pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25382 · v1 · pith:R4LQYO2Tnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Data-inspired simulation of AR 11158

Matthias Rempel , Georgios Chintzoglou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 20:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords active region simulationmagnetic flux ropetorus instabilitysolar flarecoronal mass ejectiondecay indexdata-driven modelingAR 11158
0
0 comments X

The pith

A data-driven simulation of AR 11158 forms a magnetic flux rope that erupts in an X-flare once parts of it reach decay index values above 1.5.

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

The paper drives a magnetohydrodynamic simulation of active region AR 11158 by displacing sunspots according to their observed centroid tracks in a quadrupolar setup. This motion creates a collisional polarity inversion line and stores more than 4 times 10 to the 32 erg of free magnetic energy in the corona. Roughly half that energy is released through an X-class flare plus a series of smaller events, four of which launch coronal mass ejections. A flux rope assembles above the inversion line one to two hours before the main flare; an upflow five minutes prior signals its ascent. The eruption begins precisely when segments of the rope cross into volumes where the overlying field decay index exceeds 1.5, matching the torus instability criterion.

Core claim

The simulation reproduces the observed timing and location of the X-flare by moving sunspots along measured paths, thereby forming a magnetic flux rope above the resulting collisional polarity inversion line. The rope rises and the flare initiates when portions of the rope enter regions with a decay index larger than 1.5. This sequence is presented as direct evidence that the torus instability governs the onset of the eruption in this active region.

What carries the argument

Data-inspired driving of sunspot motions along observed centroid positions within a quadrupolar magnetic configuration, which builds the collisional polarity inversion line and the overlying magnetic flux rope.

If this is right

  • Free energy in the corona exceeds 4 times 10 to the 32 erg, of which about 2 times 10 to the 32 erg is released during the X-flare and following smaller flares.
  • The four strongest flares launch coronal mass ejections.
  • Flare energies follow a trend with GOES X-ray flux similar to real events, but simulated durations lie at the short end of observed distributions.
  • Peak energy fluxes into the flare ribbons reach 10 to the 13 erg per square centimeter per second for the X-flare.
  • The X-flare produces abrupt step-like increases in the horizontal photospheric field, launches a momentum pulse into the convection zone, and excites quasi-periodic pulsations throughout the coronal volume with periods ranging from sub-seconds to tens of seconds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the decay-index threshold reliably marks eruption onset in this setup, the same driving method could be applied to other active regions to test whether the torus instability criterion holds across multiple events.
  • The short simulated flare durations imply that adding more realistic chromospheric radiation or resistivity might be needed to lengthen energy-release timescales toward observed values.
  • The momentum pulse into the convection zone raises the possibility that the modeled eruption could produce detectable helioseismic signatures in the deeper solar interior.

Load-bearing premise

That displacing sunspots solely along the observed centroid tracks in a quadrupolar layout is sufficient to reproduce the real magnetic evolution, polarity inversion line formation, and coronal energy storage without extra unobserved flows or flux emergence.

