Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Magnetic Field Stratification in Active-Region Plage from Ca II K and Ca II 8542 {\AA} Spectropolarimetry

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic fields in active-region plage weaken from kilogauss photospheric concentrations to a few hundred gauss and roughly double their magnetized area by the upper chromosphere.

desk verdict Solid first Sunrise III multi-height B_LOS maps of plage; factor-~2 expansion is real and well supported, with the usual formation-height and non-simultaneity caveats already on the table. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28102 v1 pith:FJZOBJKW submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.SR

Iñigo Juanikorena Berasategi , Ernest Alsina Ballester , Javier Trujillo Bueno , Francisco A. Iglesias , Yusuke Kawabata , Juan Sebastián Castellanos Durán , Masahito Kubo , Alex Feller
show 26 more authors
Yukio Katsukawa Sami K. Solanki Jose Carlos del Toro Iniesta Andreas Lagg Achim Gandorfer Pietro Bernasconni Thomas Kerkefeld Tino L. Riethmüller Yoshihiro Naito Alberto Álvarez-Herrero H. N. Smitha David Orozco Suárez Bianca Grauf Michael Carpenter Alexander Bell Valentín Martínez Pillet Francisco Javier Bailén Julian Blanco Rodríguez Edvarda Harnes Johannes Hölken Ryohtaroh T. Ishikawa Takuma Matsumoto Takayoshi Oba Azaymi L. Siu-Tapia Hanna Strecker Dušan Vukadinović
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords polarizationSun:chromospherefaculaeplagesmagneticfieldsspectropolarimetryweak-fieldapproximationCaIIK8542
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper measures how the line-of-sight magnetic field in solar active-region plage changes with height, from the upper photosphere into the upper chromosphere. Using co-spatial ultraviolet and infrared spectropolarimetry from the Sunrise III balloon flight, it compares photospheric iron lines with the chromospheric calcium lines Ca II 8542 Å and Ca II K. Photospheric fields are strong and finely structured, of order a kilogauss; chromospheric fields are systematically weaker, typically a few hundred gauss, and more spatially diffuse, with Ca II K maps smoother and more extended than Ca II 8542 Å maps. The magnetized area roughly doubles from photosphere to chromosphere. A sympathetic reader cares because this is direct, quantitative evidence that plage fields expand and weaken with height up through the upper chromosphere—the layers that feed coronal heating, solar wind, and eruptive events—at unprecedented spatial resolution from a stratospheric platform.

What carries the argument

Multi-line B_LOS inference: weak-field approximation on Ca II K and Ca II 8542 Å circular polarization, plus center-of-gravity on nearby Fe I lines, ordered by indicative formation heights so that height stratification can be read from co-spatial maps.

What would settle it

Full non-LTE spectropolarimetric inversions of the same Ca II and Fe I profiles that recover a height-independent B_LOS or a magnetized-area ratio near one across photosphere to upper chromosphere would contradict the claimed expansion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In active-region plage, the line-of-sight magnetic field evolves from compact kilogauss photospheric concentrations into weaker (~100–400 G), more spatially extended structures in the upper chromosphere, with the magnetized area increasing by a factor of about two; maps from Ca II K (higher formation) are smoother and more extended than those from Ca II 8542 Å (lower chromosphere).

Load-bearing premise

That the field values recovered from each line can be treated as ordered layer averages even though the calcium lines form over broad overlapping heights, the two instruments did not observe at the same time, and “magnetized” pixels are defined by an ad hoc cutoff.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Plage magnetic structures continue to expand above the middle chromosphere sampled by Ca II 8542 Å, becoming smoother still at Ca II K heights.
  • Outside photospheric network, chromospheric fields of a few hundred gauss can appear where the underlying photospheric field is weak or undetected.
  • Expansion factors of order two, rather than three, are expected when the deepest layer is already substantially magnetized and observed at high spatial resolution.
  • Future joint inversions of both Ca II lines can replace single-layer averages with continuous optical-depth stratification of B_LOS and thermodynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the expansion continues smoothly toward the transition region, models of moss and coronal base heating should start from a few-hundred-gauss, nearly space-filling chromospheric field rather than discrete kilogauss flux tubes.
  • The residual difference between Ca II 8542 Å and Ca II K maps is a practical target for height-selective inner-lobe analyses once signal-to-noise allows full-FOV use of the core only.
  • Non-co-temporal raster offsets of order an hour set a floor on how tightly multi-instrument stratification can be claimed without simultaneous multi-line spectroscopy.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents co-spatial Sunrise III SUSI and SCIP spectropolarimetry of AR 13745 plage, inferring B_LOS from Fe I 8515/3937 Å (COG) and Ca II 8542 Å / Ca II K (WFA via MCMC). Photospheric maps show compact ~kG network; chromospheric maps are weaker (~100–400 G) and more diffuse, with Ca II K smoother than Ca II 8542. In the common FOV the magnetized area (pixels above 20% of polarity-wise max |B_LOS|) rises by factors ~2.1 (SCIP) and ~1.7 (SUSI); a same-flux region-growing test on a strong patch yields matching factors. The authors conclude that AR plage fields weaken and expand from compact photospheric concentrations into extended upper-chromospheric structures.

