Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 96 references

Numerical study of solar eruption, extreme-ultraviolet wave propagation, and wave-induced prominence dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that one solar eruption, through a fast magnetoacoustic EUV wave, can drive both transverse and longitudinal oscillations in a prominence 600 Mm away and trigger reconnection beneath it.

desk verdict An integrated 2.5D simulation convincingly chains eruption to remote prominence oscillations and reconnection, but the prominence had barely settled before the wave arrived, so the quantitative oscillation numbers need a control run. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15697 v2 pith:EEUS3HPH submitted 2025-01-26 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Valeriia Liakh , Rony Keppens This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solarcoronaEUVwavesprominenceoscillationslarge-amplitudemagnetoacousticmodeconversionmagneticreconnectionfluxropeeruptions
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

The paper tries to show that a single solar eruption can account, in one self-consistent simulation, for the whole chain from the birth of an extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) wave to the remote shaking of a prominence hundreds of megameters away. The authors argue that the fast EUV front is a fast magnetoacoustic wave that crosses regions where Alfvén and sound speeds nearly match, converting part of its energy into a slow secondary front. When this front arrives at a flux-rope prominence 600 Mm away, it produces reflected and transmitted fronts, drives both transverse and longitudinal prominence oscillations, and triggers magnetic reconnection at a null point below the prominence. The periods and damping times of the oscillations are then compared with established pendulum and magnetic-tension models, and with observed large-amplitude oscillations, to argue that the simulated interaction is the same phenomenon seen in EUV observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the primary fast magnetoacoustic front that emerges from the eruptive flux rope. It carries the disturbance across 600 Mm, and its crossing of the beta≈1 and vA≈cS equipartition layers (where the Alfvén speed and sound speed are nearly equal) is the mechanism that produces the secondary slow front. The argument also rests on two quantitative anchors: the pendulum formula P=2π√(Rc/g) for longitudinal oscillations and the magnetic-tension formula for the transverse period, plus flux-divergence diagnostics (acoustic flux Fac=p1v1 and magnetic flux Fmag) that classify each front's wave mode.

What would settle it

Repeat the same simulation without the eruptive flux rope (or with the eruption delayed until after the prominence has relaxed) and track the same fluid elements. If the observed longitudinal and transverse velocity oscillations, their periods, and the null-point current-sheet reversal still occur in the control run, the attribution of these features to the wave would be disproven.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the eruptive flux rope produces a quasi-circular fast EUV front that evolves as an ordinary fast magnetoacoustic wave in the non-uniform corona, decelerating as the magnetic field weakens. When the front crosses the equipartition layers where the Alfvén speed equals the sound speed, a secondary slow magnetoacoustic front forms and later appears as a stationary front, matching the observed slow EUV phenomena. At the remote prominence, the fast front is partly reflected and partly transmitted; the transmitted front travels along the overlying loops as a slow mode and halts. The impact simultaneously excites longitudinal oscillations with periods of 12-15 minutes that vary with height (consistent with the pendulum model) and transverse oscillations with a constant period of about 3.6 minutes (consistent with magnetic tension as the restoring force), with damping times of 20-40 minutes and about 4 minutes respectively. The same push reconfigures a null point below the prominence, turning a vertical current sheet into a horizontal one in a sequence the authors interpret as oscillatory reconnection.

