pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.02009 · v1 · pith:75GXKD2Unew · submitted 2026-07-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Research Progress on Solar Small-Scale Dynamo

Wen-Jie Jiang , Lei Ni , Chun-Lan Jin , Zhi Xu , Mei Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 05:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords small-scale dynamoquiet Sunmagnetic fieldssolar convectionMHD simulationscoronal heatingsolar observationsturbulent dynamo
0
0 comments X

The pith

Observations and simulations indicate that small-scale dynamo action produces most of the magnetic energy in the quiet Sun.

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

The paper reviews thirty years of work on the solar small-scale dynamo as the source of persistent weak fields in quiet Sun regions. High-resolution data show these fields are dynamic, mixed-polarity, often horizontal, and emerge at high rates independent of the global cycle. Theory and MHD simulations demonstrate that convective turbulence can stretch and fold field lines to convert kinetic energy into magnetic energy even at low magnetic Prandtl numbers. The collected results point to a local dynamo that dominates the quiet-Sun magnetic budget and participates in coronal and wind processes.

Core claim

The small-scale solar dynamo operates efficiently in the photosphere and convection zone, self-excitedly generating and sustaining the substantial, cycle-independent magnetic flux observed throughout quiet regions through turbulent motions.

What carries the argument

The small-scale dynamo, a process in which convective turbulence stretches, folds, and twists magnetic field lines to amplify magnetic energy against ohmic diffusion.

If this is right

  • Small-scale fields constitute the majority of magnetic energy in the quiet Sun.
  • These fields participate in coronal heating.
  • They contribute to solar wind acceleration.
  • They shape the distribution of solar radiation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Global solar magnetic models may require explicit local dynamo contributions to match observed flux distributions.
  • The same turbulent amplification process could be tested in simulations of other convective stars.
  • Higher-resolution observations could map the three-dimensional topology of these fields more directly.

Load-bearing premise

The cited body of observations, theory, and simulations gives a representative picture of the field without major selection bias or omission of conflicting evidence.

What would settle it

A full-disk quiet-Sun flux measurement that yields total magnetic energy far below the levels sustained in current small-scale dynamo simulations, or emergence rates that track the eleven-year cycle closely.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02009 by Chun-Lan Jin, Lei Ni, Mei Zhang, Wen-Jie Jiang, Zhi Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of the magnetic field in the quiet Sun derived from denoised observational data obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Numerical simulation results of small-scale dynamo from Rempel (2014). Panels (a)–(c) show the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quiet Sun region observed by SUNRISE/IMaX instrument, reproduced from Solanki et al. (2010). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The top-left panel shows the spatial distribution of the magnetic inclination angle ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability distributions of magnetic field strength and inclination angle in the quiet Sun internetwork [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Four sequential time frames (t = 0,125,250,375 s) showing the complete process from emergence to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the system’s normalized magnetic energy M(k) versus wavenumber k for differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left panel: Normalized magnetic energy spectra at different spatial resolutions, reproduced from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of kinetic (top two rows) and magnetic energy spectra (bottom row) for two different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of results at native resolution (left column) and Hinode resolution (middle column) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Magnetic field distribution above the photospheric surface from a solar local dynamo simulation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The simulation results reproduced from Rempel (2014), which include two cases with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The small-scale solar dynamo theory, as the core mechanism explaining the origin of the persistent, disperse weak magnetic field in the quiet Sun regions, has made significant progress over the past three decades in the fields of observation, theory, and simulation. Breakthrough observations from high-resolution space-based and ground-based telescopes have revealed that the quiet Sun is ubiquitously populated by highly dynamic, mixed-polarity and possibly predominantly horizontal magnetic structures with complex topology. These observations confirm that their total magnetic flux is substantial, with a high and widely distributed magnetic flux emergence rate, strongly suggesting a local dynamo effect independent of the solar cycle and driven by intense turbulence and convection. Theoretical studies indicate that even in the challenging low magnetic Prandtl number ( Pm << 1) environment of the solar photosphere and convection zone, turbulent motions can self-excitedly convert kinetic energy into magnetic energy through the stretching, folding, and twisting of magnetic field lines. MHD simulations have successfully reproduced observed features, demonstrating that a pure small-scale dynamo can operate efficiently and sustain magnetic fields even in an open, stratified solar environment incorporating realistic physical processes. Current research strongly suggests that small-scale magnetic fields constitute the majority of the magnetic energy in the quiet Sun and also influence coronal heating, solar wind acceleration, and radiation distribution. This article conducts a literature review centered on observations, theoretical models, and numerical simulations of the small-scale dynamo, organizing and discussing the relevant research history and progress. Finally, it summarizes the content and provides an outlook on future research from multiple perspectives.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a narrative literature review summarizing three decades of progress on the solar small-scale dynamo. It covers high-resolution observations revealing ubiquitous mixed-polarity, possibly horizontal magnetic structures in the quiet Sun with high flux emergence rates independent of the solar cycle; theoretical arguments that turbulent convection can drive dynamo action even at low magnetic Prandtl number (Pm << 1); and MHD simulations that reproduce observed mixed-polarity fields in open, stratified domains. The review concludes that small-scale fields likely constitute the majority of magnetic energy in the quiet Sun and influence coronal heating, solar wind acceleration, and radiation.

