Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 85 references

Current Helicity in Response to Coronal Mass Ejections

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Photospheric current helicity falls before coronal mass ejections and rises after them, and the paper traces this reversal to electric currents concentrating at the polarity inversion line before eruption and separating afterward.

desk verdict Solid MHD mechanism and a useful observational extension, but the CME-prediction claim needs a control sample before it can be taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11790 v1 pith:KFTSJBKC submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.SR

Zheng Sun , Ting Li , Xinkai Bian , Yijun Hou , Ioannis Kontogiannis , Ziqi Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords currenthelicitycoronalmassejectionssolarflareseruptionsphotosphericmagneticfieldpolarityinversionlineMHDsimulationflareprediction
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

Photospheric current helicity is the area integral of vertical current density times vertical magnetic field, $H_c=\int j_zB_z\,dS$. This paper tries to establish that this quantity shows a characteristic reversal around coronal mass ejections: a pre-eruption decrease and a post-eruption increase, driven by electric currents concentrating toward the polarity inversion line before eruption and separating away from it afterward. The authors reproduce the pattern in a 3D MHD simulation of the tether-cutting scenario and find it in observations of 50 eruptive flares, with 58% showing the decrease and 92% the increase. Two case studies show the same current redistribution as the model, and long-term helicity curves show the decrease many hours before the eruption, suggesting that $H_c$ could indicate when an active region has stored enough current to erupt and may help predict CMEs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the photospheric current helicity $H_c=\int j_zB_z\,dS$, computed from magnetograms as the product of vertical electric current density and vertical magnetic field. The mechanism that carries the argument is the redistribution of $j_z$: before an eruption, electric currents that were spread over the active region concentrate toward the polarity inversion line, and after the eruption they move apart in a double-ribbon pattern that follows the flare ribbon separation. Because $B_z$ remains roughly stable, the reversal in $H_c$ is essentially the reversal of $j_z$ in the strong-$B_z$ regions, and the paper quantifies this through difference maps of $j_z$ and time series of the mean $j_z$ in the pole and PIL regions.

What would settle it

Compute $H_c$ time series for a sample of active regions that never produce an M5.0 or larger flare, matched to the 50 events in field strength and area, and count how often a monotonic >10% decrease lasting over one hour occurs; if that rate approaches 58%, the pattern is not specific to eruptive events.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the photospheric current helicity reversal is not caused by a change in the overall magnitude of $j_z$ or $B_z$ but by a redistribution of electric current. In the pre-eruption phase, the double-J current structure contracts toward the polarity inversion line, reducing $j_z$ in the strong-$B_z$ regions that dominate $H_c$ and thus lowering the helicity. After the eruption, the current ribbons separate back toward the magnetic poles, increasing $j_z$ in the strong-field regions and raising the helicity, a pattern consistent with flare ribbon separation caused by the upward progression of the reconnection site. The same spatial pattern is seen in two observed eruptive flares and in the tether-cutting MHD simulation, and the pre-eruption decrease appears in the long-term helicity evolution of both cases, which the authors interpret as evidence that $H_c$ tracks the build-up of electric currents that power a CME.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the pre-eruption decrease is a genuine precursor rests on the untested assumption that current helicity in non-eruptive active regions does not also drop by more than 10% for over an hour at a comparable rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A sustained drop of more than 10% in $H_c$ lasting over an hour can flag an active region as approaching eruption conditions, complementing existing flare-prediction parameters.
  • The post-eruption increase appears in 92% of events, so $H_c$ may serve as a reliable marker for confirming that an eruption has taken place in magnetogram time series.
  • Because confined flares reportedly lack the clear pre-eruption decrease and post-eruption increase, the reversal pattern may help distinguish eruptive from confined flares in space-weather forecasting.
  • A single snapshot of $H_c$ or $\alpha_{\mathrm{weighted}}$ is not a reliable measure of eruptive potential, since a decrease in $H_c$ can accompany the current concentration that makes eruption more likely.
  • Monitoring $H_c$ over timescales of 10-15 hours, as in the two case studies, could extend warning times beyond those of flare-onset criteria.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 58% pre-eruption detection rate needs calibration against a control sample of non-erupting active regions to establish whether the decrease is specific to eruptive events or reflects the normal fluctuation level of $H_c$.
  • Editorial inference: the authors' mechanism predicts that maps of $j_z$ alone, without $B_z$ weighting, should show the same contraction and separation pattern; testing this directly would separate the geometric redistribution from any concurrent change in field strength.
  • Editorial inference: the 10% and 1-hour thresholds were fixed globally, so an operational application would likely need region-specific tuning, and the average decrease magnitude of 27% with durations sometimes exceeding the 6-hour window suggests the pattern may be stronger than the threshold-based statistics imply.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's caveat that total 3D coronal helicity behaves differently from photospheric $H_c$ implies that extending the analysis to time-dependent coronal extrapolations is an open test of whether the photospheric signal is a trustworthy proxy for the coronal energy buildup.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the evolution of photospheric current helicity, H_c = ∫ j_z B_z dS, around coronal mass ejections. Using a 3D MHD simulation based on the tether-cutting scenario, the authors identify a pre-eruption decrease and post-eruption increase in H_c, which they attribute to the redistribution of electric currents: concentration toward the polarity inversion line before eruption and separation afterward. They then analyze 50 eruptive flares ≥ M5.0 from SDO/HMI and report that 58% show a pre-eruption decrease and 92% show a post-eruption increase in unsigned current helicity. Detailed case studies of two events are presented to support the current-redistribution mechanism, and the paper suggests that current helicity may serve as a precursor indicator for CMEs.