Load-bearing premise

The prominence is artificially filled with dense plasma only a few minutes before the wave arrives, so the structure is still compressing and accreting; the paper assumes the oscillations it measures can be cleanly separated from this ongoing settling, without running a control simulation without the eruption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fast EUV front is a fast magnetoacoustic wave; observations interpreting EUV fronts as such are supported, including deceleration and shock formation in quiet-Sun regions.
  • The secondary slow front is a slow magnetoacoustic wave produced by fast-to-slow conversion, explaining stationary EUV fronts without invoking magnetic field line stretching.
  • Prominence longitudinal oscillations are pendulum-like with the period set by field-line curvature and gravity, while transverse oscillations are global and tension-driven with a shorter damping time.
  • Wave-driven mass accretion alone cannot explain the longitudinal damping; other mechanisms such as non-adiabatic effects, wave leakage, and numerical dissipation are needed.
  • The wave can trigger oscillatory reconnection at a null point, which may contribute to the damping of transverse oscillations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mode conversion at equipartition layers is real, stationary slow EUV fronts observed in the corona could be used to map where the Alfvén speed and sound speed are nearly equal.
  • A single eruption may act as a remote diagnostic of the background coronal magnetic field: front deceleration, reflection/transmission speeds, and oscillation periods all encode the Alfvén and sound speed profile along the propagation path.
  • The 2.5D geometry likely restricts the wave modes and reconnection geometry; a 3D simulation could produce different transverse periods and alter the reconnection topology, so the quantitative periods should be rechecked in three dimensions.
  • The triggered reconnection suggests that remote prominences can be magnetically reorganized without direct contact with an eruption, which may matter for interpreting observed prominence evolution after distant flares.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a 2.5D adaptive-mesh-refinement MHD simulation of a solar eruption and its large-scale consequences. The eruption is produced by a catastrophe-type flux rope, while a distant dipole field hosts a flux rope prominence that is artificially mass-loaded near x = -600 Mm. The authors analyze the eruption-generated primary fast magnetoacoustic front, its conversion to a slow secondary front at equipartition layers, the propagation of reflected and transmitted fronts at the prominence, wave-induced transverse and longitudinal prominence oscillations, and the triggering of magnetic reconnection below the prominence-hosting flux rope. The results are compared with synthetic SDO/AIA channels and with analytic pendulum and magnetic-tension models for the oscillation periods.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable unification of several previously separate topics in one self-consistent numerical experiment: eruption-generated EUV waves, fast-to-slow mode conversion, remote wave-prominence interaction, prominence oscillations, and null-point reconnection. The paper uses multiple independent diagnostics (velocity divergence, acoustic and magnetic fluxes, time-distance diagrams, fluid-element tracking, and synthetic EUV imagery), and the simulation is performed with the open-source MPI-AMRVAC code, which strengthens reproducibility. The quantitative oscillation periods and damping times, however, rest on the assumption that the freshly loaded, still-settling prominence can be treated as a relaxed target for wave-driven oscillations; the absence of a no-eruption control run and of a resolution-convergence study makes this assumption currently unsupported. These issues are fixable and do not invalidate the qualitative scenario.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3.3 (Fig. 16)] The quantitative prominence-oscillation analysis is not yet protected against contamination by the ongoing relaxation of the artificially loaded prominence. The mass source is active from t = 25 to 26.7 min, the 20 tracked fluid elements are selected at t = 29.6 min, and the primary front arrives around t = 30 min. The paper's own Fig. 14 shows a compression/rarefaction cycle immediately after loading, Fig. A.1 shows continuing field-aligned flows toward the prominence body, and Fig. 12 gives accretion rates of 3.7 and 2.1 g cm^-1 s^-1 before and after front passage. The manuscript itself concedes in Sect. 5 that a delayed eruption would 'allow sufficient time for the prominence to form.' Without a control run in which the same flux-rope formation and mass loading proceed without the eruption, the reported periods (12-15 and 3.6-3.7 min) and damping times (20-40 and ~4 min) cannot be uniquely attributed to wave-driven oscillations; they may partly reflect settling and accretion of the freshly loaded mass block and the bulk push of the front. This directly underpins the central claim that the fast EUV wave drives the observed prominence dynamics.
  2. [Sect. 2 and Sect. 3.3] The paper provides no grid-convergence or resolution-dependence study. The finest AMR resolution is 130.2 km, and the quantitative claims include a 3.6-3.7 min transverse period, a ~4 min transverse damping time, and 20-40 min longitudinal damping times, with numerical dissipation explicitly listed among the possible damping mechanisms in Sect. 4. Because these values are extracted from a single run with no comparison at coarser or finer resolution, the reader cannot assess how much of the reported damping or period shifts is numerical rather than physical. A convergence check for at least the oscillation diagnostics (e.g., two additional AMR settings or a static-refined reference run) is needed before the damping-mechanism conclusions can be considered robust.
  3. [Sect. 3.3 (transverse period estimate)] The Hyder-model prediction P = 2 pi <h>/<B> sqrt(pi <rho_p>) = 3.3 min is quoted without uncertainty, using quantities (<h> = 8 Mm, <B> = 13.4 G, <rho_max> = 9e-14 g cm^-3) averaged over the 30-60 min interval. During this interval Fig. 12 and Fig. A.1 show substantial mass accretion and geometric evolution of the prominence, so the comparison with the measured 3.6-3.7 min period, used to identify the restoring force, needs a sensitivity estimate or a more narrowly defined averaging window.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 3.2 (Fig. 9)] The statement that the primary front 'becomes a shock wave' is based on visual deviation from the local fast-mode speed in the time-distance diagram; please add a quantitative shock indicator (e.g., Mach number or pressure jump) or soften the wording.
  2. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption lists channels 131, 171, and 193 Å, while the text in Sect. 3.3 and elsewhere refers to the 131, 193, and 304 Å channels; please harmonize the channel list.
  3. [Sect. 2] Please state explicitly how the claimed finest resolution of 130.2 km follows from the base grid of 132 by 60 cells and the seven AMR levels, since the effective resolution in AMR depends on the refinement regions.
  4. [Abstract and Sect. 2] The term 'extreme-resolution' is used without quantitative context; please give the cell size relative to a physical scale, such as the prominence size or the current-sheet width, to justify the descriptor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the eruption-to-prominence chain is an emergent MHD simulation result, not an input fitted or renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The simulation is an ab initio MHD experiment: the eruptive flux rope, fast and slow fronts, mode conversion, prominence oscillations, damping times, and null-point reconnection all emerge from the initial atmosphere, the Takahashi et al. (2017) catastrophe field plus dipole, the prescribed boundary flows, and the MHD equations solved by MPI-AMRVAC. No parameter is fitted to the headline quantities. The mode identifications in Sect. 3.2 are consistency checks rather than circular reductions: front speeds are compared with locally computed phase speeds v_ph = sqrt(v_A^2 + c_s^2) and c_s, and the acoustic/magnetic flux decomposition (Eqs. 1-2) is a standard post-processing diagnostic, not a definition of the conclusion. The prominence oscillation periods in Sect. 3.3 and Fig. 16 are measured from simulated fluid-element velocities and only afterward compared with the Luna & Karpen pendulum formula and the Hyder formula; the agreement is a validation, not a construction. Damping is estimated by damped-sinusoid fits and then compared with the Ruderman & Luna accretion estimate of 78.5 minutes, which is used to rule out accretion as the sole mechanism. The self-citations to Liakh et al. 2020 and 2023 supply the mass-loading technique, the converging-flow profile, and the fluid-element tracking method; these are numerical-setup details and do not force the central results. The paper's own limitation statement, that a delayed eruption would 'allow sufficient time for the prominence to form' (Sect. 5), identifies a physical-design weakness: the prominence is loaded only about 3-5 minutes before the front arrives, and its continuing accretion and compression (Figs. 12, 14, A.1) could contaminate the measured oscillation and damping values. That is a validity threat, not circularity, because the oscillation periods and damping times are read from the simulation output rather than being defined by the loading procedure or by any fitted target. No equation in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the chosen magnetic configuration, the artificial prominence loading, and the numerical resolution strategy. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are hand-set initial conditions, not fitted to observations, but several directly shape the quantitative oscillation and damping results.

