Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 46 references

The magnetic sensitivity of the Ca II resonance and subordinate lines in the solar atmosphere

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Modeling the polarization of Ca II lines requires PRD, J-state interference, and metastable levels, with the lines responding to fields from milligauss to hundreds of gauss.

desk verdict A careful, useful synthesis paper that gives Ca II observers concrete magnetic-sensitivity numbers; the AA-PRD caveat is real but disclosed, and the vertical-field claim is slightly overclean in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.19719 v2 pith:A3E3TFRJ submitted 2025-10-22 astro-ph.SR

I. Juanikorena Berasategi , E. Alsina Ballester , T. del Pino Alemán , J. Trujillo Bueno This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords CaIIresonancelinesinfraredtripletscatteringpolarizationHanleeffectZeemanpartialfrequencyredistributionJ-stateinterferencesolarchromosphere
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

These calculations establish which physical ingredients are needed to model the polarization of the Ca II H and K resonance lines and the infrared triplet, and over what field strengths each line responds. Using one-dimensional radiative transfer syntheses with the HanleRT-TIC code, the paper shows that partial frequency redistribution is required for the core regions of the resonant lines, J-state interference shapes their far wings, and the metastable lower levels of the triplet lines are essential for the K-line core. It then maps the magnetic sensitivity: horizontal fields are imprinted on the resonant lines from sub-gauss to tens of gauss via the Hanle effect, while the infrared triplet's scattering polarization responds mainly at milligauss strengths through the Hanle effect on the metastable levels, with the Zeeman effect taking over at higher fields. The paper also finds that atomic level polarization boosts the outer circular-polarization lobes of H and K, so applying the weak-field approximation to those lobes overestimates the line-of-sight magnetic field.

What carries the argument

The central tools are the HanleRT-TIC spectral synthesis code and its multi-level (5L) and multi-term (3T) atomic models for Ca II. The key physical ingredients are: (i) partial frequency redistribution in the angle-averaged approximation for the H and K lines, with the IR triplet treated in CRD (the 'IRCRD' scheme); (ii) J-state interference, which only the 3T multi-term model captures and which controls the polarization between the H and K lines and in their far wings; (iii) the metastable 3d 2D levels, whose sub-gauss Hanle sensitivity is passed to the K line via polarization transfer; and (iv) the ratio in Eq. (1) expressing Hanle efficiency in terms of Larmor frequency and level lifetim

What would settle it

Recompute the K and H line Stokes profiles on the FAL-C model with full angle-dependent PRD and compare the core and wing Q/I, U/I profiles and the disk-center side peaks; any substantial change would invalidate the paper's vertical-field core-insensitivity result and its attribution of the side peaks to the combined PRD+Hanle mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a single radiation-transfer treatment cannot model all five Ca II lines: partial frequency redistribution is required for the H and K cores, J-state interference is required for the inter-line region and far wings, and the metastable 3d 2D levels must be included because their atomic polarization leaks into the 4p 2P upper levels and sets the K-line core amplitude. With those ingredients, the magnetic response is layered: sub-gauss horizontal fields act on the metastable levels and therefore on the infrared triplet and on the K core; fields of a few gauss act on the upper levels of the resonance lines; and fields of hundreds of gauss bring in Zeeman-dominated linea

