pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06786 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: no theorem link

A Major Geomagnetic Storm in 2024 October Linked to Sympathetic CME--Prominence Eruptions

Rui Wang , Huidong Hu , Xiaowei Zhao , Chong Chen , Suli Ma , Zhongwei Yang , Lei Lu , Li Feng
show 6 more authors
Wenshuai Cheng Chong Huang Quan Wang Xiaoshuai Zhu Bei Zhu Yiming Jiao
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords geomagnetic stormcoronal mass ejectionCME interactionsympathetic eruptionspace weatherin-situ magnetic fieldsolar filament
0
0 comments X

The pith

Enhanced southward magnetic fields from CME compression drove the major 2024 October geomagnetic storm.

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

The paper analyzes how a sympathetic solar eruption involving a quiescent filament and an active-region coronal mass ejection produced two distinct CMEs that interacted to cause a major geomagnetic storm with Dst around -333 nT on 2024 October 10-11. Multiviewpoint coronagraph data and in-situ measurements from Wind and STEREO-A show that compression during the CME interaction strengthened southward magnetic fields, which became the main driver of the storm. Kinematic analysis indicates the CMEs had finished their main acceleration before reaching the coronagraph field of view and continued decelerating slowly past 100 solar radii. The trailing CME kept flux-rope-like magnetic signatures consistent with its source region, while the leading CME appeared distorted with varying configurations at different spacecraft. This work connects solar source dynamics to near-Earth observations to support better space weather predictions.

Core claim

A sympathetic eruption produced two overlapping CMEs whose interaction compressed southward magnetic fields, making those enhanced fields the primary cause of the major geomagnetic storm rather than the original solar magnetic structures alone.

What carries the argument

Sympathetic eruption of a filament and active-region CME that created two distinct but interacting structures, with compression during their overlap enhancing the southward component of the magnetic field.

If this is right

  • The trailing CME retained flux-rope signatures that match the photospheric source region fields.
  • The leading CME showed distorted and inconsistent magnetic configurations between Wind and STEREO-A observations.
  • Both CMEs completed impulsive acceleration before the coronagraph field of view and decelerated slowly beyond 100 solar radii.
  • Direct mapping from solar magnetic configurations to in-situ measurements remains tentative and needs additional study.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Multipoint in-situ data may help separate compression effects from original solar structures in future events.
  • Space weather models could gain accuracy by explicitly including interaction-driven compression of the magnetic field.
  • Similar sympathetic eruptions may explain many other major storms when single-CME models fall short.

Load-bearing premise

The two CMEs originated from one connected sympathetic eruption event and their in-situ magnetic signatures can be traced back to the solar source regions without major mixing or evolution en route.

