Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Fine-scale opposite-polarity magnetic fields in a solar plage revealed by integral field spectropolarimetry

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Solar plages hide tiny reverse-polarity loops beneath their canopy

desk verdict Robust Stokes V detection of opposite-polarity patches; the loop geometry rests on a FIRTEZ node-interpolation step the authors themselves haven't excluded. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07561 v1 pith:KVB65Q6G submitted 2025-05-12 astro-ph.SR

G. Liu , I. Milić , J.S. Castellanos Duran , J.M. Borrero , M. van Noort , C. Kuckein This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords plagesolarphotospherespectropolarimetrymagneticfieldinversionopposite-polarityloopsStokesVintegralmagnetohydrostatic
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 that a solar plage—a bright patch of strong, nearly vertical magnetic field—contains many tiny patches of opposite magnetic polarity just beneath its main field canopy. Using one of the highest-resolution spectropolarimetric datasets of a plage, with inversions that recover the field as a function of height on a geometric scale, the authors find that the main polarity is nearly universal at high layers but that weaker, roughly 200 G reverse-polarity patches appear in deeper photospheric layers. These patches form subarcsecond loops that close horizontally over roughly 200–300 km, and they persist over the full 25 minutes of observation. If correct, this complicates the simple picture of plages as unipolar flux tubes and ties plage magnetism to small-scale convective tangling.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a depth-stratified spectropolarimetric inversion under the magnetohydrostatic assumption. The inversion parameterizes the atmosphere by nodes at fixed depths, solves the radiative transfer for the Fe i 630 nm lines, and then adjusts the height scale so that pressure balance and the Lorentz force are consistent, yielding the magnetic and thermodynamic structure on a geometric $z$-scale instead of an optical-depth scale. Because the nodes allow the field vector to change with depth, this is what lets the inversion see a reversal in $B_z$ at $\log \tau = -0.5$ that is absent at $\log \tau = -2$. A Milne-Eddington inversion that assumes a constant field with depth only returns the sign of the dominant Stokes V lobe, which is why the opposite polarities appear only sporadically in that simpler treatment; the direct sign flips in the observed Stokes V profiles are the independent observable anchoring the geometry.

What would settle it

Run an independent inversion with a different parameterization on the same restored Stokes profiles and check whether the $\log \tau = -0.5$ opposite-polarity patches persist; in parallel, forward-model synthetic Stokes profiles from a magnetoconvection simulation with known small loops and require the node-based inversion to recover them. If the patches vanish under the independent inversion, or if the inversion cannot recover known loops from synthetic data, the micro-loop claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using diffraction-limited integral-field spectropolarimetry of the Fe i 630 nm pair in a plage near disk center, the paper argues that the plage's magnetic field is not simply a bundle of unipolar flux tubes. The main negative-polarity field reaches 2 kG and expands markedly between the deep and mid photosphere, but at the layer $\log \tau = -0.5$ the depth-stratified inversion recovers many small patches of positive polarity with vertical fields of about 200 G. These patches lie within two pixels of the main polarity, are connected to it by horizontal fields stronger than 200 G, and disappear at $\log \tau = -2$, roughly 150 km higher. The authors interpret them as very low-lying, subarcsecond loops that close in the photosphere over about 200–300 km, forming a fine-scale micro-canopy beneath the classical chromospheric canopy. The reversed Stokes V sign is visible directly in the observed profiles, and the patches persist for the entire 25-minute sequence, so the authors frame the result as the first direct, temporally stable detection of this opposite-polarity structuring inside a plage.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands or falls on whether the reverse-polarity patches at the deepest sampled layer are real solar features rather than artifacts of how the inversion code interpolates between its depth nodes; the authors themselves say this cannot be ruled out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The plage magnetic field at the photosphere is not a unipolar flux-tube bundle; weak opposite-polarity loops close beneath the main canopy, so photospheric models of plages must include fine-scale field tangling.
  • The opposite-polarity patches persist for at least 25 minutes, longer than the local convective turnover time, so the tangling that makes them is either continuously regenerated or slow to relax.
  • The reversal appears only in the lower photosphere, present at $\log \tau = -0.5$ and absent at $\log \tau = -2$ roughly 150 km higher, which places an upper bound of about 150 km on the vertical extent of these loops.
  • The main plage field reaches up to 2 kG and expands markedly between the deep and mid-photosphere, so the canopy-like expansion begins very low in the atmosphere.
  • Because the opposite polarity is already visible as a sign change in Stokes V, the result does not depend solely on the node-based inversion; the direct sign flip is an independent observable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not quantify energy release, but if these micro-loops are common in plages, their footpoints are natural sites for small-scale reconnection and may contribute to heating of the lower chromosphere.
  • The persistence over convection timescales hints that granular motions may continuously stretch and fold the strong plage field rather than freshly emerging loops; this could be tested by tracking the structures on the higher-cadence 10 s data, which the paper does not do.
  • The loop size sits near the resolution limit, so the true population could be even smaller and denser; observing with a larger aperture or with lines formed at multiple depths could reveal whether these are the smallest magnetic structures in active regions.
  • A similar analysis applied to quiet-Sun regions with the same pipeline would show whether the micro-canopy is unique to strong-field environments or is the quiet-Sun loop process dressed up by the plage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents spectropolarimetric observations of a solar plage obtained with the MiHI integral field unit at the Swedish Solar Telescope, using the Fe I 630 nm line pair. The data are analyzed with the Milne-Eddington inversion code pyMilne and with the depth-stratified magnetohydrostatic inversion code FIRTEZ. The authors report the presence of small-scale, opposite-polarity magnetic patches near the plage, visible directly as sign reversals in observed Stokes V profiles (Figs. 1e and A.1). The FIRTEZ inversions are used to argue that such opposite polarities are ubiquitous at log tau = -0.5, that they form subarcsecond vertical loops rooted in the photosphere, and that they close before log tau = -2 over distances of about 200-300 km. The abstract presents these low-lying opposite-polarity loops as a novel picture of plage magnetism.

