Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Solar Orbiter reveals persistent magnetic reconnection in medium-scale filament eruptions

T0 review · 4 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 Orbiter resolves a failed filament eruption as the product of many small-scale magnetic reconnections, which the authors call 'persistent magnetic cutting.'

desk verdict A genuinely new Solar Orbiter EUI dataset of a failed filament eruption, wrapped in a plausible but overreaching 'persistent magnetic cutting' concept. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04771 v1 pith:R3YGGIOZ submitted 2025-09-05 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Song Tan , Alexander Warmuth , Frédéric Schuller , Yuandeng Shen , Daniel F. Ryan , Daniele Calchetti , Johann Hirzberger , Takayoshi Oba
show 2 more authors
Artem Ulyanov Gherardo Valori
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords magneticreconnectionsolarfilamentsfailederuptionscoronaljetsdouble-deckerOrbiterpersistentcutting
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

Using Solar Orbiter's extreme-ultraviolet images at 105 km per pixel, the paper follows a 40,000-kilometer-long filament on the Sun's western limb for four hours and watches it fail to erupt twice. Instead of a single catastrophic reconnection deciding its fate, the observations show repeated small-scale magnetic reconnection events between the filament and several surrounding field structures: an emerging flux loop, nearby open-like field, wrap-around fields, and overlying loops. Each event produces jets, drains filament material, or weakens confinement, and the authors call this cumulative process 'persistent magnetic cutting.' If correct, the result recasts failed eruptions as the product of accumulated small events and connects coronal jets with large-scale CME eruptions within one mechanism.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is 'persistent magnetic cutting' — repeated, small-scale magnetic reconnection events at multiple sites that cumulatively modify a filament's magnetic field and material configuration over time. It is carried observationally by Solar Orbiter's HRIEUV imager at 105 km per pixel and 16-second cadence, which resolves structures as thin as 2-3 Mm and transient jets that lower-resolution instruments miss, together with PHI/HRT line-of-sight magnetograms that establish the surrounding polarity configuration. The concept inherits from tether-cutting reconnection but shifts the emphasis from a single rupture to a gradual cutting process.