Significance. If the cited body of work is representative, the review would offer a useful synthesis for solar physicists by highlighting the case for local dynamo action decoupled from the global cycle and by pointing to connections with upper-atmosphere energetics. The manuscript correctly notes the enabling role of recent high-resolution data and realistic simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'current research strongly suggests that small-scale magnetic fields constitute the majority of the magnetic energy in the quiet Sun' rests on an unquantified selection of supportive studies (flux emergence rates, low-Pm theory, MHD runs reproducing mixed-polarity fields) without a systematic literature survey, citation counts, or explicit treatment of papers favoring recycled global-dynamo flux or alternative interpretations of Hanle/Zeeman signals.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract/Conclusion: the review states it 'organizes and discusses the relevant research history and progress' but provides no methods for literature selection and no discussion of contradictory or alternative results, which directly affects the defensibility of the 'strongly suggests' claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the adverb 'self-excitedly' is nonstandard; rephrase for clarity (e.g., 'turbulent motions can self-excite the conversion of kinetic energy into magnetic energy').

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these detailed comments on the abstract and scope. The points are well taken: the phrasing 'strongly suggests' in the abstract is not accompanied by an explicit literature-selection protocol or balanced treatment of opposing interpretations, which weakens the claim. We will revise the manuscript to qualify the language, add a short methods paragraph on literature selection, and incorporate discussion of alternative views (recycled global-dynamo flux and differing Hanle/Zeeman interpretations). These changes will be made in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'current research strongly suggests that small-scale magnetic fields constitute the majority of the magnetic energy in the quiet Sun' rests on an unquantified selection of supportive studies (flux emergence rates, low-Pm theory, MHD runs reproducing mixed-polarity fields) without a systematic literature survey, citation counts, or explicit treatment of papers favoring recycled global-dynamo flux or alternative interpretations of Hanle/Zeeman signals.

    Authors: We agree that the absolute phrasing is not justified by a quantitative survey. The manuscript is a narrative review that synthesizes key observational, theoretical, and simulation results published over three decades; it does not claim to be exhaustive or meta-analytic. In revision we will (i) soften the abstract sentence to 'the body of work reviewed here indicates that small-scale fields likely dominate the magnetic energy budget in the quiet Sun', (ii) add a brief paragraph in the introduction describing the criteria used to select the cited literature (focus on high-resolution observations post-2010, low-Pm theory, and stratified MHD simulations), and (iii) insert a short subsection discussing papers that attribute quiet-Sun flux to recycled global-dynamo remnants and alternative interpretations of Hanle depolarization signals. These additions will make the evidential basis explicit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract/Conclusion: the review states it 'organizes and discusses the relevant research history and progress' but provides no methods for literature selection and no discussion of contradictory or alternative results, which directly affects the defensibility of the 'strongly suggests' claim.

    Authors: The absence of an explicit selection protocol and of counter-arguments is a genuine limitation of the current draft. We will add a one-paragraph 'Literature selection and scope' subsection at the end of the introduction that states the review is narrative rather than systematic, lists the main search terms and time window used, and acknowledges that papers arguing for dominant recycled flux or different Hanle/Zeeman diagnostics are not comprehensively covered. In the conclusion we will add a sentence noting that the relative contribution of local versus recycled flux remains an active debate. These revisions directly address the referee's concern about defensibility. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: review summarizes external literature without derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