Significance. If the loop interpretation is correct, the paper provides the first direct, high-resolution detection of persistent subarcsecond opposite-polarity structures in a plage, with implications for how strong plage fields interact with convection and for energy transport into the upper atmosphere. The paper deserves credit for anchoring the detection in a raw observable: the Stokes V sign reversals in Fig. 1e and Appendix A are direct and do not depend on the inversion details. The depth-stratified claims, however, do depend on FIRTEZ, and the paper is candid about the main degeneracy. The dataset is unique and the analysis is state of the art, but the principal new claim about ubiquitous low-lying loops requires additional validation before it can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4 and Appendix B] The abstract's central new claim, that weak opposite-polarity loops are ubiquitous at the base of the photosphere, rests on the B_z stratification retrieved by FIRTEZ rather than on the robust Stokes V sign reversals. The paper itself concedes in §4 that 'it cannot be excluded that they are artifacts generated by the node interpolation used in the inversion code.' Since the Fe I 630 nm lines are substantially less sensitive at log tau = -0.5 than at log tau around -1 to -1.5, a sign change in B_z between the weakly constrained deep node region and the well-constrained mid-photosphere nodes could be produced by the spline representation. Spatial coherence and temporal persistence of the retrieved patches do not exclude a systematic artifact, because the same node scheme is applied to every pixel and every time step. Please add a quantitative test: invert a subset of the data with different node counts or node placements for B_z, and/or run synthetic recovery experiments to show that the node scheme cannot create a spurious sign reversal from a unipolar depth-stratified field. Until then, the abstract and conclusions should phrase the ubiquitous low-lying loops as a tentative interpretation.
  2. [Appendix A (Fig. A.2) and §4] The multi-lobed Stokes V profiles demonstrate strong gradients of magnetic field and/or velocity, but they do not locate the B_z sign reversal at log tau = -0.5. As the authors note, such profiles indicate depth dependence of the magnetic field, yet the attribution of the deepest lobe to a polarity reversal at the least sensitive layer is degenerate with, for example, line-of-sight velocity gradients and a unipolar field that decreases or changes direction with height. I request contribution-function or response-function calculations for the Fe I 630 nm lines showing the height range to which the observed V profiles are sensitive, together with a demonstration that a model with no sign reversal at log tau = -0.5 cannot reproduce the profiles. This is needed to support the claimed loop geometry.
  3. [§4 (Fig. 4) and abstract] The paper describes the opposite-polarity patches as 'vertical magnetic loops' that 'close over distances of approximately 200-300 km.' However, Fig. 4 shows a vertical cut with arrows representing the projection of the magnetic field vector, not field lines connecting the opposite-polarity footpoints. A polarity pair with a horizontal-field enhancement between its members is suggestive of a loop, but connectivity requires explicit field-line integration in the 3D model. If such tracing is not performed, I recommend replacing 'loops' with 'loop-like structures' in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2 and Figs. 1-3] Please state the sign convention for Stokes V and B_z explicitly (for example, which sign corresponds to the dominant plage polarity and which to field pointing toward the observer). This would make the meaning of 'opposite polarity' and the asymmetric color bars in Figs. 1-3 and A.2 unambiguous.
  2. [Appendix B] The node description gives only the number of nodes per physical quantity; specifying their locations in optical depth or geometrical height would allow the reader to judge how well the base of the photosphere is actually constrained.
  3. [§4] The sentence stating that the 'clear spatial structure' and 'temporal consistency' of the retrieved field patches 'probably mean' that they are the most consistent explanation for the observations is a probabilistic interpretation; please replace it with a description of the test that would distinguish the real-field hypothesis from the node-interpolation hypothesis, or mark it explicitly as a working hypothesis.
  4. [Observations] A data-availability statement, or a link to the reduced data cubes, would strengthen the reproducibility of this unique dataset.
  5. [Fig. 1 caption] The Stokes maps are described as integrated over a small wavelength range, but the exact wavelength ranges are not given; please specify them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the opposite-polarity detection is anchored in direct Stokes V sign reversals, and the depth-stratified loop interpretation is a stated inversion inference with an explicit caveat, not a construction.