free parameters (8)
  • Catastrophe parameter Mq = 0.8 x (27/8)
    Chosen below the threshold 27/8 to trigger an immediate eruption; sets the initial force imbalance and eruption strength.
  • EFR radius R = 27 Mm
    Sets the spatial scale and magnetic energy of the erupting flux rope, influencing front amplitude and propagation.
  • EFR magnetic field strength = 36.6 G
    Controls the Alfvén speed near the eruption and the strength of the primary front.
  • Dipole magnetic field strength at bottom = 18.9 G
    Sets the prominence-hosting flux rope and the quiet-Sun region between x = -500 and -100 Mm.
  • Dipole depth hd = -20 Mm
    Determines the height and gradient of the dipole field region that forms the remote flux rope.
  • Prominence density = 1e-12 g cm-3
    Artificially loaded plasma density; affects the oscillation amplitudes, periods, and damping rates.
  • Prominence loading window = 25 to 26.7 min
    The short loading window leaves the prominence unrelaxed when the wave arrives at 30 min, affecting the clean interpretation of wave-induced oscillations.
  • Mass threshold for prominence/corona distinction = 1e-14 g cm-3
    Used to integrate coronal versus prominence mass in the tracked flux rope; directly affects the reported accretion rates and mass-based damping estimates.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD with gamma=5/3, Spitzer conduction, optically thin radiation, and background heating
    The standard coronal plasma model used in the simulation; all results depend on this physics package (Sect. 2).
  • domain assumption The 2.5D catastrophe magnetic field with Mq < 27/8 produces a realistic eruption
    The eruption is triggered by an imposed force imbalance rather than by a self-consistently built pre-eruptive structure (Sect. 2, Takahashi et al. 2017).
  • domain assumption The dipole superposition yields a flux rope capable of hosting a prominence at x = -600 Mm
    The magnetic configuration is constructed, not observed; the prominence is later loaded into its dips (Sect. 2, Fig. 1).
  • ad hoc to paper Artificial mass loading in the continuity equation is a valid proxy for prominence formation
    Chosen for time constraints instead of a self-consistent condensation or levitation model; affects the initial prominence state (Sect. 2).
  • domain assumption Boundary conditions do not significantly affect the results at the prominence location
    Zero-gradient side boundaries and the top boundary with reversed field are assumed to have minimal influence, but no boundary sensitivity study is presented (Sect. 2).
  • domain assumption Lohner AMR criterion on density and magnetic field gradients resolves fronts and current sheets adequately
    The seven-level AMR is claimed to resolve 130 km structures, but no convergence test demonstrates that plasmoid dynamics and damping times are resolution-independent (Sect. 2).
  • domain assumption The 2.5D approximation captures the essential physics for the claims
    The simulation is invariant in the out-of-plane direction; the authors note mode conversion is qualitatively similar in 3D but quantitative periods and reconnection may differ (Sect. 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical study of solar eruption, extreme-ultraviolet wave propagation, and wave-induced prominence dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEUS3HPH