What would settle it

Measure net magnetic flux change at each reconnection site in a high-cadence vector magnetogram of a comparable failed filament eruption; if the cumulative flux change does not track the number and brightness of the observed small-scale events, the persistent-cutting claim is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that magnetic reconnection during a filament's evolution occurs persistently, at small scale, and in multiple locations, and that this accumulation — not any single reconnection event — governs whether the filament erupts or fails. The paper documents four distinct reconnection sites in the same event: between the filament and an emerging flux loop (driving multiple jets), between the left footpoint and a same-polarity open-like field (a nanojet-type bidirectional jet), between the upper filament and wrap-around fields (draining the upper filament's material), and between the lower filament and overlying closed fields (causing fallback and a post-flare loop). The authors define 'persistent magnetic cutting' by four characteristics: persistence during the whole evolution, small individual scale, variety of magnetic configurations involved, and accumulation of effect. They argue this differs fundamentally from the traditional picture of a single catastrophic tether-cutting or breakout event, and that it may explain why many small- and medium-scale filaments are short-lived and why failed eruptions are common.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of observed brightenings and bidirectional jets as magnetic reconnection is inferred from their morphology, without a quantitative magnetic flux change measurement, and the structure treated as open field may actually be the foot of a large-scale closed loop.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Failed and partial filament eruptions should be understood as the end point of accumulated small-scale reconnection, not a single catastrophic event.
  • The mechanism bridges mini-filament-driven coronal jets and large-scale CME eruptions, implying the same physics operates across roughly four orders of magnitude in scale.
  • Small- and medium-scale active-region filaments may have short lifetimes because ubiquitous small-scale reconnection quietly erodes their magnetic support even without a visible eruption.
  • Future observing campaigns and simulations must capture high-cadence, high-resolution reconnection events to predict eruption success; lower-resolution views may systematically miss the dominant process.
  • The concept adds an explicit pre-eruption erosion phase to standard tether-cutting and breakout models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If persistent magnetic cutting is a general process, the cumulative canceled magnetic flux before a failed eruption should scale with the degree of destabilization; that is a testable prediction for future combined imaging and vector-magnetogram campaigns.
  • The concept implies a stochastic element in eruption onset: with identical large-scale topology, different random realizations of small-scale reconnection could yield eruptive versus failed outcomes, which could be probed in numerical experiments that insert small-scale reconnection events.
  • The same gradual-cutting logic may apply to other magnetically confined coronal structures such as coronal cavities, and possibly to interplanetary flux ropes where small-scale reconnection could contribute to the erosion discussed in the paper's Appendix B.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Solar Orbiter EUI/HRI-EUV (174 Å, 105 km/pixel, 16 s cadence) and PHI/HRT line-of-sight magnetogram (30-minute cadence) observations of a failed medium-scale filament eruption on 2024 April 5. The authors report multiple coronal jets before the eruption, a double-decker filament structure, a failed upper-filament eruption with material drainage, and a failed lower-filament eruption with post-eruption loops. They interpret the observed brightenings, bidirectional jets, and loops as successive small-scale magnetic reconnection events between the filament and surrounding magnetic structures (emerging flux, nearby open field, wrap-around fields, overlying closed fields), and propose a new concept, 'persistent magnetic cutting', to describe how cumulative small-scale reconnection gradually modifies filament stability, in contrast to single catastrophic reconnection events. The paper also distinguishes this process from interplanetary flux-rope erosion.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper offers a genuinely new observational perspective: that the stability and failed-eruption outcome of medium-scale filaments may be governed by persistent, distributed small-scale reconnection rather than by a single large-scale reconnection episode. The dataset is exceptional, with 4 hours of continuous HRI-EUV imaging at 105 km/pixel that resolves a 2–3 Mm upper filament, and the authors are careful to note projection effects and to provide a movie-based record of the event. The proposed 'persistent magnetic cutting' concept is a useful framing that could connect mini-filament jet observations with large-scale eruption studies, and the paper explicitly makes its data availability statement. The main weakness is that the reconnection interpretation rests almost entirely on morphological EUV signatures, without quantitative magnetic flux-change measurements, field extrapolation, or an event inventory, so the central conceptual claim currently outruns the quantitative support.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2–§2.4 and Figs. 1(d2), 2(a)–2(e)] The central claim that the observed brightenings, bidirectional jets, and post-eruption loops are magnetic reconnection signatures is inferred from morphology alone. No quantitative magnetic verification is provided: there are no LOS flux-change measurements at the relevant footpoints, no coronal field extrapolation or quasi-separatrix-layer analysis, and no reconnection-rate estimate. Because the lower-filament eruption in §2.4 is explicitly described as rotating and kinking, ideal-MHD processes such as kink-driven field-line draining remain a viable alternative explanation for at least some of the reported features. This gap is load-bearing for the 'persistent magnetic cutting' conclusion and should be addressed, even if only by a quantitative event inventory and a best-effort flux budget using the eight PHI/HRT frames.