full rationale

The central detection—opposite-polarity patches around the plage—is read directly from sign reversals in the observed Stokes V profiles (Fig. 1e; pixels 1 and 5 in Fig. A.1), which are raw observables, not fitted quantities. The field strengths and height stratification come from two independent inversion codes (pyMilne and FIRTEZ) applied to those observed profiles. No equation in the paper defines the inferred B_z at log tau = -0.5 in terms of the claimed loop picture, and no parameter fitted to a subset is later renamed as a prediction. The one weak link is explicitly acknowledged: the Fe i 630 nm lines are less sensitive at log tau = -0.5, so 'it cannot be excluded that they are artifacts generated by the node interpolation used in the inversion code' (Section 4). That is an honest limitation of an inverse problem, not a circular derivation: the node interpolation is an inversion parameterization, and the three-lobed Stokes V profiles (Fig. A.1, pixel 5) provide observed evidence of depth-dependent polarity outside the fitted B_z map alone. The cited codes (pyMilne, FIRTEZ) are methodological papers by members of the same group, but they are not used to import an unverified uniqueness theorem or to define the result; they are standard spectral inversion tools. Thus no circular step meets the evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core detection (sign change in Stokes V) is a direct observable and requires no free parameters. The quantitative depth stratification depends on the FIRTEZ node scheme and on the MHS assumption; the stray-light correction is a hand-chosen range. No new physical entities, particles, or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • FIRTEZ node counts for temperature, LOS velocity, horizontal field, vertical field = First cycle (6,2,1,2); second cycle (4,4,2,4)
    Depth stratification of the physical quantities depends on these node locations. The second cycle is tailored to Stokes V, affecting the inferred field structure.
  • Stokes V weighting factor in second inversion cycle = 4 times larger than other Stokes parameters
    Chosen to focus on the polarity-reversal signal; affects the fit quality and inferred field gradients.
  • Manual stray-light subtraction level = 0 to 10% of mean polarized spectrum
    The authors manually tested 0-30% and found 0-10% gave consistent results and better chi-squared; this is a hand-chosen range that could influence field strengths and profiles.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Milne-Eddington approximation for the pyMilne context inversions
    Used to derive general field properties at a single optical depth layer; standard but approximate.
  • domain assumption Magnetohydrostatic equilibrium throughout the observed atmosphere in FIRTEZ
    The FIRTEZ inversion relates thermodynamic and magnetic structure via MHS, giving the absolute height scale. If strong dynamic forces are present, the inferred geometry is biased.
  • domain assumption The Fe I 630 nm lines form at photospheric heights around log tau = -1 to -2
    The interpretation of opposite polarities disappearing at log tau = -2 relies on standard line formation heights.
  • domain assumption Residual stray light is small (0-10%) after restoration
    The authors tested this range and argue higher levels give worse fits; the assumption underlies all inferred field strengths.
  • ad hoc to paper FIRTEZ node interpolation does not create coherent small-scale structure
    The paper acknowledges 'it cannot be excluded that they are artifacts generated by the node interpolation used in the inversion code' (Section 4), making this a load-bearing but unverified assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fine-scale opposite-polarity magnetic fields in a solar plage revealed by integral field spectropolarimetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KVB65Q6G

