Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Understanding the complex morphology of a CME: multi-view analysis and numerical modeling

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single magnetic flux rope, rotated and squeezed by coronal holes and a helmet streamer, produced the two-MFR appearance and the v-shaped front of the 28 March 2022 CME.

desk verdict A plausible single-MFR explanation for a two-front CME that is honestly caveated, but the load-bearing evidence is visual field-line matching rather than the model's own density; deserves peer review with a request for synthetic white-light validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08820 v1 pith:IKAYZRB7 submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.SR

Cecilia Mac Cormack , (1 , 2) , Abril Sahade (1) , Angelos Vourlidas (3) , Phillip Hess (4) , Robin Colaninno (4) , Teresa Nieves-Chinchilla (1) ((1) Heliospheric Physics Laboratory
show 2 more authors
Heliophysics Science Division NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. (2) The Catholic University of America. (3) The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. (4) U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords coronalmassejectionsmagneticfluxropewhite-lightmorphologyMHDsimulationholeshelmetstreamerSolarOrbiterSoloHImulti-viewobservations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to explain why one coronal mass ejection (CME), seen on 28 March 2022, looked like two separate magnetic flux ropes in white-light images even though it began as a single eruption. The proposed answer is that the eruption's two legs evolved differently: the northern leg reconnected with an east coronal hole after being slowed by a helmet streamer, while the southern leg reconnected earlier with a west coronal hole and expanded smoothly. That asymmetry, plus rotation of the flux rope, created a U-shaped cavity and a v-shaped front that mimicked a double eruption. The paper argues that white-light morphologies such as U-shaped cavities should not be trusted on their own as flux-rope signatures, and that combining multi-view observations with an MHD model can resolve such ambiguities.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a thermodynamic magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) model of the corona, initialized with a photospheric magnetogram and an eruptive magnetic flux rope whose position, height, and curvature were matched to the tracked filament. The key mechanism is asymmetric reconnection: the southern leg reconnects with the open field of the west coronal hole first, and the northern leg reconnects with the east coronal hole after being held back by the helmet streamer arcade. This differential evolution expands one end of the rope more than the other and reshapes the field lines into the structures the white-light cameras see.