  2. [Abstract and §3] The statement that reconnection frequency and type 'far exceed previous observations' is not supported by any event count, occurrence rate, or quantitative comparison with earlier datasets. The reader cannot verify the 'persistence' or 'accumulation' characteristics of persistent magnetic cutting without a table or timeline listing each jet/reconnection episode, its location, duration, and associated filament response. As written, the claim is unfalsifiable and needs to be substantiated with a concrete event inventory and a comparison baseline.
  3. [Appendix A] Appendix A concedes that the 'nearby open field' used for the first reconnection episode may actually be the foot of a large-scale coronal loop. Because the classification of reconnection type (open-field versus closed-loop) underpins the interpretation in §2.2 and the claimed novelty in the 'type far exceeding previous observations' statement, this ambiguity must either be resolved with additional connectivity arguments or the claim must be correspondingly weakened.
  4. [§2.1 and Appendix A (Fig. A.1)] The magnetic flux emergence rate of 2.62×10^18 Mx hr^-1 is derived from a single pair of LOS magnetograms at 30-minute cadence with a manual alignment offset (+15'', -140'') and no stated uncertainty. Since this emerging flux is invoked as the trigger of the multiple jets and as part of the double-decker filament splitting scenario, the quantitative basis and its uncertainties should be made explicit, or the trigger should be described as a morphological inference only.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The density units in the Introduction ('10^11−10^12 g cm^-3' for the filament and '10^8−10^9 g cm^-3' for the corona) appear to be number densities and should be written as cm^-3; if mass densities are intended, the values are orders of magnitude too large.
  2. [§2.3] The 11% projection correction assumes a radial eruption trajectory, but the filament is later described as rotating and non-radial in §2.4; the quoted speeds (4.9 km s^-1 and 11.5 km s^-1) should be accompanied by this caveat more explicitly.
  3. [Figure 1(c)] The caption refers to 'Multiple jets throughout the eruption' but only a single frame is shown; a time-annotated composite or a reference to the movie with timestamps would make the jet multiplicity easier to assess from the printed figure.
  4. [Appendix A] The discussion of the double-decker filament origin is explicitly speculative ('we argue that...') and the authors correctly note the lack of high-temporal-resolution magnetograms; this passage should be labeled as a hypothesis rather than a result.
  5. [Conclusions] The parenthetical 'see Appendix B for detailed comparison' is misleading because Appendix B compares persistent magnetic reconnection with interplanetary flux-rope erosion, not with the 'single catastrophic reconnection events in traditional theory' referenced in the same sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No formal circularity: the reconnection inference is a standard observational interpretation, not a reduction of the claim to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper is an observational case study, not a derivation with fitted parameters or imported uniqueness theorems. Its central claim—persistent small-scale magnetic reconnection during a failed filament eruption—rests on interpreting EUV brightenings, bidirectional jets, and post-eruption loops as reconnection signatures, using independently published criteria (e.g., Antolin et al. 2021 for nanojets; standard mini-filament jet models). No equation is defined in terms of the claim, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The new term 'persistent magnetic cutting' is explicitly presented as an extension of tether-cutting, not as a derived result. Self-citations (Tan et al. 2022, 2023; Shen et al. 2024) provide context and prior observational interpretations but are not load-bearing in the sense of forcing the conclusion solely through the authors' own authority. The paper itself flags limitations: Appendix A states 'we focused on qualitative magnetic topology analysis rather than quantitative measurements' and concedes that the nearby 'open field' could be the bottom of large-scale loops; the Conclusions admit that 'quantitative analysis of this effect based solely on observations remains challenging.' These concessions weaken evidential strength, but under the stated analysis rules, insufficient quantitative verification of an inference is a correctness or evidence risk, not circularity. No circular step can be exhibited by quoting an equation or a construction that reduces the claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central interpretive claims rest on inferred reconnection signatures, not on a quantitative model; no free parameters are fitted to derive the concept, and no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • PHI/HRT to HRI map alignment offset = (+15'', -140'')
    Chosen by matching characteristic features between the two maps in Appendix A; affects which footpoints are identified but is not central to the reconnection inference.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Observed brightenings and bidirectional jets are signatures of magnetic reconnection.
    Throughout Sections 2.2 to 2.4, reconnection is inferred from morphological features rather than from direct magnetic topology measurements; this is the load-bearing interpretive step.
  • domain assumption The structure near the left footpoint of the filament can be treated as open field.
    Appendix A acknowledges it could be the bottom of large-scale coronal loops and is considered open only by relative size; the open-field reconnection interpretation depends on this.
  • domain assumption The eruption trajectory is assumed to be radial for the 11% projection correction.
    Section 2.3 uses this correction for the speeds; without it the absolute speeds change, but the relative comparison between upper and lower filaments remains robust.
  • ad hoc to paper The double-decker filament structure originates from flux rope splitting via reconnection.
    Proposed in Appendix A as the origin of the double-layer structure, with the statement that future work is needed; this interpretation is not independently established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solar Orbiter reveals persistent magnetic reconnection in medium-scale filament eruptions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R3YGGIOZ