Significance. If the stratification and factor-~2 expansion hold, this is a valuable high-resolution observational anchor for how plage fields open into the chromosphere, complementary to CLASP2/2.1 Mg II work but at substantially finer spatial sampling and with the first stratospheric Ca II K spectropolarimetry. Strengths include: dual independent expansion estimators (global area fraction and same-flux growing); explicit WFA applicability limits from FAL-P (Table 2) with COG correctly preferred for Fe I; MCMC 95% intervals; and a transparent WFA–COG comparison (Appendix C). The result is falsifiable against full NLTE inversions the authors themselves flag for future work.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2 Methods; §3 Results] §2 and the magnetized-area results in §3: the 20%-of-max cutoff (after dropping the top 2%) produces strongly asymmetric polarity thresholds—e.g. B_cutoff = (53, −193) G for Fe I 8515 Å versus (46, −94) G for Ca II K. Because the expansion factor is defined from these cutoffs, the reported ~2.1/1.7 factors could shift under a fixed absolute threshold, a common |B| percentile, or a noise-based mask. A short sensitivity table (or repeating the same-flux test as the primary metric) is needed to show the factor-~2 claim is not an artifact of the polarity-wise definition.
  2. [Appendix B; Appendix D; §4 Conclusions] Appendix B (Fig. 5) and §3–4: WFA is applied over the full Ca II lobe ranges, so each B_LOS is a formation-weighted average spanning hundreds of km. Outer-lobe τ=1 heights already overlap (Ca II K outer ~780 km vs Ca II 8542 ~900–1420 km), and Appendix D states that inner-lobe-only maps are S/N-limited over most of the FOV. The narrative that Ca II K cleanly samples ‘higher’ layers than 8542, and that the field ‘continues to expand at heights above those probed by Ca II 8542’, therefore overstates the height discrimination actually achieved. The conclusions and abstract should be rephrased to match the averaged, overlapping formation ranges, or a limited high-S/N inner-lobe subset should be shown.
  3. [§2 Observational data and methods] §2: SUSI and SCIP scans are separated by ~1 h and are only co-aligned via Ca II core-intensity cross-correlation. Small-scale differences between Fe I 8515 and 3937 maps are partly attributed to evolution, yet the expansion factors mix the two instruments. A quantitative bound—e.g. comparing SCIP continuum/Ca II structure at the start vs end of the SUSI window, or restricting the factor to within-instrument pairs only—would show that temporal evolution does not dominate the reported photosphere-to-chromosphere change.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 2] Fig. 2 caption and §3: green contours are said to enclose the same magnetic flux in Ca II as in Fe I, but the text later describes a region-growing algorithm to match flux. Clarify in the caption that Ca II contours are flux-matched, not B_LOS>800 G.
  2. [§3 Results and discussion] §3: ‘3973 Å’ appears once where Fe I 3937 Å is meant.
  3. [Appendix A; Appendix C] Table 1 / Appendix A: wavelength windows for WFA/COG are given, but it is unclear whether the same windows enter the MCMC noise estimate and the COG I_wings average; a one-sentence clarification would help reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 1; §2] Fig. 1: continuum for SUSI is taken at 3946 Å ‘still within the wings of Ca II K’; state the expected continuum deficit or cite a quiet-Sun reference so readers can judge the I/Ic normalization.
  5. [Abstract; §4] Abstract and §4: ‘upper chromosphere’ for full-range Ca II K WFA is slightly strong given Appendix B heights (~1500–1700 km only for core/inner lobes). Prefer ‘middle-to-upper chromosphere’ unless inner-lobe maps are added.
  6. [References] References: several Sunrise III instrument papers are cited as arXiv/in press with 2025–2026 dates; ensure final bibliographic details are updated at proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: observational B_LOS maps and expansion factors are computed from new Sunrise III Stokes data with standard external methods.