What would settle it

High-cadence vector magnetograms of AR 11158 that show the actual photospheric field evolution or the timing of the collisional polarity inversion line diverging from the simulated sequence would falsify the claim that the chosen driving alone captures the essential buildup to eruption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25382 by Georgios Chintzoglou, Matthias Rempel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spot tracks used in the data-inspired simulation. Top panels show magnetograms with overlaid spot tracks for a) the initial state, b) during the time collisional shearing produces an X-flare and c) the end of the simulation run. Bottom panels show the corresponding velocities in the horizontal x-direction (d) and y-direction (e). Note that the simulation was sped up by a factor of 2 as described in the tex… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top row: Photospheric (τ = 0.1) magnetic field: Bz, Bx, By. Second row: Synthetic AIA emission in the 304, 171, and 94 passbands for a top view. Third and fourth rows: AIA emission for view along y-axis and x-axis, respectively. We show a snapshot at t = 14.269 hours, which shows the ejection of a CME following an X-flare. See the animation for the full time evolution of the simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Temporal evolution of free magnetic energy in the simulations. a) Evolution of the free energy. b) Evolution of free energy relative to the total magnetic energy. c) Evolution of free energy as function of height and time. Note that most of the free energy, in particular the free energy leading to the X-flare is stored below a height of 5-10 Mm. that only depends on the photospheric magnetic field (compute… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy released and relation to GOES flux. Panel a): Sum of Lorentz force work and resistive heating, the orange line indicates a background we subtracted for determining the flare energy. Vertical red lines indicate flares studied further. Panel b): Total cumulative energy released in flares. Panel c): Synthetic GOES 18 X-ray flux. With dotted vertical lines we indicate times during which the top boundary… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Duration of the flares based on the volume integrated coronal energy release (sum of Lorentz force work and resistive heating). Panel a) All flares are stacked together based on the energy release peak as zero point in the time axis. Panel b) normalized integrated energy release rates. Panel c) Flare duration based on 12%/88% thresholds in panel b). does have a larger prominence. In Figure 5a) we show the … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magnetic evolution of photospheric magnetic flux. Panel a) shows the unsigned flux in the outer polarities (P1+N2) in blue and the inner colliding polarities (P2+N1) in orange. The steady decline of the flux in the outer polarities indicates the level of sunspot decay in the simulation in the absence of close interaction. The evolution of the inner polarities in non-monotonic: after an initial decline duri… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a) Time evolution of magnetic flux contained in the footpoints of field lines with twist numbers larger than 1 (blue) and 1.25 (orange). The shaded area around each line indicates the range of uncertainty estimated based on values computed from the positive and negative footpoint, respectively. The vertical dotted (dashed) line indicates the time for which we show magnetograms in panels b) and c), respecti… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: a) Reconnection rate derived from progression of flare ribbons in the central region. Blue/orange lines indicate the reconnection rate derived from the positive/negative polarity flare ribbon. b) Time evolution of reconnected flux based on positive/negative polarity. c) Total area swiped by flare ribbons. a drop of the unsigned P2+N1 flux by about 5 · 1020 Mx. Note that this is the drop in the net flux, af… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Conditions during the onset of the X-flare. The left panels show synthetic AIA 193˚A emission, the middle panels the field line squashing factor and the right panels the twist number. Top to bottom we show the view along the vertical, horizontal y and horizontal x directions (for AIA) and cuts for Q and Tw along the positions indicated by red lines. Contours in panel a) correspond to the field strengths of… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time evolution of MFR in terms of twist number (a-d) and squashing factor number (e-h) for the cross section along the y-axis in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the flux rope during the onset of the eruption. Field lines were seeded based on high values of the twist number in the lowermost 6 Mm above the photosphere. Panels a) - d) show field lines color coded by the value of the decay index, panels e) - h) by the value of the twist number. Panels a) and e) show the pre-eruption MFR with twist numbers Tw around 2 in a stable configuration. Panels b) … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Time evolution of the vertical velocity at optical depth of 10−4 . We can see an accelerating rise of the pre-flare MFR. First indications of the lifting MFR are visible more than 1000 seconds before the flare peak (panel a) and a clearly discernible upflow is present starting from 400 seconds before flare peak (panel b). At the time when the first brightening is visible in synthetic AIA emission (panel c… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Time evolution of GOES 1 − 8˚A emission and electron energy flux (free streaming limited Spitzer conduction) into the flare ribbons. Most of the energy is released over a time span of about 1.5 minutes, the electron energy flux reaches values of 1013 erg cm−2 s −1 . does reach values of up to 1013 erg cm−2 s −1 , which is a consequence of the relatively short duration of the flare as discussed in section … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Time evolution of the horizontal magnetic field strength at optical depth τ500 = 0.1. Panels a) - c) show the pre-flare values, panels d) -f) post flare values. There is step-function-like change of field strength in the region above the polarity inversion line, where the post-flare arcade is forming. The green ’+’ symbol indicated a location for with we show the time evolution of field strength in [PITH… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Time evolution of the vertical velocity at optical depth τ500 = 0.1. Panels a) - c) show the pre-flare values, panels d) -f) post flare values. During the flare we find strong downflows above the polarity inversion line. cool plasma. Panels d) to f) show the second time derivatives of these quantities. In order to show a wider dynamical range we display a non-linear scaling using the function: fs(x) = arc… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Time evolution of horizontal field strength and vertical velocity for the position marked by a green ’+’ in Figures 13 and 14. in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Quasi periodic pulsations during the 100 seconds past the GOES peak: a) GOES X-ray flux, b) |Bh| and c) vz. The latter two correspond to the photospheric quantities shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Time-height slice of quasi periodic pulsations. Panels a) to c) show unfiltered quantities: a) Vertical velocity scaled by (ϱ/ϱPhot) 1/3 , b) |Bh| and c) temperature. Panels d) to f) show the second time derivative of these quantities using a non-linear scaling as described in the text to highlight the oscillatory component of the signal. While the quasi periodic pulsations are present in the entire flari… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Normalized profiles of flare ribbon derived reconnection rate (blue) and the total coronal energy release during the flare (sum of resistive heating and Lorentz force work) (orange). We indicated by dotted black lines times at which features in both quantities coincide. The solid blue line shows the reconnection rate smoothed with a Gaussian of 2 seconds FWHM, the faint blue line is the unfiltered reconne… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a data-inspired simulation of NOAA active region AR 11158. We simulate the formation of a collisional polarity inversion line (cPIL) by moving sunspots in a quadrupolar configuration along the centroid positions extracted from AR 11158. This process builds up free energy in the corona exceeding $4\cdot 10^{32}$ erg, out of which about $2\cdot 10^{32}$ erg are released in a X-flare followed by a series of smaller flares in the B to M range. The 4 strongest flares are associated with coronal mass ejections. About 1-2 hours prior to the X-flare a magnetic flux rope (MFR) is forming above the cPIL. About 5 minutes before the flare an upflow at chromospheric heights indicates a rise of the MFR. The eruption starts when parts of the MFR enter regions with a decay index larger than 1.5, indicating that the flare initiation is consistent with the torus instability. Comparing the series of flares in this simulation to properties of observed flares, we find a comparable trend between flare energy and GOES X-ray flux, but flare duration falls into the short end of the observed solar distribution. As a consequence, energy fluxes into the flare ribbons can be substantial, reaching $10^{13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for the simulated X-flare. The X-flare causes step-function like changes of the horizontal magnetic field in the photosphere, a propagation of a momentum pulse into the convection zone and quasi-periodic pulsations in the volume of the corona with periods from sub-seconds to multiple 10 seconds.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a data-inspired MHD simulation of AR 11158 in which sunspots in a quadrupolar configuration are displaced along observed centroid tracks to form a collisional polarity inversion line. This builds coronal free energy exceeding 4×10^32 erg, of which ~2×10^32 erg is released in an X-flare plus smaller B/M flares, four of which are associated with CMEs. A magnetic flux rope forms above the cPIL 1–2 h before the X-flare; an upflow appears ~5 min prior, and the eruption begins when portions of the MFR reach regions with external-field decay index n > 1.5, taken as evidence for the torus instability. Additional reported outcomes include step-like photospheric horizontal-field changes, a momentum pulse into the convection zone, and quasi-periodic pulsations with periods from sub-seconds to tens of seconds. Flare energy versus GOES flux follows an observed trend, though durations are at the short end of the distribution.

