Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 129 references

In a controlled solar-scaled setup where flux-rope energy grows with the square of field strength, stronger stellar magnetic fields produce faster and more massive CMEs because the upward Lorentz force outruns confinement.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Under solar-scaled magnetograms with E_FR ∝ ⟨B★⟩², CME speed and mass rise roughly as v_CME ∝ ⟨B★⟩ and M_CME ∝ ⟨B★⟩^1.5, driven mainly by the upward Lorentz force.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-11 challenge →

load-bearing objection Clean parametric MHD grid that first scales both background field and flux-rope energy together; Lorentz force wins under that idealization, and the authors flag the idealization clearly. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04853 v1 pith:XLOAPI3I submitted 2026-07-06 astro-ph.SR

How Magnetic Field Strength Affects Stellar Coronal Mass Ejection Dynamics

Zheng Sun , Juli\'an D. Alvarado-G\'omez , Hui Tian This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords Space WeatherCoronal Mass EjectionsStellar Activitiesstellar magnetic fieldsMHD simulationsflux ropesmagnetic confinement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Stellar CME candidates often look weaker than solar flare-CME scalings would predict, a fact previously blamed on magnetic confinement by strong large-scale fields. This paper asks the complementary question: what happens when the small-scale fields that power eruptions are also scaled up? Using solar magnetograms multiplied by factors of 1–100 and inserting flux ropes whose free energy is forced to scale as the square of that average field, the authors find that CME speed and mass both rise, roughly as v ∝ ⟨B⟩ and M ∝ ⟨B⟩^1.5. Force accounting shows the upward Lorentz force grows faster than the confining tension, so the net promoting effect wins inside this idealized framework. Off-diagonal runs confirm that, for any fixed stellar model, a stronger flux rope still yields a faster, heavier CME. The work is offered as a controlled parameter study rather than a portrait of real young stars; its value is the first joint map of promoting versus confining regimes that future, more realistic stellar maps can be compared against.

Core claim

Within the restrictive solar-scaled framework where flux-rope magnetic energy is set to E_FR ∝ ⟨B★⟩^{2}, both CME speed and mass increase with average photospheric field strength, approximately following v_CME ∝ ⟨B★⟩ and M_CME ∝ ⟨B★⟩^1.5. Force analysis identifies the upward Lorentz force on the flux rope as the dominant driver of the acceleration and the mass enhancement, outweighing the increase in magnetic tension.

What carries the argument

The diagonal sequence of MHD runs: solar magnetograms scaled by 1–100 together with Gibson-Low flux ropes whose free energy is forced to obey E_FR ∝ ⟨B★⟩^{2}. That single controlled scaling lets the authors compare promoting and confining forces on equal footing and extract the reported power-law trends.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that flux-rope free energy still scales as the square of the average stellar field while active-region geometry and non-potentiality remain solar-like; if real active stars have weaker active-region-to-global field ratios or lower free-energy fractions, the promoting trends disappear.

What would settle it

Insert the same flux-rope energies into observed or dynamo-generated young-star magnetograms that have lower active-region-to-global field ratios; if the resulting CMEs then fall well below the reported v ∝ ⟨B⟩ and M ∝ ⟨B⟩^1.5 lines, the diagonal promoting claim does not apply to real stars.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Inside the adopted scaling, stronger mean fields do not automatically suppress CMEs; they can accelerate and mass-load them when free energy is allowed to grow with B^{2}.
  • Observed stellar CME candidates with only a few hundred km s^{-1} speeds are more consistent with the off-diagonal, lower-energy region of the simulated grid than with the extreme diagonal cases.
  • If highly energetic diagonal-type CMEs ever occur, their dynamic pressure would strongly compress planetary magnetospheres and enhance atmospheric erosion around active stars.
  • The simulated grid supplies a concrete map against which future ZDI-based or dynamo-based stellar CME models can be located.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same force-balance logic implies that any stellar population whose free-energy fraction saturates below the solar-scaled value will sit permanently in the magnetically suppressed regime, reconciling low observed kinetic energies with strong large-scale fields.
  • Mass-loss rates inferred from Lyα astrospheres may therefore under-count the true CME contribution only for stars that can maintain high free-energy fractions; most active stars may not.
  • A clean observational test would be a statistical search for any correlation between stellar mean field (or spot field) and projected CME speed once a larger sample of Doppler-shifted events exists.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a controlled MHD parameter study of how stellar magnetic field strength affects CME dynamics when both promoting and confining effects are included. Using AWSoM/SWMF with a single solar magnetogram (CR 2107) scaled to ⟨B★⟩ = 1, 5, 10, 50, 100 B⊙ and Gibson–Low flux ropes whose free energy is imposed as E_FR ∝ ⟨B★⟩^{2}, the authors find that, along this diagonal sequence, CME speed and mass measured at 10 R★ increase approximately as v_CME ∝ ⟨B★⟩ and M_CME ∝ ⟨B★⟩^{1.5}. Force analysis attributes the acceleration primarily to the upward Lorentz force on the flux rope. Off-diagonal runs recover magnetic suppression for fixed E_FR and show that stronger flux ropes yield faster, more massive CMEs at fixed background field. The work is explicitly framed as an idealized parametric experiment rather than a realistic model of young solar-type stars.