This is a narrative literature review that organizes and discusses existing observations, theoretical models, and MHD simulations from the broader field. No new quantitative predictions, derivations, or first-principles results are presented that could reduce to fitted parameters or self-citations by construction. The central synthesis statement ('Current research strongly suggests...') is explicitly framed as a summary of cited external work rather than an internal derivation. No equations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are introduced within the paper. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for any claimed result. This matches the default expectation for non-circular papers and aligns with the provided reader's assessment of score 0.0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a review paper, it introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; it summarizes those appearing in the reviewed literature on solar MHD.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5807 in / 1022 out tokens · 20230 ms · 2026-07-03T05:20:33.540861+00:00 · methodology

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

300 extracted references · 115 canonical work pages · 78 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abramenko , V. I. 2024, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 365, Dynamics of Solar and Stellar Convection Zones and Atmospheres, ed. A. V. Getling & L. L. Kitchatinov , 261

    2024

  2. [2]

    2015, , 522, 188

    Amari , T., Luciani , J.-F., & Aly , J.-J. 2015, , 522, 188

    2015

  3. [3]

    2009, , 701, 1032

    Asensio Ramos , A. 2009, , 701, 1032

    2009

  4. [4]

    Asensio Ramos , A., & Mart \' nez Gonz \'a lez , M. J. 2014, , 572, A98

    2014

  5. [5]

    Batchelor , G. K. 1950, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 76, 133

    1950

  6. [6]

    2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 1

    Bellot Rubio , L., & Orozco Su \'a rez , D. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 1

    2019

  7. [7]

    M., et al

    Berghmans , D., Auch \`e re , F., Long , D. M., et al. 2021, , 656, L4

    2021

  8. [8]

    A., Cabello , I., & S \'a nchez Almeida , J

    Bonet , J. A., Cabello , I., & S \'a nchez Almeida , J. 2012, , 539, A6

    2012

  9. [9]

    M., Jafarzadeh , S., Sch \"u ssler , M., & Solanki , S

    Borrero , J. M., Jafarzadeh , S., Sch \"u ssler , M., & Solanki , S. K. 2017, , 210, 275

    2017

  10. [10]

    M., & Kobel , P

    Borrero , J. M., & Kobel , P. 2011, , 527, A29

    2011

  11. [11]

    M., & Kobel , P

    Borrero , J. M., & Kobel , P. 2013, , 550, A98

    2013

  12. [12]

    M., Mart \' nez-Pillet , V., Schlichenmaier , R., et al

    Borrero , J. M., Mart \' nez-Pillet , V., Schlichenmaier , R., et al. 2010, , 723, L144

    2010

  13. [13]

    2011, , 741, 92

    Brandenburg , A. 2011, , 741, 92

    2011

  14. [14]

    2019, , 879, 57

    Brandenburg , A., & Rempel , M. 2019, , 879, 57

    2019

  15. [15]

    2012, , 169, 123

    Brandenburg , A., Sokoloff , D., & Subramanian , K. 2012, , 169, 123

    2012

  16. [16]

    2005, , 417, 1

    Brandenburg , A., & Subramanian , K. 2005, , 417, 1

    2005

  17. [17]

    Buehler , D., Lagg , A., & Solanki , S. K. 2013, , 555, A33

    2013

  18. [18]

    o gler , A., & Sch \

    Cameron , R., V \"o gler , A., & Sch \"u ssler , M. 2011, , 533, A86

    2011

  19. [19]

    J., Keys , P

    Campbell , R. J., Keys , P. H., Mathioudakis , M., et al. 2023, , 955, L36

    2023

  20. [20]

    2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 636

    Cao , W., Gorceix , N., Coulter , R., et al. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 636

    2010

  21. [21]

    1999, , 515, L39

    Cattaneo , F. 1999, , 515, L39

    1999

  22. [22]

    2007, , 666, L137

    Centeno , R., Socas-Navarro , H., Lites , B., et al. 2007, , 666, L137

    2007

  23. [23]

    2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 4

    Charbonneau , P. 2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 4

    2020

  24. [24]

    2021, , 656, L7

    Chen , Y., Przybylski , D., Peter , H., et al. 2021, , 656, L7

    2021

  25. [25]

    A., Karelsky , K

    Chernyshov , A. A., Karelsky , K. V., & Petrosyan , A. S. 2008, , 686, 1137

    2008

  26. [26]

    S., Dogiel , V., Ko , C

    Chernyshov , D., Cheng , K. S., Dogiel , V., Ko , C. M., & Ip , W. H. 2009, in The Extreme Sky: Sampling the Universe above 10 keV, 75