@misc{pith2026250904771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solar Orbiter reveals persistent magnetic reconnection in medium-scale filament eruptions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R3YGGIOZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04771}
}
read the original abstract

Solar filament eruptions play a key role in driving space weather, yet their fine-scale evolution remains poorly understood due to observational limitations. Using unprecedented high-resolution observations from Solar Orbiter's Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (105 km/pixel) and Polarimetric and Helioseismic Imager, we reveal persistent magnetic reconnection events in a failed filament eruption. We identify magnetic reconnections between the filament and surrounding magnetic field structures, with both frequency and type far exceeding previous observations. These reconnections significantly affect the filament stability and eruption dynamics, leading to sequential coronal jets and failed eruptions. We propose a 'persistent magnetic cutting' concept, highlighting how persistent small-scale magnetic reconnections cumulatively affect filament stability during its evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04771 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a): A full-disk image of EUI in 174 Å (inverted greyscale) superposed with HRIEUV, with the relative positions of SolO. (b): Image of HRIEUV (rotated to facilitate the analysis), with the centrally positioned white box (also the FOV of panel (d) and its enlargement labelled with the target filament position). (c): Multiple jets throughout the filament eruption. (d1)-(d6): Filament evolution in HRIEUV images. Differ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a)-(d): The LF eruption process, with FOV marked in white dashed boxes in panel (f). (e): The small post-flare loop produced by the LF eruption, with the loop region represented by the red dashed box. (f): Large loop visible after the LF eruption, with the left footpoint region represented by blue dashed box. (g): Normalised lightcurves cor￾responding to the red and blue dashed boxes with the moments of the small a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a): The reconnection process between double-decker filament, nearby open field, and emerging flux loop at the bottom, with orange and green curves for UF and LF, blue curves for nearby open field, respectively. (b): The small post-flare loop formed by the filament lifting stretching the lower closed field and the large loop formed by the falling filament material, with the bottom space divided into three ranges to … view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Luciani, J

    Amari, T. & Luciani, J. F. 1999, ApJ, 515, L81

    1999

  2. [2]

    K., DeV ore, C

    Antiochos, S. K., DeV ore, C. R., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 510, 485

    1999

  3. [3]

    2021, Nature Astron- omy, 5, 54

    Antolin, P., Pagano, P., Testa, P., Petralia, A., & Reale, F. 2021, Nature Astron- omy, 5, 54

    2021

  4. [4]

    T., Isobe, H., et al

    Asai, A., Ishii, T. T., Isobe, H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, L18

    2012

  5. [5]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 78

    Chen, H., Duan, Y ., Yang, J., Yang, B., & Dai, J. 2018, ApJ, 869, 78

    2018

  6. [6]

    2016, ApJ, 818, L27

    Chen, H., Zhang, J., Li, L., & Ma, S. 2016, ApJ, 818, L27

    2016

  7. [7]

    2015, ApJ, 808, L24

    Chen, H., Zhang, J., Ma, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, L24

    2015

  8. [8]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 142

    Chen, J., Su, Y ., Liu, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 142

    2021

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

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

    2011

  2. [10]

    Chen, P. F. & Shibata, K. 2000, ApJ, 545, 524

    2000

  3. [11]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 20, 166

    Chen, P.-F., Xu, A.-A., & Ding, M.-D. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 20, 166

    2020

  4. [12]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 67

    Chen, Y ., Cheng, X., Chen, J., Dai, Y ., & Ding, M. 2023, ApJ, 959, 67

    2023

  5. [13]

    D., Zhang, J., et al

    Cheng, X., Ding, M. D., Zhang, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 93

    2014

  6. [14]

    P., Peter, H., Parenti, S., et al

    Chitta, L. P., Peter, H., Parenti, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A166

    2022

  7. [15]

    P., Zhukov, A

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

    2023

  8. [16]

    W., Golub, L., Winebarger, A

    Cirtain, J. W., Golub, L., Winebarger, A. R., et al. 2013, Nature, 493, 501

    2013

  9. [17]

    W., Schrijver, C

    Cliver, E. W., Schrijver, C. J., Shibata, K., & Usoskin, I. G. 2022, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 19, 2

    2022

  10. [18]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 85

    Dai, J., Li, Z., Wang, Y ., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 85

    2022

  11. [19]

    S., Démoulin, P., & Mandrini, C

    Dasso, S., Nakwacki, M. S., Démoulin, P., & Mandrini, C. H. 2007, Sol. Phys., 244, 115

    2007

  12. [20]

    2022, ApJ, 933, L38

    Ding, T., Zhang, J., & Hong, J. 2022, ApJ, 933, L38

    2022

  13. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 965, L18

    Farooki, H., Lee, J., Pecora, F., Wang, H., & Kim, H. 2024, ApJ, 965, L18

    2024

  14. [22]

    Gibson, S. E. 2018, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 15, 7

    2018

  15. [23]

    Gibson, S. E. & Fan, Y . 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A12103

    2006

  16. [24]

    R., Alexander, D., & Liu, R

    Gilbert, H. R., Alexander, D., & Liu, R. 2007, Sol. Phys., 245, 287

    2007

  17. [25]

