Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 129 references

How Magnetic Field Strength Affects Stellar Coronal Mass Ejection Dynamics

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read 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.

desk verdict 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. read the letter →

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

Zheng Sun , Julián D. Alvarado-Gómez , Hui Tian This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords SpaceWeatherCoronalMassEjectionsStellarActivitiesmagneticfieldsMHDsimulationsfluxropesconfinement
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

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.

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.

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

Extended reading notes

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.

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.

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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, 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 · score 1.0 of 10

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).

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 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.
assumptions (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).

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}
}
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 the authors.

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 region used l… view at source ↗
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. 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 the erupti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
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 dia…
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]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  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

Show all 129 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    2023 doi

  2. [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

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

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

    2011 doi

  4. [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

    2025 doi

  5. [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

    doi

  6. [14]

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

    doi

  7. [15]

    R., & Winebarger, A

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

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

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

    2017 doi

  9. [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

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    F., & Brown, S

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

    1997

  11. [19]

    F., & Landstreet, J

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

    2009 doi

  12. [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

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Carter, B

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

    2023 doi

  14. [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

    2017 doi

  15. [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

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

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

    1999 doi arXiv

  17. [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

    2018 doi

  18. [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

    2025 doi

  19. [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

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    J., & Cohen, O

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

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    E., & Low, B

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

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

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

    2018 doi

  23. [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

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04165

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [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

    2009 doi

  26. [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

    2018 doi

  27. [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

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    W., & Emerson, J

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

    1997

  29. [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

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Foing, B

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

    1990

  31. [39]

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

    2021 doi

  32. [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

    2023 doi

  33. [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

    2024 doi

  34. [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

  35. [43]

    J., Moon, Y

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

    2003 doi

  36. [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

    2016 doi

  37. [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

    2021 doi

  38. [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

    2017 doi

  39. [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

    2020 doi

  40. [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

    2022 doi

  41. [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

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    G., et al

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

    2017 doi

  43. [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

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

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

    2024 doi

  45. [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

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

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

    2007 doi

  47. [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

    2019 doi

  48. [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

    2011 doi

  49. [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

  50. [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

    2019 doi

  51. [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

  52. [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

    2004 doi

  53. [61]

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

    2005 doi

  54. [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

    2020 doi

  55. [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

    2022 doi

  56. [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

    2022 doi

  57. [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

    2025 doi

  58. [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

  59. [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

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    L., Sterling, A

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

    2001 doi

  61. [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

    2017 doi

  62. [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

    2019 doi

  63. [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

    2018 doi

  64. [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

    2021 doi

  65. [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

    2026 doi

  66. [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

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    J., Tsuneta, S., Lites, B

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

    2008 doi

  68. [76]

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

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

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

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

    2025 doi

  70. [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

    2017 doi

  71. [79]

    A., Canfield, R

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

    1994 doi

  72. [80]

    A., Fisher, G

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

    2003 doi

  73. [81]

    G., Roe, P

    Powell, K. G., Roe, P. L., Linde, T. J., Gombosi, T. I., & De Zeeuw, D. L. 1999, Journal of Computational Physics, 154, 284, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1999.6299

    1999 doi

  74. [82]

    2000, Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511525087

    Priest, E., & Forbes, T. 2000, Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511525087

    2000 doi

  75. [83]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4bd9

    Qiao, F., Li, H., Wang, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4bd9

    2026 doi

  76. [84]

    K., & Forbes, T

    Reeves, K. K., & Forbes, T. G. 2005, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 226, Coronal and Stellar Mass Ejections, ed. K. Dere, J. Wang, & Y. Yan, 250–255, doi: 10.1017/S1743921305000657

    2005 doi

  77. [85]

    2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2012-1

    Reiners, A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2012-1

    2012 doi

  78. [86]

    J., et al

    Reiners, A., Shulyak, D., K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243251

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    J., & Title, A

    Schrijver, C. J., & Title, A. M. 2001, ApJ, 551, 1099, doi: 10.1086/320237

    2001 doi

  80. [88]

    A., et al

    See, V., Jardine, M., Vidotto, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1542, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3094 12Sun et al

    2017 doi

  81. [89]

    2022, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 6, 8, doi: 10.1007/s41614-022-00069-1

    Shen, F., Shen, C., Xu, M., et al. 2022, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 6, 8, doi: 10.1007/s41614-022-00069-1

    2022 doi

  82. [90]

    2019, A&A, 626, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935315

    Shulyak, D., Reiners, A., Nagel, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935315

    2019 doi

  83. [91]

    Sun, X., T¨ or¨ ok, T., & DeRosa, M. L. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3249

    2022 doi

  84. [92]

    G., Hoeksema, J

    Sun, X., Bobra, M. G., Hoeksema, J. T., et al. 2015, ApJL, 804, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L28

    2015 doi

  85. [93]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf18b

    Sun, Z., Li, T., Bian, X., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf18b

    2025 doi

  86. [94]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5b1

    Sun, Z., Li, T., Tian, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5b1

    2023 doi

  87. [95]

    2024a, A&A, 686, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348734

    Sun, Z., Li, T., Wang, Q., et al. 2024a, A&A, 686, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348734

    doi

  88. [96]

    2024b, SoPh, 299, 93, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02329-4

    Sun, Z., Li, T., Hou, Y., et al. 2024b, SoPh, 299, 93, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02329-4

    doi

  89. [97]

    2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7 T´ oth, G., Sokolov, I

    Toriumi, S., & Wang, H. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7 T´ oth, G., Sokolov, I. V., Gombosi, T. I., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A12226, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011126 van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I. ...