Load-bearing premise

The angle-averaged approximation to partial frequency redistribution is accurate enough that the core-region polarization and magnetic sensitivity maps derived here remain valid; the paper itself notes that angle-dependent effects could modify the core region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inversions of the Ca II IR triplet can safely use CRD, but syntheses of the H and K lines require PRD and a multi-term treatment for the inter-line polarization.
  • The metastable levels must be included in the atomic model whenever the K line core is used for diagnostics; omitting them overestimates the core linear polarization.
  • Sub-gauss to milligauss horizontal fields can be measured with the IR triplet lines through the Hanle effect on the metastable levels, and with the K line through polarization transfer to its upper level.
  • Magnetometry using the outer V/I lobes of the H and K lines must include atomic level polarization; the weak-field approximation underestimates the longitudinal field by about 10% in the tested 200 G case.
  • At disk center, the PRD side peaks in the K line appear for horizontal fields above ~5 G from combined Hanle and Zeeman effects, offering a possible diagnostic of horizontal fields in the 5-100 G range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's 1D, static results are likely a lower bound on the magnetic complexity: in a dynamic 3D chromosphere, the Hanle/Zeeman segregation found here could be blurred by gradients along the line of sight, so the stated field-strength ranges should be treated as guides for interpreting observations rather than as exact boundaries.
  • Because the IR triplet is sensitive to milligauss fields, these lines could probe the weak-field internetwork chromosphere, where the Hanle effect of the metastable levels might be the only detectable magnetic signature; a test would be to compare observed Q/I amplitudes in 8542 Å with the low-field plateau predicted in Figures 7 and 9.
  • The WFA bias found in the outer lobes suggests that existing longitudinal magnetograms built on Ca II H&K may systematically underestimate chromospheric fields in strong-field regions; a correction could be calibrated from these syntheses.
  • If the angle-averaged approximation is replaced by full angle-dependent PRD, the paper's vertical-field conclusion that cores are insensitive is the first to be tested; the forthcoming AD results could either confirm or overturn that particular result.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a systematic non-LTE radiative-transfer study of the Ca II H and K resonance doublet and the infrared subordinate triplet, using the publicly available HanleRT-TIC synthesis module. Calculations are performed in the FAL-C and FAL-P semi-empirical model atmospheres, with explicit comparisons of CRD, IRCRD, and PRD treatments, of 5-level and 3-term atomic models, and of atomic models with and without the metastable 3d levels. The paper analyzes Stokes I, Q, U, and V for horizontal and vertical magnetic fields from milligauss to kilogauss, at limb and disk-center lines of sight. The main claims are that PRD is required for the cores of H and K, J-state interference dominates the far wings and interline region, the metastable levels influence the K-line core polarization, the Hanle sensitivity of the IR triplet is in the milligauss range, and the weak-field approximation is unreliable in the outer circular-polarization lobes of the resonance lines, with a reported WFA-based field of 180.2 G against a true LOS value of 199 G.