@misc{pith2026250115697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical study of solar eruption, extreme-ultraviolet wave propagation, and wave-induced prominence dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEUS3HPH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15697}
}
read the original abstract

Extreme ultraviolet (EUV) waves, frequently produced by eruptions, propagate through the non-uniform magnetic field of the solar corona and interact with distant prominences, inducing their global oscillations. However, the generation, propagation, and interaction of these waves with distant prominences remain poorly understood. We aim to study the influence of an eruptive flux rope (EFR) on a distant prominence by means of extreme-resolution numerical simulations. We cover a domain of a horizontal extent of 1100 Mm, while capturing details down to 130 km using automated grid refinement. We performed a 2.5D numerical experiment using the open-source \texttt{MPI-AMRVAC 3.1} code, modeling an eruption as a 2.5D catastrophe scenario augmented with a distant dipole magnetic field to form a flux rope prominence. Our findings reveal that the EFR becomes unstable and generates a quasi-circular front. The primary front produces a slow secondary front when crossing the equipartition lines where the Alfv\'en speed is close to the sound speed. The resulting fast and slow EUV waves show different behaviors: the fast EUV wave slightly decelerates as it propagates through the corona, while the slow EUV wave forms a stationary front. The fast EUV wave interacts with the remote prominence, driving both transverse and longitudinal oscillations. Additionally, magnetic reconnection at a null point below the prominence-hosting flux rope is triggered by the fast EUV wave, affecting the flux rope magnetic field and the prominence oscillations. Our study unifies important results of the dynamics of eruptive events and their interactions with distant prominences, including details of (oscillatory) reconnection and chaotic plasmoid dynamics. We demonstrate for the first time the full consequences of remote eruptions on prominence dynamics and clarify the damping mechanisms of prominence oscillations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15697 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Initial density distribution and magnetic field lines in the entire numerical domain. Animation 1 shows the global evolution of the density, temperature, v∥ = (v · B)/B, and v⊥ = vy − v∥By/B during the entire simulation time. An animation of this figure is available online [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Alfvén and sound speed along the horizontal cut at y = 10 Mm (top) and the vertical cut at x = 0 Mm (bottom). components. Additionally, the base resolution was enforced in three specific regions near the top and side boundaries: x < −750 Mm, x > 50 Mm starting at t = 5.7 minutes, and y > 300 Mm throughout the entire numerical experiment. The MPI-AMRVAC 3.1 code solves MHD equations that include non-ideal, non-adiaba… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Density, temperature, v∥ , and v⊥ distributions during various stages of the eruption: onset (top row), the appearance of the secondary front and fragmentation of the current sheet (middle row), and multiple plasmoid formation in the current sheet (bottom row). Animation 2 shows the temporal evolution up to 57.2 minutes. An animation of this figure is available online [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-distance diagrams of density (left) and temperature (right) along the vertical cut at x = 0 Mm. The black line indicates the instanta￾neous center of the EFR. and is referred to as a dimming region (see, e. g. Attrill et al. 2009; Dissauer et al. 2018a,b, 2019; Va…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temporal evolution of plasmoids and their physical properties. Panel (a): Plasmoid trajectories within the current sheet. Panel (b)-(d): Temperature, density, and the vertical velocity vy, corresponding to the instantaneous plasmoid positions. The same color scheme ide…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal evolution of ∇ · v. The red and blue contours represent β ≈ 1 and vA ≈ cS (β ≈ 2/γ), respectively. The arrows denote the main fronts detected during the onset of the eruption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Magnetic (top) and acoustic (bottom) fluxes on the left side of the reconnection site averaged over the first 20 minutes of the simula￾tion. The gray lines denote the magnetic field lines at 20 minutes. The red and blue contours denote β ≈ 1 and vA ≈ cS at t = 20 minut…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Synthetic SDO/AIA channel images (131, 193, and 304 Å) of the eruption area at 13.6 minutes. The saturation levels for the fluxes in the 131, 193, and 304 Å channels are defined as follows: 1.5 × 10−8 , 3.0 × 10−7 , 8.0 × 10−9 DN s−1 pixel−1 , respectively. We note tha…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time-distance diagrams of 193 Å channel taken along the horizontal cut y = 10 Mm (left) and the vertical cut at x = 0 Mm (right). The vertical axis in the left panel corresponds to the distance from the eruption. The white solid line in the right panel denotes the inst…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Magnetic (top) and acoustic (bottom) fluxes around the promi￾nence region, averaged over time for the 20 − 40 minutes of the simu￾lation. The gray lines depict the magnetic field lines at t = 40 minutes. The red and blue contours denote β ≈ 1 and vA ≈ cS at t = 40 min…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Zoomed-in details of the wave front interaction with the remote flux rope, focused on the X-point below the prominence hosting flux rope. The temporal evolution of the current density, | jz |, is shown normalized to the instantaneous maximum value in the region, | jz …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Temporal evolution of the total mass of the coronal and promi￾nence plasma using the threshold, ρ = 10−14 g cm−3 in the dynamically evolving and tracked flux rope region. The vertical gray lines corre￾spond to the activation and deactivation of mass loading and the ar…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Synthetic images of the prominence region in SDO/AIA channels 131, 171, and 193 Å, shown at 28.6 minutes. The white arrow denotes the primary front. Animation 6 shows the prominence formation, the passing of the primary front, and the induced prominence dynamics up to…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Time-distance diagrams of the 193 Å (top) and 304 Å (bottom) SDO/AIA channels taken along the horizontal cut at y = 10 Mm. The right panels show a zoomed-in view around the prominence region. The vertical axes denote the distance from the eruption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Terradas, J