Significance. If the kinematic driving reproduces the essential magnetic evolution, the work supplies a concrete, observationally anchored example of free-energy storage and torus-instability onset, together with quantitative predictions for ribbon energy fluxes (up to 10^13 erg cm^{-2} s^{-1}) and coronal QPPs that are directly testable against multi-instrument data for AR 11158.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and driving-method description: the torus-instability conclusion (MFR reaching n > 1.5 at the observed flare time) is load-bearing, yet the simulation is driven exclusively by centroid displacements; no quantitative comparison of the simulated vector field or Poynting-flux time series against the full HMI vector-magnetogram sequence is reported, leaving the timing of the n > 1.5 crossing sensitive to any unobserved shear or emergence not captured by centroids.
  2. [Abstract / Results] Energy-buildup and release statements: the reported free-energy values (>4×10^32 erg stored, ~2×10^32 erg released) and the 1–2 h MFR-formation window lack accompanying convergence tests, resolution studies, or sensitivity runs with respect to the centroid-driving prescription, which directly affects the central claim that the simulated sequence matches the observed flare energetics.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that flare duration falls at the short end of the observed distribution but does not quantify how this affects the derived ribbon energy-flux values or their comparison to observations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments. We plan to make revisions to address the concerns raised regarding the driving method and the robustness of the energy calculations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and driving-method description: the torus-instability conclusion (MFR reaching n > 1.5 at the observed flare time) is load-bearing, yet the simulation is driven exclusively by centroid displacements; no quantitative comparison of the simulated vector field or Poynting-flux time series against the full HMI vector-magnetogram sequence is reported, leaving the timing of the n > 1.5 crossing sensitive to any unobserved shear or emergence not captured by centroids.