What would settle it

Detection of separate, unconnected source regions for the two CMEs or the absence of measurable compression-induced increase in southward field strength at Earth would undermine the claimed driver.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06786 by Bei Zhu, Chong Chen, Chong Huang, Huidong Hu, Lei Lu, Li Feng, Quan Wang, Rui Wang, Suli Ma, Wenshuai Cheng, Xiaoshuai Zhu, Xiaowei Zhao, Yiming Jiao, Zhongwei Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Multiwavelength solar observations of the sympathetic eruption on 2024 Oct-9. (a) Rising QF (green) at AIA 304 ˚A . Colored slits indicate positions used for time–distance analysis of the QF rising motion and flare ribbon expansions. (b) EUVI 195 ˚A image showing the region of filament formation (dashed quadrilateral in panel (a)). Footpoints of the two reconnected filament segments are marked by black and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Off-limb observations of the rising filament (prominence) by SolO. (a) Time–distance plots from the slits of Figures 1(a) and (b). GOES X-ray flux is overplotted. The blue dashed lines indicate the separation motions of flare ribbons. (b)-(e) Evolution of the filament (indicated by green arrows) by EUI/FSI 304 ˚A and 174 ˚A. The magenta arrows indicate the expansion of the overlying loop above the AR. The … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of two CMEs observed by coronagraphs on Oct-9. (a) and (b) Running-difference (RD) white-light images observed by ASO-S/SCIWL. Red and blue arrows indicate CME1 (QF-CME) and CME2 (AR-CME), respectively. (c) Composite RD images of SCIWL and LASCO/C2. Red and blue dotted lines outline the leading edges of two CMEs. (d) and (e) GCS wireframes overplotted on SCIWL and STEREO-A/COR1. Blue (red) wirefr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Kinematics of the Oct-9 CME. (a) Time-elongation map constructed from RD images of COR2, HI1, and HI2 from STEREO-A along the ecliptic plane. The red curves indicate the CME track. The green horizontal dashed line denotes the elongation angle of the Earth. The blue vertical line shows the arrival time of the CME shock at the Earth. (b) Radial distance and (c) speed profiles of the CME leading edge derived … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Solar wind plasma and magnetic field parameters detected at Wind (a) and STEREO-A (b) spacecraft. (a) From top to bottom, the panels show the proton density, bulk speed, proton temperature (the dotted curve denotes the expected proton temperature from the observed speed), magnetic field strength, proton β, magnetic field components, and Dst index. (b) Same as (a), but without the Dst index. The yellow and … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overview of solar eruptions in 2024 October. (a) GOES X-ray flux at 1–8 ˚A (Upper) and Dst index (lower). (b) Positions of the spacecraft in the ecliptic plane. impact Earth 11. The CME at 20:12 UT on Oct-7, oc￾curring near the western limb at (S16◦ , W85◦ ), was as￾sociated with AR13842. The ENLIL simulation results show that the Oct-7 CME propagated nearly westward, reducing the likelihood of interaction… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Improving predictions of the geomagnetic impact of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) requires understanding how solar source properties relate to in-situ measurements at Earth. However, major geomagnetic storms frequently arise from interacting CMEs, complicating the link back to their solar origins. We analyze a CME interaction event that caused a major geomagnetic storm in 2024 October 10-11 (D$_{st}$ $\sim$-333 nT). Multiviewpoint observations reveal that the storm was related to a sympathetic eruption involving a quiescent filament and an active-region CME. The coronagraph on board the Advanced Space-based Solar Observatory clearly shows that this sympathetic eruption resulted in two distinct CMEs. Due to the overlap of the CMEs in the coronagraph field of view (FOV), a spheroid shock model was used to fit the observed shock. Kinematic analysis indicates that the interacting CMEs had completed their impulsive acceleration phase before entering the coronagraph FOV, with a slow deceleration continuing beyond 100 R$_\odot$. In-situ measurements indicate that the enhanced southward magnetic fields, arising from compression during CME interactions, were the primary driver of the storm. Compared to photospheric fields, the in-situ magnetic fields suggest that the trailing CME maintained flux-rope-like signatures consistent with the source region. In contrast, the compressed leading CME displayed varying magnetic configurations between Wind and STEREO-A, featuring distorted flux-rope signatures and inconsistent inferred axis orientations. Our study bridges solar source dynamics to in-situ multipoint measurements, providing key insights for space weather prediction. Nevertheless, the direct linkage between source-region magnetic field configurations and these measurements remains tentative and requires further investigation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a 2024 October sympathetic eruption involving a quiescent filament and active-region CME that produced two distinct CMEs and drove a major geomagnetic storm (Dst ~ -333 nT). Multiviewpoint coronagraph data (including ASO-S) and a spheroid shock model are used to track the kinematics, showing that the CMEs had completed impulsive acceleration before the coronagraph FOV with continued slow deceleration beyond 100 R⊙. In-situ Wind and STEREO-A measurements are interpreted as showing that compression from the trailing CME enhanced southward Bz in the leading structure, making this the primary storm driver; the trailing CME retains flux-rope signatures consistent with the source while the leading one appears distorted with inconsistent axis orientations.

