number, 39 of 45 events (over 90%) possessed a pre-flare flux rope, and many of these ropes were morphologically complex, with multiple ropes in 20% of events and even opposite-sign twists in one active region. A scatter diagram of maximum twist versus decay index shows empirical lower limits of $n_{\rm crit}=1.3$ and $|T_w|_{\rm crit}=2$: all events above $n_{\rm crit}$ were eruptive, and 11 of 13 events above $|T_w|_{\rm crit}$ erupted. Using these cuts, over 70% of the 45 events are correctly classified as eruptive or confined. The authors further argue that kink instability is about as important as torus instability, since equal numbers of eruptions fall above each threshold, and that the 56% of events below both thresholds, of which 44% erupted, may be triggered by magnetic reconnection rather than by ideal MHD instabilities.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument assumes the reconstructed pre-flare coronal magnetic field is close enough to the real field that its twist and decay index are physically meaningful; if the reconstruction is biased, the claimed thresholds and success rates shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the thresholds hold, pre-flare reconstructions of twist and decay index become usable eruption predictors: $n \ge 1.3$ was close to a sufficient condition for eruption in the sample, and $|T_w|_{\rm max} \ge 2$ pointed to eruption in the large majority of cases.
  • Kink and torus instabilities do not need to act together: only four events sit above both thresholds, so forecasting should treat either instability as a separate route to eruption.
  • Events below both thresholds form the majority of the sample and include both confined and eruptive flares; for those events, magnetic-reconnection models become the relevant trigger framework rather than ideal-MHD instability criteria.
  • The observed complexity, including multiple ropes, serpent-shaped ropes, and opposite-twist ropes, implies that single idealized rope models cannot fully capture the pre-eruptive corona, and opposite-twist ropes may explain why some X-class flares stay confined.
  • Because the thresholds are empirical lower limits, they can be converted into a simple two-dimensional decision rule for classifying future major flares, provided the field reconstruction is reliable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quantitative thresholds are likely reconstruction-dependent: a previous statistical study using a different extrapolation code obtained a much lower decay-index threshold and no kink-instability role, so the same analysis should be rerun with other validated extrapolation methods before the numbers are treated as universal.
  • A direct out-of-sample test would apply the two-threshold rule to M-class flares below the selection cutoff and to flaring versus non-flaring active regions; if many non-eruptive regions sit above the thresholds, or many eruptive regions sit below them, the limits are sample-specific.
  • The events below both thresholds are the cleanest place to look for reconnection triggers: their magnetic topology, especially null points and quasi-separatrix layers, could be compared with flare locations to test whether reconnection timing matches eruption onset.
  • Because the twist values reported here are systematically higher than those from other reconstruction codes, the claim that kink instability is as important as torus instability should be treated as a hypothesis to confirm with twist measurements calibrated against observed filament writhe or eruption morphology.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a statistical survey of pre-flare coronal magnetic fields for 45 major flares observed by SDO between 2011 and 2017. Using CESE-MHD-NLFFF reconstructions from HMI magnetograms, the authors identify magnetic flux ropes as coherent volumes with |Tw| >= 1, locate rope axes via maximum twist, and compute a decay index n along the inferred eruption path from a potential-field strapping component. They report that 90% of the events possess pre-flare MFRs, propose empirical lower limits n_crit = 1.3 and |Tw|_crit = 2 from a scatter diagram, claim that all events above n_crit and about 85% of events above |Tw|_crit erupted, and use the thresholds to classify 32 of 45 events correctly. They conclude that kink and torus instabilities are equally important and that the 25 events below both thresholds may be triggered by magnetic reconnection.

