Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

The Internal Magnetic Field Structure of ICMEs in the Heliosphere

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic-cloud twist density is bounded by a nearly constant Gold–Hoyle parameter near ω∼2, not by a fixed turns-per-length limit.

desk verdict Solid multi-distance extension of the 1 AU GH twist program; the radial trends hold, but the headline ω∼2 / DL identification rides on the inherited 2.5 calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26702 v1 pith:FQ4VHOC2 submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph

Ziwei Huang , Zhenjun Zhou , Yudong Ye , Ming Xiong , Yuming Wang , Yutian Chi , Daniel Heyner , Hans-Ulrich Auster
show 2 more authors
Ingo Richter Beatriz Sanchez-Cano
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph
keywords heliospherecoronalmassejectionsinterplanetarymagneticfieldscloudsfluxropesGold-Hoylemodeltwist
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

Interplanetary coronal mass ejections often carry a twisted magnetic flux rope called a magnetic cloud. This paper fits 96 such clouds, seen by many spacecraft from 0.07 to 5.4 AU, with a uniform-twist Gold–Hoyle model and tracks how core field strength and field-line winding change with distance. Both the axial field and the turn density fall as the clouds expand and stretch outward. The main claim is that the highest turn densities sit on an upper envelope that is really a constant dimensionless winding parameter ω=2πRτ near 2, so the maximum allowed turns per unit length scales as 1/R rather than as a universal number. Total turn counts stay multi-turn on average but do not organize cleanly with distance. That envelope supplies a concrete observational bound for how twisted interplanetary flux ropes can be as they grow.

What carries the argument

The Gold–Hoyle uniform-twist flux-rope model, with dimensionless parameter ω≡RT (equivalently ω=2πRτ), which links rope radius to local winding and converts an observed τ–R upper envelope into a nearly constant-ω boundary near 2.

What would settle it

A large multi-distance magnetic-cloud sample reconstructed without the fixed 2.5 down-scaling, or with an independent twist diagnostic, that routinely places events well above ω=2 in the τ–R plane, or that erases the R^{-1} upper envelope entirely.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across 96 magnetic clouds spanning 0.07–5.4 AU, reconstructed with a uniform-twist Gold–Hoyle model, the upper envelope in the turn-density–radius plane is a nearly constant Gold–Hoyle parameter ω=2πRτ close to ω∼2. Therefore τ_max is scale-dependent: τ_max≃ω_max/(2πR). Almost no events exceed the equivalent Dungey–Loughhead geometric bound ω=2, while axial field B0 and turn density τ both decline with heliocentric distance; integrated turn number n does not show a comparable radial trend.

Load-bearing premise

Every reported twist quantity is first scaled down by a single fixed factor of 2.5 taken from an earlier one-AU calibration, so the absolute location of the ω∼2 ceiling inherits that one correction rather than being measured afresh here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Maximum turn density of an interplanetary flux rope should fall roughly as 1/R as the rope expands.
  • The Dungey–Loughhead-type geometric bound ω≤2 is a better empirical organizer of MC winding than a single geometry-independent twist threshold such as the classical Hood–Priest limit.
  • Radial decline of B0 and τ is the expected signature of expansion plus axial stretching, while total turns n need not decline even if local winding dilutes.
  • Dynamic ICME models should reproduce a roughly constant-ω upper envelope across heliocentric distance rather than a fixed τ ceiling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If ω∼2 is a propagation-time geometric ceiling, strongly twisted solar ropes may have to shed twist or reconfigure before or during ejection rather than simply carrying arbitrary twist to 1 AU.
  • Space-weather impact models that assume Lundquist-like nonuniform twist may systematically mis-estimate helicity and free energy relative to a GH envelope capped near ω=2.
  • A decisive next test is multi-point encounters of the same cloud at different radii to see whether a single rope stays under a fixed ω while τ and B0 drop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This multi-spacecraft study reconstructs 96 magnetic clouds spanning 0.07–5.4 AU with a uniform-twist Gold–Hoyle (GH) model, deriving axial field B0, turn density τ, dimensionless GH parameter ω=2πRτ, and integrated turn number n. The authors report that B0 declines as ~r^−1.30 and that τ decreases with heliocentric distance and rope radius. Their key claim is that the upper envelope in the τ–R plane is a nearly constant-ω boundary near ω∼2 (equivalent, in their framing, to the Dungey–Loughhead geometric limit), so τ_max is scale-dependent rather than a fixed ceiling; n shows no comparably clear radial organization. Events are selected from ICMECAT with χn≤0.5 and |d|<0.7 cuts, quality-flagged, and all twist-related quantities are scaled down by an empirical factor 2.5 taken from Wang et al. (2016) before statistics and envelope placement.