Significance. If the results hold, this paper provides concrete guidance for the interpretation of upcoming Ca II spectropolarimetric observations from ViSP, SUSI, and SCIP: it identifies which physical ingredients (PRD, JSI, metastable levels) must be included in modeling, and which field-strength regimes produce measurable Hanle/Zeeman signatures. The study is carefully structured: several redistribution treatments and atomic models are compared, convergence criteria are stated, numerical parameters are tabulated, and the FAL-P appendix tests atmosphere dependence. The code is public, which aids reproducibility. The main caveat is that all PRD syntheses use the angle-averaged approximation, and the paper itself notes that angle-dependent PRD can modify a headline result. This caveat, together with an internal contradiction about the WFA bias direction, prevents me from recommending acceptance in the present form.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §5, Fig. 14] The abstract states that 'the weak field approximation tends to overestimate the LOS magnetic field component if this frequency range is considered,' but the body reports the opposite sign: §5 says the WFA 'may lead to an underestimation in the longitudinal field component' and the quoted fit gives B_LOS(WFA)=180.2 G versus B_LOS(True)=199 G, i.e. an underestimate by about 9%. The direction of the WFA bias must be made consistent between the abstract and §5. In addition, the least-squares fitting procedure leading to 180.2 G is not described (wavelength range, weighting, use of core vs lobes, and the exact WFA formula); without this the quantitative claim is not reproducible. Please correct the sign inconsistency and specify the fitting details.
  2. [§2.3, §4.3, §6, Abstract] All PRD syntheses are carried out under the angle-averaged (AA) approximation, and §4.3 explicitly concedes that in the angle-dependent (AD) case the magnetic field can have an impact in the line-core region. The sensitivity ranges quoted in §4.1–4.2 and the WFA-bias result of §5 are therefore AA-specific results. The conclusion in §6 is careful to include the qualifier 'under the angle-averaged assumption considered in this paper,' but the abstract's summary sentence ('For vertical fields, the Hanle effect does not operate') and the quantitative ranges are not qualified. Given that the paper is intended to guide observers and inversion codes, the abstract and the headline results should either be explicitly framed as AA-conditional or accompanied by at least one AD-PRD test (even for a representative case). This is not a request for a full AD treatment, but the current wording overstate
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'the the resonant lines' should read 'the resonant lines.'
  2. [Eq. (1)] The equation appears to use the symbol 'P' where a summation symbol is intended in the definitions of H_u and H_l. Please correct the typography so the sums over ℓ and u are legible.
  3. [§5] The sentence 'the application of the WFA overestimates the circular polarization amplitude of the synthesis' followed by 'This may lead to an underestimation in the longitudinal field component' is confusing even apart from the abstract contradiction. If larger V amplitude can lead to smaller inferred B due to profile shape or fitting range, explain that explicitly.
  4. [Appendix B] The appendix claims that the qualitative behavior of the H and K lines is consistent with the FAL-C results, but Figures B.1 and B.2 show only the K line and the IR triplet, not the H line or the interline region. Either add an H-line panel or soften the claim accordingly.
  5. [§3.1, Fig. 1] The text notes differences in I/I_cont as large as 0.1 between IRCRD and PRD at Δλ ~ 1 Å for the IR triplet. Since the paper concludes that the IR triplet can be treated with CRD, it would be useful to state explicitly that this intensity difference does not affect the polarization conclusions, which are the focus of the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are numerical syntheses from an independent RT-SE code, not restatements of inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain looking for steps where a claimed prediction reduces by construction to fitted inputs or to load-bearing self-citations. The main results (PRD vs CRD differences, JSI effects via 5L vs 3T comparisons, metastable-level influence via 3L vs 5L syntheses, magnetic sensitivity ranges, and the WFA bias) are all obtained by direct HanleRT-TIC radiative-transfer calculations and explicit controlled comparisons, not by fitting a parameter to the quantity being predicted. The Hanle critical-field estimates from Eq. (1) are standard level-lifetime definitions used only to frame expectations; the actual Stokes profiles are computed. The WFA test in Section 5 applies the weak-field approximation to synthetic I and V profiles and obtains BLOS(WFA)=180.2 G versus the imposed BLOS(True)=199 G; this is a self-contained numerical experiment, not a fitted-input-called-prediction. Self-citations such as del Pino Alemán et al. (2016, 2020), Li et al. (2022), and Trujillo Bueno (2019) serve as code/theory provenance or as earlier points of comparison, but the load-bearing evidence in this paper is the syntheses performed and compared here. The acknowledged angle-averaged PRD approximation and the deferred AD-PRD comparison (Sections 2.3 and 4.3) are genuine scope limitations that may affect quantitative conclusions, but they are explicitly flagged as such and do not constitute circular reasoning. Likewise, the ad hoc treatment of multi-term depolarizing collisions in Appendix C is an acknowledged modeling approximation, not a circular step. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. I therefore find no significant circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the field strengths, orientations, and LOS angles are swept grid values. The main assumptions are the 1D static atmospheres, the AA PRD approximation, and the adopted atomic/collisional data. No invented physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FAL-C and FAL-P plane-parallel semi-empirical atmospheres represent quiet-Sun and plage chromospheres
    Section 2.1: all syntheses use these 1D static models; if the real chromosphere is 3D and dynamic, quantitative field-sensitivity ranges may differ. The authors acknowledge this limitation.
  • domain assumption Angle-averaged PRD is a valid approximation for the main conclusions
    Section 2.3: the AA approximation is used and AD comparison is deferred; Section 4.3 notes AD may affect vertical-field core polarization. This is a structural approximation affecting central quantities.
  • domain assumption The 5L/3T atomic models with NIST energy levels and Einstein A coefficients capture the relevant polarization physics
    Section 2.2: level structure and Einstein coefficients are from NIST; metastable 3d levels are included. Collisional rates come from Shine & Linsky (1974) and Manso Sainz et al. (2014).
  • ad hoc to paper Weighted-average depolarizing collisional rates for multi-term J-state interference are representative
    Appendix C: 'Since no theoretical or numerical treatment of these rates is available... we have adopted a weighted average (by statistical weight) of the depolarizing collision rates of the involved J levels.' This affects the 3T syntheses.
  • domain assumption The multi-level 5L treatment is preferred over the multi-term 3T treatment for the IR triplet because the flat-spectrum condition is inaccurate across the 160 Å separation
    Section 2.2/3.2: multi-term assumes the same radiation field for transitions spanning the whole IR triplet, which the authors argue overestimates the linear polarization; they adopt 5L for the main results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The magnetic sensitivity of the Ca II resonance and subordinate lines in the solar atmosphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A3E3TFRJ