Significance. If robust, the paper's main contributions are a homogeneous, moderately large sample of three-dimensionally reconstructed pre-flare MFRs and a test of ideal-MHD instability thresholds against observed eruptive and confined outcomes. The use of an oblique decay index and the explicit comparison with SDO/AIA filaments are thoughtful steps, and the dataset could be a useful benchmark for future NLFFF studies. However, the central quantitative claims, namely the threshold values and the 70% discrimination success, are currently established only in-sample, and the abstract contains several internally inconsistent percentages, so the significance is conditional on a successful revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 / Figure 11] The thresholds n_crit = 1.3 and |Tw|_crit = 2 are selected from the same scatter diagram used to evaluate the success rate, so the reported over-70% accuracy is a resubstitution estimate rather than a validated prediction. No cross-validation, bootstrap, or confidence interval is provided, and the improvement over the 64% base rate of eruptive events is not assessed for significance. The fragility is concrete: events 12 and 43, both confined, have n = 1.21 and n = 1.20, respectively, so lowering n_crit to 1.2 would put two confined events above the threshold and invalidate the statement that all events above n_crit erupted. Please provide an out-of-sample or cross-validated estimate of the discrimination accuracy and a sensitivity analysis of the thresholds, or explicitly reframe the claims as descriptive in-sample statistics.
  2. [Abstract and Sections 3.2 and 4] The headline percentages are inconsistent across the abstract and the body. The abstract says that 29% of the events with both parameters below the lower limits are eruptive, while Section 3.2 and Section 4 state that 11 of the 25 events in that quadrant are eruptive, i.e., 44%. The abstract's phrase 'nearly 90%' for events above |Tw|_crit is also an overstatement of the 85% (11/13) reported in Section 3.2. In addition, the abstract and Section 4 claim that 90% or 'over 90%' of events possess pre-flare MFRs, whereas Section 3.1 reports 39 of 45 events, or 86.7%, with |Tw|_max >= 1. These numbers must be reconciled and corrected throughout the manuscript.
  3. [Sections 1, 3.1, and 4] The paper itself warns that results from a single NLFFF code must be treated with caution and reports that the CESE-MHD-NLFFF twist values are systematically higher than those of other methods; Section 4 attributes the disagreement with Jing et al. (2018) primarily to the different reconstruction code. Because the proposed |Tw|_crit = 2 and the conclusion that kink instability is as important as torus instability rest on absolute twist values, this code sensitivity is a load-bearing risk. Please add a quantitative cross-code comparison on at least a subset of the events, or a validation against synthetic MFR equilibria with known twist, and discuss how the thresholds and the equal-importance conclusion would change under the twist offset.
  4. [Section 3.1 / Table 1] For the eight events with multiple MFRs, the analysis uses only the MFR with the largest height, without demonstrating that this is the structure responsible for the flare. The choice can directly affect the quadrant assignment and therefore the threshold statistics; for example, events 31 and 32 have two MFRs of opposite twist, and the selected rope may not be the flaring one. Please justify this selection or show that the main conclusions are unchanged when the rope co-spatial with the pre-flare filament or the flaring site is used instead.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1(f)] The word 'dented' in the caption should be 'denoted', and the location of the yellow line in panel (c) is hard to identify and should be marked more clearly.
  2. [Section 3.1] The text says 13 events have |Tw|_max larger than 2, but Q4 is defined with |Tw| >= 2 and event 17 has |Tw| = 2.00; the wording should be 'at least 2' to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 2.5] Equation (3) uses r as the straight-line distance from O to P, but the preceding equation uses height h; a brief sentence clarifying the distinction between r and h would help readers.
  4. [Section 1] There are typographical errors such as 'magentic' and 'deceasing speed' that should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 70% discrimination 'prediction' is an in-sample re-description of thresholds chosen from the same 45 events; no out-of-sample test is provided.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Figure 11 and Table 1]
    "From the distribution of eruptive and confined flares in the parameter space, it can be empirically identified a critical value for n and |Tw|, which are ncrit = 1.3 and |Tw|crit = 2, respectively... If doing a prediction for the type of eruptive or confined in all the 45 events using the critical values of n and |Tw| derived from the pre-flare field reconstructions, over 70% are successful predicted"

    The thresholds ncrit=1.3 and |Tw|crit=2 are selected from the same scatter diagram (Figure 11) that contains all 45 events, and the 'prediction' success rate is then counted on those same 45 events. This is an in-sample fit relabeled as a prediction: with two free thresholds and binary labels, the reported accuracy is a property of the threshold choice rather than out-of-sample evidence. No cross-validation, bootstrap, or independent test set is provided. The fragility is visible in Table 1: confined event 12 has n=1.21, so a small shift of ncrit from 1.3 to 1.2 would place a confined event above the threshold and destroy the 'all events above ncrit erupted' statement.

