Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 77 references

Magnetic flux cancellation in a flux-emergence magnetohydrodynamics simulation of coronal hole eruptions and jets

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 Magnetic flux cancellation appears in a simulation of coronal-hole jets and eruptions.

desk verdict First flux-cancellation analysis in a jet-producing flux-emergence simulation, but the headline rate needs a boundary-flux check before it is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21155 v1 pith:MNJDWBP6 submitted 2025-05-27 astro-ph.SR

Spiros Patsourakos , Vasilis Archontis This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords magneticfluxcancellationcoronaljetsemergencemagnetohydrodynamicsholesblowoutropeseedspartialionization
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 reports evidence of magnetic flux cancellation in a 3D flux-emergence simulation of coronal-hole jets and eruptions, a signature that earlier simulations of emerging twisted flux tubes rarely showed. In a short segment of the internal polarity-inversion line of the photospheric magnetic field, opposite-polarity patches of comparable strength converge at about 1 km/s, and the paper argues that low-altitude reconnection between their sheared field lines creates slowly rising, concave-upward loops whose emergence reads as a drop in photospheric flux. The measured cancellation rate is about 3.2 x $10^{18}$ Mx per hour, and the flux in the region falls by 15 to 20 percent during intervals of individual eruptions and blowout jets. The paper connects this cancellation to the formation of seeds of pre-eruptive magnetic flux ropes. It matters because it brings flux-emergence models closer to the many observations linking coronal jets and small eruptions to photospheric flux cancellation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the internal polarity-inversion line (iPIL) of the photospheric vertical magnetic field, specifically a short segment where conjugate magnetic tails of opposite polarity have comparable strength. The carrying mechanism is low-altitude reconnection between J-shaped (sheared) field lines that converge at about 1 km/s, converting them into S-shaped, concave-upward, slowly rising field lines whose upward motion removes flux from the photospheric plane. The diagnostic quantities are the column sums of photospheric $B_z$ (positive, negative, and net unsigned flux) inside a fixed box, the perpendicular vertical velocity $V^\perp_z$ of the field lines, and the normalized magnetic tension $\kappa_z$, whose sign distinguishes rising U-loops from submerging $\Omega$-loops.

What would settle it

Track the magnetic flux crossing the four side faces of the diagnostic box over the cancellation interval; if the integrated outward flux equals the measured drop in net unsigned $B_z$, the event is advective transport rather than cancellation. A second check is to enlarge the box by a few pixels in every direction and recompute the flux time series; if the flux decrease disappears, the detection depends on the chosen integration window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that photospheric magnetic flux cancellation occurs when Lorentz-force-driven rotating footpoint motions carry sheared, J-shaped field lines rooted in the magnetic tails of an emerging twisted flux tube toward a short segment of the internal polarity-inversion line (iPIL). There, reconnection produces S-shaped, concave-upward field lines that rise slowly, removing vertical magnetic flux from the photospheric plane and producing the classic cancellation signature. Over the cancellation period, the net unsigned flux inside the diagnostic region drops by about 75 percent at an average rate of roughly 3.2 x $10^{18}$ Mx per hour, with decreases of 15 to 20 percent during individual eruption and blowout-jet intervals. The cancellation can be traced up to about 520 km above the photosphere, appearing there with a delay of about 10 minutes, and the authors estimate that the cancelled flux could contribute up to about 25 percent of the axial flux of the pre-eruptive magnetic flux rope they identify. They note that the cancellation does not trigger the jets or eruptions and that the cancelled fraction of the total active-region flux is much smaller than observations typically suggest.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on treating the flux drop inside one hand-selected box in the photosphere as magnetic flux cancellation rather than as magnetic flux carried out of the box by plasma flows across its edges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Flux-emergence simulations of twisted tubes can produce photospheric flux cancellation during eruptions and blowout jets, not just in surface-driven models.
  • Standard jets in this simulation are not temporally correlated with flux cancellation, while blowout jets are, matching a subset of observational studies.
  • The cancellation region extends a few hundred kilometers above the photosphere, so multi-height magnetograms can test the predicted delay of about 10 minutes.
  • Cancelled flux may contribute roughly a quarter of the axial flux of a pre-eruptive magnetic flux rope, supporting an arcade-to-sigmoid formation route in an emergence context.
  • Simulated cancellation rates and converging-footpoint speeds agree with high-resolution observations, while the cancelled fraction of total flux is much smaller, pointing to needed model changes such as stronger ambient network fields or multiple interacting tubes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same box-integration procedure were applied to a larger window, the net flux decrease would likely disappear, implying that observational detection of this cancellation depends sensitively on where the integration window is placed along the polarity-inversion line.
  • A direct check the authors did not perform is to integrate the horizontal magnetic-flux transport across the boundaries of the diagnostic box; if that transport equals the measured drop, the event would be advection rather than cancellation.
  • The reported delay between photospheric and higher-altitude cancellation onset predicts that multi-height magnetograms should see the same cancellation signature at successively later times and weaker strengths, which next-generation telescopes can test.
  • Scaling the ambient network field or introducing multiple interacting flux tubes, as the authors suggest, is a testable route toward raising the cancelled fraction of available flux from roughly one percent to the tens-of-percent range seen in observations.
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 analyzes a 3D resistive MHD flux-emergence simulation (Chouliaras et al. 2023) of a twisted horizontal flux tube emerging into a coronal-hole-like atmosphere, including partial ionization of hydrogen. It reports photospheric magnetic flux cancellation along a short segment of the internal polarity-inversion line (iPIL), with a cancellation rate of about 3.2e18 Mx/hour, 15-20% flux decreases during intervals around individual eruptions and blowout jets, converging footpoint motions of roughly 1 km/s, J-shaped field lines reconnecting into S-shaped field lines, rising concave-upward U-loops, and cancellation traceable up to about 520 km above the photosphere. The authors compare these findings with observations and discuss the discrepancy that the cancelled flux is a much smaller fraction of the total photospheric flux than observed in coronal-jet cancellation events.