    2009

  27. [27]

    Origin of Hydrogen Ionization in the 1 pc Galactic Central Region

    Chernyshov , D. O., Leung , G. C. K., Cheng , K. S., Dogiel , V. A., & Tatischeff , V. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.2740

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  28. [28]

    Cheung , M. C. M., & Isobe , H. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 3

    2014

  29. [29]

    P., Zhukov , A

    Chitta , L. P., Zhukov , A. N., Berghmans , D., et al. 2023, Science, 381, 867

    2023

  30. [30]

    Choudhuri , A. R. 2013, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 294, Solar and Astrophysical Dynamos and Magnetic Activity, ed. A. G. Kosovichev , E. de Gouveia Dal Pino , & Y. Yan , 37

    2013

  31. [31]

    W., White , S

    Cliver , E. W., White , S. M., & Richardson , I. G. 2024, , 961, L46

    2024

  32. [32]

    2016 a , , 594, A103

    Danilovic , S., Rempel , M., van Noort , M., & Cameron , R. 2016 a , , 594, A103

    2016

  33. [33]

    Danilovic , S., Sch \"u ssler , M., & Solanki , S. K. 2010 a , , 513, A1

    2010

  34. [34]

    2016 b , , 593, A93

    Danilovic , S., van Noort , M., & Rempel , M. 2016 b , , 593, A93

    2016

  35. [35]

    2010 b , , 723, L149

    Danilovic , S., Beeck , B., Pietarila , A., et al. 2010 b , , 723, L149

    2010

  36. [36]

    G., Lites , B

    de Wijn , A. G., Lites , B. W., Berger , T. E., et al. 2008, , 684, 1469

    2008

  37. [37]

    2018, , 863, 164

    del Pino Alem \'a n , T., Trujillo Bueno , J., S t e p \'a n , J., & Shchukina , N. 2018, , 863, 164

    2018

  38. [38]

    2011, , 733, 90

    Dikpati , M. 2011, , 733, 90

    2011

  39. [39]

    2007, Science, 318, 1572

    Erd \'e lyi , R., & Fedun , V. 2007, Science, 318, 1572

    2007

  40. [40]

    2008, , 676, 680

    Fan , Y. 2008, , 676, 680

    2008

  41. [41]

    2009, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 6, 4

    Fan , Y. 2009, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 6, 4

    2009

  42. [42]

    2014, , 789, 35

    Fan , Y., & Fang , F. 2014, , 789, 35

    2014

  43. [43]

    M., & Krieger , A

    Golub , L., Davis , J. M., & Krieger , A. S. 1979, , 229, L145

    1979

  44. [44]

    R., del Toro Iniesta , J

    Go s i \'c , M., Bellot Rubio , L. R., del Toro Iniesta , J. C., Orozco Su \'a rez , D., & Katsukawa , Y. 2016, , 820, 35

    2016

  45. [45]

    R., Orozco Su \'a rez , D., Katsukawa , Y., & del Toro Iniesta , J

    Go s i \'c , M., Bellot Rubio , L. R., Orozco Su \'a rez , D., Katsukawa , Y., & del Toro Iniesta , J. C. 2014, , 797, 49

    2014

  46. [46]

    G., Schmidt , W., & Schleicher , D

    Grete , P., Vlaykov , D. G., Schmidt , W., & Schleicher , D. R. G. 2017, , 95, 033206

    2017

  47. [47]

    F., Gowardhan , A

    Grinstein , F. F., Gowardhan , A. A., & Wachtor , A. J. 2011, Physics of Fluids, 23, 034106

    2011

  48. [48]

    J., Schrijver , C

    Hagenaar , H. J., Schrijver , C. J., & Title , A. M. 2003, ApJ, 584, 1107

    2003

  49. [49]

    W., Branston , D., Henney , C

    Harvey , J. W., Branston , D., Henney , C. J., Keller , C. U., & SOLIS and GONG Teams . 2007, , 659, L177

    2007

  50. [50]

    1973, , 28, 61

    Harvey , K., & Harvey , J. 1973, , 28, 61

    1973

  51. [51]

    Hazra , G., Nandy , D., Kitchatinov , L., & Choudhuri , A. R. 2023, , 219, 39

    2023

  52. [52]