What would settle it

A single in situ pass through the 28 March 2022 ejecta that detects two distinct magnetic flux ropes—two separate rotations of the magnetic field vector separated by a current sheet—would contradict the single-eruption claim. Alternatively, EUV observations showing coronal-hole footpoint brightening at the times and locations of the simulated reconnection would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the atypical morphology of the 28 March 2022 CME was the result of the flux rope's rotation and its interaction with the ambient coronal magnetic field, not of two separate eruptions. In the model, the northern leg of a single magnetic flux rope rose fast, was obstructed by the closed field of an overlying helmet streamer, and then reconnected with the east coronal hole, producing tangled field lines that appear in white light as a U-shaped cavity and a distorted front. The southern leg reconnected earlier with the west coronal hole, losing strapping field, and expanded into a smoother, more traditional CME front. The v-shaped front seen only by the Solar Orbiter Heliospheric Imager is attributed to the orientation of upstream field lines after that reconnection. The paper concludes that a single eruption produced two apparent MFRs in coronagraph images.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the model's magnetic topology—especially which leg reconnects with which coronal hole and when—matches the real event; the support is only qualitative visual matching of simulated field lines to white-light structures, with no independent magnetic-field validation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • White-light U-shaped cavities and concave fronts should not be treated as standalone evidence of a magnetic flux rope; they can be produced by distorted field lines from a single rope.
  • A single eruption can masquerade as two CMEs or two MFR orientations in coronagraph and heliospheric images when the ambient field is asymmetric.
  • The ambient coronal magnetic field, including coronal holes and helmet streamers, can be the dominant factor in a CME's early white-light shape.
  • V-shaped fronts ahead of a CME can arise from reconnected or open field lines rather than from a second structure or a shock.
  • Multi-view observations combined with MHD modeling can identify the magnetic origin of complex white-light features, improving space-weather interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this single-eruption interpretation generalizes, some 'complex' CMEs currently cataloged as multiple events may actually be one flux rope distorted by its environment; reanalyzing such events with the same model would test this.
  • A quantitative metric linking white-light cavity shape to simulated magnetic topology could turn the qualitative matching here into a testable classification of CME morphology.
  • The model predicts specific times and locations of coronal-hole reconnection; searching EUV data for footpoint brightening at those locations would provide an independent check on future events of this type.
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 paper investigates the 28 March 2022 CME, which appeared as a complex two-MFR structure in white-light coronagraphs and a v-shaped front in SoloHI, despite originating from a single filament eruption. Using EUV observations from SDO/AIA, STEREO/EUVI, and SolO/EUI, the authors track the erupting filament in 3D and use these measurements to initialize a CORHEL-CME thermodynamic MHD simulation. The simulation yields a single MFR whose northern and southern legs reconnect asymmetrically with the east and west coronal holes and are confined by a helmet streamer, leading to different expansion rates and field-line entangling. The authors compare the modeled field lines with LASCO, COR2, and SoloHI white-light structures and conclude that the apparent two-MFR morphology and the SoloHI v-shaped front are products of this single-MFR rotation and ambient-field interaction. They caution that U-shaped white-light cavities should not be taken as standalone MFR indicators.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a compelling demonstration that a single CME can masquerade as two separate eruptions in coronagraph data and that apparently MFR-specific white-light signatures can be produced by non-MFR field-line structures. The study exploits an unusually good multi-viewpoint dataset (SOHO, STEREO-A, SolO) and makes the simulation publicly available through CCMC, which supports reproducibility. The two-MFR appearance and v-shaped front were not explicitly fitted; they emerged from the simulation, which is a genuine strength. The paper is admirably honest about its limitations, explicitly stating that the modeled field lines are not exact reconstructions. However, the evidence linking the modeled magnetic topology to the observed white-light morphology remains qualitative and is the main factor limiting the strength of the conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 5] The load-bearing identification of observed white-light features (curves 1-3) with simulated structures is made by visually matching field-line plots to running-difference density images. Since white-light brightness is a line-of-sight integral of electron density, a set of field lines that appears v-shaped in a 3D rendering does not guarantee a v-shaped density enhancement after projection, background subtraction, and binning. CORHEL-CME outputs density and temperature, so the authors should compute synthetic white-light images from the simulation and compare them directly with the observations. Without such a test, alternative magnetic evolutions (e.g., two interacting flux systems, or no reconnection) might reproduce the same observed fronts equally well, and the specific claim that asymmetric reconnection with the coronal holes produced the v-shaped front is not established.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph beginning 'To compare the simulation with observations'] The comparison snapshots are selected by aligning heights rather than times, and the simulated eruption has different kinematics from the observed one (initially faster, then slower). This height alignment is a free parameter, and the relative timing of the reconnection events in the simulation may not correspond to the observed times at which the white-light features appear. The authors should quantify how sensitive the morphological match in Figure 5 is to the choice of alignment, or provide a time-resolved synthetic white-light sequence, to rule out the possibility that the match is an artifact of snapshot selection.
  3. [Section 3, paragraph beginning 'We validate the parameters selected for step 1'] Because the fraction of optimized current was chosen to match the rotation and deflection of the eruption, the model's success at reproducing those aspects is partially by construction. The paper should clarify which aspects of the morphological conclusion (the two-MFR appearance and the v-shaped front) are emergent rather than fitted, and, ideally, show that these features are robust to reasonable variations in the current fraction, the coronal heating model, and the height alignment. This would strengthen the claim that the single-MFR scenario is not an artifact of the chosen parameters.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4, last paragraph] The word 'obvservations' should be 'observations'.
  2. [Section 4, Figure 5 caption] The phrase 'the simulation form SoloHI POV where the MFR core of is removed' contains two typos; it should read 'the simulation from SoloHI POV where the MFR core is removed'.
  3. [Section 2, Figure 1] The labels 'curve 1', 'curve 2', and 'curve 3' are introduced in the caption, but the reader must map them between panels; a single annotated composite figure or a table listing the feature names would improve clarity.
  4. [Section 5, first paragraph] The sentence 'Feature 1 in Figure 1 is the result of the MFR northern portion that underwent a complex evolution after an initial destabilization and fast rise obstructed by the closed overlying field belonging to the helmet streamer' is long and would benefit from being split.
  5. [Section 3, paragraph beginning 'We validate the parameters'] The sentence 'We validate the parameters selected for step 1 of the CORHEL-CME model by matching the shape and location of the tracked filament with the simulated MFR' could be expanded to explain what 'validate' means here, given that the current fraction is later described as chosen to match rotation and deflection.
  6. [Throughout] The label 'curve 3' is used both for the SoloHI v-shaped front and for a simulated field-line configuration; consider using distinct notation to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the rotation/deflection invoked to explain the morphology is a fitted parameter, but the two-front and v-shaped structures are emergent model outputs, so the central claim retains independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, CORHEL-CME initial conditions (paragraph after Figure 2)]
    "While the initial position was determined by the pre-eruptive filament, the fraction of optimized current was chosen to match the rotation and deflection of the eruption."