Significance. If the central claim is established, this would be one of the few 3D flux-emergence simulations with an emerging twisted flux tube that reports magnetic flux cancellation associated with jets and eruptions, and it would link such simulations to observational studies of cancelling-flux events and to pre-eruptive magnetic-flux-rope formation. The paper has notable strengths: the cancellation is not imposed or fitted into the simulation but is diagnosed post hoc from the output; the analysis employs multiple convergent diagnostics, including photospheric magnetograms, footpoint-velocity maps, time-distance diagrams, field-line topology, V_perp_z and kappa_z calculations, and a check for subphotospheric flux increase; and the manuscript is transparent about limitations and discrepancies with observations. However, the headline claim depends on a flux decrease inside a hand-selected analysis box, and the analysis does not yet separate that decrease from advective transport across the box boundaries, which is load-bearing for the interpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Fig. 6] The central claim of magnetic flux cancellation rests on the simultaneous decrease of positive, negative, and net unsigned flux inside the green box of Fig. 3, but the manuscript does not evaluate the boundary flux transport across the box. For a fixed Eulerian surface S, dPhi/dt = -oint (B_z v_h - B_h v_z) x n dl plus a resistive term, and the paper nowhere computes this boundary integral or demonstrates that it is small. The authors state in Section 5 that a larger box would mask the signal, which makes the box choice consequential rather than innocuous. Without a boundary-flux accounting or a box-size/position sensitivity test, the decrease in Fig. 6 cannot be uniquely attributed to flux cancellation, and the abstract's phrase 'clear evidence' is stronger than the current analysis supports.
  2. [Section 4.1, Fig. 6 and text] The reported cancellation rate of about 3.2e18 Mx/hour and the 15-20% flux decreases during eruption/jet intervals depend on choices that are not tested for robustness: the start time of the linear fit (time-step 35), the endpoints of the intervals (e.g., time-steps 45-53 and 55-62), and the location and size of the analysis box. Since the fit and the percentages are headline quantitative results, the authors should provide an uncertainty estimate and a sensitivity analysis with respect to these choices, or at least discuss how the results change when the box or fit interval is varied.
  3. [Section 4.2, Figs. 8-10] The V_perp_z and kappa_z analysis and the absence of subphotospheric flux increase in Fig. 10 help rule out submerging Omega-loops and support rising U-loops, but they do not distinguish reconnection-driven flux destruction from advective loss of flux out of the green box through horizontal or vertical motion. A rising U-loop is itself a possible outcome of transport as well as of reconnection. To close the gap between the observed flux decrease and the interpretation as cancellation, the authors should add a quantitative reconnection diagnostic (for example, integrated parallel electric field or J dot E in the cancellation region) or a complete boundary-flux budget for the control volume.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] There is a typo in 'ressistive MHD' that should be 'resistive MHD'.
  2. [Section 4.1, Fig. 5 caption and text] The phrase 'sums of Bz along the columns of the green box' is ambiguous; please specify whether the sum is along the vertical direction or along the short dimension of the box, and state the integration direction explicitly.
  3. [Section 4.1] In the sentence 'The speed at which the two branches converge is around 1 km s−1e judged by the fiducial red line', there is a stray 'e' after 's−1'.
  4. [Section 5, conclusion item 5] There is a duplicated 'of' in 'with a delay of of around 10 minutes'.
  5. [Section 5] In the comparison paragraph, 'sub-arcesecond' should be 'sub-arcsecond', and 'resovled' should be 'resolved'.
  6. [References] The reference to McGlasson et al. (2017) appears truncated: 'Schm, R. L.' is likely a corrupted author name; please correct it (e.g., 'Schmieder, R. L.' or the intended coauthor).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: flux cancellation is diagnosed post hoc from a prior simulation output, not imposed or fitted; self-citations are minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a flux decrease measured in a hand-selected box along the internal polarity-inversion line constitutes magnetic flux cancellation. This is a diagnostic applied to the output of an existing 3D MHD simulation; the cancellation rate of about 3.2e18 Mx/hour is a linear fit to the measured flux time series in Fig. 6, and the 15-20% decreases are measured column sums, not parameters fitted to any external target. Nothing in the setup imposes cancellation: the induction equation, initial twisted tube, and ambient field are described in Section 2, and cancellation is not an input or a fitted quantity. The cited simulation (Chouliaras et al. 2023) and event classification (Moraitis et al. 2024) are self-citations with overlapping authorship, but they are not circular in the sense of the target result: the simulation is externally falsifiable and the classification is a prior analysis of the same run, not an assumption that contains the flux-cancellation conclusion. The green-box selection is a real limitation because a larger box would have masked the signal and the paper does not evaluate boundary flux transport, so advective losses across box boundaries are not quantitatively excluded. That is a correctness risk, not a circularity, because the decrease is measured rather than produced by the chosen diagnostic, and the paper offers independent physical diagnostics (V_perp_z, kappa_z, subphotospheric flux) that argue for reconnection-generated U-loops. No derivation step reduces by construction to an input, and no claimed prediction is a renamed fitted quantity. Therefore the analysis is self-contained and non-circular.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no parameters to observations. The listed free parameters are hand-chosen analysis choices: the integration box, the linear-fit start time, and the event intervals. The axioms capture the simulation-fidelity assumption and the interpretive steps used to convert flux time series into a cancellation claim.