@misc{pith2026251019719,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The magnetic sensitivity of the Ca II resonance and subordinate lines in the solar atmosphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A3E3TFRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.19719}
}
abstract

Aims: The polarization of the Ca II resonant doublet (H and K lines) and the subordinate infrared triplet lines are key observables for diagnosing solar chromospheric magnetism. It is thus necessary to understand the physical mechanisms that shape their Stokes profiles in magnetic environments. Methods: Using the spectral synthesis module of the HanleRT-TIC code, we study the effects of anisotropic radiation pumping with partial frequency redistribution (PRD) and J-state interference (JSI) in a plane-parallel semi-empirical static solar atmospheric model. We also analyze the sensitivity of these lines to magnetic fields of varying strengths and orientations, accounting for the combined action of the Hanle and Zeeman effects. Results: Including PRD is crucial to model the polarization in the core regions of the resonant lines, while JSI strongly affects their far wings. The metastable lower levels of the subordinate lines also influence the scattering polarization of the K line. With horizontal magnetic fields, the resonant lines respond to field strengths from sub-gauss to tens of gauss, whereas the infrared triplet scattering polarization is mainly sensitive to milligauss fields. At a near-limb line of sight (LOS) with $\mu = 0.1$, the Hanle effect modifies the scattering polarization via a depolarization and a rotation in the plane of linear polarization. At disk center, horizontal fields generate linear polarization in the 1D model: for the K line, the Hanle effect dominates from sub-gauss to a few tens of gauss, and the Zeeman effect dominates in stronger fields. For vertical fields, the Hanle effect vanishes, but magneto-optical effects affect the linear polarization wings. Finally, atomic level polarization impacts the outer circular polarization lobes of the resonant lines, and the weak-field approximation overestimates the LOS magnetic component in this frequency range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.19719 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stokes I, normalized to the continuum intensity Icont (first and third rows), and fractional linear polarization Q/I profiles (second and fourth rows), shown as a function of wavelength distance from the center of each line under consideration. The intensity profiles of the UV doublet and of the IR triplet lines are normalized to the continuum value at λ = 3954.8 Å and at λ = 8500.5 Å, respectively. The profiles wer… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fractional linear polarization Q/I profiles for the region around the H and K lines (left panel), and the core and near￾wing region of the K line (central panel) and the H line (right panel). The considered redistribution treatment is IRCRD and the emergent profiles are shown for a LOS with µ = 0.1. The curves represent the emergent profiles for a 5L atomic model (which cannot account for J-state interference) in so… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stokes I, normalized to the continuum intensity Icont (upper panels), and fractional linear polarization Q/I profiles (lower panels) for the IR triplet as a function of wavelength distance from the center of each line; from left to right, the 8498 Å, 8542 Å, and 8662 Å lines. The emergent profiles are shown for a near the limb line of sight, with µ = 0.1. The curves represent emergent profiles for a 5L atomic model … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stokes I, normalized to the continuum intensity Icont (up￾per panel), and fractional linear polarization Q/I profiles (lower panel) for the core and near-wing region of the K line as a func￾tion of wavelength distance to the center of the line. The consid￾ered redistri…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fractional linear polarization Q/I (upper panels) and U/I (lower panels) profiles for the region around the H and K lines (left panels) and the core of the H line (right panels). The 3T multi-term atomic models are considered, so J-state interference is accounted for. …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fractional linear polarization profiles, Q/I (upper panels) and U/I (lower panels), for the core and near-wing region of the K line, for a line of sight with µ = 0.1. The curves represent emergent profiles for syntheses considering a uniform and horizontal magnetic fie…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fractional linear polarization profiles, Q/I (upper panels) and U/I (lower panels), for the core and near-wing region of the IR triplet lines for a LOS with µ = 0.1; from left to right, the 8498 Å, 8542 Å, and 8662 Å lines. The curves represent emergent profiles for sy…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fractional linear polarization profiles Q/I for the core and near-wing region of the K line for the disk-center LOS, with µ = 1. The curves represent emergent profiles for syntheses with different magnetic field strengths, as indicated in the legend. Re￾sults for B = 0…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fractional linear polarization profile Q/I for the core and near-wing region of the IR triplet lines for the disk-center LOS (µ = 1); from left to right, the 8498 Å, 8542 Å, and 8662 Å lines. The curves in the upper panels represent emergent profiles for syntheses with…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fractional linear polarization Q/I profile for the core and near-wing region of the K line as a function of wavelength distance to the center of the line. The considered redistribution treatment is PRD, a horizontal magnetic field of B = 10 G is present and the emerge…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Stokes profiles for the core and near-wing region of the K line for a LOS with µ = 0.1: I/Icont (first panel), Q/I (sec￾ond panel), U/I (third panel), and V/I (fourth panel). The curves represent the emergent profiles considering uniform and vertical magnetic fields w…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fractional circular polarization profiles V/I for the core and near-wing region of the K (upper panel) and 8542 Å (lower panel) lines, for a close to the limb LOS with µ = 0.1. The curves represent emergent profiles for syntheses with uniform and hor￾izontal magnetic …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2016, , 831, L15