Significance. If the multi-distance organization of MC winding is robust, the work supplies a useful observational constraint on heliospheric flux-rope evolution beyond the usual 1 AU samples, linking expansion/stretching to dilution of B0 and τ while arguing that the relevant bound is aspect-ratio controlled. Strengths include the broad radial baseline, uniform GH fitting pipeline, explicit quality flags (Q), a strong B0–r correlation (cc=−0.91, R²=0.83), and public model access. The R^−1 envelope shape and the contrast between local τ and global n are scientifically interesting even if the absolute ω∼2 identification is calibration-sensitive. The result would matter for ICME modeling and for connecting coronal twist thresholds to in-situ structure, provided absolute twist scales are handled transparently.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2.3, §3.2, Eqs. 7–9] §2.2.3 and the key result in the Abstract/§3.2/§4: all twist-related quantities (τ, ω, n, …) are uniformly scaled down by the empirical factor 2.5 from the 1 AU velocity-modified GH calibration of Wang et al. (2016) before the envelope and medians are reported. The headline placement of the upper envelope at ω∼2 (and the identification with the Dungey–Loughhead bound ω_DL^c≡2 in Eqs. 7–9) therefore inherits that single external absolute scale rather than being measured independently in this multi-distance sample. Without the factor, the raw envelope would sit near ω∼5. Please (i) show the τ–R and ω distributions both before and after the 2.5 correction, (ii) state clearly which conclusions are invariant to the factor (R^−1 envelope shape; radial decline of B0 and τ; scatter in n) versus which depend on it (ω∼2 / DL identification; median |ω|; fraction above Hood–Priest), and (iii) justif
  2. [§2.1, §3.2] §2.1 Eqs. (3)–(6) and §3.2 Eq. (10): within GH, τ=ω/(2πR) by construction, so an upper bound on ω automatically produces an R^−1 envelope in τ. The non-tautological content is the empirical pile-up under a particular ω_max and its physical interpretation as a DL-like limit. The text sometimes reads as if the envelope discovery and the ω∼2/DL match are equally model-independent. Please separate (a) the observational statement that events occupy a wedge under an approximately constant-ω curve from (b) the interpretive claim that the bound is ω≈2 and is the DL criterion, and quantify how many events exceed ω=2 (corrected and uncorrected) rather than the qualitative “almost no events.”
  3. [§3.2, Table 2] §3.2 and conversion to τ_AU: a substantial fraction of events lack measured v_sw (Table 2 shows many “···” entries) and are assigned a default 400 km s^−1. Because τ_AU=τ_t/v_sw and R scales with the space–time mapping, this default affects both the spatial turn density and the placement of points in the τ–R plane used for the envelope. Please report the fraction of events using the default, repeat the envelope/median analysis on the speed-measured subset alone, and show sensitivity to the default (e.g., 300–500 km s^−1).
  4. [§3.2, Figure 7] §3.2 and Figure 7: n is estimated as n∼τ_AU l with two ad hoc axial lengths l=2d and l=πd. The paper correctly notes that n depends on this choice and shows little radial organization, but still leans on “commonly multi-turn” fractions (80/96 and 93/96 above 1.25 turns). Given that n is not central to the ω-envelope claim and is the most assumption-dependent product, either demote these fractions to a clearly caveated illustration or add a third geometric prior / uncertainty band so the multi-turn statement is not over-read as a precise census.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2, §2.2.3] Table 2 retains uncorrected fitted τ while the text states that all plotted/statistical twist quantities are corrected by 2.5; add an explicit column note or a second corrected column so readers reconciling table and figures are not confused.
  2. [Figures 5–8] Notation: τ, τ_t, and τ_AU are defined carefully but used somewhat interchangeably in figure captions (e.g., Fig. 5 ordinate “τ (Turn/h)” vs later Turns/AU). Standardize symbols in all figure labels.
  3. [§3.1, Figure 4] Figure 4: report the intercept a of the log–log fit in the text or inset, not only the slope, and state whether ordinary least squares in log space is appropriate given heterogeneous spacecraft systematics.
  4. [Figures 3–8, body text] Several typos and encoding artifacts remain (e.g., “Wi)d”, “BepiColo(bo”, “S)l rOrbi-er”, “T urn”, “((T)” in figures; “cofficient” in the text). A full proofreading pass is needed.
  5. [§2.4] Boundary method (§2.4) is deferred to a “forthcoming study”; for reproducibility, briefly state how often manual overrides occurred and whether catalog boundaries (Fig. 1) were preferred when they disagreed.
  6. [§2.1] Cite and briefly contrast other common MC reconstruction approaches (e.g., Grad–Shafranov) when arguing GH is “often more realistic,” so the model choice is contextualized rather than only opposed to Lundquist.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Constant-ω envelope is partly definitional in GH variables; absolute ω∼2 match to Dungey–Loughhead inherits the Wang et al. (2016) 2.5 twist down-scaling rather than being fixed independently by this sample.