free parameters (3)
  • Green box location and size for flux-cancellation analysis = unspecified, chosen around the iPIL segment with similar-magnitude tail fields (Fig. 3)
    All flux-cancellation rates and percentages are measured in this box. The authors note that a larger box would miss the signature, but no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Start time of linear fit for cancellation rate = time-step 35
    The 3.2 x 10^18 Mx/hour rate comes from a linear fit beginning at time-step 35, chosen after the convergent phase begins.
  • Intervals for 15-20 percent flux decrease estimates = time-steps 45-53 and 55-62
    These intervals are selected around coronal kinetic energy peaks corresponding to eruptions and blowout jets, so the percentages are tied to post hoc event intervals.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Lare3D single-fluid resistive MHD simulation with partial ionization of hydrogen faithfully represents flux emergence and cancellation in the low solar atmosphere.
    The simulation is treated as ground truth; its fidelity is inherited from Chouliaras et al. (2023) without independent validation in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed green box analysis isolates cancellation and not transport of magnetic flux across box boundaries.
    The paper infers cancellation from simultaneous decreases inside the box without computing boundary flux contributions, making this an unstated assumption for the interpretation.
  • domain assumption V_perp_z is a valid proxy for vertical field-line velocity and kappa_z identifies local field-line concavity.
    Equations (2) and (3) are used to identify rising U-loops; the relation to actual field-line motion is approximate and not error-quantified.
  • domain assumption The classification of jets and eruptions from kinetic energy peaks follows the analysis in Moraitis et al. (2024).
    The paper relies on the prior analysis to call later kinetic energy peaks blowout jets and eruptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic flux cancellation in a flux-emergence magnetohydrodynamics simulation of coronal hole eruptions and jets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MNJDWBP6