full rationale

The central circularity is in Section 3.2: ncrit=1.3 and |Tw|crit=2 are 'empirically identified' from the scatter of all 45 events, and the same 45 events are then used to report 'over 70% are successful predicted.' This is pattern 2 (fitted input called prediction): the success rate reduces to an in-sample classification threshold and is not an independent predictive test. The circularity is partial rather than total because the thresholds are broadly consistent with independent theoretical values (n=1.3-1.5; twist 1.75-1.875 from simulations), and the comparison with Jing et al. (2018) provides an external reference point. The use of the authors' own CESE-MHD-NLFFF code is not itself circular, since it is benchmarked against Low & Lou analytic solutions and Titov-Demoulin models; the Zou et al. (2019) citation, though self-citational, is only corroborative and not load-bearing for the main discrimination claim. The paper explicitly flags code-dependence limitations ('any results based on any single NLFFF code must be taken with cautions') and acknowledges its twist values are systematically higher than other methods; those are accuracy/correctness risks rather than circularity. One internal-statistics inconsistency is also present: the abstract reports 29% of below-threshold events as eruptive while Section 4 states 44%, which further weakens the reconnection conjecture but is a correctness issue rather than a circular one.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative results rest on a chain of modeling assumptions (force-free reconstruction, potential-field strapping field, twist-max axis proxy, oblique decay index) and on three empirical cutoffs. No new physical entities are introduced. The thresholds are fitted to the same data used to evaluate them.

free parameters (3)
  • n_crit (TI threshold) = 1.3
    Chosen post hoc from the scatter diagram of decay index versus twist number to separate eruptive from confined events; used to claim that n > 1.3 is a sufficient condition for eruption.
  • |T_w|_crit (KI threshold) = 2.0
    Selected empirically from the same scatter diagram; 11 of 13 events above it erupted, and it is used as the kink-instability lower limit.
  • MFR twist threshold |T_w| >= 1 = 1 turn
    Adopted from Liu et al. (2016) to define a magnetic flux rope; this cutoff determines which events are counted as having an MFR and affects all subsequent statistics.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The coronal magnetic field is approximately force-free, so NLFFF reconstruction from photospheric magnetograms is valid.
    Invoked in Section 2.2; the CESE-MHD-NLFFF code seeks a force-free equilibrium, and the entire analysis depends on this assumption holding in active regions.
  • domain assumption The potential field extrapolated from the photospheric Bz component approximates the external strapping field that stabilizes the flux rope.
    Section 2.5 uses this potential field to compute the decay index; if the strapping field has significant non-potential contributions, the decay index values would change.
  • domain assumption The magnetic twist number Tw computed along a field line (Eq. 1) approximates the winding number about the rope axis, and the field line with maximum |T_w| is a reliable proxy for the rope axis.
    Taken from Liu et al. (2016); the KI parameter and the MFR axis identification rest on this proxy, and the authors note cases where the axis is at a local minimum of |T_w|.
  • domain assumption The decay index along the oblique OP direction using only the poloidal component Bp (Eq. 3) captures the torus instability threshold.
    Section 2.5 introduces a non-standard decay index definition; if the vertical or full-field definition is more appropriate, the n thresholds would differ.
  • domain assumption SDO/HMI SHARP vector magnetograms with the minimum-energy ambiguity resolution are accurate enough for NLFFF extrapolation.
    Section 2.2; noise and 180-degree ambiguity errors propagate into the reconstructed field and the derived parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Study of Pre-Flare Solar Coronal Magnetic Fields: Magnetic Flux Ropes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TTF47NM

@misc{pith2026190808643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Study of Pre-Flare Solar Coronal Magnetic Fields: Magnetic Flux Ropes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TTF47NM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08643}
}
abstract

Magnetic flux ropes (MFRs) are thought to be the central structure of solar eruptions, and their ideal MHD instabilities can trigger the eruption. Here we performed a study of all the MFR configurations that lead to major solar flares, either eruptive or confined, from 2011 to 2017 near the solar disk center. The coronal magnetic field is reconstructed from observed magnetograms, and based on magnetic twist distribution, we identified the MFR, which is defined as a coherent group of magnetic field lines winding an axis with more than one turn. It is found that 90% of the events possess pre-flare MFRs, and their three-dimensional structures are much more complex in details than theoretical MFR models. We further constructed a diagram based on two parameters, the magnetic twist number which controls the kink instability (KI), and the decay index which controls the torus instability (TI). It clearly shows lower limits for TI and KI thresholds, which are $n_{\rm crit} = 1.3$ and $|T_w|_{\rm crit} = 2$, respectively, as all the events above $n_{\rm crit}$ and nearly 90% of the events above $|T_w|_{\rm crit}$ erupted. Furthermore, by such criterion, over 70% of the events can be discriminated between eruptive and confined flares, and KI seems to play a nearly equally important role as TI in discriminating between the two types of flare. There are more than half of events with both parameters below the lower limits, and 29% are eruptive. These events might be triggered by magnetic reconnection rather than MHD instabilities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amari, T., Canou, A., & Aly, J. J. 2014, Nature, 514, 465