  1. self definitional [§2.1 Eqs. (3)–(6); §3.2 Eqs. (5)–(6), (10); abstract key result]
    "ω ≡ Rt Tt ... τt = ω/(2πRt). For a fixed ω, the inferred turn density therefore scales as R−1, so an R−1-type upper envelope in τt naturally corresponds to an approximately constant upper bound in ω. ... A key result is that the upper envelope in the τ–R plane corresponds to a nearly constant boundary in the dimensionless GH parameter ω=2πRτ, close to ω∼2. Therefore, the inferred upper value of τ is not scale-independent, but follows τmax≃ωmax/(2πR)."

    In the GH parametrization used throughout, ω is defined as the product of rope scale and twist rate, so τ∝1/R at fixed ω by construction. Reporting that an observed R−1 envelope ‘corresponds to’ a constant-ω boundary is algebraic rephrasing of the same fit parameters, not an independent structural discovery. The only non-definitional content is where the envelope sits in ω and whether events respect it.

  2. self citation load bearing [§2.2.3 Systematic Overestimation Factor; §3.2 DL comparison (Eqs. 7–9); Fig. 5–6]
    "Following Y. Wang et al. (2016), we adopt an empirical overestimation factor of 2.5 and apply it event by event in this work. Specifically, all GH-derived twist-related quantities are scaled down by a factor of 2.5 before statistical analysis and plotting. ... Hereafter, all twist-related quantities reported in this paper (e.g., τ, τt, τAU, ω, and n) are corrected values by default... In our multi-distance MC sample, almost no events lie above this DL boundary... equivalent... to an upper bound on the model parameter ω≤ω_DL^c≡2."

    Absolute placement of the envelope at ω∼2—and the claimed match to the Dungey–Loughhead bound ω=2—is fixed by importing the coauthor calibration that divides every twist quantity by 2.5 before plotting. The multi-distance sample does not re-measure that scale factor; after the prior correction the envelope lands on the DL line the paper then treats as the organizing boundary. Raw (uncorrected) ω would not sit at ∼2. This is load-bearing self-citation for the headline absolute claim, not for the mere existence of some upper envelope.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§3.2 total-turn estimate; Fig. 7; Eqs. (11) and axial-length prescriptions]
    "For the flux-rope axial length l, we consider two simple prescriptions to bracket the uncertainty. Let d be the heliocentric distance... (1) a minimal estimate lmin=2d, and (2) a circular-arc estimate lcirc≈πd. The total number of turns is then estimated as n∼τAU l. ... under the shorter-length assumption, 80 out of the 96 MCs have twist numbers exceeding 1.25 turns, and under the longer arc-like length assumption, nearly all events (93/96) exceed 1.25 turns."

    n is not measured; it is τAU multiplied by an assumed geometric length λd chosen by the authors. Statements that MCs are ‘commonly multi-turn’ with medians 3.2 or 5.0 are therefore outputs of the length ansatz plus the already-corrected τ, not independent predictions of total twist. The paper notes the dependence but still reports n histograms as sample properties.

full rationale

The paper’s multi-distance GH survey has real empirical content: B0∝r^−1.30, a declining upper envelope of turn density with rope scale, and no clear radial organization of integrated turn number n. Those trends are not forced by definition. Circularity is moderate and localized. First, once twist is reported in GH variables with ω≡RT and τ=ω/(2πR), an R^−1 upper envelope in the τ–R plane is exactly a constant-ω boundary; that equivalence is algebraic, not a new dynamical result. Second, the headline placement of that boundary at ω∼2 (and thus the claimed consistency with the Dungey–Loughhead geometric limit ω_DL^c≡2) is load-bearing on a uniform empirical down-scaling of all twist-related quantities by 2.5 taken from Wang et al. (2016), whose author list overlaps the present paper. Without that factor the same fits would sit near ω∼5, above both DL and the Hood–Priest line the paper contrasts. The 2.5 factor is an external calibration in the cited work, not a pure tautology here, so the central claim is not fully circular—but the absolute ω∼2/DL identification is not an independent multi-distance measurement. Integrated n further depends on assumed axial length λd. Score 4: self-citation and definitional GH bookkeeping affect the headline envelope interpretation; radial B0/τ trends remain independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The load-bearing claim rests on the GH uniform-twist model, an external absolute-twist calibration, time-as-proxy geometry when speed is missing, and simple axial-length brackets for n. No new physical entity is introduced; the ω parameter is a reparametrization of GH twist and radius.