Significance. If the reported pattern is real, this would connect a routinely measurable photospheric quantity to the buildup and release of free magnetic energy, and the MHD mechanism offers a physical explanation. The post-eruption increase in current helicity is a plausible photospheric response to flare ribbon separation, and the agreement between the simulation and the two case studies is suggestive. However, the statistical claim rests on an uncontrolled classification with no baseline, and the sign convention between the model and observations is not clearly reconciled. The paper therefore has the potential to be a useful contribution, but the current observational validation is not yet convincing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2 and §3.2] The sign convention for H_c is inconsistent between the model and the observations. In the model, H_c is defined as a signed integral (Eq. 5), and the helicity density is stated to be 'dominated by negative helicity' (§2.2, Fig. 2c). A decrease in this signed H_c is therefore an increase in |H_c|. However, the observational classification in §3.1 and §3.2 uses the unsigned |H_c|, and a 'pre-eruption decrease' means a decrease in |H_c|. Unless the model curves in Fig. 1(b) and Fig. 3(d) are explicitly plotting |H_c| and |j_z|, the model's 'pre-eruption decrease' has the opposite sign to the observational diagnostic. The authors must state whether the model's H_c is positive or negative and clarify which quantity is plotted; if the model's signed H_c is negative, then the model predicts an increase in |H_c| before eruption, contradicting the 58% observational claim.
  2. [§3.1 and §3.2] The pre-eruption decrease is evaluated without a control sample or a baseline rate. The criterion (a continuous >10% drop in |H_c| lasting >1 h within 6 h before the flare) is applied only to eruptive events, so the 58% (29/50) figure is not statistically interpretable. Because H_c is a slowly varying, autocorrelated integrated quantity over a flare mask, the same criterion could be met during normal active-region evolution, flux emergence, or non-eruptive reconnection. With 50 events, the binomial 95% confidence interval for 29/50 is roughly [43%, 72%], which does not exclude a chance rate near 50%. The predictive claim in §3.4 and the Conclusion is therefore unsupported without a control analysis. I request that the authors apply the same classification to non-eruptive time windows in the same active regions, or to confined flares, and report the false-positive rate.
  3. [§3.1] The measurement uncertainties in the H_c time series are not characterized. HMI vector magnetograms have noise in the transverse field component, which propagates into j_z and H_c; the 10% threshold used for classification may be comparable to the noise level. No error bars are shown on any H_c evolution curve, and no noise estimate is provided. The thresholds (10% magnitude, 1 h duration, 36 min duration, 300 G field cutoff) are arbitrary, and no sensitivity analysis is presented to show the classification is robust to these choices. The authors should estimate the uncertainty in |H_c| from the HMI data and show that the reported decreases/increases exceed the noise.
  4. [§3.4] The long-term evolution analysis is limited to two cases that were selected precisely because they showed the reversal pattern. This is a selection-biased sample and does not provide a predictive skill measurement. The statement that 'current helicity may have predictive potential to some extent' (abstract and conclusion) is not supported by a forecast metric such as a contingency table, a true-positive versus false-positive comparison, or any application of the same trend to a non-eruptive control interval. Please either add such an analysis or temper the predictive claim to match what the data actually show.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] Typographical errors: 'enengy' should be 'energy' in the abstract and in the first sentence of the Introduction; 'Moreoever' in the Conclusion should be 'Moreover'; 'occuring' in §3.3.2 should be 'occurring'; 'indicting' in the caption of Figure 3 should be 'indicating'.
  2. [§3.1] The description of the flare mask construction would benefit from a figure showing an example mask, because the choice of high-Q contour determines the pixels included in the H_c integral and could influence the results. The statement in the Discussion that the results are robust to mask shape and size is not documented; please show the test or provide a reference.
  3. [Figure 3 and Figure 6] The notation 'j_z' is used ambiguously in the text and figures; in some places a 'decrease in j_z' seems to mean a decrease in |j_z|, while in others it could mean a decrease in the signed value. Please define whether the shown curves and figures refer to the signed j_z or its absolute value, and use a consistent notation (e.g., |j_z|) throughout.
  4. [Table 1] The table is densely formatted and the caption could be clearer about the '≥6' and '≥4' entries. In addition, the flare start times are given in different formats; please standardize them to one time zone (UT) with a consistent format.
  5. [§4] The sentence 'Our analysis shows that the trend of H_c/Φ_z^2 is very similar to that of H_c in almost every case (not shown in the paper)' is a verification claim that cannot be checked because the results are not shown. Please include these plots in an appendix or in the electronic supplementary material, or state the quantitative agreement.
  6. [§3.3.1] The statement that 'the specific threshold used to define strong B_z does not affect the physical interpretation' is an assertion without a supporting test. Since the classification of 'strong-B_z regions' is central to the mechanism, please demonstrate this insensitivity explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: H_c is computed directly from observed magnetograms with no fitted parameters, the 58%/92% statistics are descriptive on a fixed catalog, and the MHD simulation is a forward model rather than a fit to the target pattern.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. H_c is defined directly as the surface integral of j_zB_z and is computed from HMI/SHARP vector magnetograms using standard formulae; no parameter is fitted to the outcome. The MHD model result is obtained by running (or reusing) a physical forward simulation, not by tuning the model to reproduce the observed H_c reversal. The observational statistics are tabulated from a fixed, pre-stated criterion (>10% continuous change over a stated duration) on a catalog of 50 eruptive flares, so the 58% and 92% figures are descriptive measurements rather than predictions of a fitted model. The paper explicitly notes the algebraic relation between its H_c trend and the previously studied B_z-weighted force-free parameter, so it does not present a renamed quantity as an independent derivation. The two case studies are selected for showing the reversal, which limits generalization but is not a circular reduction. The main weakness is the absence of a non-eruptive control sample for the pre-eruption criterion; this is a statistical/correctness concern about whether the 58% rate exceeds baseline fluctuation, not a circularity in the derivation. No equation is shown to be equivalent to its input by construction, and no load-bearing claim rests solely on a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis does not introduce new physical entities. It relies on several domain assumptions and hand-chosen thresholds that directly affect the reported statistics. The free parameters are not fitted to a model but are choices that influence classification and therefore the strength of the empirical claim.