Significance. If the reported trends hold within the stated idealizations, the paper supplies the first systematic grid that simultaneously varies both the confining large-scale field and the promoting free energy of the flux rope. The off-diagonal recovery of the known confinement result, the explicit force-budget comparison (Fig. 5), and the sensitivity checks on density threshold, rotation period, and source-surface radius (Appendix A) make the claim falsifiable and useful for interpreting future stellar CME observations and for mapping which regions of parameter space are relevant once realistic ZDI maps become available. The work is a clear methodological step beyond pure-confinement studies.

major comments (2)
  1. The central diagonal scalings rest on the load-bearing premise in §2.3 Eqs. (1)–(3) that B_AR ∝ ⟨B★⟩ (so B_AR/⟨B★⟩ is held fixed) and that E_FR ∝ B_FR^{2} while geometry and non-potentiality remain solar-like. The paper itself flags this as idealized (§4), yet the abstract and conclusion still present v_CME ∝ ⟨B★⟩ and M_CME ∝ ⟨B★⟩^{1.5} as the headline result. A short quantitative illustration of how far real stars may lie off the diagonal (e.g., using published B_AR/⟨B★⟩ ranges for young solar-type stars) would make the applicability boundary clearer without changing the parametric claim.
  2. In the force analysis of §3 and Fig. 5, the Lorentz force is evaluated on the outermost 25 % of flux-rope field lines while wind, thermal, and strapping terms are evaluated on the density-defined CME front (n/n0 > 3). The text correctly notes that absolute inter-term comparison is therefore secondary to relative scaling across models, but a brief check that the Lorentz-force volume still overlaps the leading-edge region used for speed/mass would strengthen the claim that f_Lorentz,FR is the dominant accelerator.
minor comments (5)
  1. Figure 1 caption refers to a pink star for the insertion site while the main text (§2.3) says green star; unify the color description.
  2. In §3 the solar-regime power-law fit is written v_CME ∝ 10^{2.53} E_FR^{0.50}; clarify whether the prefactor is in cgs units or is only a log-space intercept, and state the energy range over which the fit was performed.
  3. The mass-loss rates of the steady-state models (§3) are lower than Lyα-inferred values by ~1 order of magnitude; a one-sentence note that this is expected when solar rotation and solar Alfvén-wave parameters are retained would help readers who might otherwise question the wind background.
  4. Appendix A reports that CME speeds remain similar for Rs = 2.5, 7.5, 15 R★ in the 100 B⊙ diagonal case; adding the corresponding mass values (or a statement that mass is likewise weakly affected) would complete the sensitivity check.
  5. A few typographical inconsistencies remain (e.g., ⟨B⟩ vs ⟨B★⟩ in places; “quasi–power-law” hyphenation). A light copy-edit pass would remove them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: diagonal v_CME and M_CME scalings emerge from time-dependent MHD under an explicitly imposed E_FR scaling, not by algebraic definition or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central results (v_CME ∝ ⟨B★⟩ and M_CME ∝ ⟨B★⟩^{1.5} along the diagonal) are numerical outputs of AWSoM/GL flux-rope simulations, not quantities defined in terms of the inputs. Section 2.3 explicitly introduces the ansatz E_FR ∝ ⟨B★⟩^{2} (Eqs. 1–3) as an idealized controlled experiment that keeps AR geometry and non-potentiality fixed while scaling field strength; the abstract, §3 and §4 repeatedly label the resulting trends as holding only “within this idealized solar-scaled framework” / “restrictive scenario.” Off-diagonal runs (fixed E_FR, varying ⟨B★⟩) recover the known magnetic-confinement slowdown, providing an independent internal check. Force-budget analysis (Fig. 5) identifies the upward Lorentz force as dominant by direct evaluation of the MHD terms, not by tautology. Self-citations (chiefly Alvarado-Gómez et al. 2018) supply background on confinement and are not used to force the new promoting-effect claim. No uniqueness theorem, fitted-parameter-as-prediction, or renaming of a known empirical law appears. The only minor self-referential element is the authors’ prior confinement papers, which are not load-bearing for the diagonal scalings. Hence score 1 (near-zero circularity).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an idealized solar-scaled experiment rather than on new free parameters fitted to stellar data. The main load-bearing choices are the E_FR ∝ ⟨B★⟩^{2} scaling, the use of a single solar magnetogram multiplied by constant factors, solar values for AWSoM wave parameters and rotation, and the Gibson-Low insertion. No new physical entities are invented; the free parameters are standard model knobs held fixed to isolate field strength.