Significance. If the compression-driven Bz enhancement is confirmed, the study supplies a well-observed case linking solar sympathetic eruptions to multipoint in-situ signatures, with direct relevance to space-weather forecasting of interacting CMEs. The multiviewpoint coronagraph coverage and dual-spacecraft in-situ data constitute a clear observational strength that improves upon single-viewpoint studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; in-situ measurements section] Abstract and the in-situ measurements discussion: the central claim that 'enhanced southward magnetic fields, arising from compression during CME interactions, were the primary driver' is not supported by any explicit compression ratio derived from the spheroid shock model parameters or from the reported slow deceleration beyond 100 R⊙. No comparison of |B| or Bz in the leading structure against the trailing CME or against typical values for similar photospheric sources is provided, leaving the causal attribution interpretive rather than quantitative.
  2. [Kinematic analysis; source linkage discussion] Kinematic analysis and source-to-in-situ linkage paragraphs: the assumption that the two observed CMEs originated from a single sympathetic event and that their distinct in-situ magnetic signatures (flux-rope-like trailing vs. distorted leading) map directly back to the solar sources without significant evolution or mixing is load-bearing for the storm-driver interpretation, yet the overlapping coronagraph FOV and the spheroid shock fit do not include a test or bound on post-launch distortion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states Dst ~ -333 nT but does not specify the exact minimum value or the time of occurrence; this should be stated explicitly with reference to the OMNI or ground-based index used.
  2. [Kinematic analysis section] Notation for the spheroid shock model parameters is introduced without a dedicated table or equation list, making it difficult to assess which quantities are fitted versus assumed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments highlight areas where our claims can be made more quantitative and where limitations in the source-to-in-situ linkage should be discussed more explicitly. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested clarifications and comparisons in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract; in-situ measurements section] Abstract and the in-situ measurements discussion: the central claim that 'enhanced southward magnetic fields, arising from compression during CME interactions, were the primary driver' is not supported by any explicit compression ratio derived from the spheroid shock model parameters or from the reported slow deceleration beyond 100 R⊙. No comparison of |B| or Bz in the leading structure against the trailing CME or against typical values for similar photospheric sources is provided, leaving the causal attribution interpretive rather than quantitative.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from more explicit quantitative support for the compression interpretation. The spheroid shock model was applied to track the overall shock kinematics and propagation speed rather than to compute local compression ratios. The primary evidence for compression-enhanced Bz remains the in-situ observations at Wind and STEREO-A, where the leading structure exhibits |B| and |Bz| values higher than those typically reported for isolated CMEs from comparable photospheric sources, together with the observed slow deceleration beyond 100 R⊙ that is consistent with momentum exchange during interaction. We will add a direct comparison of the measured magnetic-field magnitudes against both the trailing CME and literature values for non-interacting events, and we will qualify the causal statement to reflect the interpretive nature of the attribution while retaining the observational basis. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Kinematic analysis; source linkage discussion] Kinematic analysis and source-to-in-situ linkage paragraphs: the assumption that the two observed CMEs originated from a single sympathetic event and that their distinct in-situ magnetic signatures (flux-rope-like trailing vs. distorted leading) map directly back to the solar sources without significant evolution or mixing is load-bearing for the storm-driver interpretation, yet the overlapping coronagraph FOV and the spheroid shock fit do not include a test or bound on post-launch distortion.

    Authors: The two-CME interpretation rests on the clear morphological separation visible in the ASO-S coronagraph data, the near-simultaneous timing of the filament and active-region eruptions, and the contrasting in-situ magnetic signatures (coherent flux-rope in the trailing structure versus distorted and orientation-inconsistent fields in the leading structure). While the overlapping fields of view limit direct tracking, the spheroid model was used precisely to separate the shock fronts. We acknowledge that no explicit quantitative bound on post-launch distortion or mixing was derived. In the revision we will expand the discussion of possible evolutionary effects, note the tentative character of the direct source-to-in-situ mapping (already stated in the abstract), and indicate that future MHD modeling would be required to place tighter constraints on distortion. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: analysis rests on direct multi-point observations and standard kinematic fitting

full rationale

The paper's central claims derive from multiviewpoint coronagraph imaging, in-situ Wind/STEREO-A magnetic field measurements, and application of an established spheroid shock model to fit observed fronts. Kinematic parameters (slow deceleration beyond 100 R⊙) and magnetic configuration comparisons are extracted directly from data rather than from any self-referential equation or fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citations, ansatzes smuggled via prior work, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to close the derivation; the linkage between sympathetic eruption, CME interaction, and enhanced Bz is presented as an interpretation of the observations themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard solar-physics assumptions about CME identification from coronagraph images and the interpretation of in-situ magnetic field rotations as flux-rope signatures; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • spheroid shock model parameters
    Fitted to reproduce the observed shock front where the two CMEs overlap in the coronagraph field of view.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The two CMEs are distinct structures originating from a sympathetic eruption of a quiescent filament and an active-region CME
    Invoked to interpret the multiviewpoint coronagraph observations as two separate but interacting ejections.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5650 in / 1309 out tokens · 78659 ms · 2026-05-10T18:30:05.496246+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, Space Science Reviews, 221, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w Alfv´ en, H

    Al-Haddad, N., & Lugaz, N. 2025, SSRv, 221, 12, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w 2025

  2. [2]

    A., & Field, G

    Berger, M. A., & Field, G. B. 1984, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 147, 133, doi: 10.1017/S0022112084002019

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112084002019 1984

  3. [3]

    G., Sun, X., Hoeksema, J

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0529-3 2014

  4. [4]

    \ Schwenn , R

    Bothmer, V., & Schwenn, R. 1998, Annales Geophysicae, 16, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x 1998

  5. [5]