free parameters (6)
  • Threshold for pre-eruption decrease = 10% relative decrease, continuous for >1 hour (5 time steps)
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.1 to define a 'pre-eruption decrease'; changing this threshold changes the reported percentage (58%).
  • Threshold for post-eruption increase = 10% relative increase, continuous for >36 minutes (3 time steps)
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.1 to define a 'post-eruption increase'; affects the 92% statistic.
  • Field strength cutoff for pixels = 300 G
    Used in Section 3.1 to exclude noisy pixels; about three times the HMI transverse field noise, but the exact value is a choice.
  • Strong-Bz region threshold = 1000 G in case studies; +/-50% of maximum in model
    Defines the 'strong-Bz' regions in Figures 6, 8, and 10; the paper states the threshold does not affect the physical interpretation, but it does affect the calculated mean jz curves.
  • Time window around eruption = 6 hours before, 4 hours after
    The 10-hour window in Section 3.1 sets the range over which trends are evaluated; extending or shortening it would change detected durations.
  • Central meridian distance limit = 60 degrees
    Event selection criterion in Section 3.1 to minimize projection effects; not justified quantitatively.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The tether-cutting model is the relevant eruption scenario for interpreting the current redistribution.
    The MHD simulation is based on Jiang et al. (2021) tether-cutting setup, and the interpretation in Section 4 assumes this model represents the common CME mechanism.
  • domain assumption The photospheric vertical magnetic field B_z remains essentially stable during the eruption.
    Used throughout to attribute H_c changes solely to j_z redistribution; supported by the model and previous observations (Wang & Liu 2010; Petrie 2012), but not independently verified in these 50 events.
  • domain assumption The NLFFF extrapolation and Q-factor mask isolate the flaring region correctly.
    In Section 3.1, the flare mask is built from Q contours of NLFFF extrapolations; if the extrapolation is inaccurate, the mask may include or exclude relevant pixels, affecting H_c.
  • domain assumption A 2D photospheric surface integral of j_z B_z is a meaningful indicator of eruption-related changes, despite not representing 3D helicity.
    The paper acknowledges in Section 4 that the 3D helicity trend differs from the photospheric one, yet uses the 2D quantity as the predictive indicator.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Current Helicity in Response to Coronal Mass Ejections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KFTSJBKC