    Alsina Ballester , E., Belluzzi , L., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2016, , 831, L15

    2016

  4. [4]

    2017, , 836, 6

    Alsina Ballester , E., Belluzzi , L., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2017, , 836, 6

    2017

  5. [5]

    2018, , 854, 150

    Alsina Ballester , E., Belluzzi , L., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2018, , 854, 150

    2018

  6. [6]

    2022, , 664, A76

    Alsina Ballester , E., Belluzzi , L., & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2022, , 664, A76

    2022

  7. [7]

    & Trujillo Bueno , J

    Belluzzi , L. & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2012, , 750, L11

    2012

  8. [8]

    & Trujillo Bueno , J

    Belluzzi , L. & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2014, , 564, A16

    2014

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    P., Sukhorukov , A

    Bj rgen , J. P., Sukhorukov , A. V., Leenaarts , J., et al. 2018, , 611, A62

    2018

  2. [10]

    2017 a , , 835, 114

    Casini , R., del Pino Alem \'a n , T., & Manso Sainz , R. 2017 a , , 835, 114

    2017

  3. [11]

    2017 b , , 848, 99

    Casini , R., del Pino Alem \'a n , T., & Manso Sainz , R. 2017 b , , 848, 99

    2017

  4. [12]

    2018, , 866, 89

    Centeno , R. 2018, , 866, 89

    2018

  5. [13]

    2012, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 872

    Collados , M., L \'o pez , R., P \'a ez , E., et al. 2012, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 872

    2012

  6. [14]

    G., Casini , R., Carlile , A., et al

    de Wijn , A. G., Casini , R., Carlile , A., et al. 2022, , 297, 22

    2022

  7. [15]

    2025, , 978, 27

    del Pino Alem \'a n , T., Alsina Ballester , E., Trujillo Bueno , J., et al. 2025, , 978, 27

    2025

  8. [16]

    2016, , 830, L24

    del Pino Alem \'a n , T., Casini , R., & Manso Sainz , R. 2016, , 830, L24

    2016

  9. [17]

    2020, , 891, 91

    del Pino Alem \'a n , T., Trujillo Bueno , J., Casini , R., & Manso Sainz , R. 2020, , 891, 91

    2020

  10. [18]

    2022, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 11, 2250014

    Dominguez-Tagle , C., Collados , M., Lopez , R., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 11, 2250014

    2022

  11. [19]

    Esteban Pozuelo , S., Asensio Ramos , A., de la Cruz Rodr \' guez , J., Trujillo Bueno , J., & Mart \' nez Gonz \'a lez , M. J. 2023, , 672, A141

    2023

  12. [20]

    A., et al

    Feller , A., Gandorfer , A., Iglesias , F. A., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. C. J. Evans , J. J. Bryant , & K. Motohara , 11447AK

    2020

  13. [21]

    M., Avrett , E

    Fontenla , J. M., Avrett , E. H., & Loeser , R. 1993, , 406, 319

    1993

  14. [22]

    C., Solanki , S

    Katsukawa , Y., del Toro Iniesta , J. C., Solanki , S. K., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. C. J. Evans , J. J. Bryant , & K. Motohara , 114470Y

    2020

  15. [23]

    K., et al

    Korpi-Lagg , A., Gandorfer , A., Solanki , S. K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06483

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 5.12) , National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD [Online]

