arxiv: 2605.11391 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · physics.space-ph

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

An investigation of magnetic energy and helicity thresholds at the onset of solar eruptions based on numerical simulations

Xinkai Bian , Chaowei Jiang , Qingjun Liu , Yang Wang , Peng Zou , Xueshang Feng , Pingbing Zuo , Yi Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 01:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

keywords solar eruptionsmagnetic helicityMHD simulationseruptivity indicatorcurrent-carrying helicityrelative helicitymagnetic reconnectionsolar corona

0 comments

The pith

The ratio of current-carrying helicity to total relative helicity reaches a consistent threshold of 0.38 at the onset of solar eruptions across diverse magnetic configurations.

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

This paper examines the evolution of magnetic energy and helicity in twelve 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulations of solar eruptions triggered by magnetic reconnection. The simulations span bipolar and quadrupolar configurations, sheared arcades and flux ropes, and different photospheric driving motions. The authors find that the helicity ratio H_j/H_r consistently reaches 0.38 plus or minus 0.04 at eruption onset, with only about 10 percent variation. This ratio proves more reliable as an eruptivity indicator than other energy or helicity metrics. After onset the ratio's path diverges by topology because of tether-cutting reconnection in bipolar cases versus breakout reconnection in quadrupolar cases.

Core claim

In twelve high-fidelity 3D MHD simulations covering bipolar and quadrupolar configurations, sheared arcades and pre-existing flux ropes, and varied photospheric driving motions, the ratio of current-carrying helicity to total relative helicity (H_j/H_r) reaches a threshold of 0.38 ± 0.04 at eruption onset. This value shows a coefficient of variation of only about 10 percent across all cases and better marks the critical conditions at onset than other normalized helicity and energy metrics. The ratio does not necessarily peak at onset; afterward it continues to rise in bipolar setups due to tether-cutting reconnection but falls in quadrupolar setups due to breakout reconnection.

What carries the argument

The ratio of current-carrying helicity to total relative helicity (H_j/H_r), which quantifies the fraction of relative helicity tied to the current-carrying field component and functions as a threshold marker for the start of eruptions.

If this is right

Other normalized helicity and energy metrics display greater scatter at eruption onset than H_j/H_r.
The 0.38 threshold specifically identifies critical conditions at onset and stays largely independent of later evolution.
In bipolar configurations tether-cutting reconnection converts sheared arcade into current-carrying flux and drives the ratio upward after eruption.
In quadrupolar configurations breakout reconnection peels away erupting flux and drives the ratio downward after eruption.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the threshold appears in real solar observations it could supply a practical metric for forecasting eruptions.
The split in post-eruption behavior implies that eruption models must distinguish bipolar from quadrupolar topologies to track helicity correctly.
Further simulations with additional driving motions or more complex initial fields would test whether the threshold remains stable.

Load-bearing premise

That the twelve simulations cover enough variety in magnetic topologies, photospheric motions, and reconnection regimes to establish a universal threshold.