full rationale

The paper’s central claim—that AR-plage B_LOS weakens and the magnetized area expands by a factor of ~2 from photospheric Fe I to chromospheric Ca II—is an empirical inference from co-spatial SUSI/SCIP Stokes I,V rasters. B_LOS is obtained by applying the weak-field approximation (Landi Degl’Innocenti & Landolfi 2004) to Ca II and the center-of-gravity method (Rees & Semel 1979) to Fe I; both are textbook external techniques, not fitted to the target expansion result. Magnetized-area fractions and same-flux region-growing factors are computed directly from the resulting maps with a disclosed 20%-of-max cutoff (analogous to, but not forced by, Ishikawa et al. 2025). Self-citations (Juanikorena Berasategi et al. 2025; Kriginsky et al. 2026; instrument/CLASP papers) supply line-formation context and WFA applicability checks; they do not define or statistically force the measured B_LOS values or the factor-~2 expansion. Formation-height ordering uses an external semi-empirical model (FAL-P) as an indicative guide only. There is no self-definitional loop, no fitted parameter renamed as prediction, no load-bearing uniqueness theorem from the authors, and no renaming of a prior empirical pattern as a new derivation. The derivation chain is self-contained against the new data.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Load-bearing content is empirical: Stokes profiles from Sunrise III plus standard Zeeman estimators. The claim rests on domain assumptions about formation ordering (FAL-P τ=1), WFA/COG applicability, co-alignment of non-simultaneous rasters, and an operational definition of magnetized area. No new physical entities. Free parameters are analysis choices (thresholds, fit windows, MCMC noise model), not cosmology-style fitted constants driving a theory.

free parameters (5)
  • Magnetized-pixel cutoff fraction = 20% of max |B_LOS| per polarity; top 2% excluded
    Pixels counted as magnetized if |B_LOS| exceeds 20% of polarity-wise maximum after excluding the top 2% outliers; cutoff values become (53,−193), (93,−179), (68,−127), (46,−94) G. Expansion factor depends on this choice (§2).
  • WFA and COG wavelength windows = Table 1 intervals
    Fixed Δλ intervals in Table 1 (±0.4, ±2.0, ±0.12, ±0.6 Å) set which atmospheric layers enter each B_LOS estimate.
  • WFA applicability threshold g_eff Δλ_B/Δλ_D = 0.5 = 0.5
    Used with FAL-P T,ξ to declare upper B limits (Table 2), following Afonso Delgado et al. 2023; motivates COG for Fe I.
  • Same-flux patch threshold B_LOS > 800 G on Fe I = 800 G
    Defines the green-contour photospheric patch whose flux is matched in Ca II maps for the alternate expansion factor (§3).
  • MCMC noise σ_V from continuum = pixel-dependent continuum σ_V
    Per-pixel continuum σ_V at ~3946 Å (SUSI) and ~8505 Å (SCIP) enters the Gaussian likelihood; intercept b is a nuisance parameter in the linear WFA fit (Appendix A).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Weak-field approximation: V(λ) = −4.67e−13 g_eff λ0² B_LOS ∂I/∂λ with B_LOS constant over the fitted formation region (Eq. A1).
    Applied to both Ca II lines across the FOV; validity checked via Table 2 but not strictly satisfied everywhere for Ca II 8542.
  • domain assumption Center-of-gravity method recovers B_LOS for Fe I when Zeeman splitting is not weak (Eq. C7).
    Used because photospheric |B| exceeds WFA limits; assumes approximately constant B over Fe I formation (§2, Appendix C).
  • domain assumption Geometric height where τ_λ=1 in FAL-P (Fontenla et al. 1993) orders the formation of Fe I 8515, Fe I 3937, Ca II 8542, and Ca II K.
    Appendix B; authors note FAL-P is indicative only and observed profiles vary across the FOV.
  • ad hoc to paper Co-alignment by cross-correlation of Ca II core intensity maps and restriction to the common FOV make SUSI and SCIP B_LOS maps comparable despite ~1 h time gap.
    §2 explicitly states datasets are co-spatial but not co-temporal; evolution may contribute to small-scale differences.
  • domain assumption Linear polarization can be ignored near disk center without biasing the LOS analysis.
    §2; Stokes Q,U not analyzed.
  • standard math Standard atomic/spectroscopic constants (g_eff, λ0) and the Landi Degl’Innocenti & Landolfi polarization framework.
    Inputs to WFA and COG formulas throughout.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Field Stratification in Active-Region Plage from Ca II K and Ca II 8542 {\AA} Spectropolarimetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJZOBJKW

@misc{pith2026260728102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Field Stratification in Active-Region Plage from Ca II K and Ca II 8542 \AA Spectropolarimetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJZOBJKW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28102}
}
abstract

We investigate the height variation of the line-of-sight (LOS) magnetic field in solar active-region (AR) plage from the upper photosphere to the upper chromosphere using co-spatial ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) spectropolarimetric observations from the Sunrise III stratospheric balloon flight. The Ca II K and Ca II 8542 {\AA} lines provide complementary chromospheric diagnostics, while nearby Fe I lines sample photospheric layers. The LOS magnetic field is inferred from the intensity and circular polarization profiles, applying the weak field approximation for the Ca II lines and the center-of-gravity method for the Fe I lines. The photospheric Fe I lines reveal strong, finely structured magnetic fields of the order of a kG. In contrast, the chromospheric Ca II diagnostics yield systematically weaker fields, typically in the $\sim$ 100-400 G range, with a more diffuse spatial distribution. Magnetic field maps inferred from the Ca II K line, formed higher in the chromosphere, are smoother and more extended than those derived from the Ca II 8542 {\AA} line, which samples lower heights. We find that the magnetized area increases by a factor of $\sim$ 2 from the photosphere to the chromosphere. These results provide direct quantitative evidence that magnetic fields in AR plage weaken and expand with height, evolving from compact kG photospheric concentrations into weaker and more spatially extended structures in the upper chromosphere.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images of the intensity and circular polarization at selected wavelengths of the analyzed datasets. Upper panels correspond to the SCIP observation, and lower ones to SUSI’s. Left panels display intensity maps close to the continuum (around 3946 ˚A in SUSI and 8505 ˚A in SCIP), with the intensity given in SI units. Central panels show the core of the Ca ii lines of interest (K in SUSI and 8542 ˚A in SCIP), normalize… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnetic field strength along the line of sight, BLOS, obtained by applying the COG method to the Fe i spectral lines (left panels), and the WFA to the Ca ii lines (right panels), in the SCIP (upper panels) and SUSI (lower panels) datasets. The red rectangle indicates the position of the SUSI observation within the FOV of SCIP. This region is used to compute the magnetized area fraction in each map. The blue rectang… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of the BLOS values as inferred with each spectral line in the predominantly unipolar region enclosed by the blue rectangles in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stokes intensity (I/Ic) and circular polarization (V /Ic) profiles, normalized to the local continuum intensity, for a pixel in region A (Figures 1 and 2) are shown in the left and right panels, respectively. Upper panels display SCIP data near the Ca ii 8542 ˚A line, …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimate of the formation height as a function of wavelength, defined as the geometric height where τ = 1 for a disk-center line of sight (µ = 1) and computed with HanleRT-TIC for the FAL-P atmospheric model. The upper and lower panels correspond to wavelength windows …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panels: maps of the relative difference, (BWFA − BCOG) / |BWFA|, expressed as a percentage. Right panels: distributions of BWFA and BCOG within the region enclosed by the blue rectangle in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stokes intensity (I/Ic) and circular polarization (V /Ic) profiles, normalized to the local continuum intensity, are shown in the left and right panels, respectively. Upper and lower panels display the profiles corresponding to regions B and C, respectively, marked wit…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace4c8 Afonso Delgado, D., del Pino Alem´ an, T., Trujillo Bueno, J., et al

    Afonso Delgado, D., del Pino Alem´ an, T., & Trujillo Bueno, J. 2023, ApJ, 954, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace4c8 Afonso Delgado, D., del Pino Alem´ an, T., Trujillo Bueno, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfcd4 16

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace4c8 2023

  2. [2]

    K., et al

    Barthol, P., Gandorfer, A., Solanki, S. K., et al. 2011, SoPh, 268, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9662-9 Bjørgen, J. P., Sukhorukov, A. V., Leenaarts, J., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731926

    doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9662-9 2011

  3. [3]

    K., & van Noort, M

    Buehler, D., Lagg, A., Solanki, S. K., & van Noort, M. 2015, A&A, 576, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424970

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424970 2015

  4. [4]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae087 da Silva Santos, J

    Centeno, R. 2018, ApJ, 866, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae087 da Silva Santos, J. M., Reardon, K., Cauzzi, G., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf21f de la Cruz Rodr ´ ıguez, J., Leenaarts, J., Danilovic, S., &

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae087 2018

  5. [5]

    2019, A&A, 623, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834464 del Pino Alem´ an, T., Casini, R., & Manso Sainz, R