    Kramida , A., Ralchenko , Y., Reader , J., & NIST ASD Team . 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 5.12) , National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd

    2024

  17. [25]

    & Landolfi , M

    Landi Degl'Innocenti , E. & Landolfi , M. 2004, Polarization in Spectral Lines , Vol. 307

    2004

  18. [26]

    2022, , 933, 145

    Li , H., del Pino Alem \'a n , T., Trujillo Bueno , J., & Casini , R. 2022, , 933, 145

    2022

  19. [27]

    2014, , 788, 118

    Manso Sainz , R., Roncero , O., Sanz-Sanz , C., et al. 2014, , 788, 118

    2014

  20. [28]

    & Trujillo Bueno , J

    Manso Sainz , R. & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2003, , 91, 111102

    2003

  21. [29]

    & Trujillo Bueno , J

    Manso Sainz , R. & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2010, , 722, 1416

    2010

  22. [30]

    J., del Pino Alem \'a n , T., Pastor Yabar , A., Quintero Noda , C., & Asensio Ramos , A

    Mart \' nez Gonz \'a lez , M. J., del Pino Alem \'a n , T., Pastor Yabar , A., Quintero Noda , C., & Asensio Ramos , A. 2023, , 955, L40

    2023

  23. [31]

    C., del Pino Alem \'a n , T., et al

    Quintero Noda , C., Trelles Arjona , J. C., del Pino Alem \'a n , T., et al. 2025, , 698, A33

    2025

  24. [32]

    Rees , D. E. & Saliba , G. J. 1982, , 115, 1

    1982

  25. [33]

    R., Warner , M., Keil , S

    Rimmele , T. R., Warner , M., Keil , S. L., et al. 2020, , 295, 172

    2020

  26. [34]

    2009, , 705, 272

    Rouppe van der Voort , L., Leenaarts , J., de Pontieu , B., Carlsson , M., & Vissers , G. 2009, , 705, 272

    2009

  27. [35]

    B., Bjelksjo , K., Korhonen , T

    Scharmer , G. B., Bjelksjo , K., Korhonen , T. K., Lindberg , B., & Petterson , B. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4853, Innovative Telescopes and Instrumentation for Solar Astrophysics, ed. S. L. Keil & S. V. Avakyan ...

    2003

  28. [36]

    B., Narayan , G., Hillberg , T., et al

    Scharmer , G. B., Narayan , G., Hillberg , T., et al. 2008, , 689, L69

    2008

  29. [37]

    Shine, R. A. & Linsky, J. L. 1974, Solar Physics, 39, 49

    1974

  30. [38]

    & Trujillo Bueno , J

    S t e p \'a n , J. & Trujillo Bueno , J. 2016, , 826, L10

    2016

  31. [39]

    1999, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Trujillo Bueno , J. 1999, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 243, Polarization, ed. K. N. Nagendra & J. O. Stenflo , 73--96

    1999

  32. [40]

    2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Trujillo Bueno , J. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 236, Advanced Solar Polarimetry -- Theory, Observation, and Instrumentation, ed. M. Sigwarth , 161

    2001

  33. [41]

    2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Trujillo Bueno , J. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 526, Solar Polariation Workshop 8, ed. L. Belluzzi , R. Casini , M. Romoli , & J. Trujillo Bueno , 69

    2019

  34. [42]

    L., Collados, M., Merenda, L., & Sainz, R

    Trujillo Bueno , J., Degl'Innocenti, E. L., Collados, M., Merenda, L., & Sainz, R. M. 2002, Selective Absorption Processes as the Origin of Puzzling Spectral Line Polarization from the Sun

    2002

  35. [43]

    & del Pino Alemán, T

    Trujillo Bueno, J. & del Pino Alemán, T. 2022, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 60, 415

    2022

  36. [44]

    & Landi Degl'Innocenti , E

    Trujillo Bueno , J. & Landi Degl'Innocenti , E. 1997, , 482, L183

    1997

  37. [45]

    2001, , 557, 389

    Uitenbroek , H. 2001, , 557, 389

    2001

  38. [46]

    2001, Astronomische Nachrichten, 322, 353

    von der L \"u he , O., Schmidt , W., Soltau , D., et al. 2001, Astronomische Nachrichten, 322, 353

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.