What would settle it

Direct measurements of solar events or new simulations showing H_j/H_r at eruption onset varying well beyond 0.38 ± 0.04 or depending strongly on uncovered topologies would disprove the claimed consistency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11391 by Chaowei Jiang, Peng Zou, Pingbing Zuo, Qingjun Liu, Xinkai Bian, Xueshang Feng, Yang Wang, Yi Wang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Magnetic flux distributions and photospheric driving flows for all twelve simulation cases. The background shows the vertical magnetic component Bz, and the vectors indicate the horizontal surface flows. Blue and red contours mark half of the maximum and minimum Bz values, respectively. Colors correspond to different simulation cases, magenta, red, orange, yellow, light green, green, cyan, light blue, blue… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Magnetic helicity calculation and verification of the magnetic field accuracy in simulation case B2. (A) Dependence of magnetic helicity on spatial resolution and computational domain in simulation case B2 at t = 122. Each dot represents a calculation performed at uniform grid resolution of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 arcsec. At the highest resolution of 0.5 arcsec, only the result within the central region of 4003 a… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Evolution of the magnetic topology in simulation case B2. Panels (A) and (B) show the squashing factor Q and the twist number Tw on the x = 0 slice, while (C) and (D) show the same quantities on the y = 0 slice. time. Owing to resolution degradation effect, the volume integrated helicity is systematically slightly larger than the value derived from the surface injection, but their changing rates are consis… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Temporal evolution of the normalized magnetic helicity and energies for simulation cases B2 and Q1. (A) shows the temporal evolution of magnetic helicity at a computational domain of 7003 arcsec3 . The solid line denotes the total magnetic helicity at a grid resolution of 2 arcsec, and the dashed line indicates the helicity flux injected through the bottom boundary at a grid resolution of 0.5 arcsec. The b… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Evolution of the magnetic topology in simulation case Q1. Panels (A) and (B) show the squashing factor Q and the magnetic twist number Tw on the x = 0 slice, while (C) and (D) show the same quantities on the y = 0 slice. of reconnection within the volume, and therefore the eruption does not change the Hr evolution. It also demonstrates that our simulations have very low numerical resistivity. Hr starts fro… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Temporal evolution of the normalized physical quantities for all twelve simulations. Panels (A)–(E) show the normalized magnetic helicity Hr/Φ 2 , normalized current-carrying helicity Hj/Φ 2 , helicity ratio Hj/Hr, normalized total magnetic energy Em/Eo, and normalized free energy Ef /Ep, respectively. The time axis is normalized by the eruption onset time of each simulation case, such that t = 1 correspon… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Identifying universal, topology-independent thresholds in the coronal magnetic fields at onset of solar eruptions is crucial for physics-based prediction of eruptions. To this end, we systematically analyze the evolution of magnetic energy and helicity in twelve high-fidelity 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulations where eruptions are triggered by magnetic reconnection. The simulations encompass a comprehensive parameter space, including bipolar and quadrupolar configurations, sheared arcades and pre-existing flux ropes, and various photospheric driving motions. We find that the ratio of current-carrying helicity to total relative helicity $(H_j/H_r)$ exhibits a remarkably consistent threshold of $0.38 \pm 0.04$ at eruption onset across all cases, with a coefficient of variation of only $\sim 10$\%. This threshold specifically characterizes the critical conditions at eruption onset and is largely independent of the subsequent temporal evolution, making it the most robust eruptivity indicator identified. In contrast, other normalized helicity and energy metrics show greater scatter. Crucially, we further find that $H_j/H_r$ does not necessarily achieve its peak at the eruption onset time and its post-eruption evolution diverges based on magnetic topology: it continues to increase in bipolar configurations due to tether-cutting reconnection, which transforms sheared arcade into the erupting current-carrying magnetic flux, but decreases in quadrupolar configurations as breakout reconnection peels off the erupting flux. These results highlight the helicity ratio as a promising and consistent eruptivity indicator and provide new insights into its dynamic evolution due to different reconnections.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper finds a 0.38 threshold in H_j/H_r at eruption onset across 12 simulations but the limited sample leaves the universality claim open to doubt.

read the letter

The main point is that in these twelve MHD runs the ratio of current-carrying helicity to total relative helicity sits near 0.38 when eruptions begin, with only about 10 percent scatter, and this holds across the bipolar and quadrupolar cases they tested. Other energy and helicity ratios they examined show more spread at the same moment. After onset the ratio continues to climb in the bipolar setups because tether-cutting reconnection adds more current-carrying flux, while it falls in the quadrupolar ones as breakout reconnection removes it. That post-eruption split is a clear addition to the story. The simulations cover sheared arcades and pre-existing flux ropes with varied photospheric driving, so the authors have made a systematic comparison inside their chosen framework. The low coefficient of variation for this particular ratio is the strongest quantitative result they present. The obvious limitation is the small number of runs. Twelve cases, even when they change topology and driving, do not automatically prove the threshold is independent of all solar magnetic configurations. Delta-spot or multi-null setups are not included, and without resolution or convergence tests it is hard to know whether the 0.38 value would stay fixed under different numerics or boundary conditions. The threshold is measured directly from the data rather than derived, which is fine but also means its robustness rests entirely on how representative the runs are. This work is aimed at solar physicists who track helicity as an eruption diagnostic and at space-weather modelers who need concrete numbers to test against observations. A reader who wants to see how one helicity ratio behaves across a modest range of reconnection-driven eruptions will get usable results. It deserves peer review because the measurements are specific enough that referees can ask for more runs or direct comparison with data. I would send it out, with the main question being whether the threshold survives a wider set of topologies.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the evolution of magnetic energy and helicity across twelve high-fidelity 3D MHD simulations of solar eruptions triggered by reconnection. The simulations include bipolar and quadrupolar topologies, sheared arcades and flux ropes, and varied photospheric driving. The central result is that the ratio of current-carrying helicity to total relative helicity (H_j/H_r) reaches a consistent threshold of 0.38 ± 0.04 at eruption onset, with a coefficient of variation of only ~10%, making it the most robust eruptivity indicator identified; other metrics show greater scatter. Post-onset evolution of the ratio differs by topology due to tether-cutting versus breakout reconnection.