    The paper's central conclusion (Section 5) attributes the atypical white-light morphology to 'the MFR rotation and its interaction with the ambient field.' The rotation and deflection are not emergent predictions of the simulation: the free current parameter was explicitly tuned to reproduce those observed quantities from the tracked filament. Thus the causal claim 'rotation shaped the morphology' partly restates the fit. It is not fully circular because the two-MFR appearance and the SoloHI v-shaped front were not fitting targets; they arise from the subsequent MHD evolution, so the morphological interpretation retains independent content.

  2. other [Section 3, comparison method (paragraph after Figure 3c)]
    "To compare the simulation with observations, we matched the height of the MFR with the filament and, eventually, the CME. This approach ensures that the spatial evolution of the eruption aligns between the model and the data, even if the timing does not precisely coincide."

    The apparent agreement between model snapshots and white-light structures in Figure 5 is partly constructed: snapshots are chosen to align by height rather than time, and the correspondence between field-line renderings and density features is established by visual inspection. This does not make the morphological claim definitional, but it introduces a fitting degree of freedom in the comparison and allows the alignment procedure itself to create part of the reported match.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a single rotating MFR interacting with the ambient field produced the observed two-MFR appearance and SoloHI v-shaped front. The strongest circular element is explicit: the simulation's current was optimized to match the observed rotation and deflection, and the model was height-matched to the data, so the subsequent statement that rotation and ambient interaction explain the morphology is partly a restatement of fitted inputs. However, the two-front morphology and the v-shaped configuration were not fitted; they emerged from the CORHEL-CME evolution and were then visually associated with observed white-light features. The reliance on the companion paper by Sahade et al. (2025) for filament tracking and the helmet-streamer interpretation is substantial but is based on multi-view EUV observations that are externally checkable, and the paper also cites independent work for the single-eruption interpretation. The absence of synthetic white-light validation weakens the evidence but does not make the derivation circular by construction. Overall, this is a case of partial circularity in the modeling inputs and comparison procedure, not a fully self-referential derivation, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's explanation rests on one tuned current parameter, a manual spatial alignment, an unstated heating-model choice, and the assumption that the model's field topology corresponds to the observed density structures. No new physical entities are introduced. The main circularity cost is the tuned current used to match the eruption's rotation and deflection before the model is invoked to explain morphology.

free parameters (3)
  • Optimized current fraction for initial MFR = Not stated in text; CCMC run Abril Sahade 042424 SH 1
    Section 3 states 'the fraction of optimized current was chosen to match the rotation and deflection of the eruption'. This is a parameter tuned to reproduce observed kinematics.
  • Height alignment between simulated MFR and observed feature = None; manual matching
    The authors matched the height of the modeled MFR to the tracked filament or CME to align spatial evolution, a hand adjustment that affects which model structures are compared with which observed structures.
  • Coronal heating model selection = Not specified
    CORHEL-CME requires choosing a heating model for the thermodynamic corona; the text mentions selecting a heating model but does not state which one or justify the choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The eruption contained a single magnetic flux rope, not two separate eruptions.
    Section 3 states 'we believe that the March 28 CME was generated by a single filament-MFR eruption'. This is an input to the simulation and is not independently proven by in situ or white-light data.
  • domain assumption CORHEL-CME's MHD solution captures the essential magnetic interactions of the real event (rotation, reconnection with coronal holes, helmet streamer confinement).
    Section 3 acknowledges missing processes such as flux emergence and flare reconnection; Section 4 uses model field lines as a proxy for the real magnetic configuration.
  • domain assumption The 3D tie-pointed filament positions accurately represent the erupting structure.
    The initial conditions rely on manual tracking in EUV images from three viewpoints (Sahade et al. 2025); tracking errors propagate into the simulation setup.
  • ad hoc to paper Visual agreement between modeled field-line shapes and white-light density features indicates causal correspondence.
    Section 4 identifies curves 1, 2, and 3 by qualitative visual comparison; no quantitative metric or synthetic white-light image is used to validate the match.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding the complex morphology of a CME: multi-view analysis and numerical modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IKAYZRB7