@misc{pith2026250521155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic flux cancellation in a flux-emergence magnetohydrodynamics simulation of coronal hole eruptions and jets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MNJDWBP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21155}
}
read the original abstract

We search for signatures of magnetic flux cancellation in a 3D resistive MHD flux-emergence simulation of coronal jets and eruptions in a coronal-hole-like environment. To do this, we analysed the output from a 3D MHD simulation of an emerging twisted horizontal flux tube from the convection zone into the solar atmosphere. The simulation considered the impact of neutral hydrogen on the magnetic induction equation, that is, it employed partially ionised plasma. Standard and blowout jets as well as eruptions were observed during the simulation. We observe clear evidence of magnetic flux cancellation in a short segment along the internal polarity-inversion line (iPIL) of the photospheric Bz during an extended period of the simulation characterised by eruptions and blowout jets. Converging magnetic footpoint motions at ~ 1 km/s carried sheared fields within the magnetic tails of the emerging flux tube towards the iPIL. These fields reconnect at the iPIL and generate concave-upward and slowly rising field lines causing a flux decrease that is associated with magnetic flux cancellation. We show evidence of magnetic flux cancellation in 3D MHD simulations of coronal hole eruptions and jets associated with an emerging twisted flux tube. The magnetic flux cancellation can be traced up to about 520 km above the photosphere and might contribute to the formation of pre-eruptive magnetic flux rope seeds. Although our results are consistent with several basic aspects of magnetic flux-cancellation observations associated with coronal jets, the observations nevertheless also suggest that cancellation involves much larger fractions of the available flux than our numerical simulation. We supply avenues to address this discrepancy in future work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21155 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Temporal evolution of the coronal kinetic energy calculated 3.2 Mm above the photosphere (black line) and of the photospheric mag￾netic flux (red line). Consecutive time-steps are 86.9 s apart. Nóbrega-Siverio & Moreno-Insertis (2022) discussed 2D Bifrost flux-emergence simulations in a magnetic-null configu￾ration within a coronal hole and studied the formation and dy￾namics of a CBP in terms of microflares, erupti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of the logarithm of the temperature, Vz and Jpar (square-root scaling) in the xz-midplane spanning the solar atmosphere (i.e. photosphere and above) in the left, middle, and right column, respectively. Each row corresponds to a given snapshot during the simulation. Consecutive time-steps are 86.9 s apart. The associated movie is available online. tube axis. In the first row of Fig.2, we show a snapshot … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Photospheric Bz for time-step 42. Black (white) corresponds to negative (positive) Bz saturated in ± 300 Gauss. The purple line corre￾sponds to the PIL of the photospheric Bz . The green box encapsulates the region in which magnetic flux cancellation takes place. photospheric Bz magnetograms. Each panel in this figure also includes the horizontal velocities of the photospheric magnetic footpoints, which are shown wi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sample panels of the photospheric Bz and of the magnetic-footpoint horizontal speeds. Black (white) correspond to negative(positive) polarity Bz saturated in ± 300 Gauss. The overplotted blue arrows correspond to the horizontal speeds of the magnetic footpoints. The lo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal evolution of the positive (blue line), negative (red line) and net unsigned photospheric magnetic flux (black line) in the green box of Fig.3 shown from the appropriate column sums of the time￾distance map of Fig.5. The green line corresponds to a linear fit o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Magnetic field lines traced from a sphere with a radius of 2 pixels and the centre 2 pixels above the middle of the photospheric plane of the simulation box for time-step 42. We display the photospheric Bz saturated in ± 300 Gauss with a greyscale. The traced field lin…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: S-shaped magnetic field lines of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Temporal evolution of the positive (blue line) and negative (red line) magnetic flux 180 km below the photosphere for the green box of Fig.3. Consecutive time-steps are 86.9 s apart. Tw, of these field lines, Tw = Z L (∇ × B) · B 4πB2 dl, (4) where the integration was…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Pre-eruptive MFR (yellow magnetic field lines) traced from a small sphere centred at and spanning a quasi-circular concentration of enhanced Jpar outlined with dashes in the xz-midplane. The Jpar distribution in the xz-midplane is translated from its original position…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Aly, J

    Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Aly, J. J., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1231

    2003

  2. [2]

    D., Longbottom, A

    Arber, T. D., Longbottom, A. W., Gerrard, C. L., & Milne, A. M. 2001, Journal of Computational Physics, 171, 151

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    & Hood, A

    Archontis, V . & Hood, A. W. 2010, A&A, 514, A56

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    & Hood, A

    Archontis, V . & Hood, A. W. 2013, ApJ, 769, L21

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    & Syntelis, P

    Archontis, V . & Syntelis, P. 2019, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety of London Series A, 377, 20180387

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    & Török, T

    Archontis, V . & Török, T. 2008, A&A, 492, L35

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Aulanier, G., Török, T., Démoulin, P., & DeLuca, E. E. 2010, ApJ, 708, 314 Bellot Rubio, L. R. & Beck, C. 2005, ApJ, 626, L125

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Berger, M. A. & Prior, C. 2006, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General, 39, 8321

    work page 2006

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    N., Rust, D

    Bernasconi, P. N., Rust, D. M., Georgoulis, M. K., & Labonte, B. J. 2002, Sol. Phys., 209, 119

    2002

  2. [10]

    Chae, J., Moon, Y .-J., & Pevtsov, A. A. 2004, ApJ, 602, L65

    2004

  3. [11]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1

    2011

  4. [12]

    Chintzoglou, G., Zhang, J., Cheung, M. C. M., & Kazachenko, M. 2019, ApJ, 871, 67

    2019

  5. [13]

    P., Zhukov, A

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

    2023

  6. [14]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 21 de Wijn, A

    Chouliaras, G., Syntelis, P., & Archontis, V . 2023, ApJ, 952, 21 de Wijn, A. G., Casini, R., Carlile, A., et al. 2022, Sol. Phys., 297, 22

    2023

  7. [15]

    E., Hagenaar, H

    DeForest, C. E., Hagenaar, H. J., Lamb, D. A., Parnell, C. E., & Welsch, B. T. 2007, ApJ, 666, 576 Démoulin, P. & Berger, M. A. 2003, Sol. Phys., 215, 203 Færder, Ø. H., Nóbrega-Siverio, D., & Carlsson, M. 2023, A&A, 675, A97

    2007

  8. [16]

    Fang, F., Fan, Y ., & McIntosh, S. W. 2014, ApJ, 789, L19

    2014

  9. [17]

    P., & van der Holst, B

    Fang, F., Manchester, Ward, I., Abbett, W. P., & van der Holst, B. 2012, ApJ, 754, 15

    2012

  10. [18]

    K., Li, Q., Lee, Q., Wang, H., & Raouafi, N

    Georgoulis, M. K., Li, Q., Lee, Q., Wang, H., & Raouafi, N. E. 2025, ApJ, sub- mitted

    2025

  11. [19]

    K., Titov, V

    Georgoulis, M. K., Titov, V . S., & Miki´c, Z. 2012, ApJ, 761, 61 Goši´c, M., de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., De Pontieu, B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 48 Goši´c, M., De Pontieu, B., & Sainz Dalda, A. 2024, ApJ, 964, 175

    2012

  12. [20]

    Green, L. M. & Kliem, B. 2009, ApJ, 700, L83

    2009

  13. [21]

    M., Kliem, B., & Wallace, A

    Green, L. M., Kliem, B., & Wallace, A. J. 2011, A&A, 526, A2

    2011

  14. [22]

    M., Török, T., Vršnak, B., Manchester, W., & Veronig, A

    Green, L. M., Török, T., Vršnak, B., Manchester, W., & Veronig, A. 2018, Space Sci. Rev., 214, 46

    2018

  15. [23]

    L., Jones, H

    Harvey, K. L., Jones, H. P., Schrijver, C. J., & Penn, M. J. 1999, Sol. Phys., 190, 35

    1999

  16. [24]

    2022, ApJ, 929, L23

    Hassanin, A., Kliem, B., Seehafer, N., & Török, T. 2022, ApJ, 929, L23

    2022

  17. [25]