    2019 doi

  90. [98]

    2003, Geophys

    Venkatakrishnan, P., & Ravindra, B. 2003, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 2181, doi: 10.1029/2003GL018100

    2003 doi

  91. [99]

    M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al

    Veronig, A. M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01345-9

    2021 doi

  92. [100]

    M., Dissauer, K., Kliem, B., et al

    Veronig, A. M., Dissauer, K., Kliem, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.19228, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.19228

    2025 doi arXiv

  93. [101]

    2019, A&A, 623, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834264

    Vida, K., Leitzinger, M., Kriskovics, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834264

    2019 doi

  94. [102]

    2024, Universe, 10, 313, doi: 10.3390/universe10080313

    Vida, K., K˝ ov´ ari, Z., Leitzinger, M., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 313, doi: 10.3390/universe10080313

    2024 doi

  95. [103]

    Donati, J. F. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv618

    2015 doi

  96. [104]

    A., Jardine, M., Morin, J., et al

    Vidotto, A. A., Jardine, M., Morin, J., et al. 2014a, MNRAS, 438, 1162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2265

    doi

  97. [105]

    Gombosi, T. I. 2009, ApJ, 699, 441, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/441

    2009 doi

  98. [106]

    A., Gregory, S

    Vidotto, A. A., Gregory, S. G., Jardine, M., et al. 2014b, MNRAS, 441, 2361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu728

    doi

  99. [107]

    J., et al

    Viviani, M., Warnecke, J., K¨ apyl¨ a, M. J., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732191

    2018 doi

  100. [108]

    Waugh, R. F. P., & Jardine, M. M. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1698

    2022 doi

  101. [109]

    F., & Howard, T

    Webb, D. F., & Howard, T. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2012-3

    2012 doi

  102. [110]

    Welsch, B. T. 2018, SoPh, 293, 113, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1329-y

    2018 doi

  103. [111]

    T., & DeVore, C

    Welsch, B. T., & DeVore, C. R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.17208, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.17208

    2025 doi arXiv

  104. [112]

    E., M¨ uller, H.-R., Zank, G

    Wood, B. E., M¨ uller, H.-R., Zank, G. P., & Linsky, J. L. 2002, ApJ, 574, 412, doi: 10.1086/340797

    2002 doi

  105. [113]

    E., M¨ uller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al

    Wood, B. E., M¨ uller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfda5

    2021 doi

  106. [114]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.00925, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.00925

    Wu, Z., Van Doorsselaere, T., He, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.00925, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.00925

    2026 doi arXiv

  107. [115]

    D., Tian, H., et al

    Xu, Y., Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Tian, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5845

    2024 doi

  108. [116]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcee7

    Guerrero, G. 2025, ApJ, 985, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcee7

    2025 doi

  109. [117]

    2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 603, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.603

    Yamada, M., Kulsrud, R., & Ji, H. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 603, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.603

    2010 doi

  110. [118]

    2025, A&A, 695, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453120

    Yang, H., Cheng, X., Liu, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453120

    2025 doi

  111. [119]

    2024a, Science, 386, 76, doi: 10.1126/science.ado2993

    Yang, Z., Tian, H., Tomczyk, S., et al. 2024a, Science, 386, 76, doi: 10.1126/science.ado2993

    doi

  112. [120]

    2024b, ApJ, 966, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a44

    Yang, Z., Tian, H., Zhu, Y., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 966, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a44

    doi

  113. [121]

    2020, Science, 369, 694, doi: 10.1126/science.abb4462

    Yang, Z., Bethge, C., Tian, H., et al. 2020, Science, 369, 694, doi: 10.1126/science.abb4462

    2020 doi

  114. [122]

    2008, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 4, 233

    Yashiro, S., & Gopalswamy, N. 2008, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 4, 233

    2008

  115. [123]

    2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Yashiro, S., & Gopalswamy, N. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 257, Universal Heliophysical Processes, ed. N. Gopalswamy & D. F. Webb, 233–243, doi: 10.1017/S1743921309029342

    2009 doi

  116. [124]

    C., Lin, J., & Ziegler, U

    Ye, J., Shen, C., Raymond, J. C., Lin, J., & Ziegler, U. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2716

    2019 doi

  117. [125]

    2008, ApJ, 683, 1160, doi: 10.1086/589993

    Zhang, M., & Flyer, N. 2008, ApJ, 683, 1160, doi: 10.1086/589993

    2008 doi

  118. [126]

    Zhang, M., Flyer, N., & Low, B. C. 2006, ApJ, 644, 575, doi: 10.1086/503353

    2006 doi

  119. [127]

    2025, Science China

    Zheng, R., Liu, Y., Zhong, Z., et al. 2025, Science China

    2025

  120. [128]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 279611, doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2648-y

    doi

  121. [129]

    Zic, A., Murphy, T., Lynch, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abca90 Magnetic Field Strength and CME Dynamics13 APPENDIX A.INFLUENCE OF THE SOURCE SURFACE RADIUS In the main text, we adopt a source surface radius ofR s = 2.5R ⋆, corresponding to the typical...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.