free parameters (5)
  • Base flux-rope energy E0_FR = 2e31 erg
    Chosen as 2×10³¹ erg for the solar case (§2.3); all other diagonal energies are exact multiples of this hand-chosen value.
  • Alfvén-wave Poynting-flux-to-B ratio SA/B = 1.1e6 W m^-2 T^-1
    Fixed to the common solar AWSoM value 1.1×10⁶ W m⁻² T⁻¹ (§2.2) rather than fitted to each stellar model.
  • Alfvén-wave correlation length L⊥√B = 1.5e5 m T^{1/2}
    Fixed to solar value 1.5×10⁵ m T^{1/2} (§2.2).
  • Source-surface radius Rs = 2.5 R_star (default)
    Default 2.5 R★ (solar); appendix tests 7.5 and 15 R★ for one case only.
  • CME density threshold n/n0 = >3 (primary)
    Primary identification uses n/n0 > 3; sensitivity to 5 and 8 is checked but the threshold remains a free analysis choice.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Active-region field strength scales linearly with the global average field, B_AR ∝ ⟨B★⟩, so that a single solar magnetogram can be multiplied by constant factors.
    Stated in §2.1 and used to generate the five maps; authors note in §4 that real stars may have lower B_AR/⟨B★⟩.
  • ad hoc to paper Flux-rope magnetic energy scales as E_FR ∝ B_FR^{2} ∝ ⟨B★⟩^{2} while geometry and non-potentiality remain solar-like (Eqs. 1–3).
    Core scaling assumption of §2.3 that defines the diagonal sequence; explicitly labeled idealized.
  • domain assumption Stellar mass, radius, and (baseline) rotation period equal solar values; AWSoM wave parameters remain solar.
    §2.2; used to isolate magnetic-field strength as the sole varied quantity.
  • domain assumption Gibson-Low flux-rope insertion adequately represents the pre-eruptive free-energy reservoir for the purpose of comparative force balance.
    Standard in the SWMF/CME literature cited in §2.3; not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption CME bulk can be identified by density enhancement n/n0 > 3 and leading-edge selection of the outermost 10 % of those points.
    Adopted from Alvarado-Gómez et al. 2020b and Xu et al. 2024 (§3).

reviewed 2026-07-11 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Magnetic Field Strength Affects Stellar Coronal Mass Ejection Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XLOAPI3I