    Authors: We acknowledge that our simulation is data-inspired and driven by sunspot centroid displacements extracted from observations, without performing a quantitative comparison to the full time series of HMI vector magnetograms. This approach captures the large-scale displacement but may miss additional contributions from shear flows or flux emergence not reflected in centroid motion. The timing of the n > 1.5 region being reached by the MFR is a direct outcome of the driving and aligns with the observed X-flare time. We will revise the abstract and add a discussion in the methods section to emphasize the limitations of the driving prescription and the potential sensitivity to unobserved magnetic evolution. No full vector comparison is feasible within the current framework without additional modeling techniques. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract / Results] Energy-buildup and release statements: the reported free-energy values (>4×10^32 erg stored, ~2×10^32 erg released) and the 1–2 h MFR-formation window lack accompanying convergence tests, resolution studies, or sensitivity runs with respect to the centroid-driving prescription, which directly affects the central claim that the simulated sequence matches the observed flare energetics.

    Authors: The reported free-energy storage and release, as well as the MFR formation window, are specific to the simulation parameters and driving used. We did not conduct explicit convergence tests, resolution studies, or sensitivity runs in the submitted manuscript, primarily due to the significant computational resources required for such MHD simulations. We will include additional text in the results section describing the numerical setup and resolution, and note that the energy values should be interpreted in the context of this specific model. We agree that sensitivity to the driving prescription is important and will discuss this as a caveat. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in data-driven simulation of AR 11158

full rationale

The paper performs a forward MHD simulation in which sunspot positions are prescribed directly from observed centroid tracks in a quadrupolar setup. Free-energy accumulation, MFR formation above the cPIL, the timing of its rise, and the moment when the external-field decay index exceeds 1.5 are all emergent outputs of the time-dependent evolution rather than quantities fitted or defined to match the target flare. The torus-instability threshold is an externally standard diagnostic applied to the simulated field; no self-citation, ansatz, or uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the result. The chain therefore remains independent of its inputs and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; the ledger is therefore limited to the most obvious domain assumptions stated or implied by the simulation description.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard ideal or resistive MHD equations govern the evolution of the solar corona and photosphere in the simulation.
    The work is described as an MHD simulation driven by observed positions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5832 in / 1321 out tokens · 27238 ms · 2026-06-25T20:34:13.294580+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

59 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02706-4

    Ashfield, W., Polito, V., L¨ orinˇ c´ ık, J., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02706-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02706-4 2026

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  3. [3]

    Aulanier, G., T¨ or¨ ok, T., D´ emoulin, P., & DeLuca, E. E. 2010, ApJ, 708, 314, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/314

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/314 2010

  4. [4]

    D., Schumer, E

    Barnes, G., Leka, K. D., Schumer, E. A., & Della-Rose, D. J. 2007, Space Weather, 5, S09002, doi: 10.1029/2007SW000317

    work page doi:10.1029/2007sw000317 2007

  5. [5]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae47db

    Chen, F. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae47db

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae47db 2026

  6. [6]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f95 24Rempel et al

    Chen, F., Rempel, M., & Fan, Y. 2022, ApJ, 937, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f95 24Rempel et al

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f95 2022

  7. [7]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf3e4

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf3e4 2023

  8. [8]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef30

    Kazachenko, M. 2019, ApJ, 871, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef30

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaef30 2019

  9. [9]

    P., Del Zanna, G., Young, P

    Dere, K. P., Del Zanna, G., Young, P. R., & Landi, E. 2023, ApJS, 268, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acec79

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acec79 2023

  10. [10]

    C., Lindsey, C., & Braun, D

    Donea, A. C., Lindsey, C., & Braun, D. 1999, Romanian Astronomical Journal, 9, 71

    1999

  11. [11]

    D., Afanasyev, A

    Fan, Y., Kazachenko, M. D., Afanasyev, A. N., & Fisher, G. H. 2024, ApJ, 975, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f53