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    K., DeV ore, C

    Antiochos, S. K., DeV ore, C. R., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 510, 485, doi: 10.1086/306563

    doi:10.1086/306563 1999

  3. [3]

    J., Sun, X., & Liu, Y

    Aschwanden, M. J., Sun, X., & Liu, Y . 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 34

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    2014, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Aulanier, G. 2014, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 300, IAU Symposium, ed. B. Schmieder, J.-M. Malherbe, & S. T. Wu, 184–196

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Aulanier, G., Török, T., Démoulin, P., & DeLuca, E. E. 2010, ApJ, 708, 314, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/314

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/314 2010

  6. [6]

    1978, MHD instabilities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,)

    Bateman, G. 1978, MHD instabilities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,)

    work page 1978

  7. [7]

    2001, A&A, 367, 321, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000412

    Baty, H. 2001, A&A, 367, 321, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000412

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000412 2001

  8. [8]

    A., & Prior, C

    Berger, M. A., & Prior, C. 2006, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General, 39, 8321, doi: 10.1088/0305-4470/39/26/005

    doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/26/005 2006

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    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

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    2010, ApJ, 715, 1566, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1566

    Canou, A., & Amari, T. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1566, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1566

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    2009, ApJL, 693, L27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/L27

    Canou, A., Amari, T., Bommier, V ., et al. 2009, ApJL, 693, L27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/L27

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    1989, ApJ, 338, 453, doi: 10.1086/167211

    Chen, J. 1989, ApJ, 338, 453, doi: 10.1086/167211

    1989 doi

  5. [13]

    2017, Science China Earth Sciences, 60, 1383, doi: 10.1007/s11430-017-9074-6

    Cheng, X., Guo, Y ., & Ding, M. 2017, Science China Earth Sciences, 60, 1383, doi: 10.1007/s11430-017-9074-6

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    D., et al

    Cheng, X., Zhang, J., Ding, M. D., et al. 2013, ApJL, 769, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/769/2/L25 Démoulin, P., & Aulanier, G. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1388, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1388

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Schrijver, C

    DeRosa, M. L., Schrijver, C. J., Barnes, G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1780, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1780

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa76e1

    Duan, A., Jiang, C., Hu, Q., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa76e1

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Fan, Y ., & Gibson, S. E. 2003, ApJL, 589, L105, doi:10.1086/375834 —. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1232, doi: 10.1086/521335

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    G., Linker, J

    Forbes, T. G., Linker, J. A., Chen, J., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 251, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9019-8

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    Getling, A. V . 2019, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.08367

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    E., Fan, Y ., Török, T., & Kliem, B

    Gibson, S. E., Fan, Y ., Török, T., & Kliem, B. 2006, SSRv, 124, 131, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9101-2

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    M., & Kliem, B

    Green, L. M., & Kliem, B. 2009, ApJL, 700, L83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L83

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    2017, Science China Earth Sciences, 60, 1408, doi: 10.1007/s11430-017-9081-x

    Guo, Y ., Cheng, X., & Ding, M. 2017, Science China Earth Sciences, 60, 1408, doi: 10.1007/s11430-017-9081-x

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    W., & Priest, E

    Hood, A. W., & Priest, E. R. 1981, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 17, 297, doi: 10.1080/03091928108243687

    1981 doi

  16. [24]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae079

    Inoue, S., Shiota, D., Bamba, Y ., & Park, S.-H. 2018, ApJ, 867, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae079

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    2015, SoPh, 290, 3425, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0710-3

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., & Démoulin, P. 2015, SoPh, 290, 3425, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0710-3

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/144

    Jiang, C., & Feng, X. 2013, ApJ, 769, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/144

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    T., Feng, X., & Hu, Q

    Jiang, C., Wu, S. T., Feng, X., & Hu, Q. 2014, ApJL, 786, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/L16

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    T., Yurchyshyn, V

    Jiang, C., Wu, S. T., Yurchyshyn, V . B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 62

    2016

  21. [29]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeacc

    Jiang, C., Zou, P., Feng, X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeacc

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    W., Feng, X

    Jiang, C. W., Feng, X. S., Wu, S. T., & Hu, Q. 2013, ApJL, 771, L30

    2013

  23. [31]

    W., Feng, X

    Jiang, C. W., Feng, X. S., Zhang, J., & Zhong, D. K. 2010, SoPh, 267, 463

    2010

  24. [32]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e4

    Jing, J., Liu, C., Lee, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e4

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 255002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002

    Kliem, B., & Török, T. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 255002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    Kuperus, M., & Raadu, M. A. 1974, A&A, 31, 189