@misc{pith2026250507561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fine-scale opposite-polarity magnetic fields in a solar plage revealed by integral field spectropolarimetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KVB65Q6G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07561}
}
read the original abstract

Plages are small concentrations of strong, nearly vertical magnetic fields in the solar photosphere that expand with height. A high spatial and spectral resolution that can resolve their fine structure is required to characterize them, and spectropolarimetric capabilities are needed to infer their magnetic fields. We constrain the 3D fine structure of the magnetic field in the photosphere of a solar plage from a unique spectropolarimetric dataset with a very high spatial and spectral resolution and a fast temporal cadence. We analyzed spectropolarimetric observations of a solar plage in the two magnetically sensitive spectral lines of neutral iron around 630 nm. The observations were obtained with MiHI, which is an integral field unit attached to the Swedish Solar Telescope. MiHI obtained diffraction-limited, high-cadence observations with high spectral fidelity. These observations were interpreted using the spectropolarimetric inversion with magnetohydrostatic constraints, which allowed us to recover the magnetic and thermodynamic structure of the plage on a geometrical scale. The inversion results reveal that the magnetic field can reach up to 2 kG and that it expands significantly from the deep to the mid-photosphere. Weaker (200 G), and very small (subarcsecond) vertical magnetic loops lie beneath this canopy, rooted in the photosphere. This novel picture of a solar plage, in which weak opposite-polarity field patches surround the main polarity, provides new insight into convection in strongly magnetized plasma.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: AIA 17.1 nm image at the start of the observing pe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnetic field in the ROI retrieved by ME inversion in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Cut showing the inferred magnetic field vector in the v [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Hirzberger , J., et al

    Albert , K., Krivova , N. A., Hirzberger , J., et al. 2023, , 678, A163

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    S., & Vitas , N

    Asensio Ramos , A., Requerey , I. S., & Vitas , N. 2017, , 604, A11

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    M., Lites , B

    Borrero , J. M., Lites , B. W., Lagg , A., Rezaei , R., & Rempel , M. 2014, , 572, A54

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    M., Pastor Yabar , A., Rempel , M., & Ruiz Cobo , B

    Borrero , J. M., Pastor Yabar , A., Rempel , M., & Ruiz Cobo , B. 2019, , 632, A111

    2019

  5. [5]

    M., Pastor Yabar , A., & Ruiz Cobo , B

    Borrero , J. M., Pastor Yabar , A., & Ruiz Cobo , B. 2021, , 647, A190

    2021

  6. [6]

    K., & van Noort , M

    Buehler , D., Lagg , A., Solanki , S. K., & van Noort , M. 2015, , 576, A27

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 636

    Cao , W., Gorceix , N., Coulter , R., et al. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 636

    2010

  8. [8]

    S., Milanovic , N., Korpi-Lagg , A., et al

    Castellanos Dur \'a n , J. S., Milanovic , N., Korpi-Lagg , A., et al. 2024, , 687, A218

    work page 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    S., et al

    Chae , J., van Noort , M., Madjarska , M. S., et al. 2024, , 687, A249

    2024

  2. [10]

    A., et al

    Chatzistergos , T., Ermolli , I., Krivova , N. A., et al. 2022, , 667, A167

    2022

  3. [11]

    P., Sukarmadji , A

    Chitta , L. P., Sukarmadji , A. R. C., Rouppe van der Voort , L., & Peter , H. 2019, , 623, A176

    2019

  4. [12]

    P., van Noort , M., Smitha , H

    Chitta , L. P., van Noort , M., Smitha , H. N., Priest , E. R., & Rouppe van der Voort , L. H. M. 2024, , 976, 134

    2024

  5. [13]

    M., Reardon , K., Cauzzi , G., et al

    da Silva Santos , J. M., Reardon , K., Cauzzi , G., et al. 2023, , 954, L35

    2023

  6. [14]

    2019, , 631, A153

    de la Cruz Rodr \' guez , J. 2019, , 631, A153

    2019

  7. [15]

    & Leenaarts , J

    de la Cruz Rodr \' guez , J. & Leenaarts , J. 2024, , 685, A85

    2024

  8. [16]

    G., Casini , R., Carlile , A., et al

    de Wijn , A. G., Casini , R., Carlile , A., et al. 2022, , 297, 22

    2022

  9. [17]

    Georgoulis , M. K. 2005, , 629, L69

    2005

  10. [18]

    K., et al

    Korpi-Lagg , A., Gandorfer , A., Solanki , S. K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06483