@misc{pith2026250711790,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Current Helicity in Response to Coronal Mass Ejections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KFTSJBKC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11790}
}
abstract

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs), powerful solar eruptions with massive plasma ejected into the interplanetary space, are caused by the release of the magnetic free enengy stored in coronal electric currents. Photospheric current helicity, defined as the integral of the product of vertical electric current density and vertical magnetic field ($H_c=\int j_zB_z\ dS$), serves as a key parameter in understanding the eruptions. Using a 3D magnetohydrodynamic model, we identify a current helicity reversal pattern associated with the eruption: a pre-eruption decrease and a post-eruption increase. This helicity reversal is attributed to the redistribution of electric currents: before the eruption, currents concentrate toward the polarity inversion line (PIL); after the eruption they move away from the PIL, consistent with the flare ribbon separation, which is caused by the upward progression reconnection site. To validate this pattern, we conducted an observational analysis of 50 $\geq$M5.0 eruptive flares. The results reveal that 58\% of cases exhibited a pre-eruption decrease and 92\% showed the post-eruption increase in current helicity. Detailed analysis of two cases with this reversal suggests that they share the same current redistribution pattern, consistent with the mechanism identified in the simulations. Moreover, the pre-eruption decrease could be observed clearly even in the long-term evolution of the two cases. Current helicity can serve as an indicator of when electric currents are built up for the subsequent eruption, and it has the potential to predict CMEs to some extent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11790 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the MHD model (a) and the photospheric parameter evolution (b). Panel (a) shows the X-Z slice of j/B at t=8 (after the eruption onset). Parameters in panel (b) are calculated from all the grids in the Z=0 plane. The green, orange, and red curves indicate Jz, Φz, and Hc, respectively. The dashed blue line indicates the time of the eruption onset (t = 0). t ≤ 0 indicates the pre-eruption periods [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the photospheric Bz (a1-a3), jz (b1-b3), and hc (c1-c3) in the model. The first, second, and third column indicate the pre-eruption, eruption onset, and post-eruption states of the parameters, respectively. The orange, green, and red contour indicates the ±50% of their absolute maximum values. The red arrows mark the location where the double-J structure moves toward the center of the magnetic poles (An… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the electric current density in the model. Panel (a) shows the pre-eruption distribution of jz. The orange contour and the cyan dashed square mark the regions of magnetic poles and PIL, respectively. Panel (b) exhibits the jz difference between eruption onset and pre-eruption, which can indicate the pre-eruption variations of jz. Panel (c) presents the jz difference between post-eruption and eruption on… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Current helicity evolution before and after CMEs in the observations. The samples can be divided into cases with pre-eruption decrease (a) and cases without pre-eruption decrease (b). The blue line indicates the time of the starting time of the eruption and the red lin…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the eruption in AR 11261 in 1600 ˚A (a) and the photospheric parameter evolution (b). The white square in panel (a) indicates the field of view in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the electric current density in AR 11261. Panel (a) shows the pre-eruption distribution of jz. The orange contour and the blue dashed square mark the regions with 1000-Gauss Bz and PIL region, respectively. The methods for calculating PIL region is referre…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Long-term evolution of current helicity in AR 11261. The beginning time is at 20:36 UT on 2011 Aug 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    """"""""