    Adrover-González, A. & Terradas, J. 2020, A&A, 633, A113

    2020

  2. [2]

    Afanasyev, A. N. & Zhukov, A. N. 2018, A&A, 614, A139

    2018

  3. [3]

    Arregui, I., Oliver, R., & Ballester, J. L. 2018, Liv. Rev. Sol. Phys., 15, 3

    2018

  4. [4]

    T., Isobe, H., et al

    Asai, A., Ishii, T. T., Isobe, H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, L18

    2012

  5. [5]

    Attrill, G. D. R., Engell, A. J., Wills-Davey, M. J., Grigis, P., & Testa, P. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1296

    2009

  6. [6]

    A., Myers, D

    Biesecker, D. A., Myers, D. C., Thompson, B. J., Hammer, D. M., & V ourlidas, A. 2002, ApJ, 569, 1009

    2002

  7. [7]

    Bray, R. J. & Loughhead, R. E. 1974, The solar chromosphere

    1974

  8. [8]

    M., & Keppens, R

    Brughmans, N., Jenkins, J. M., & Keppens, R. 2022, A&A, 668, A47

    2022

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    F., & Devi, P

    Chandra, R., Chen, P. F., & Devi, P. 2024, ApJ, 971, 53

    2024

  2. [10]

    F., Devi, P., Joshi, R., & Ni, Y

    Chandra, R., Chen, P. F., Devi, P., Joshi, R., & Ni, Y . W. 2022, Galax., 10, 58

    2022

  3. [11]

    F., Fulara, A., Srivastava, A

    Chandra, R., Chen, P. F., Fulara, A., Srivastava, A. K., & Uddin, W. 2016, ApJ, 822, 106

    2016

  4. [12]

    Chen, P. F. 2006, ApJ, 641, L153

    2006

  5. [13]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Liv. Rev. Sol. Phys., 8, 1

    2011

  6. [14]