    1974

  27. [35]

    2018, ApJL, 867, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae826

    Liu, L., Cheng, X., Wang, Y ., et al. 2018, ApJL, 867, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae826

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    S., et al

    Liu, R., Kliem, B., Titov, V . S., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 148

    2016

  29. [37]

    C., & Lou, Y

    Low, B. C., & Lou, Y . Q. 1990, ApJ, 352, 343, doi:10.1086/168541

    1990 doi

  30. [38]

    I., Su, Y

    McCauley, P. I., Su, Y . N., Schanche, N., et al. 2015, SoPh, 290, 1703, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0699-7 18 D UAN ET AL

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    X., Keppens, R., Roussev, I

    Mei, Z. X., Keppens, R., Roussev, I. I., & Lin, J. 2018, A&A, 609, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730395

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. A. 1994, ApJ, 430, 898, doi: 10.1086/174460

    1994 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Joshi, B., Prasad, A., Veronig, A

    Mitra, P. K., Joshi, B., Prasad, A., Veronig, A. M., & Bhattacharyya, R. 2018, ApJ, 869, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed26

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    L., Sterling, A

    Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., & Lemen, J. R. 2001, ApJ, 552, 833, doi: 10.1086/320559

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    E., Yamada, M., Ji, H., et al

    Myers, C. E., Yamada, M., Ji, H., et al. 2015, Nature, 528, 526, doi: 10.1038/nature16188

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    2010, ApJ, 718, 433, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/433

    Olmedo, O., & Zhang, J. 2010, ApJ, 718, 433, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/433

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    Petrie, G. J. D. 2019, ApJS, 240, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaef2f Régnier, S. 2013, Solar Physics, 288, 481, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0367-8

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Rust, D. M. 2003, Advances in Space Research, 32, 1895, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(03)90623-5

    2003 doi

  39. [47]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/96

    Savcheva, A., Pariat, E., McKillop, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/96

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1598, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2011.10.023

    Schmieder, B., & Aulanier, G. 2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1598, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2011.10.023

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    2013, Advances in Space Research, , doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.12.026

    Schmieder, B., Démoulin, P., & Aulanier, G. 2013, Advances in Space Research, , doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.12.026

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    B., & Darnel, J

    Seaton, D. B., & Darnel, J. M. 2018, ApJL, 852, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa28e

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6

    Shibata, K., & Magara, T. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6

    2011

  44. [52]

    2011, ApJ, 734, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/53

    Su, Y ., Surges, V ., van Ballegooijen, A., DeLuca, E., & Golub, L. 2011, ApJ, 734, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/53

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/144

    Su, Y ., van Ballegooijen, A., McCauley, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/144

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Sun, X., & Norton, A. A. 2017, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 1, 24, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aa9be9

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    G., Hoeksema, J

    Sun, X., Bobra, M. G., Hoeksema, J. T., et al. 2015, ApJL, 804, L28

    2015

  48. [56]

    S., & Démoulin, P

    Titov, V . S., & Démoulin, P. 1999, A&A, 351, 707

    1999

  49. [57]

    J., Harra, L

    Toriumi, S., Schrijver, C. J., Harra, L. K., Hudson, H., & Nagashima, K. 2017, ApJ, 834, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/56 Török, T., Berger, M. A., & Kliem, B. 2010, A&A, 516, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913578 Török, T., & Kliem, B. 2003, A&A, 406, 1043, doi: 10.1051/00...

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    2018, Research Notes of the AAS, 2, 8

    Wang, H., Yurchyshyn, V ., Liu, C., et al. 2018, Research Notes of the AAS, 2, 8

    2018

  51. [59]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 9316, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023075

    Wang, Y ., Zhuang, B., Hu, Q., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 9316, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023075

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    2004, SoPh, 219, 87, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000021799.39465.36

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

    2004

  53. [61]

    Wiegelmann, T., Petrie, G. J. D., & Riley, P. 2017, SSRv, 210, 249, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0178-3

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    R., & Mackay, D

    Yeates, A. R., & Mackay, D. H. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1024, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1024

    2009 doi

  55. [63]

    Yurchyshyn, V ., Kumar, P., Cho, K.-S., Lim, E.-K., & Abramenko, V . I. 2015, ApJ, 812, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/172

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3b7

    Zou, P., Jiang, C., Feng, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3b7

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    P., Aulanier, G., & Gilchrist, S

    Zuccarello, F. P., Aulanier, G., & Gilchrist, S. A. 2015, ApJ, 814, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/126

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.