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  2. [2]

    I., & Baranovsky , E

    Abramenko , V. I., & Baranovsky , E. A. 2004, , 220, 81, 10.1023/B:sola.0000023432.42145.b0

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    2014, , 514, 465, 10.1038/nature13815

    Amari , T., Canou , A., & Aly , J.-J. 2014, , 514, 465, 10.1038/nature13815

    doi:10.1038/nature13815 2014

  4. [4]

    K., DeVore , C

    Antiochos , S. K., DeVore , C. R., & Klimchuk , J. A. 1999, , 510, 485, 10.1086/306563

    doi:10.1086/306563 1999

  5. [5]

    Aslam , O. P. M., MacTaggart , D., Williams , T., Fletcher , L., & Romano , P. 2024, , 534, 444, 10.1093/mnras/stae2110

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2110 2024

  6. [6]

    2016, Nature Physics, 12, 998, 10.1038/nphys3938

    Aulanier , G. 2016, Nature Physics, 12, 998, 10.1038/nphys3938

    doi:10.1038/nphys3938 2016

  7. [7]

    2019, , 621, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834221

    Aulanier , G., & Dud \' k , J. 2019, , 621, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834221

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834221 2019

  8. [8]

    1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 139, 311

    Bao, S., Zhang, H., Ai, G., & Zhang, M. 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 139, 311

    1999

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    2016, Nature Communications, 7, 13798, 10.1038/ncomms13798

    Bi , Y., Jiang , Y., Yang , J., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 13798, 10.1038/ncomms13798

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1097672, 10.3389/fspas.2023.1097672

    Bian , X., & Jiang , C. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1097672, 10.3389/fspas.2023.1097672

    2023

  3. [11]

    2022, , 925, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4980

    Bian , X., Jiang , C., Feng , X., Zuo , P., & Wang , Y. 2022, , 925, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4980

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    G., Sun , X., Hoeksema , J

    Bobra , M. G., Sun , X., Hoeksema , J. T., et al. 2014, , 289, 3549, 10.1007/s11207-014-0529-3

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Delaboudiniere , J

    Brueckner , G. E., Delaboudiniere , J. P., Howard , R. A., et al. 1998, , 25, 3019, 10.1029/98GL00704

    1998 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Kleint , L., & Calvo-Mozo , B

    Castellanos Dur \'a n , J. S., Kleint , L., & Calvo-Mozo , B. 2018, , 852, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d37

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    2018, , 869, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaead1

    Chen , H., Duan , Y., Yang , J., Yang , B., & Dai , J. 2018, , 869, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaead1

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, , 918, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1e9a

    Chen , Y., Liu , X., Tian , H., et al. 2021, , 918, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1e9a

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    2017, Science China Earth Sciences, 60, 1383, 10.1007/s11430-017-9074-6

    Cheng , X., Guo , Y., & Ding , M. 2017, Science China Earth Sciences, 60, 1383, 10.1007/s11430-017-9074-6

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, , 954, L47, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf3e4

    Cheng , X., Xing , C., Aulanier , G., et al. 2023, , 954, L47, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf3e4

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2015, , 809, 34, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/34

    Chintzoglou , G., Patsourakos , S., & Vourlidas , A. 2015, , 809, 34, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/34

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    2001, Solar Physics, 204, 11

    Deng, Y., Wang, J., Yan, Y., & Zhang, J. 2001, Solar Physics, 204, 11

    2001

  13. [21]

    2024, , 962, L38, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad24f3

    Duan , Y., Tian , H., Chen , H., et al. 2024, , 962, L38, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad24f3