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f53 2024

  12. [12]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/79

    Fang, F., & Fan, Y. 2015, ApJ, 806, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/79

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/79 2015

  13. [13]

    1992, PhyS, 46, 202, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/46/3/002

    Feldman, U. 1992, PhyS, 46, 202, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/46/3/002

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/46/3/002 1992

  14. [14]

    Solar Physics , keywords =

    Fisher, G. H., Bercik, D. J., Welsch, B. T., & Hudson, H. S. 2012, SoPh, 277, 59, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9907-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9907-2 2012

  15. [15]

    T., Moon, Y

    Gallagher, P. T., Moon, Y. J., & Wang, H. 2002, SoPh, 209, 171, doi: 10.1023/A:1020950221179

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1020950221179 2002

  16. [16]

    K., & Rust, D

    Georgoulis, M. K., & Rust, D. M. 2007, ApJL, 661, L109, doi: 10.1086/518718

    work page doi:10.1086/518718 2007

  17. [17]

    2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 062104, doi: 10.1063/1.3420208

    Huang, Y.-M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 062104, doi: 10.1063/1.3420208

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3420208 2010

  18. [18]

    Hudson, H. S. 2000, ApJL, 531, L75, doi: 10.1086/312516

    work page doi:10.1086/312516 2000

  19. [19]

    Irwin, A. W. 2012,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1211.002 http://ascl.net/1211.002

    2012

  20. [20]

    2022, Nature Reviews Physics, 4, 263, doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00419-x

    Ji, H., Daughton, W., Jara-Almonte, J., et al. 2022, Nature Reviews Physics, 4, 263, doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00419-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00419-x 2022

  21. [21]

    D., Hood, A

    Johnston, C. D., Hood, A. W., De Moortel, I., Pagano, P., & Howson, T. A. 2021, A&A, 654, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140987

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140987 2021

  22. [22]

    D., Lynch, B

    Kazachenko, M. D., Lynch, B. J., Welsch, B. T., & Sun, X. 2017, ApJ, 845, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7ed6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7ed6 2017

  23. [23]

    S., Polito, V., Xu, Y., & Allred, J

    Kerr, G. S., Polito, V., Xu, Y., & Allred, J. C. 2024, ApJ, 970, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad47e1 2024

  24. [24]

    2016, ApJ, 816, 88, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/88

    Kleint, L., Heinzel, P., Judge, P., & Krucker, S. 2016, ApJ, 816, 88, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/88

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/816/2/88 2016

  25. [25]

    G., Priest, E

    Kliem, B., Lin, J., Forbes, T. G., Priest, E. R., & T¨ or¨ ok, T. 2014, ApJ, 789, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/1/46 2014

  26. [26]

    2006, PhRvL, 96, 255002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.255002 2006

  27. [27]

    Kosovichev, A. G. 2006, SoPh, 238, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0190-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0190-6 2006

  28. [28]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/12

    Carlsson, M. 2017, ApJ, 836, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/12

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/12 2017

  29. [29]

    F., Hawley, S

    Kowalski, A. F., Hawley, S. L., Carlsson, M., et al. 2015, SoPh, 290, 3487, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0708-x K¨ unzel, H. 1960, Astronomische Nachrichten, 285, 271, doi: 10.1002/asna.19592850516

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-015-0708-x 2015

  30. [30]

    Kuridze, D., Mathioudakis, M., Sim˜ oes, P. J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/2/125 2015

  31. [31]

    2019, Atmosphere, 10, 488, doi: 10.3390/atmos10090488

    Li, S., Jaroszynski, S., Pearse, S., Orf, L., & Clyne, J. 2019, Atmosphere, 10, 488, doi: 10.3390/atmos10090488

    work page doi:10.3390/atmos10090488 2019

  32. [32]

    G., Dahlburg, R

    Linton, M. G., Dahlburg, R. B., Fisher, G. H., & Longcope, D. W. 1998, ApJ, 507, 404, doi: 10.1086/306299

    work page doi:10.1086/306299 1998

  33. [33]

    G., Fisher, G

    Linton, M. G., Fisher, G. H., Dahlburg, R. B., & Fan, Y. 1999, ApJ, 522, 1190, doi: 10.1086/307678

    work page doi:10.1086/307678 1999

  34. [34]

    Sterling, A. C. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 270, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4d11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4d11 2026