    Gosling, J. T. & McComas, D. J. 1987, Geophys. Res. Lett., 14, 355

    1987

  18. [26]

    2016, in IAU

    Gronkiewicz, D., Mrozek, T., Kołoma´nski, S., & Chru ´sli´nska, M. 2016, in IAU

    2016

  19. [27]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 69

    Hou, Y ., Li, C., Li, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 69

    2023

  20. [28]

    W., Williams, D

    James, A. W., Williams, D. R., & O’Kane, J. 2022, A&A, 665, A37

    2022

  21. [29]

    J., Moon, Y

    Ji, H., Wang, H., Schmahl, E. J., Moon, Y . J., & Jiang, Y . 2003, ApJ, 595, L135

    2003

  22. [30]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5857

    Jiang, C., Duan, A., Zou, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5857

    2023

  23. [31]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1126

    Jiang, C., Feng, X., Liu, R., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1126

    2021

  24. [32]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 11

    Karna, N., Dhakal, S., Savcheva, A., Zhang, J., & Kliem, B. 2024, ApJ, 961, 11

    2024

  25. [33]

    & Török, T

    Kliem, B. & Török, T. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 255002

    2006

  26. [34]

    R., et al

    Kobayashi, K., Cirtain, J., Winebarger, A. R., et al. 2014, Sol. Phys., 289, 4393

    2014

  27. [35]

    2023, SolO/EUI Data Release 6.0 2023-01, https://doi.org/10.24414/z818-4163, published by Royal Observa- tory of Belgium (ROB)

    Kraaikamp, E., Gissot, S., Stegen, K., et al. 2023, SolO/EUI Data Release 6.0 2023-01, https://doi.org/10.24414/z818-4163, published by Royal Observa- tory of Belgium (ROB)

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Grimm, O., et al

    Krucker, S., Hurford, G. J., Grimm, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A15

    2020

  29. [37]

    R., Title, A

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

    2012

  30. [38]

    & Zhang, J

    Li, T. & Zhang, J. 2013, ApJ, 770, L25

    2013

  31. [39]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 59

    Liu, R., Kliem, B., Török, T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 59

    2012

  32. [40]

    P., Schmieder, B., et al

    Liu, Y ., Ruan, G. P., Schmieder, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A130

    2024

  33. [41]

    K., Joshi, B., Veronig, A

    Mitra, P. K., Joshi, B., Veronig, A. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 23

    2020

  34. [42]

    L., Sterling, A

    Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., & Falconer, D. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 11

    2015

  35. [43]

    L., Sterling, A

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

    2001

  36. [44]

    2024, Sol

    Mrozek, T., Li, Z., Karlický, M., et al. 2024, Sol. Phys., 299, 81 Müller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1

    2024

  37. [45]

    2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 1832

    Mumford, S., Freij, N., Christe, S., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 1832

    2020

  38. [46]

    2012, A&A, 548, A89

    Netzel, A., Mrozek, T., Kołoma´nski, S., & Gburek, S. 2012, A&A, 548, A89

    2012

  39. [47]

    2020, Geophys

    Pal, S., Dash, S., & Nandy, D. 2020, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e86372

    2020

  40. [48]

    Pal, S., Kilpua, E., Good, S., Pomoell, J., & Price, D. J. 2021, A&A, 650, A176

    2021

  41. [49]

    K., Sterling, A

    Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, L8

    2019

  42. [50]

    2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1

    Parenti, S. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1

    2014

  43. [51]

    D., Joshi, B., Sterling, A

    Patel, B. D., Joshi, B., Sterling, A. C., & Moore, R. L. 2024, ApJ, 969, 48

    2024

  44. [52]

    & Pant, V

    Patel, R. & Pant, V . 2022, ApJ, 938, 122

    2022

  45. [53]

    A., Winebarger, A

    Rachmeler, L. A., Winebarger, A. R., Savage, S. L., et al. 2019, Sol. Phys., 294, 174

    2019

  46. [54]

    E., Stenborg, G., Seaton, D

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

    2023

  47. [55]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8

    Rochus, P., Auchère, F., Berghmans, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8

    2020

  48. [56]

    J., et al

    Ruffenach, A., Lavraud, B., Farrugia, C. J., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 43 Article number, page 5 of 8 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa55300-25

    2015

  49. [57]