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2007, , 243, 3

    Kosugi , T., Matsuzaki , K., Sakao , T., et al. 2007, , 243, 3

    2007

  12. [20]

    A., Solanki , S

    Krivova , N. A., Solanki , S. K., Fligge , M., & Unruh , Y. C. 2003, , 399, L1

    2003

  13. [21]

    R., Title , A

    Lemen , J. R., Title , A. M., Akin , D. J., et al. 2012, , 275, 17

    2012

  14. [22]

    Mart \' nez Gonz \'a lez , M. J. & Bellot Rubio , L. R. 2009, , 700, 1391

    2009

  15. [23]

    W., & Skumanich , A

    Mart \' nez Pillet , V., Lites , B. W., & Skumanich , A. 1997, , 474, 810

    1997

  16. [24]

    J., & Leenaarts , J

    Morosin , R., de la Cruz Rodr \' guez , J., D \' az Baso , C. J., & Leenaarts , J. 2022, , 664, A8

    2022

  17. [25]

    Morosin , R., de la Cruz Rodr \' guez , J., Vissers , G. J. M., & Yadav , R. 2020, , 642, A210

    2020

  18. [26]

    R., V \"o gler , A., & Del Toro Iniesta , J

    Orozco Su \'a rez , D., Bellot Rubio , L. R., V \"o gler , A., & Del Toro Iniesta , J. C. 2010, , 518, A2

    2010

  19. [27]

    M., & Ruiz Cobo , B

    Pastor Yabar , A., Borrero , J. M., & Ruiz Cobo , B. 2019, , 629, A24

    2019

  20. [28]

    K., et al

    Przybylski , D., Cameron , R., Solanki , S. K., et al. 2022, , 664, A91

    2022

  21. [29]

    R., et al

    Quintero Noda , C., Schlichenmaier , R., Bellot Rubio , L. R., et al. 2022, , 666, A21

    2022

  22. [30]

    R., Warner , M., Keil , S

    Rimmele , T. R., Warner , M., Keil , S. L., et al. 2020, , 295, 172

    2020

  23. [31]

    Rouppe van der Voort , L. H. M., van Noort , M., & de la Cruz Rodr \' guez , J. 2023, , 673, A11

    2023

  24. [32]

    & del Toro Iniesta , J

    Ruiz Cobo , B. & del Toro Iniesta , J. C. 1992, , 398, 375

    1992

  25. [33]

    Saranathan , S., van Noort , M., & Solanki , S. K. 2021, , 653, A17

    2021

  26. [34]

    B., Bjelksjo , K., Korhonen , T

    Scharmer , G. B., Bjelksjo , K., Korhonen , T. K., Lindberg , B., & Petterson , B. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4853, Innovative Telescopes and Instrumentation for Solar Astrophysics, ed. S. L. Keil & S. V. Avakyan ...

    2003

  27. [35]

    H., Bush , R

    Schou , J., Scherrer , P. H., Bush , R. I., et al. 2012, , 275, 229

    2012

  28. [36]

    Schuck , P. W. 2005, , 632, L53

    2005

  29. [37]

    Solanki , S. K. & Brigljevic , V. 1992, , 262, L29

    1992

  30. [38]

    Spruit , H. C. 1976, , 50, 269

    1976

  31. [39]

    2005, , 430, 691

    Steiner , O. 2005, , 430, 691

    2005

  32. [40]

    K., Antolin , P., et al

    Van Doorsselaere , T., Srivastava , A. K., Antolin , P., et al. 2020, , 216, 140

    2020

  33. [41]

    2012, , 548, A5

    van Noort , M. 2012, , 548, A5

    2012

  34. [42]

    2017, , 608, A76

    van Noort , M. 2017, , 608, A76

    2017

  35. [43]

    K., & Kiselman , D

    van Noort , M., Bischoff , J., Kramer , A., Solanki , S. K., & Kiselman , D. 2022, , 668, A149

    2022

  36. [44]

    & Doerr , H

    van Noort , M. & Doerr , H. P. 2022, , 668, A151

    2022

  37. [45]

    o gler , A., Shelyag , S., Sch \

    V \"o gler , A., Shelyag , S., Sch \"u ssler , M., et al. 2005, , 429, 335

    2005

  38. [46]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence a...

  39. [47]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  40. [48]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib codin...

  41. [49]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  42. [50]

    u ller , R. and Nakai , E. and Schmidt , W. and Schou , J. and Sinjan , J. and Staub , J. and Strecker , H. and Torralbo , I. and Valori , G. , title =

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.