  35. [35]

    Neupert, W. M. 1968, ApJL, 153, L59, doi: 10.1086/180220

    work page doi:10.1086/180220 1968

  36. [36]

    2023,, 3.8.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7779648

    Pearse, S., Li, S., Clyne, J., et al. 2023,, 3.8.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7779648

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7779648 2023

  37. [37]

    Uitenbroek, H., & Scherrer, P. H. 2025, ApJS, 278, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adcf9f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adcf9f 2025

  38. [38]

    Petrie, G. J. D., & Sudol, J. J. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1218, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1218

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/2/1218 2010

  39. [39]

    W., & Knizhnik, K

    Reep, J. W., & Knizhnik, K. J. 2019, ApJ, 874, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ae7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ae7 2019

  40. [40]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/62

    Rempel, M. 2012, ApJ, 750, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/62

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/62 2012

  41. [41]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/132

    Rempel, M. 2014, ApJ, 789, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/132

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/132 2014

  42. [42]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/125

    Rempel, M. 2015, ApJ, 814, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/125 2015

  43. [43]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/10

    Rempel, M. 2017, ApJ, 834, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/10

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/10 2017

  44. [44]

    Rempel, M., Chintzoglou, G., Cheung, M. C. M., Fan, Y., & Kleint, L. 2023, ApJ, 955, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced4d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aced4d 2023

  45. [45]

    Schrijver, C. J. 2007, ApJL, 655, L117, doi: 10.1086/511857

    work page doi:10.1086/511857 2007

  46. [46]

    J., & Harvey, J

    Sudol, J. J., & Harvey, J. W. 2005, ApJ, 635, 647, doi: 10.1086/497361

    work page doi:10.1086/497361 2005

  47. [47]

    Takasao, S., Fan, Y., Cheung, M. C. M., & Shibata, K. 2015, ApJ, 813, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/112

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/2/112 2015

  48. [48]

    A., Kazachenko, M

    Tamburri, C. A., Kazachenko, M. D., & Kowalski, A. F. 2024, ApJ, 966, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3047

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3047 2024

  49. [49]

    2014, SoPh, 289, 3351, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0502-1

    Toriumi, S., Iida, Y., Kusano, K., Bamba, Y., & Imada, S. 2014, SoPh, 289, 3351, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0502-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0502-1 2014

  50. [50]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c2

    Toriumi, S., & Takasao, S. 2017, ApJ, 850, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c2 2017

  51. [51]

    A., Loureiro, N

    Uzdensky, D. A., Loureiro, N. F., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2010, PhRvL, 105, 235002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.235002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.105.235002 2010

  52. [52]

    1992, SoPh, 140, 85, doi: 10.1007/BF00148431 MHD simulations of flares25

    Wang, H. 1992, SoPh, 140, 85, doi: 10.1007/BF00148431 MHD simulations of flares25

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00148431 1992

  53. [53]

    2012, ApJL, 745, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L17

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

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/l17 2012

  54. [54]

    2016, A&A, 588, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527474

    Warmuth, A., & Mann, G. 2016, A&A, 588, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527474

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527474 2016

  55. [55]

    Wright, E., Brown, C., Przybylski, D., et al. 2023, in Proceedings of the SC ’23 Workshops of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Network, Storage, and Analysis, SC-W ’23 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 1929–1938, doi: 10.1145/3624062.3624606

    work page doi:10.1145/3624062.3624606 2023

  56. [56]

    2021, in Proceedings of the Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing Conference, PASC ’21 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), doi: 10.1145/3468267.3470576

    Wright, E., Przybylski, D., Rempel, M., et al. 2021, in Proceedings of the Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing Conference, PASC ’21 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), doi: 10.1145/3468267.3470576

    work page doi:10.1145/3468267.3470576 2021

  57. [57]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ea9

    Xing, C., Aulanier, G., Cheng, X., Xia, C., & Ding, M. 2024, ApJ, 966, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ea9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ea9 2024

  58. [58]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d61

    Zhang, P., Chen, J., Liu, R., & Wang, C. 2022, ApJ, 937, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d61

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d61 2022

  59. [59]

    V., McLaughlin, J

    Zimovets, I. V., McLaughlin, J. A., Srivastava, A. K., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 66, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00840-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00840-9 2021