@misc{pith2026260704853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Magnetic Field Strength Affects Stellar Coronal Mass Ejection Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XLOAPI3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.04853}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Observations show that stellar coronal mass ejection (CME) candidates display relatively lower kinetic energies compared to expectations from solar flare-CME relations extrapolated to the stellar regime. This behaviour was predicted by studies of magnetic confinement of CMEs by strong large-scale stellar magnetic fields. However, the possible promoting role of stronger small-scale magnetic fields has not yet been properly explored in previous studies. In this work, we present the first parametric study that simultaneously incorporates both the promoting and confining effects of magnetic field strength on CME dynamics. We perform CME simulations with scaled solar magnetograms spanning <B_star> = 1, 5, 10, 50, 100 B_sun and inserting flux ropes whose magnetic energy is set to scale as E_FR \propt <B_star>^2. Our results show that CME speed and mass increase with magnetic field strength in this restrictive scenario, approximately following v_CME \propt <B_star> and M_CME \propt <B_star>^1.5. These trends indicate that, within this idealized solar-scaled framework, increasing the magnetic field strength enhances the net promoting forces relative to the confining forces and drives faster, more massive CMEs. We further identify the upward Lorentz force as the dominant contributor to the acceleration and the mass enhancement. We also conducted additional cases with different flux rope energies that do not follow the above scaling assumption, and found that stronger flux ropes produce faster and more massive CMEs for each given stellar model. The adopted scaling assumptions are intended as a controlled parametric experiment rather than a realistic model of young solar-type stars, and future work using more realistic stellar magnetic maps will be required to determine which regions of the parameter space explored here are most relevant to active stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04853 by Hui Tian, Juli\'an D. Alvarado-G\'omez, Zheng Sun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Magnetic field maps for the five stellar models, scaled by factors of 1, 5, 10, 50, and 100, corresponding to average surface magnetic field strengths of ⟨B⋆⟩ = 1, 5, 10, 50, 100 B⊙, respectively. The pink star marks the location where the flux rope is inserted. The lower-right inset shows a 3D visualization of the magnetic map and the inserted flux rope. The pink segment of the flux rope indicates the reg… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Snapshots of the steady-state stellar wind solutions for models with average surface magnetic field strengths of ⟨B⋆⟩ = 1 B⊙ (a), 10 B⊙ (b), and 100 B⊙ (c). The gray isosurface represents the Alfv´en surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Snapshots of CMEs in models with average surface magnetic field strengths of ⟨B⋆⟩ = 1 B⊙ (a), 10 B⊙ (b), and 100 B⊙ (c). The CME front is defined as the region where the density exceeds three times the steady-state background value, i.e., n/n0 > 3. Each panel corresponds to the moment when the CME front has propagated to a radial distance of 10 R⋆, occurring at approximately 180, 36, and 4.5 minutes after … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scaling of CME speed and mass with stellar magnetic field strength and flux rope energy. (a) Heat map of CME speed as a function of B⋆ and EFR; blue-framed points along the diagonal correspond to models with EFR ∝ ⟨B⋆⟩ 2 . (b) CME speed versus B⋆ extracted from the diagonal of (a); the gray dashed line is a linear fit, showing vCME ∝ ⟨B⋆⟩. (c) Heat map of CME mass as a function of B⋆ and EFR, with the same… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Parameter distributions along the CME propagation for models with ⟨B⋆⟩ = 1, 10, and 100 B⊙. The profiles are taken along the radial line corresponding to the direction indicated by the green star symbol in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    N., Matt, S

    Aarnio, A. N., Matt, S. P., & Stassun, K. G. 2012, ApJ, 760, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/9

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/9 2012

  2. [2]

    2016, in IAU

    Airapetian, V., Glocer, A., & Gronoff, G. 2016, in IAU

    2016

  3. [3]

    320, Solar and Stellar Flares and their Effects on Planets, ed

    Symposium, Vol. 320, Solar and Stellar Flares and their Effects on Planets, ed. A. G. Kosovichev, S. L. Hawley, & P. Heinzel, 409–415, doi: 10.1017/S174392131600226X

    work page doi:10.1017/s174392131600226x

  4. [4]

    S., Jin, M., L¨ uftinger, T., et al

    Airapetian, V. S., Jin, M., L¨ uftinger, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac081e Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., Moschou, S. P., & Garraffo, C. 2018, ApJ, 862, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb7f Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Garraffo, C., et al. 2020a, ApJL, 902, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb885 Alvarado-G´ ...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac081e 2021

  5. [5]

    2018, Nature, 554, 211, doi: 10.1038/nature24671

    Amari, T., Canou, A., Aly, J.-J., Delyon, F., & Alauzet, F. 2018, Nature, 554, 211, doi: 10.1038/nature24671

    doi:10.1038/nature24671 2018

  6. [6]

    2008, A&A, 492, L35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811131

    Archontis, V., & T¨ or¨ ok, T. 2008, A&A, 492, L35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811131