Significance. If the reported threshold proves robust, it would constitute a valuable topology-independent diagnostic for the onset of solar eruptions, with direct relevance to physics-based space-weather prediction. The multi-configuration simulation suite provides a stronger basis than single-case studies, and the distinction between onset threshold and subsequent evolution offers mechanistic insight. However, the significance is limited by the absence of quantitative parameter-space coverage metrics and resolution/convergence details.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the claim of a 'remarkably consistent' threshold of 0.38 ± 0.04 (CV ~10%) across all twelve cases cannot be verified without either a table listing the individual H_j/H_r values at onset for each simulation or an explicit statement of how the mean and standard deviation were computed; this information is load-bearing for the universality assertion.
[Abstract] Abstract (and implied Methods): the statement that the twelve simulations 'encompass a comprehensive parameter space' including bipolar/quadrupolar, arcade/flux-rope, and varied driving cases is not supported by any quantitative measure of coverage (e.g., ranges of shear angles, flux ratios, or null-point configurations), leaving open the possibility that the observed clustering is an artifact of correlated setups rather than a fundamental property.
[Abstract] Abstract: the helicity ratio is stated to be 'largely independent of the subsequent temporal evolution,' yet the same paragraph reports that post-eruption evolution diverges systematically between bipolar (continues to increase) and quadrupolar (decreases) cases; this apparent tension requires explicit clarification of the precise meaning of 'independent' at the onset time.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: the symbols H_j and H_r are introduced without a brief parenthetical definition or reference to their standard definitions in the helicity literature, which would improve accessibility for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive review. The comments highlight areas where the abstract can be strengthened for clarity and verifiability. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested improvements in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of a 'remarkably consistent' threshold of 0.38 ± 0.04 (CV ~10%) across all twelve cases cannot be verified without either a table listing the individual H_j/H_r values at onset for each simulation or an explicit statement of how the mean and standard deviation were computed; this information is load-bearing for the universality assertion.

Authors: We agree that explicit verification of the reported statistics is essential. The mean and standard deviation were computed directly from the H_j/H_r values measured at the identified eruption onset time in each of the 12 simulations. In the revised manuscript we will add a table in the main text (or supplementary material) that lists the individual H_j/H_r onset values for every run, together with the resulting mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. This will allow readers to confirm the quoted threshold of 0.38 ± 0.04 and the ~10% CV. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and implied Methods): the statement that the twelve simulations 'encompass a comprehensive parameter space' including bipolar/quadrupolar, arcade/flux-rope, and varied driving cases is not supported by any quantitative measure of coverage (e.g., ranges of shear angles, flux ratios, or null-point configurations), leaving open the possibility that the observed clustering is an artifact of correlated setups rather than a fundamental property.

Authors: The twelve simulations were constructed to sample the principal topological classes (bipolar versus quadrupolar, sheared-arcade versus pre-existing flux-rope) and driving mechanisms described in the Methods section. We acknowledge that the abstract itself does not supply quantitative coverage metrics. In the revision we will insert a concise summary (new table or paragraph) that reports the ranges of key parameters—such as photospheric shear angles, flux ratios between polarities, and heights of coronal null points—across the simulation suite. This addition will substantiate the breadth of the explored parameter space while preserving the focus on the distinct topological categories. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the helicity ratio is stated to be 'largely independent of the subsequent temporal evolution,' yet the same paragraph reports that post-eruption evolution diverges systematically between bipolar (continues to increase) and quadrupolar (decreases) cases; this apparent tension requires explicit clarification of the precise meaning of 'independent' at the onset time.