@misc{pith2026250608820,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding the complex morphology of a CME: multi-view analysis and numerical modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IKAYZRB7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08820}
}
read the original abstract

Although all coronal mass ejections (CMEs) that propagate into the heliosphere should contain a magnetic flux rope (MFR) component, the majority do not exhibit the expected white-light MFR morphology of a leading edge plus cavity. This different appearance could be the result of distortion of the internal magnetic structure, merging with other structures, or simply projection effects. These factors complicate the interpretation of CMEs. This complexity is exemplified by a CME observed on 28 March 2022. The event originated from a single eruption, evolving as a textbook CME in the low corona but appearing as a complex two-MFR structure in white-light observations. Why? To answer this question, we performed a multi-view data and modeling analysis to describe the CME coronal evolution. The thermodynamic MHD model, CORHEL-CME, helps reveal the magnetic configuration of this CME and also reveals that the ambient field plays a crucial role in shaping the complex structure of the CME during early evolution. Our research underscores the importance of integrating multiview observations with physics-based models to gain a deeper insight into the development of complex CMEs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08820 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Spacecraft configuration on March 28, 2022. b) LASCO C2 base difference images for the March 28 event at 13:36:07, numbered dashed curves denote features mentioned in the main text. c) Same of panel b but for COR2 at 15:23:43. d) Same of panel b but for the SoloHI inner FOV processed with running difference. The CME evolution movies for the three shown FOVs are included as an animated version for this figure. The… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) HMI magnetogram of the AR 12975 at ∼11:10 UT. b) EUV observation from AIA-304 of the filament at ∼11:16 UT. c) Initial tracking of the filament performed in A. Sahade et al. (2025) and used as initial condition for CORHEL-CME run. d) Yellow axes show the initial location of the eruptive filament in the CORHEL-CME simulation. Colored dots represent the tracked filament. also the thermodynamic properties and the sy… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Running-difference snapshots of the early stage of the eruption in the AIA-304 channel (middle panel), EUVI-304 (left panel) and EUI-304 (right panel). b) Same as panel a but with the results for the tracked filament over-plotted in the three 304˚Achannels. Yellow-orange dots represent the northern portion of the filament and Blue-violet dots represents the southern portion (northern and southern legs in [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots of the evolution of the MFR obtained by CORHEL-CME from an arbitrary POV. The gray sphere (1 R⊙) has the Earth meridian (green line), equator (teal line), and STA meridian (pink line) plotted for reference. Panel a) early rise of the MFR showing the northern …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: white-light observations provided by LASCO (upper panel), COR2 (middle panel) and SoloHI (Lower panel) for the March 28 event. Right panel: comparison with the CORHEL-CME model from the perspective of each specific spacecraft. The gray sphere (1 R⊙) has the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., Howard, R

    Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J., et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 357, doi: 10.1007/BF00733434

    doi:10.1007/bf00733434 1995

  2. [2]

    J., & Schmidt, J

    Cargill, P. J., & Schmidt, J. M. 2002, Annales Geophysicae, 20, 879, doi: 10.5194/angeo-20-879-2002 11

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-20-879-2002 2002

  3. [3]

    C., & Vourlidas, A

    Colaninno, R. C., & Vourlidas, A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/70

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/70 2015

  4. [4]

    Domingo, V., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, SoPh, 162, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00733425

    doi:10.1007/bf00733425 1995

  5. [5]