    F., Fang, C., Chandra, R., & Srivastava, A

    Chen, P. F., Fang, C., Chandra, R., & Srivastava, A. K. 2016, Sol. Phys., 291, 3195

    2016

  7. [15]

    F., Fang, C., & Shibata, K

    Chen, P. F., Fang, C., & Shibata, K. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1202

    2005

  8. [16]

    F., Wu, S

    Chen, P. F., Wu, S. T., Shibata, K., & Fang, C. 2002, ApJ, 572, L99

    2002

  9. [17]

    Chen, P. F. & Wu, Y . 2011, ApJ, 732, L20

    2011

  10. [18]

    Cohen, O., Attrill, G. D. R., Manchester, Ward B., I., & Wills-Davey, M. J. 2009, ApJ, 705, 587

    2009

  11. [19]

    Abdallah, J., Sherrill, M

    Colgan, J., J. Abdallah, J., Sherrill, M. E., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 585 Delannée, C. 2000, ApJ, 545, 512 Delannée, C. & Aulanier, G. 1999, Sol. Phys., 190, 107 Delannée, C., Török, T., Aulanier, G., & Hochedez, J. F. 2008, Sol. Phys., 247, 123

    2008

  12. [20]

    2022, Adv

    Devi, P., Chandra, R., Joshi, R., et al. 2022, Adv. Space Res., 70, 1592

    2022

  13. [21]

    M., Temmer, M., & Podladchikova, T

    Dissauer, K., Veronig, A. M., Temmer, M., & Podladchikova, T. 2019, ApJ, 874, 123

    2019

  14. [22]

    M., Temmer, M., Podladchikova, T., & Vanninathan, K

    Dissauer, K., Veronig, A. M., Temmer, M., Podladchikova, T., & Vanninathan, K. 2018b, ApJ, 863, 169 Donné, D. & Keppens, R. 2024, ApJ, 971, 90

    2024

  15. [23]

    I., van der Holst, B., Lugaz, N., & Sokolov, I

    Downs, C., Roussev, I. I., van der Holst, B., Lugaz, N., & Sokolov, I. V . 2012, ApJ, 750, 134

    2012

  16. [24]

    I., van der Holst, B., et al

    Downs, C., Roussev, I. I., van der Holst, B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 728, 2

    2011

  17. [25]

    M., et al

    Downs, C., Warmuth, A., Long, D. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 118

    2021

  18. [26]

    2010, ApJ, 719, 357

    Felipe, T., Khomenko, E., & Collados, M. 2010, ApJ, 719, 357

    2010

  19. [27]

    R., Daou, A

    Gilbert, H. R., Daou, A. G., Young, D., Tripathi, D., & Alexander, D. 2008, ApJ, 685, 629

    2008

  20. [28]

    P., Keppens, R., & Poedts, S

    Goedbloed, J. P., Keppens, R., & Poedts, S. 2019, Magnetohydrodynamics of Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- sity Press)

    2019

  21. [29]

    2009, ApJ, 691, L123

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Temmer, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, L123

    2009

  22. [30]

    D., & Leer, B

    Harten, A., Lax, P. D., & Leer, B. v. 1983, SIAM Rev., 25, 35

    1983

  23. [31]

    & Keppens, R

    Hermans, J. & Keppens, R. 2021, A&A, 655, A36

    2021

  24. [32]

    S., et al

    Hou, Z., Tian, H., Madjarska, M. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A190

    2024

  25. [33]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 42

    Hu, J., Ye, J., Chen, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 42

    2024

  26. [34]

    Hyder, C. L. 1966, ZAp, 63, 78

    1966

  27. [35]

    Jenkins, J. M. & Keppens, R. 2021, A&A, 646, A134

    2021

  28. [36]

    A., Botha, G

    Karampelas, K., McLaughlin, J. A., Botha, G. J. J., & Régnier, S. 2022, ApJ, 925, 195

    2022

  29. [37]

    Keppens, R., Nool, M., Tóth, G., & Goedbloed, J. P. 2003, Comput. Phys. Com- mun., 153, 317

    2003

  30. [38]

    2023, A&A, 673, A66

    Keppens, R., Popescu Braileanu, B., Zhou, Y ., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A66

    2023

  31. [39]

    2021, Comput

    Keppens, R., Teunissen, J., Xia, C., & Porth, O. 2021, Comput. Math. Appl., 81, 316

    2021

  32. [40]