Authors: The phrase 'largely independent of the subsequent temporal evolution' is intended to convey that the threshold value attained precisely at eruption onset remains consistent across all topologies, even though the ratio's later evolution differs. The post-onset divergence (increase in bipolar cases due to tether-cutting reconnection, decrease in quadrupolar cases due to breakout reconnection) is a separate dynamical feature discussed in the results. We will revise the abstract wording to state explicitly that the onset threshold itself is robust and independent of the subsequent evolution, thereby removing any ambiguity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: threshold is direct empirical measurement from independent simulations

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observed consistency in the helicity ratio H_j/H_r across twelve MHD simulations with varied topologies and driving. This value is obtained by direct computation and measurement in the simulation outputs at the identified eruption onset times, rather than by algebraic reduction, parameter fitting that forces the result, or self-referential definitions. No load-bearing step reduces to a prior self-citation or ansatz that would make the threshold tautological. The reported low coefficient of variation is a post-hoc statistical summary of the measured data points, not a constructed prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard MHD equations and the assumption that the chosen simulation suite is representative; no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The ideal or resistive MHD equations accurately capture the dynamics of the solar corona on the simulated scales.
Invoked implicitly by the use of 3D MHD simulations to model eruption onset.
ad hoc to paper The twelve simulations span the relevant range of bipolar/quadrupolar topologies, flux-rope vs. arcade configurations, and photospheric driving motions.
The universality claim depends on this coverage; it is stated in the abstract but not independently verified.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5605 in / 1445 out tokens · 47466 ms · 2026-05-13T01:40:05.349267+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the ratio of current-carrying helicity to total relative helicity (H_j/H_r) exhibits a remarkably consistent threshold of 0.38 ± 0.04 at eruption onset across all cases, with a coefficient of variation of only ∼10%.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

[1]

Aly, J. J. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 375, L61

work page 1991
[2]

J., Xu, Y ., & Jing, J

Aschwanden, M. J., Xu, Y ., & Jing, J. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 50

work page 2014
[3]

Aulanier, G., T¨or¨ok, T., D´emoulin, P., & DeLuca, E. E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 314

work page 2010
[4]

Berger, M. A. 1984, Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 30, 79 —. 1999, Geophysical Monograph Series, 111, 1 —. 2003, in Advances in Nonlinear Dynamos, ed. A. Ferriz-Mas & M. N´u˜nez, V ol. 20030424 (CRC Press), 345–374

work page 1984
[5]

A., & Prior, C

Berger, M. A., & Prior, C. 2006, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 39, 8321

work page 2006
[6]

2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 73

Bian, X., Jiang, C., Feng, X., Zuo, P., & Wang, Y . 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 73

work page 2023
[7]

2025, Solar Physics, 300, 143 D´emoulin, P., & Aulanier, G

Bian, X., Jiang, C., Wang, Y ., et al. 2025, Solar Physics, 300, 143 D´emoulin, P., & Aulanier, G. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 718, 1388

work page 2025
[8]

2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 102

Duan, A., Jiang, C., & Feng, X. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 102

work page 2023
[9]

2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 723, 300

Feng, X., Yang, L., Xiang, C., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 723, 300

work page 2010
[10]

M., & Antonsen, Jr., T

Finn, J. M., & Antonsen, Jr., T. M. 1985, Comments on Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 9, 111

work page 1985
[11]

1958, Journal of Nuclear Energy (1954), 7, 284

Grad, H., & Rubin, H. 1958, Journal of Nuclear Energy (1954), 7, 284

work page 1958
[12]

D., et al

Guo, Y ., Xu, Y ., Ding, M. D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 884, L1

work page 2019
[13]

K., & Veronig, A

Gupta, M., Thalmann, J. K., & Veronig, A. M. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 653, A69

work page 2021
[14]

2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 727, 101

Jiang, C., Feng, X., Fan, Y ., & Xiang, C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 727, 101

work page 2011
[15]

2010, Solar Physics, 267, 463

Jiang, C., Feng, X., Zhang, J., & Zhong, D. 2010, Solar Physics, 267, 463

work page 2010
[16]

T., Feng, X., & Hu, Q

Jiang, C., Wu, S. T., Feng, X., & Hu, Q. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 11522

work page 2016
[17]

2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 18

Jiang, C., Bian, X., Feng, X., et al. 2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 18

work page 2024
[18]

2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 713, 440

Jing, J., Tan, C., Yuan, Y ., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 713, 440

work page 2010
[19]

G., Priest, E

Kliem, B., Lin, J., Forbes, T. G., Priest, E. R., & T¨or¨ok, T. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 46

work page 2014
[20]