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200811131 2008

  7. [7]

    J., et al

    Argiroffi, C., Reale, F., Drake, J. J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0781-4 Boro Saikia, S., Jin, M., Johnstone, C. P., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A178, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937107

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0781-4 2019

  8. [8]

    R., Tasse, C., Keers, R., et al

    Callingham, J. R., Tasse, C., Keers, R., et al. 2025, Nature, 647, 603, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09715-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09715-3 2025

  9. [9]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2100

    Garraffo, C. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2100

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2100 2023

  10. [10]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739b

    Chen, H., Tian, H., Li, H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac739b 2022

  11. [11]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 2011

  12. [12]

    D., Cheng, X., et al

    Chen, Y.-H., Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Cheng, X., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1697

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1697 2025

  13. [13]

    L., Drake, J

    Cohen, O., Kashyap, V. L., Drake, J. J., et al. 2011a, ApJ, 733, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/67

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/1/67

  14. [14]

    Gombosi, T. I. 2011b, ApJ, 738, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/166

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/2/166

  15. [15]

    R., & Winebarger, A

    Cranmer, S. R., & Winebarger, A. R. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 157, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104416

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104416 2019

  16. [16]

    Deng, M., & Welsch, B. T. 2017, SoPh, 292, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-1036-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-016-1036-5 2017

  17. [17]

    L., Brun, A

    DeRosa, M. L., Brun, A. S., & Hoeksema, J. T. 2012, ApJ, 757, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/96

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/96 2012

  18. [18]

    F., & Brown, S

    Donati, J. F., & Brown, S. F. 1997, A&A, 326, 1135

    1997

  19. [19]

    F., & Landstreet, J

    Donati, J. F., & Landstreet, J. D. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 333, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101833

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101833 2009

  20. [20]

    J., Cohen, O., Yashiro, S., & Gopalswamy, N

    Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., Yashiro, S., & Gopalswamy, N. 2013, ApJ, 764, 170, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/170

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/170 2013

  21. [21]

    C., Carter, B

    Evensberget, D., Marsden, S. C., Carter, B. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2042, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1650

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1650 2023

  22. [22]

    2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 753, doi: 10.1002/asna.201713403

    Fabbian, D., Simoniello, R., Collet, R., et al. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 753, doi: 10.1002/asna.201713403

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.201713403 2017

  23. [23]

    2009, ApJ, 697, 1529, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1529

    Fan, Y. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1529, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1529

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1529 2009

  24. [24]

    Favata, F., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 1999, A&A, 350, 900, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909041

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9909041 1999

  25. [25]

    P., Bouvier, J., Petit, P., et al

    Folsom, C. P., Bouvier, J., Petit, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4956, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3021

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3021 2018

  26. [26]

    D., Fu, H

    Fu, W. D., Fu, H. S., Zhang, W. Z., Yu, Y., & Cao, J. B. 2025, Geophys. Res. Lett., 52, 2024GL114040, doi: 10.1029/2024GL114040

    work page doi:10.1029/2024gl114040 2025

  27. [27]

    D., Cohen, O., & Drake, J

    Garraffo, C., Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Cohen, O., & Drake, J. J. 2022, ApJL, 941, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca487

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca487 2022

  28. [28]

    J., & Cohen, O

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., & Cohen, O. 2016, ApJL, 833, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/833/1/L4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/833/1/l4 2016

  29. [29]

    E., & Low, B

    Gibson, S. E., & Low, B. C. 1998, ApJ, 493, 460, doi: 10.1086/305107

    doi:10.1086/305107 1998

  30. [30]

    Sokolov, I. V. 2018, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 15, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-018-0014-4

    doi:10.1007/s41116-018-0014-4 2018

  31. [31]

    I., Chen, Y., Glocer, A., et al

    Gombosi, T. I., Chen, Y., Glocer, A., et al. 2021, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 11, 42, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2021020

    doi:10.1051/swsc/2021020 2021

  32. [32]

    The SOHO LASCO CME Catalog -- Version 2

    Gopalswamy, N., Micha lek, G., Yashiro, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04165

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.04165 2024

  33. [33]

    2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11038-008-9282-7

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Michalek, G., et al. 2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11038-008-9282-7

    doi:10.1007/s11038-008-9282-7 2009

  34. [34]