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2010, , 723, 300, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/300

    Feng , X., Yang , L., Xiang , C., et al. 2010, , 723, 300, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/300

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    D., Gary , D

    Fleishman , G. D., Gary , D. E., Chen , B., et al. 2020, Science, 367, 278, 10.1126/science.aax6874

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Hudson , H

    Fletcher , L., Dennis , B. R., Hudson , H. S., et al. 2011, , 159, 19, 10.1007/s11214-010-9701-8

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    Forbes , T. G. 1990, , 95, 11919, 10.1029/JA095iA08p11919

    1990 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, , 934, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78df

    He , W., Hu , Q., Jiang , C., Qiu , J., & Prasad , A. 2022, , 934, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78df

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, , 900, 38, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba52a

    He , Y., Liu , R., Liu , L., et al. 2020, , 900, 38, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba52a

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    T., Liu , Y., Hayashi , K., et al

    Hoeksema , J. T., Liu , Y., Hayashi , K., et al. 2014, , 289, 3483, 10.1007/s11207-014-0516-8

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    W., & Priest , E

    Hood , A. W., & Priest , E. R. 1979, , 64, 303, 10.1007/BF00151441

    1979 doi

  22. [30]

    Hudson , H. S. 2000, , 531, L75, 10.1086/312516

    2000 doi

  23. [31]

    2014, , 788, 60, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/60

    Janvier , M., Aulanier , G., Bommier , V., et al. 2014, , 788, 60, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/60

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, Science China Earth Sciences, 67, 3765, 10.1007/s11430-023-1402-3

    Jiang , C. 2024, Science China Earth Sciences, 67, 3765, 10.1007/s11430-023-1402-3

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2010, , 267, 463, 10.1007/s11207-010-9649-6

    Jiang , C., Feng , X., Zhang , J., & Zhong , D. 2010, , 267, 463, 10.1007/s11207-010-9649-6

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    T., Yurchyshyn , V., et al

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

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

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

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

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2012, , 752, L9, 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L9

    Jing , J., Park , S.-H., Liu , C., et al. 2012, , 752, L9, 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L9

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    2008, , 676, L81, 10.1086/587058

    Jing , J., Wiegelmann , T., Suematsu , Y., Kubo , M., & Wang , H. 2008, , 676, L81, 10.1086/587058

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Albelo-Corchado , M

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

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, , 909, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/abda37

    Kliem , B., Lee , J., Liu , R., et al. 2021, , 909, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/abda37

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2006, , 96, 255002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002

    Kliem , B., & T \"o r \"o k , T. 2006, , 96, 255002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Park , S.-H., & Guerra , J

    Kontogiannis , I., Georgoulis , M. K., Park , S.-H., & Guerra , J. A. 2017, , 292, 159, 10.1007/s11207-017-1185-1

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    2018, , 293, 96, 10.1007/s11207-018-1317-2

    ---. 2018, , 293, 96, 10.1007/s11207-018-1317-2

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    B., Baranyi , T., & Ludm \'a ny , A

    Kors \'o s , M. B., Baranyi , T., & Ludm \'a ny , A. 2014, , 789, 107, 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/107

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    B., Ludm \'a ny , A., Erd \'e lyi , R., & Baranyi , T

    Kors \'o s , M. B., Ludm \'a ny , A., Erd \'e lyi , R., & Baranyi , T. 2015, , 802, L21, 10.1088/2041-8205/802/2/L21

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Title , A

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

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, , 881, 151, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3121

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

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, , 964, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e90

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

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    R., & Coulter , R

    Lin , H., Kuhn , J. R., & Coulter , R. 2004, , 613, L177, 10.1086/425217

    2004 doi

  41. [49]

    2016, Nature Communications, 7, 13104, 10.1038/ncomms13104

    Liu , C., Xu , Y., Cao , W., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 13104, 10.1038/ncomms13104

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    S., & Leake , J

    Liu , Y., Sun , X., T \"o r \"o k , T., Titov , V. S., & Leake , J. E. 2017, , 846, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa861e

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    T., Valori , G., et al

    Liu , Y., Welsch , B. T., Valori , G., et al. 2023, , 942, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca3a6