2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 255002

Kliem, B., & T¨or¨ok, T. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 255002

work page 2006
[21]

J., Georgoulis, M

LaBonte, B. J., Georgoulis, M. K., & Rust, D. M. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 955

work page 2007
[22]

E., Linton, M

Leake, J. E., Linton, M. G., & Antiochos, S. K. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 787, 46

work page 2014
[23]

E., Linton, M

Leake, J. E., Linton, M. G., & T¨or¨ok, T. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 99

work page 2013
[24]

D., & Barnes, G

Leka, K. D., & Barnes, G. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 656, 1173

work page 2007
[25]

2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 85

Li, L., Peter, H., Pradeep Chitta, L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 85

work page 2022
[26]

2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 917, L29

Li, T., Chen, A., Hou, Y ., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 917, L29

work page 2021
[27]

2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 276, 7

Li, X., Li, X., Zheng, Y ., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 276, 7

work page 2025
[28]

Liokati, E., Nindos, A., & Georgoulis, M. K. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 672, A38

work page 2023
[29]

T., Valori, G., et al

Liu, Y ., Welsch, B. T., Valori, G., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 27

work page 2023
[30]

2025, Advances in Space Research, S0273117725010397

Liu, Z., & Jiang, C. 2025, Advances in Space Research, S0273117725010397

work page 2025
[31]

L., Falconer, D

Moore, R. L., Falconer, D. A., & Sterling, A. C. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 24

work page 2012
[32]

2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, A50

Moraitis, K., Sun, X., Pariat, ´E., & Linan, L. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, A50

work page 2019
[33]

Nindos, A., & Andrews, M. D. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 616, L175

work page 2004
[34]

E., Valori, G., et al

Pariat, E., Leake, J. E., Valori, G., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 601, A125

work page 2017
[35]

2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 580, A128

Pariat, E., Valori, G., D´emoulin, P., & Dalmasse, K. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 580, A128

work page 2015
[36]

F., & Linan, L

Pariat, E., Wyper, P. F., & Linan, L. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A33

work page 2023
[37]

Rice, O. E. K., & Yeates, A. R. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 849135

work page 2022
[38]

Schuck, P. W. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 683, 1134

work page 2008
[39]

2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 521, A56

Smyrli, A., Zuccarello, F., Romano, P., et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 521, A56

work page 2010
[40]

Sturrock, P. A. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 380, 5

work page 1991
[41]

G., Hoeksema, J

Sun, X., Bobra, M. G., Hoeksema, J. T., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 804, L28

work page 2015
[42]

2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 990, 45

Sun, Z., Li, T., Bian, X., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 990, 45

work page 2025
[43]

2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A148

Sun, Z., Li, T., Wang, Q., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A148

work page 2024
[44]

K., Gupta, M., Veronig, A

Thalmann, J. K., Gupta, M., Veronig, A. M., & Liu, Y . 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 695, A66

work page 2025
[45]

S., Downs, C., Miki´c, Z., et al

Titov, V . S., Downs, C., Miki´c, Z., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 852, L21

work page 2018
[46]

K., & Raouafi, N.-E

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

work page 2012
[47]

2012, Solar Physics, 278, 347

Valori, G., D´emoulin, P., & Pariat, E. 2012, Solar Physics, 278, 347

work page 2012
[48]

2016, Space Science Reviews, 201, 147

Valori, G., Pariat, E., Anfinogentov, S., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 201, 147

work page 2016
[49]

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

work page 2023
[50]

2004, Solar Physics, 219, 87 —

Wiegelmann, T. 2004, Solar Physics, 219, 87 —. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

work page 2004
[51]

F., Antiochos, S

Wyper, P. F., Antiochos, S. K., & DeV ore, C. R. 2017, Nature, 544, 452

work page 2017
[52]

C., & Zhang, H

Yang, S., B¨uchner, J., Santos, J. C., & Zhang, H. 2013, Solar Physics, 283, 369

work page 2013
[53]

P., Aulanier, G., & Gilchrist, S

Zuccarello, F. P., Aulanier, G., & Gilchrist, S. A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 814, 126

work page 2015
[54]

P., Pariat, E., Valori, G., & Linan, L

Zuccarello, F. P., Pariat, E., Valori, G., & Linan, L. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 41

work page 2018