    W., Muhr, N., Veronig, A

    Kienreich, I. W., Muhr, N., Veronig, A. M., et al. 2013, Sol. Phys., 286, 201

    2013

  33. [41]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 13

    Li, T., Zhang, J., Yang, S., & Liu, W. 2012, ApJ, 746, 13

    2012

  34. [42]

    2020, A&A, 637, A75

    Liakh, V ., Luna, M., & Khomenko, E. 2020, A&A, 637, A75

    2020

  35. [43]

    2021, A&A, 654, A145

    Liakh, V ., Luna, M., & Khomenko, E. 2021, A&A, 654, A145

    2021

  36. [44]

    2023, A&A, 673, A154

    Liakh, V ., Luna, M., & Khomenko, E. 2023, A&A, 673, A154

    2023

  37. [45]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 1309

    Liu, R. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1309

    2013

  38. [46]

    2013, ApJ, 773, 166

    Liu, R., Liu, C., Xu, Y ., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 166

    2013

  39. [47]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 15

    Liu, R., Wang, Y ., Lee, J., & Shen, C. 2019, ApJ, 870, 15

    2019

  40. [48]

    V ., Schrijver, C

    Liu, W., Nitta, N. V ., Schrijver, C. J., Title, A. M., & Tarbell, T. D. 2010, ApJ, 723, L53

    2010

  41. [49]

    1987, Comput

    Lohner, R. 1987, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 61, 323

    1987

  42. [50]

    M., Baker, D., Williams, D

    Long, D. M., Baker, D., Williams, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 224

    2015

  43. [51]

    M., Gallagher, P

    Long, D. M., Gallagher, P. T., McAteer, R. T. J., & Bloomfield, D. S. 2008, ApJ, 680, L81

    2008

  44. [52]

    2022, ApJ, 924, L7

    Lu, L., Feng, L., Warmuth, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, L7

    2022

  45. [53]

    & Karpen, J

    Luna, M. & Karpen, J. 2012, ApJ, 750, L1

    2012

  46. [54]

    A., De Moortel, I., Hood, A

    McLaughlin, J. A., De Moortel, I., Hood, A. W., & Brady, C. S. 2009, A&A, 493, 227

    2009

  47. [55]

    McLaughlin, J. A. & Hood, A. W. 2004, A&A, 420, 1129

    2004

  48. [56]

    A., Thurgood, J

    McLaughlin, J. A., Thurgood, J. O., & MacTaggart, D. 2012, A&A, 548, A98

    2012

  49. [57]

    2012, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and As- tronomy, 55, 1316

    Mei, Z., Udo, Z., & Lin, J. 2012, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and As- tronomy, 55, 1316

    2012

  50. [58]

    X., Keppens, R., Cai, Q

    Mei, Z. X., Keppens, R., Cai, Q. W., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4816

    2020

  51. [59]

    D., Balsara, D

    Meyer, C. D., Balsara, D. S., & Aslam, T. D. 2014, J. Comput. Phys., 257, 594

    2014

  52. [60]

    Moreton, G. E. & Ramsey, H. E. 1960, PASP, 72, 357

    1960

  53. [61]

    P., et al

    Moses, D., Clette, F., Delaboudinière, J. P., et al. 1997, Sol. Phys., 175, 571

    1997

  54. [62]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 143

    Olmedo, O., V ourlidas, A., Zhang, J., & Cheng, X. 2012, ApJ, 756, 143

    2012

  55. [63]

    2023, A&A, 679, A136

    Piantschitsch, I., Terradas, J., Soubrie, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A136

    2023

  56. [64]

    2024, A&A, 687, A200

    Piantschitsch, I., Terradas, J., Soubrie, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A200

    2024

  57. [65]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 88

    Piantschitsch, I., Vršnak, B., Hanslmeier, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 88

    2017

  58. [66]

    P., & Keppens, R

    Porth, O., Xia, C., Hendrix, T., Moschou, S. P., & Keppens, R. 2014, ApJS, 214, 4

    2014

  59. [67]

    M., Chikunova, G., Dissauer, K., Podladchikova, T., & Veronig, A

    Ronca, G. M., Chikunova, G., Dissauer, K., Podladchikova, T., & Veronig, A. M. 2024, A&A, 691, A195

    2024

  60. [68]

    Ruderman, M. S. & Luna, M. 2016, A&A, 591, A131

    2016

  61. [69]

    T., et al

    Shen, Y ., Ichimoto, K., Ishii, T. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 151

    2014

  62. [70]

    & Liu, Y

    Shen, Y . & Liu, Y . 2012, ApJ, 754, 7

    2012

  63. [71]