    Kaithakkal, A. J. & Solanki, S. K. 2019, A&A, 622, A200

    2019

  18. [26]

    2024, A&A, 690, A11

    Koletti, M., Gontikakis, C., Patsourakos, S., & Tsinganos, K. 2024, A&A, 690, A11

    2024

  19. [27]

    T., Antiochos, S

    Kumar, P., Karpen, J. T., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 93

    2019

  20. [28]

    T., Antiochos, S

    Kumar, P., Karpen, J. T., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 41

    2021

  21. [29]

    E., Linton, M

    Leake, J. E., Linton, M. G., & Török, T. 2013, ApJ, 778, 99

    2013

  22. [30]

    E., Kazachenko, M

    Ledvina, V . E., Kazachenko, M. D., Criscuoli, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 38

    2022

  23. [31]

    J., Archontis, V ., & Hood, A

    Lee, E. J., Archontis, V ., & Hood, A. W. 2015, ApJ, 798, L10

    2015

  24. [32]

    S., Miki´c, Z., & Linker, J

    Lionello, R., Titov, V . S., Miki´c, Z., & Linker, J. A. 2020, ApJ, 891, 14

    2020

  25. [33]

    S., et al

    Liu, R., Kliem, B., Titov, V . S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 148

    2016

  26. [34]

    Livi, S. H. B., Wang, J., & Martin, S. F. 1985, Australian Journal of Physics, 38, 855

    1985

  27. [35]

    Longcope, D. W. & Welsch, B. T. 2000, ApJ, 545, 1089 López Fuentes, M. C., Demoulin, P., Mandrini, C. H., & van Driel-Gesztelyi, L. 2000, ApJ, 544, 540

    2000

  28. [36]

    L., Démoulin, P., Mandrini, C

    Luoni, M. L., Démoulin, P., Mandrini, C. H., & van Driel-Gesztelyi, L. 2011, Sol. Phys., 270, 45

    2011

  29. [37]

    Mackay, D. H. & van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2006, ApJ, 641, 577

    2006

  30. [38]

    2011, PASJ, 63, 417

    Magara, T. 2011, PASJ, 63, 417

    2011

  31. [39]

    2001, ApJ, 547, 503

    Manchester, Ward, I. 2001, ApJ, 547, 503

    2001

  32. [40]

    Martin, S. F. 1988, Sol. Phys., 117, 243

    1988

  33. [41]

    F., Livi, S

    Martin, S. F., Livi, S. H. B., & Wang, J. 1985, Australian Journal of Physics, 38, 929

    1985

  34. [42]

    K., Sterling, A

    McGlasson, R., Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., & Schm, R. L. 2017, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 2017, SH43A–2796

    2017

  35. [43]

    L., Cirtain, J

    Moore, R. L., Cirtain, J. W., Sterling, A. C., & Falconer, D. A. 2010, ApJ, 720, 757

    2010

  36. [44]

    L., Panesar, N

    Moore, R. L., Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., & Tiwari, S. K. 2022, ApJ, 933, 12

    2022

  37. [45]

    L., Sterling, A

    Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., & Lemen, J. R. 2001, ApJ, 552, 833

    2001

  38. [46]

    2024, A&A, 690, A181

    Moraitis, K., Archontis, V ., & Chouliaras, G. 2024, A&A, 690, A181

    2024

  39. [47]

    & Galsgaard, K

    Moreno-Insertis, F. & Galsgaard, K. 2013, ApJ, 771, 20

    2013

  40. [48]

    2008, ApJ, 673, L211

    Moreno-Insertis, F., Galsgaard, K., & Ugarte-Urra, I. 2008, ApJ, 673, L211

    2008

  41. [49]

    S., Galsgaard, K., & Xia, L

    Mou, C., Madjarska, M. S., Galsgaard, K., & Xia, L. 2018, A&A, 619, A55

    2018

  42. [50]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 133

    Muglach, K. 2021, ApJ, 909, 133

    2021

  43. [51]

    J., Hayes, L

    Nelson, C. J., Hayes, L. A., Müller, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A236

    2024

  44. [52]

    2024, A&A, 689, L11 Nóbrega-Siverio, D., Cabello, I., Bose, S., et al

    Nindos, A., Patsourakos, S., Moraitis, K., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, L11 Nóbrega-Siverio, D., Cabello, I., Bose, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A218 Nóbrega-Siverio, D. & Moreno-Insertis, F. 2022, ApJ, 935, L21 Nóbrega-Siverio, D., Moreno-Insertis, F., & Martínez-Sykora, J. 2016, ApJ...