    A., Miki´ c, Z., et al

    Downs, C., Linker, J. A., Miki´ c, Z., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 1196, doi: 10.1126/science.1236550

    doi:10.1126/science.1236550 2013

  6. [6]

    2023, A&A, 679, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346907

    Stenborg, G. 2023, A&A, 679, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346907

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346907 2023

  7. [7]

    A., Moses, J

    Howard, R. A., Moses, J. D., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 67, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9341-4

    doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9341-4 2008

  8. [8]

    A., Vourlidas, A., Colaninno, R

    Howard, R. A., Vourlidas, A., Colaninno, R. C., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935202

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935202 2020

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/35

    Hutton, J., & Morgan, H. 2015, ApJ, 813, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/35

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Illing, R. M. E., & Hundhausen, A. J. 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 275, doi: 10.1029/JA090iA01p00275

    1985 doi

  3. [11]

    2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612649

    Inhester, B. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612649

    2006 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    L., Kucera, T

    Kaiser, M. L., Kucera, T. A., Davila, J. M., et al. 2008, Space Sci. Rev., 136, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    2017, SoPh, 292, 78, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1098-z

    Kay, C., Gopalswamy, N., Xie, H., & Yashiro, S. 2017, SoPh, 292, 78, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1098-z

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Torok, T., Downs, C., et al

    Linker, J. A., Torok, T., Downs, C., et al. 2024, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 2742, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012012, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2742/1/012012

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    A., & Miki´ c, Z

    Lionello, R., Linker, J. A., & Miki´ c, Z. 2009, ApJ, 690, 902, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/902 Mac Cormack, C., Shaik, S. B., Hess, P., Colaninno, R., &

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    2025, SoPh, 300, 54, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02463-7

    Nieves-Chinchilla, T. 2025, SoPh, 300, 54, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02463-7

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Pomoell, J., Palmroos, C., et al

    Morosan, D. E., Pomoell, J., Palmroos, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347873 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, SSRv, 216, 131, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00757-9

    Patsourakos, S., Vourlidas, A., T¨ or¨ ok, T., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 131, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00757-9

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    M., et al

    Podladchikova, T., Jain, S., Veronig, A. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A344, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451777

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Dickson, E

    Purkhart, S., Veronig, A. M., Dickson, E. C. M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346354

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Miki´ c, Z., et al

    Riley, P., Linker, J. A., Miki´ c, Z., et al. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 1272, doi: 10.1029/2002JA009760

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663 Rodr ´ ıguez-Garc ´ ıa, L., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., G´ omez-Herrero, R., et al

    Rochus, P., Auch` ere, F., Berghmans, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663 Rodr ´ ıguez-Garc ´ ıa, L., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., G´ omez-Herrero, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142966

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2024,, 1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13951841

    Sahade, A. 2024,, 1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13951841

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    A., & C´ ecere, M

    Sahade, A., Vourlidas, A., Balmaceda, L. A., & C´ ecere, M. 2023, ApJ, 953, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace420

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad96ba

    Sahade, A., Vourlidas, A., & Mac Cormack, C. 2025, ApJ, 978, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad96ba

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 207, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 33, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/33

    Thernisien, A. 2011, ApJS, 194, 33, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/33

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    Thernisien, A., Vourlidas, A., & Howard, R. A. 2009, SoPh, 256, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9346-5

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    Thernisien, A. F. R., Howard, R. A., & Vourlidas, A. 2006, ApJ, 652, 763, doi: 10.1086/508254

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Downs, C., Miki´ c, Z., et al

    Titov, V. S., Downs, C., Miki´ c, Z., et al. 2018, ApJL, 852, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa3da T¨ or¨ ok, T., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab36d

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, A&A, 627, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834702

    Verbeke, C., Pomoell, J., & Poedts, S. 2019, A&A, 627, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834702

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2014, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 56, 064001, doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/56/6/064001

    Vourlidas, A. 2014, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 56, 064001, doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/56/6/064001

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    R., Tarbell, T

    Wuelser, J.-P., Lemen, J. R., Tarbell, T. D., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5171, Telescopes and Instrumentation for Solar Astrophysics, ed. S. Fineschi & M. A. Gummin, 111–122, doi: 10.1117/12.506877

    2004 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.