    2013, ApJ, 773, L33

    Shen, Y ., Liu, Y ., Su, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, L33

    2013

  64. [72]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 101

    Shen, Y ., Liu, Y ., Tian, Z., & Qu, Z. 2017, ApJ, 851, 101

    2017

  65. [73]

    2006, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases, Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications)

    Spitzer, L. 2006, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases, Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications)

    2006

  66. [74]

    2015, ApJ, 801, 37

    Takahashi, T., Asai, A., & Shibata, K. 2015, ApJ, 801, 37

    2015

  67. [75]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 102

    Takahashi, T., Qiu, J., & Shibata, K. 2017, ApJ, 848, 102

    2017

  68. [76]

    J., Plunkett, S

    Thompson, B. J., Plunkett, S. P., Gurman, J. B., et al. 1998, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2465

    1998

  69. [77]

    Townsend, R. H. D. 2009, ApJS, 181, 391

    2009

  70. [78]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9 van Leer, B. 1974, J. Comput. Phys., 14, 361

    2011

  71. [79]

    M., Dissauer, K., & Temmer, M

    Vanninathan, K., Veronig, A. M., Dissauer, K., & Temmer, M. 2018, ApJ, 857, 62

    2018

  72. [80]

    M., Gömöry, P., Dissauer, K., Temmer, M., & Vanninathan, K

    Veronig, A. M., Gömöry, P., Dissauer, K., Temmer, M., & Vanninathan, K. 2019, ApJ, 879, 85

    2019

  73. [81]

    M., Muhr, N., Kienreich, I

    Veronig, A. M., Muhr, N., Kienreich, I. W., Temmer, M., & Vršnak, B. 2010, ApJ, 716, L57

    2010

  74. [82]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 114

    Wang, H., Liu, S., Gong, J., Wu, N., & Lin, J. 2015, ApJ, 805, 114

    2015

  75. [83]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 1716

    Wang, H., Shen, C., & Lin, J. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1716

    2009

  76. [84]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 30

    Wang, J., Yan, X., Kong, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 30

    2020

  77. [85]

    J., DeForest, C

    Wills-Davey, M. J., DeForest, C. E., & Stenflo, J. O. 2007, ApJ, 664, 556

    2007

  78. [86]

    2014, ApJ, 792, L38

    Xia, C., Keppens, R., Antolin, P., & Porth, O. 2014, ApJ, 792, L38

    2014

  79. [87]

    E., Chané, E., & Keppens, R

    Xia, C., Teunissen, J., Mellah, I. E., Chané, E., & Keppens, R. 2018, ApJS, 234, 30

    2018

  80. [88]

    K., Yan, X

    Xue, Z. K., Yan, X. L., Qu, Z. Q., & Zhao, L. 2014, in ASP Conf. Ser., V ol. 489, Solar Polarization 7, ed. K. N. Nagendra, J. O. Stenflo, Z. Q. Qu, & M. Sampoorna, 53

    2014

  81. [89]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 39

    Yang, L., Zhang, J., Liu, W., Li, T., & Shen, Y . 2013, ApJ, 775, 39

    2013

  82. [90]

    Y ., Fang, C., & Chen, P

    Zhang, L. Y ., Fang, C., & Chen, P. F. 2019, ApJ, 884, 74

    2019

  83. [91]

    M., Lin, M

    Zhang, Q. M., Lin, M. S., Yan, X. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3255

    2024

  84. [92]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 140

    Zhang, Y ., Zhang, Q., Song, D.-c., & Ji, H. 2024, ApJ, 963, 140

    2024

  85. [93]

    & Keppens, R

    Zhao, X. & Keppens, R. 2022, ApJ, 928, 45

    2022

  86. [94]

    2024, Nat

    Zhou, X., Shen, Y ., Yuan, D., et al. 2024, Nat. Commun., 15, 3281

    2024

  87. [95]

    Zhou, Y .-H., Xia, C., Keppens, R., Fang, C., & Chen, P. F. 2018, ApJ, 856, 179

    2018

  88. [96]

    V ., et al

    Zurbriggen, E., Cécere, M., Sieyra, M. V ., et al. 2021, Sol. Phys., 296, 173 Article number, page 16 of 17 V . Liakh and R. Keppens: Numerical simulations of LAOs Appendix A: Additional figures Fig. A.1: Density, temperature,v∥, andv⊥ distributions during various stages of th...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.