    2022, , 933, 199

    Hotta , H., Kusano , K., & Shimada , R. 2022, , 933, 199

    2022

  53. [53]

    2014, , 786, 24

    Hotta , H., Rempel , M., & Yokoyama , T. 2014, , 786, 24

    2014

  54. [54]

    2015, , 803, 42

    Hotta , H., Rempel , M., & Yokoyama , T. 2015, , 803, 42

    2015

  55. [55]

    2016, Science, 351, 1427

    Hotta , H., Rempel , M., & Yokoyama , T. 2016, Science, 351, 1427

    2016

  56. [56]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1246

    Hou , C., He , J., Duan , D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1246

    2024

  57. [57]

    S., Xia , L., et al

    Huang , Z., Madjarska , M. S., Xia , L., et al. 2014, , 797, 88

    2014

  58. [58]

    J., & Yokoyama , T

    Iida , Y., Hagenaar , H. J., & Yokoyama , T. 2012, , 752, 149

    2012

  59. [59]

    J., & Yokoyama , T

    Iida , Y., Hagenaar , H. J., & Yokoyama , T. 2015, , 814, 134

    2015

  60. [60]

    2009, , 495, 607

    Ishikawa , R., & Tsuneta , S. 2009, , 495, 607

    2009

  61. [61]

    2010, , 713, 1310

    Ishikawa , R., Tsuneta , S., & Jur c \'a k , J. 2010, , 713, 1310

    2010

  62. [62]

    B., Schekochihin , A

    Iskakov , A. B., Schekochihin , A. A., Cowley , S. C., McWilliams , J. C., & Proctor , M. R. E. 2007, , 98, 208501

    2007

  63. [63]

    H., Cameron , R

    Jiang , J., Hathaway , D. H., Cameron , R. H., et al. 2014, , 186, 491

    2014

  64. [64]

    2019, , 871, 16

    Jiang , J., Song , Q., Wang , J.-X., & Baranyi , T. 2019, , 871, 16

    2019

  65. [65]

    L., & Wang , J

    Jin , C. L., & Wang , J. X. 2012, , 745, 39

    2012

  66. [66]

    L., & Wang , J

    Jin , C. L., & Wang , J. X. 2015 a , , 807, 70

    2015

  67. [67]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 069

    Jin , C.-L., & Wang , J.-X. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 069

    2019

  68. [68]

    L., Wang , J

    Jin , C. L., Wang , J. X., Song , Q., & Zhao , H. 2011, , 731, 37

    2011

  69. [69]

    2015 b , , 806, 174

    Jin , C., & Wang , J. 2015 b , , 806, 174

    2015

  70. [70]

    2009, , 690, 279

    Jin , C., Wang , J., & Zhao , M. 2009, , 690, 279

    2009

  71. [71]

    2026, ApJS, 283, 33

    Jin , C., Zhou , G., Hu , J., & Wang , J. 2026, ApJS, 283, 33

    2026

  72. [72]

    a pyl \"a , P. J., K \

    K \"a pyl \"a , P. J., K \"a pyl \"a , M. J., & Brandenburg , A. 2018, Astronomische Nachrichten, 339, 127

    2018

  73. [73]

    a pyl \"a , P. J., K \

    K \"a pyl \"a , P. J., K \"a pyl \"a , M. J., Olspert , N., Warnecke , J., & Brandenburg , A. 2017, , 599, A4

    2017

  74. [74]

    Kazantsev , A. P. 1968, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 26, 1031

    1968

  75. [75]

    V., Collados , M., Solanki , S

    Khomenko , E. V., Collados , M., Solanki , S. K., Lagg , A., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2003, , 408, 1115

    2003

  76. [76]

    2017, , 604, A66

    Khomenko , E., Vitas , N., Collados , M., & de Vicente , A. 2017, , 604, A66

    2017

  77. [77]

    2025, , 697, A29

    Khomenko , E., Vitas , N., Collados , M., & Modestov , M. 2025, , 697, A29

    2025

  78. [78]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.01718

    Kitchatinov , L. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.01718

    work page arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    N., Kosovichev , A

    Kitiashvili , I. N., Kosovichev , A. G., Mansour , N. N., & Wray , A. A. 2011, , 727, L50

    2011

  80. [80]

    N., Kosovichev , A

    Kitiashvili , I. N., Kosovichev , A. G., Mansour , N. N., & Wray , A. A. 2015, , 809, 84

    2015

Showing first 80 references.