    2018, SSRv, 214, 46, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0462-5

    Veronig, A. 2018, SSRv, 214, 46, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0462-5

    doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0462-5 2018

  35. [35]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27639, doi: 10.1029/2019JA02763910.1002/essoar.10502458.1

    Gronoff, G., Arras, P., Baraka, S., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27639, doi: 10.1029/2019JA02763910.1002/essoar.10502458.1

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja02763910.1002/essoar.10502458.1 2020

  36. [36]

    W., & Emerson, J

    Guenther, E. W., & Emerson, J. P. 1997, A&A, 321, 803

    1997

  37. [37]

    A., Carolan, S., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & ´O Fionnag´ ain, D

    Hazra, G., Vidotto, A. A., Carolan, S., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & ´O Fionnag´ ain, D. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1089, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2559

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2559 2025

  38. [38]

    R., Foing, B

    Houdebine, E. R., Foing, B. H., & Rodono, M. 1990, A&A, 238, 249

    1990

  39. [39]

    Hudson, H. S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 445, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-023324

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-023324 2021

  40. [40]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7e8

    Inoue, S., Maehara, H., Notsu, Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7e8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb7e8 2023

  41. [41]

    B., Enoto, T., et al

    Inoue, S., Iwakiri, W. B., Enoto, T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5667

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5667 2024

  42. [42]

    2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol

    Jardine, M. 2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol. 56, AASTCS10, Extreme Solar Systems V, 203.03

    2024

  43. [43]

    J., Moon, Y

    Ji, H., Wang, H., Schmahl, E. J., Moon, Y. J., & Jiang, Y. 2003, ApJL, 595, L135, doi: 10.1086/378178

    work page doi:10.1086/378178 2003

  44. [44]

    T., Yurchyshyn, V., et al

    Jiang, C., Wu, S. T., Yurchyshyn, V., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 62, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/62

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/62 2016

  45. [45]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01414-z

    Jiang, C., Feng, X., Liu, R., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01414-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01414-z 2021

  46. [46]

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

    Jin, M., Manchester, W. B., van der Holst, B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/173 Magnetic Field Strength and CME Dynamics11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/173 2017

  47. [47]

    Jin, M., Cheung, M. C. M., DeRosa, M. L., et al. 2020, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 354, Solar and Stellar Magnetic Fields: Origins and Manifestations, ed. A. Kosovichev, S. Strassmeier, & M. Jardine, 426–432, doi: 10.1017/S1743921320000575

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921320000575 2020

  48. [48]

    D., Albelo-Corchado, M

    Kazachenko, M. D., Albelo-Corchado, M. F., Tamburri, C. A., & Welsch, B. T. 2022, SoPh, 297, 59, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-01987-6

    doi:10.1007/s11207-022-01987-6 2022

  49. [49]

    L., Ribas, I., Lammer, H., et al

    Khodachenko, M. L., Ribas, I., Lammer, H., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 167, doi: 10.1089/ast.2006.0127

    doi:10.1089/ast.2006.0127 2007

  50. [50]

    G., et al

    Kochukhov, O., Petit, P., Strassmeier, K. G., et al. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 428, doi: 10.1002/asna.201713310

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.201713310 2017

  51. [51]

    C., Vedantham, H

    Konijn, D. C., Vedantham, H. K., Tasse, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A198, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554317

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554317 2025

  52. [52]

    Kowalski, A. F. 2024, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 21, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41116-024-00039-4

    doi:10.1007/s41116-024-00039-4 2024

  53. [53]

    2012, A&A, 539, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117675

    Kuckein, C., Mart´ ınez Pillet, V., & Centeno, R. 2012, A&A, 539, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117675

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117675 2012

  54. [54]

    Lammer, H., Lichtenegger, H. I. M., Kulikov, Y. N., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 185, doi: 10.1089/ast.2006.0128

    doi:10.1089/ast.2006.0128 2007

  55. [55]

    L., Floyd, O., Boclet, B., et al

    Lamy, P. L., Floyd, O., Boclet, B., et al. 2019, SSRv, 215, 39, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0605-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-019-0605-y 2019

  56. [56]

    2011, A&A, 536, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015985

    Leitzinger, M., Odert, P., Ribas, I., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015985