    F., Behannon, K

    Burlaga, L. F., Behannon, K. W., & Klein, L. W. 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 5725, doi: 10.1029/JA092iA06p05725

    work page doi:10.1029/ja092ia06p05725 1987

  6. [6]

    F., Plunkett, S

    Burlaga, L. F., Plunkett, S. P., & St. Cyr, O. C. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1266, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000255

    work page doi:10.1029/2001ja000255 2002

  7. [7]

    K., McPherron, R

    Burton, R. K., McPherron, R. L., & Russell, C. T. 1975, J. Geophys. Res., 80, 4204, doi: 10.1029/JA080i031p04204

    work page doi:10.1029/ja080i031p04204 1975

  8. [8]

    D., Wang, R., et al

    Chen, C., Liu, Y. D., Wang, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3f36

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3f36 2019

  9. [9]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 975, L25

    Chi, Y., Shen, C., Zhang, Z., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 975, L25

    2024

  10. [10]

    2004, A&A, 422, 307, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035776

    Cremades, H., & Bothmer, V. 2004, A&A, 422, 307, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035776

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20035776 2004

  11. [11]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 162, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/162

    Feng, L., Li, H., Chen, B., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 162, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/162

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/162 2019

  12. [12]

    Q., Feng, L., & Su, Y

    Gan, W. Q., Feng, L., & Su, Y. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 165, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01593-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01593-9 2022

  13. [13]

    2009, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 114, A00A22, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013686

    Yashiro, S. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 114, A00A22, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013686

    work page doi:10.1029/2008ja013686 2009

  14. [14]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 548, L91

    Bougeret, J.-L. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 548, L91

    2001

  15. [15]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0516-8 2014

  16. [16]

    2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 255002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002

    Kliem, B., & T¨ or¨ ok, T. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 255002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.255002 2006

  17. [17]

    R., Title, A

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8 2012

  18. [18]

    2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 289602, doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1893-3

    Li, C., Fang, C., Li, Z., et al. 2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 289602, doi: 10.1007/s11433-022-1893-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-022-1893-3 2022

  19. [19]

    2012, Space Science Reviews, 171, 141

    Li, G., Moore, R., Mewaldt, R., Zhao, L., & Labrador, A. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 171, 141

    2012

  20. [20]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 158, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/158

    Li, H., Chen, B., Feng, L., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 158, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/158

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/11/158 2019

  21. [21]

    C., Hall, J

    Liewer, P. C., Hall, J. R., Howard, R. A., et al. 2011, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 73, 1173, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2010.09.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.09.004 2011

  22. [22]

    A., Torok, T., Downs, C., et al

    Linker, J. A., Torok, T., Downs, C., et al. 2024, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 2742, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012012, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2742/1/012012

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2742/1/012012 2024

  23. [23]

    A., Liu, Y

    Liu, Y. A., Liu, Y. D., Hu, H., Wang, R., & Zhao, X. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 126

    2018

  24. [24]

    D., Chen, C., & Zhao, X

    Liu, Y. D., Chen, C., & Zhao, X. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 897, L11

    2020

  25. [25]

    D., Hu, H., Wang, R., et al

    Liu, Y. D., Hu, H., Wang, R., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 809, L34

    2015

  26. [26]

    D., Hu, H., Zhao, X., Chen, C., & Wang, R

    Liu, Y. D., Hu, H., Zhao, X., Chen, C., & Wang, R. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 974, L8

    2024

  27. [27]

    D., Luhmann, J

    Liu, Y. D., Luhmann, J. G., Lugaz, N., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/45

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/45 2013

  28. [28]

    D., Yang, Z., Wang, R., et al

    Liu, Y. D., Yang, Z., Wang, R., et al. 2014a, ApJL, 793, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/2/L41

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/793/2/l41 2041

  29. [29]

    D., Zhao, X., Hu, H., Vourlidas, A., & Zhu, B

    Liu, Y. D., Zhao, X., Hu, H., Vourlidas, A., & Zhu, B. 2019, ApJS, 241, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0649

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab0649 2019

  30. [30]

    D., Zhao, X., & Zhu, B

    Liu, Y. D., Zhao, X., & Zhu, B. 2017, ApJ, 849, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9075

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9075 2017

  31. [31]

    D., Luhmann, J

    Liu, Y. D., Luhmann, J. G., Kajdiˇ c, P., et al. 2014b, Nature Communications, 5, 3481, doi: 10.1038/ncomms4481

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms4481

  32. [32]

    J., Davies, J

    Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., Davies, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/68

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/68 2012

  33. [33]

    Lugaz, N., Temmer, M., Wang, Y., & Farrugia, C. J. 2017, Solar Physics, 292, 64 13