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    W., & Forbes , T

    Longcope , D. W., & Forbes , T. G. 2014, , 289, 2091, 10.1007/s11207-013-0464-8

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    W., & Welsch , B

    Longcope , D. W., & Welsch , B. T. 2000, , 545, 1089, 10.1086/317846

    2000 doi

  46. [54]

    2019, , 876, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16d4

    Lu , Z., Cao , W., Jin , G., et al. 2019, , 876, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16d4

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    L., Sterling , A

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

    2001 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, , 642, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038832

    Nindos , A., Patsourakos , S., Vourlidas , A., Cheng , X., & Zhang , J. 2020, , 642, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038832

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    S., et al

    Park , S.-H., Lee , J., Choe , G. S., et al. 2008, , 686, 1397, 10.1086/591117

    2008 doi

  50. [58]

    2013, , 764, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/125

    Patsourakos , S., Vourlidas , A., & Stenborg , G. 2013, , 764, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/125

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    Petrie , G. J. D. 2012, , 759, 50, 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/50

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

    Qiu , J., & Gary , D. E. 2003, , 599, 615, 10.1086/379146

    2003 doi

  53. [61]

    A., Petrie , G

    Schad , T. A., Petrie , G. J. D., Kuhn , J. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21568, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21568

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    H., Schou , J., Bush , R

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

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    2020, , 247, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6216

    Scolini , C., Chan \'e , E., Temmer , M., et al. 2020, , 247, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6216

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1309.2392, 10.48550/arXiv.1309.2392

    Sun , X. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1309.2392, 10.48550/arXiv.1309.2392

    2013 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    T., Liu , Y., Kazachenko , M., & Chen , R

    Sun , X., Hoeksema , J. T., Liu , Y., Kazachenko , M., & Chen , R. 2017, , 839, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa69c1

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    T., Liu , Y., et al

    Sun , X., Hoeksema , J. T., Liu , Y., et al. 2012, , 748, 77, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/77

    2012 doi

  59. [67]

    G., Hoeksema , J

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

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    2023, , 953, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5b1

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

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    2024 a , , 686, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348734

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

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

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

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

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    K., Gupta , M., Veronig , A

    Thalmann , J. K., Gupta , M., Veronig , A. M., & Liu , Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05116, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05116

    2025 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    2008, Annales Geophysicae, 26, 3089, 10.5194/angeo-26-3089-2008

    Vr s nak , B. 2008, Annales Geophysicae, 26, 3089, 10.5194/angeo-26-3089-2008

    2008 doi

  65. [73]

    2010, , 716, L195, 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L195

    Wang , H., & Liu , C. 2010, , 716, L195, 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L195

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 145, 10.1088/1674-4527/15/2/001

    ---. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 145, 10.1088/1674-4527/15/2/001

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    2016 a , , 817, 156, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/156

    Wang , J., Yan , X., Qu , Z., et al. 2016 a , , 817, 156, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/156

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    D., Wiegelmann , T., et al

    Wang , R., Liu , Y. D., Wiegelmann , T., et al. 2016 b , , 291, 1159, 10.1007/s11207-016-0881-6

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    2012, , 745, L17, 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L17

    Wang , S., Liu , C., Liu , R., et al. 2012, , 745, L17, 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L17

    2012 doi

  70. [78]

    Welsch , B. T. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.01911, 10.48550/arXiv.2211.01911

    2022 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    S., Melrose , D

    Wheatland , M. S., Melrose , D. B., & Mastrano , A. 2018, , 864, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8ae

    2018 doi

  72. [80]

    F., Antiochos , S

    Wyper , P. F., Antiochos , S. K., & DeVore , C. R. 2017, , 544, 452, 10.1038/nature22050

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    Yadav , R., & Kazachenko , M. D. 2023, , 944, 215, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa9d

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    2024, Science, 386, 76, 10.1126/science.ado2993

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

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

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

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

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    A., Aulanier , G., et al

    Zhao , J., Gilchrist , S. A., Aulanier , G., et al. 2016, , 823, 62, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/62

    2016 doi

  77. [85]

    P., Aulanier, G., Dud \' k, J., et al

    Zuccarello, F. P., Aulanier, G., Dud \' k, J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 115

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.