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015985 2011

  57. [57]

    2024a, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 67, 1592, doi: 10.1007/s11431-023-2534-8

    Li, D., Hou, Z., Bai, X., et al. 2024a, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 67, 1592, doi: 10.1007/s11431-023-2534-8

    doi:10.1007/s11431-023-2534-8

  58. [58]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3121

    Li, T., Liu, L., Hou, Y., & Zhang, J. 2019, ApJ, 881, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3121

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3121 2019

  59. [59]

    2024b, ApJ, 964, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e90

    Li, T., Zheng, Y., Li, X., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 964, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e90

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e90

  60. [60]

    2004, SoPh, 219, 169, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000021798.46677.16

    Lin, J. 2004, SoPh, 219, 169, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000021798.46677.16

    doi:10.1023/b:sola.0000021798.46677.16 2004

  61. [61]

    Lites, B. W. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1275, doi: 10.1086/428080

    work page doi:10.1086/428080 2005

  62. [62]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 165, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/165

    Liu, R. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 165, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/165

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/165 2020

  63. [63]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91c7

    Liu, X., Tian, H., Chen, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac91c7 2022

  64. [64]

    2022, A&A, 663, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142909

    Lu, H.-p., Tian, H., Zhang, L.-y., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142909

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142909 2022

  65. [65]

    2025, ApJL, 978, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad93cc

    Lu, H.-P., Tian, H., Zhang, L.-Y., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad93cc

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad93cc 2025

  66. [66]

    B., Gombosi, T

    Manchester, W. B., Gombosi, T. I., Roussev, I., et al. 2004a, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A01102, doi: 10.1029/2002JA009672 —. 2004b, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A02107, doi: 10.1029/2003JA010150

    doi:10.1029/2002ja009672

  67. [67]

    2024, A&A, 691, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452071

    Menezes, F., Ara´ ujo, A., & Valio, A. 2024, A&A, 691, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452071

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452071 2024

  68. [68]

    L., Sterling, A

    Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., & Lemen, J. R. 2001, ApJ, 552, 833, doi: 10.1086/320559

    doi:10.1086/320559 2001

  69. [69]

    J., Cohen, O., Alvarado-Gomez, J

    Moschou, S.-P., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., Alvarado-Gomez, J. D., & Garraffo, C. 2017, ApJ, 850, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9520

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9520 2017

  70. [70]

    J., Cohen, O., et al

    Moschou, S.-P., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b37

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b37 2019

  71. [71]

    A., Guerra, J

    Murray, S. A., Guerra, J. A., Zucca, P., et al. 2018, SoPh, 293, 60, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1287-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-018-1287-4 2018

  72. [72]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 241, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01532-8

    Namekata, K., Maehara, H., Honda, S., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 241, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01532-8

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01532-8 2021

  73. [73]

    2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 64, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02691-8 ´O Fionnag´ ain, D., Kavanagh, R

    Namekata, K., France, K., Chae, J., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 64, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02691-8 ´O Fionnag´ ain, D., Kavanagh, R. D., Vidotto, A. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35de

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02691-8 2026

  74. [74]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1969

    Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., Hanslmeier, A., & Lammer, H. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1969

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1969 2017

  75. [75]

    J., Tsuneta, S., Lites, B

    Okamoto, T. J., Tsuneta, S., Lites, B. W., et al. 2008, ApJL, 673, L215, doi: 10.1086/528792

    work page doi:10.1086/528792 2008

  76. [76]

    Panja, M., Cameron, R., & Solanki, S. K. 2020, ApJ, 893, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8230

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8230 2020

  77. [77]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8d3

    Stenborg, G. 2025, ApJ, 982, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8d3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb8d3 2025

  78. [78]

    E., Valori, G., et al

    Pariat, E., Leake, J. E., Valori, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630043

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630043 2017

  79. [79]

    A., Canfield, R

    Pevtsov, A. A., Canfield, R. C., & Metcalf, T. R. 1994, ApJL, 425, L117, doi: 10.1086/187324

    work page doi:10.1086/187324 1994

  80. [80]

    A., Fisher, G

    Pevtsov, A. A., Fisher, G. H., Acton, L. W., et al. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1387, doi: 10.1086/378944

    doi:10.1086/378944 2003

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 11, 2026.