    F., Hayes, L

    Ryan, D. F., Hayes, L. A., Collier, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07472

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

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

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

    2021

  51. [59]

    2020, Chinese Science Bulletin, 65, 3909

    Shen, Y ., Li, B., Chen, P., Zhou, X., & Liu, Y . 2020, Chinese Science Bulletin, 65, 3909

    2020

  52. [60]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 125

    Shen, Y ., Liu, D., Yao, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 125

    2024

  53. [61]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 12

    Shen, Y ., Liu, Y ., & Su, J. 2012, ApJ, 750, 12

    2012

  54. [62]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 104

    Shen, Y ., Qu, Z., Yuan, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 104

    2019

  55. [63]

    2022, A&A, 665, A51

    Shen, Y ., Yao, S., Tang, Z., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A51

    2022

  56. [64]

    K., del Toro Iniesta, J

    Solanki, S. K., del Toro Iniesta, J. C., Woch, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A11

    2020

  57. [65]

    Sterling, A. C. & Moore, R. L. 2020, ApJ, 896, L18

    2020

  58. [66]

    C., Moore, R

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

    2015

  59. [67]

    C., Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., Panesar, N. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 187

    2020

  60. [68]

    C., Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., Panesar, N. K., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 49

    2023

  61. [69]

    C., Panesar, N

    Sterling, A. C., Panesar, N. K., & Moore, R. L. 2024, ApJ, 963, 4

    2024

  62. [70]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 148

    Sun, Z., Li, T., Tian, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 148

    2023

  63. [71]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, L12

    Tan, S., Shen, Y ., Zhou, X., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, L12

    2022

  64. [72]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 3080 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W

    Tan, S., Shen, Y ., Zhou, X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3080 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W. T., Bobra, M. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 890, 68

    2023

  65. [73]

    2018, New A, 65, 7 Török, T

    Tian, Z., Shen, Y ., & Liu, Y . 2018, New A, 65, 7 Török, T. & Kliem, B. 2005, ApJ, 630, L97 Török, T., Linton, M. G., Leake, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 149

    2018

  66. [74]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 126

    Wang, Y ., Ji, H., Warmuth, A., Li, Y ., & Cao, W. 2020, ApJ, 905, 126

    2020

  67. [75]

    2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 3

    Warmuth, A. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 3

    2015

  68. [76]

    Webb, D. F. & Howard, T. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 3

    2012

  69. [77]

    F., DeV ore, C

    Wyper, P. F., DeV ore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2018, ApJ, 852, 98

    2018

  70. [78]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 473

    Xu, Z., Yan, X., Yang, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 473

    2024

  71. [79]

    2024, Sol

    Xue, J.-c., Feng, L., Li, H., et al. 2024, Sol. Phys., 299, 89

    2024

  72. [80]

    2017, ApJ, 840, L23

    Xue, Z., Yan, X., Yang, L., Wang, J., & Zhao, L. 2017, ApJ, 840, L23

    2017

  73. [81]

    2014, ApJ, 784, L36

    Yang, S., Zhang, J., Liu, Z., & Xiang, Y . 2014, ApJ, 784, L36

    2014

  74. [82]

    M., Guo, J

    Zhang, X. M., Guo, J. H., Guo, Y ., Ding, M. D., & Keppens, R. 2024, ApJ, 961, 145

    2024

  75. [83]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 200

    Zhang, Y ., Yan, X., Wang, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 200

    2022

  76. [84]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 108

    Zheng, R., Chen, Y ., Huang, Z., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 108

    2018

  77. [85]

    2019, ApJ, 875, 71

    Zheng, R., Yang, S., Rao, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 71

    2019

  78. [86]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 160

    Zheng, R., Zhang, Q., Chen, Y ., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 160

    2017

  79. [87]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 45

    Zhou, C., Shen, Y ., Zhou, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 45

    2021

  80. [88]

    2019, ApJ, 877, L28

    Zhou, Z., Cheng, X., Zhang, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, L28

    2019

  81. [89]

    P., et al

    Zouganelis, I., De Groof, A., Walsh, A. P., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A3 Article number, page 6 of 8 Song Tan et al.: Solar Orbiter reveals persistent magnetic reconnection in medium-scale filament eruptions Appendix A: The magnetic configuration and filament double-layer structu...

    2020

Pith tools

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