    Uitenbroek, H. 2019, A&A, 623, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834464 del Pino Alem´ an, T., Casini, R., & Manso Sainz, R. 2016, ApJL, 830, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/830/2/L24 del Pino Alem´ an, T., Trujillo Bueno, J., Casini, R., & Manso Sainz, R. 2020, ApJ, 891, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6bc9

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834464 2019

  6. [6]

    2025, The Sunrise Ultraviolet Spectropolarimeter and Imager: Instrument description, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05416

    Feller, A., Gandorfer, A., Grauf, B., et al. 2025, The Sunrise Ultraviolet Spectropolarimeter and Imager: Instrument description, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05416

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    M., Avrett, E

    Fontenla, J. M., Avrett, E. H., & Loeser, R. 1993, ApJ, 406, 319, doi: 10.1086/172443

    doi:10.1086/172443 1993

  8. [8]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    A., Feller, A., Gandorfer, A., et al

    Iglesias, F. A., Feller, A., Gandorfer, A., et al. 2025, SoPh, 300, 58, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02470-8

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    2021, Science Advances, 7, eabe8406, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe8406

    Ishikawa, R., Trujillo Bueno, J., del Pino Alem´ an, T., et al. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabe8406, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe8406

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    E., et al

    Ishikawa, R., Trujillo Bueno, J., McKenzie, D. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aded0e Juanikorena Berasategi, I., Alsina Ballester, E., del Pino Alem´ an, T., & Trujillo Bueno, J. 2025, A&A, 704, A173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556353

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0780

    Judge, P., Kleint, L., Casini, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0780

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Solanki, S

    Katsukawa, Y., del Toro Iniesta, J. C., Solanki, S. K., et al. 2026, The Sunrise Chromospheric Infrared Spectro-Polarimeter SCIP: an instrument for SUNRISE III, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17929

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    K., et al

    Korpi-Lagg, A., Gandorfer, A., Solanki, S. K., et al. 2025, Solar Physics, 300, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02485-1

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    2026, A&A, 708, A282, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558065 Landi Degl’Innocenti, E., & Landolfi, M

    Danilovic, S., & Andriienko, O. 2026, A&A, 708, A282, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558065 Landi Degl’Innocenti, E., & Landolfi, M. 2004, Polarization in Spectral Lines, Vol. 307, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-2415-3

    2026 doi

  8. [16]

    2024a, ApJ, 975, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7954

    Li, H., del Pino Alem´ an, T., & Trujillo Bueno, J. 2024a, ApJ, 975, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7954

    doi

  9. [17]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac745c

    Li, H., del Pino Alem´ an, T., Trujillo Bueno, J., & Casini, R. 2022, ApJ, 933, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac745c

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2024b, ApJ, 974, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6dfb Manso Sainz, R., & Trujillo Bueno, J

    Li, H., del Pino Alem´ an, T., Trujillo Bueno, J., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 974, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6dfb Manso Sainz, R., & Trujillo Bueno, J. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1416, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1416 Manso Sainz, R., & Trujillo Bueno, J. 2011, ApJ, 737, 106, doi: 10.1088/0...

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.16088, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.16088

    Matsumoto, T., Katsukawa, Y., Kubo, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.16088, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.16088

    2026 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, A&A, 642, A210, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038754

    Yadav, R. 2020, A&A, 642, A210, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038754

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Pietrow, A. G. M., Kiselman, D., de la Cruz Rodr ´ ıguez, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038750 Quintero Noda, C., Shimizu, T., de la Cruz Rodr ´ ıguez, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw867

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    E., & Semel, M

    Rees, D. E., & Semel, M. D. 1979, A&A, 74, 1

    1979

  15. [23]

    2000, Science, 288, 1396, doi: 10.1126/science.288.5470.1396

    Socas-Navarro, H., Trujillo Bueno, J., & Ruiz Cobo, B. 2000, Science, 288, 1396, doi: 10.1126/science.288.5470.1396

    2000

  16. [24]

    K., Barthol, P., Danilovic, S., et al

    Solanki, S. K., Barthol, P., Danilovic, S., et al. 2010, ApJL, 723, L127, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/2/L127

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    K., Riethm¨ uller, T

    Solanki, S. K., Riethm¨ uller, T. L., Barthol, P., et al. 2017, ApJS, 229, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/229/1/2

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    K., Smitha, H

    Solanki, S. K., Smitha, H. N., Lagg, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.07989, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.07989 Trujillo Bueno, J., & del Pino Alem´ an, T. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-041122-031043

    2026 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Vissers, G. J. M., Danilovic, S., Zhu, X., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142087

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.