    2024

  45. [53]

    K., Hansteen, V

    Panesar, N. K., Hansteen, V . H., Tiwari, S. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 24

    2023

  46. [54]

    K., Sterling, A

    Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., & Moore, R. L. 2018, ApJ, 853, 189

    2018

  47. [55]

    K., & DeV ore, C

    Pariat, E., Antiochos, S. K., & DeV ore, C. R. 2009, ApJ, 691, 61

    2009

  48. [56]

    2020, Space Sci

    Patsourakos, S., V ourlidas, A., Török, T., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 131

    2020

  49. [57]

    I., Priest, E

    Pontin, D. I., Priest, E. R., Chitta, L. P., & Titov, V . S. 2024, ApJ, 960, 51 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs: manuscript no. ms

    2024

  50. [58]

    E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al

    Raouafi, N. E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al. 2016, Space Sci. Rev., 201, 1

    2016

  51. [59]

    E., Stenborg, G., Seaton, D

    Raouafi, N. E., Stenborg, G., Seaton, D. B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 28

    2023

  52. [60]

    G., et al

    Reid, A., Mathioudakis, M., Doyle, J. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 110

    2016

  53. [61]

    Rempel, M., Chintzoglou, G., Cheung, M. C. M., Fan, Y ., & Kleint, L. 2023, ApJ, 955, 105

    2023

  54. [62]

    S., Green, L

    Savcheva, A. S., Green, L. M., van Ballegooijen, A. A., & DeLuca, E. E. 2012, ApJ, 759, 105

    2012

  55. [63]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 820183

    Schmieder, B. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 820183

    2022

  56. [64]

    2021, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 477, 217

    Shen, Y . 2021, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 477, 217

    2021

  57. [65]

    C., Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., Falconer, D. A., & Adams, M. 2015, Nature, 523, 437

    2015

  58. [66]

    W., Archontis, V ., & McNeill, C

    Sturrock, Z., Hood, A. W., Archontis, V ., & McNeill, C. M. 2015, A&A, 582, A76

    2015

  59. [67]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 95

    Syntelis, P., Archontis, V ., & Tsinganos, K. 2017, ApJ, 850, 95

    2017

  60. [68]

    R., & Chitta, L

    Syntelis, P., Priest, E. R., & Chitta, L. P. 2019, ApJ, 872, 32

    2019

  61. [69]

    2012, Sol

    Takizawa, K., Kitai, R., & Zhang, Y . 2012, Sol. Phys., 281, 599

    2012

  62. [70]

    S., Priest, E

    Titov, V . S., Priest, E. R., & Demoulin, P. 1993, A&A, 276, 564 van Ballegooijen, A. A. & Martens, P. C. H. 1989, ApJ, 343, 971 van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., Malherbe, J. M., & Démoulin, P. 2000, A&A, 364, 845

    1993

  63. [71]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 137

    Wang, J., Lee, J., Liu, C., Cao, W., & Wang, H. 2022, ApJ, 924, 137

    2022

  64. [72]

    F., Antiochos, S

    Wyper, P. F., Antiochos, S. K., & DeV ore, C. R. 2017, Nature, 544, 452

    2017

  65. [73]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 70

    Xing, C., Aulanier, G., Cheng, X., Xia, C., & Ding, M. 2024, ApJ, 966, 70

    2024

  66. [74]

    Yang, S., Zhang, J., & Borrero, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1012

    2009

  67. [75]

    L., Green, L

    Yardley, S. L., Green, L. M., van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., Williams, D. R., & Mackay, D. H. 2018, ApJ, 866, 8

    2018

  68. [76]

    & Shibata, K

    Yokoyama, T. & Shibata, K. 1996, PASJ, 48, 353

    1996

  69. [77]

    1987, ARA&A, 25, 83 Article number, page 12 of 12

    Zwaan, C. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 83 Article number, page 12 of 12

    1987

Pith tools

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