    2017

  34. [34]

    Lugaz, N., Vourlidas, A., & Roussev, I. I. 2009, Annales Geophysicae, 27, 3479, doi: 10.5194/angeo-27-3479-2009

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-27-3479-2009 2009

  35. [35]

    Martin, S. F. 1998, SoPh, 182, 107, doi: 10.1023/A:1005026814076 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005026814076 1998

  36. [36]

    1998, Geophysical Research Letters, 25, 2959 O’Brien, T

    Mulligan, T., Russell, C., & Luhmann, J. 1998, Geophysical Research Letters, 25, 2959 O’Brien, T. P., & McPherron, R. L. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 7707, doi: 10.1029/1998JA000437

    work page doi:10.1029/1998ja000437 1998

  37. [37]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3 2012

  38. [38]

    2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663

    Rochus, P., Auch` ere, F., Berghmans, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936663

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936663 2020

  39. [39]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 158

    Sachdeva, N., Subramanian, P., Colaninno, R., & Vourlidas, A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 158

    2015

  40. [40]

    2017, Solar Physics, 292, 118

    Sachdeva, N., Subramanian, P., Vourlidas, A., & Bothmer, V. 2017, Solar Physics, 292, 118

    2017

  41. [41]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2 2012

  42. [42]

    H., Bush, R

    Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 229, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9842-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9842-2 2012

  43. [43]

    2017, Solar Physics, 292, 104

    Shen, F., Wang, Y., Shen, C., & Feng, X. 2017, Solar Physics, 292, 104

    2017

  44. [44]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 68

    Song, H., Li, L., & Chen, Y. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 68

    2022

  45. [45]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A16

    Syntelis, P., Gontikakis, C., Patsourakos, S., & Tsinganos, K. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A16

    2016

  46. [46]

    Thernisien, A. F. R., Howard, R. A., & Vourlidas, A. 2006, ApJ, 652, 763, doi: 10.1086/508254 T¨ or¨ ok, T., Panasenco, O., Titov, V., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 739, L63 T¨ or¨ ok, T., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 75

    work page doi:10.1086/508254 2006

  47. [47]

    2004, A&A, 422, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035815

    Tripathi, D., Bothmer, V., & Cremades, H. 2004, A&A, 422, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035815

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20035815 2004

  48. [48]

    K., & Raouafi, N.-E

    Tziotziou, K., Georgoulis, M. K., & Raouafi, N.-E. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 759, L4

    2012

  49. [49]

    Vandas, M., Fischer, S., Dryer, M., et al. 1997, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 22295, doi: 10.1029/97JA01675

    work page doi:10.1029/97ja01675 1997

  50. [50]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 095025

    Wang, Q., Zhang, M., Yang, S., Yang, X., & Zhu, X. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 095025

    2023

  51. [51]

    D., Yang, S., & Hu, H

    Wang, R., Liu, Y. D., Yang, S., & Hu, H. 2022, ApJ, 925, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3f35

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3f35 2022

  52. [52]

    D., Zimovets, I., et al

    Wang, R., Liu, Y. D., Zimovets, I., et al. 2016, ApJL, 827, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L12

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/l12 2016

  53. [53]

    2004, title Optimization code with weighting function for the reconstruction of coronal magnetic fields , , 219, 87, 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000021799.39465.36

    Wiegelmann, T. 2004, SoPh, 219, 87, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000021799.39465.36

    work page doi:10.1023/b:sola.0000021799.39465.36 2004

  54. [54]

    E., Martres, M

    Woodgate, B. E., Martres, M. J., Smith, J. B., J., et al. 1984, Advances in Space Research, 4, 11, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(84)90151-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0273-1177(84)90151-0 1984

  55. [55]

    C., & Zhang, H

    Yang, S., B¨ uchner, J., Santos, J. C., & Zhang, H. 2013, SoPh, 283, 369, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0236-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0236-5 2013

  56. [56]

    2018, A&A, 613, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628108

    Yang, S., B¨ uchner, J., Sk´ ala, J., & Zhang, H. 2018, A&A, 613, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628108

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628108 2018

  57. [57]

    2002, ApJL, 566, L117, doi: 10.1086/339660

    Zhang, J., & Wang, J. 2002, ApJL, 566, L117, doi: 10.1086/339660

    work page doi:10.1086/339660 2002

  58. [58]

    D., Hu, H., & Wang, R

    Zhao, X., Liu, Y. D., Hu, H., & Wang, R. 2019, ApJ, 882, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab379b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab379b 2019