free parameters (5)
  • twist overestimation factor 2.5 = 2.5
    All reported τ, ω, n are divided by 2.5 following Wang et al. (2016) before statistics and envelope plots; this sets the absolute ω scale.
  • default solar-wind speed 400 km s^−1 = 400 km/s
    Used to convert time-domain scales to AU units when in-situ speed is unavailable, directly affecting τ_AU and n.
  • axial-length factors λ=2 and λ=π = λ∈{2, π}
    n∼τ_AU·λd is computed only under these two geometric prescriptions; medians 3.2 and 5.0 depend on them.
  • per-event GH fit parameters (B0, ω, θ, ϕ, d, Rt) = event-dependent (Table 2)
    Each cloud’s structure is obtained by least-squares fitting of these free model parameters to B(t).
  • fit acceptance thresholds χn≤0.5, |d|<0.7, Q cuts = χn≤0.5; |d|<0.7; Q via per/cc/cl
    These hand-set cuts define which of the ICMECAT candidates enter the 96-event statistical sample.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Magnetic clouds are adequately described by a force-free uniform-twist Gold–Hoyle flux rope over the spacecraft path.
    Section 2.1 adopts GH field components and uniform twist as the reconstruction basis for all events.
  • domain assumption Solar-wind speed is approximately constant inside each MC, so time can proxy path length through the rope.
    Stated in §2.1 and used to define Rt, τt, and conversions when fitting magnetic data only.
  • ad hoc to paper GH reconstructions systematically overestimate twist by a nearly constant factor ≈2.5.
    §2.2.3 imports this empirical correction from prior work and applies it event-by-event to all twist products.
  • domain assumption Dungey–Loughhead geometric limit Φc≈2l/R maps in GH variables to ωc=2 and can be compared to the observed envelope.
    Section 3.2 rewrites the DL criterion as τc≈1/(πR) and ω≤2 for interpretation of the upper boundary.
  • domain assumption MC boundaries can be identified from |B| fluctuation thresholds plus manual refinement with plasma context.
    §2.4 defines the 5σ_log10(B/⟨B⟩) procedure used before fitting.
invented entities (1)
  • GH parameter ω ≡ R T as the organizing dimensionless twist coordinate independent evidence
    purpose: Collapse rope radius and local twist into one parameter whose apparent upper bound (~2) describes the τ–R envelope.
    Not a new particle or force; it is a model reparametrization already used in prior GH MC work, elevated here as the radially persistent bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Internal Magnetic Field Structure of ICMEs in the Heliosphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQ4VHOC2

@misc{pith2026260726702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Internal Magnetic Field Structure of ICMEs in the Heliosphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQ4VHOC2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26702}
}
abstract

Interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) are major drivers of heliospheric disturbances and space-weather effects. Here we present a multi-spacecraft study of 96 magnetic clouds (MCs) distributed over a broad range of heliocentric distances, and reconstruct their internal magnetic structure with a uniform-twist Gold--Hoyle (GH) flux-rope model. From the fits, we derive the axial field strength $B_0$, the twist density (turn density) $\tau$, the GH parameter $\omega$, and the integrated twist number $n$. We find that $B_0$ and the turn density $\tau$ both decrease with increasing heliocentric distance, consistent with expansion and axial stretching during propagation. A key result is that the upper envelope in the $\tau$--$R$ plane corresponds to a nearly constant boundary in the dimensionless GH parameter $\omega=2\pi R\tau$, close to $\omega\sim2$. Therefore, the inferred upper value of $\tau$ is not scale-independent, but follows $\tau_{\max}\simeq \omega_{\max}/(2\pi R)$ for a given flux-rope radius. In contrast, the estimated integrated turn number $n$ shows no similarly clear radial organization in the present sample. This study investigates the ICME structure and magnetic field characteristics across heliocentric distances from 0.07 to 5.4~AU, thereby providing observational constraints on the large-scale evolution of interplanetary magnetic flux ropes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26702 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of solar wind parameters for an MC event (No. 61 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Left) Interplanetary magnetic field recorded by the PSP spacecraft for MC No. 61 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Positions of the selected ICMECAT events plotted in HEEQ coordinates. The left panel shows a top-down (XY plane) view, while the right panel provides a 3D perspective. The Earth (green dot) is fixed at 0 ◦ longitude. Each marker represents an MC event observed by one of seven spacecraft. The radial distance is given in astronomical units (AU). χn = vuut 1 2N X N i=1  Bm,i − Bo,i Bo,i 2 where the Bm,i and Bo,i are … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnetic field strength at the flux rope axis (B0) as a function of the heliocentric distance in astronomical units (AU). Each colored dot represents a magnetic cloud event observed by a different spacecraft, as indicated in the legend. The orange dashed line denotes t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scatterplots of the turn density τ versus R (left) and 1/R (right). The color scale indicates the heliocentric distance of each MC event. The dashed lines denote constant-ω curves, τ = ω/(2πR), for ω = 2.0, 0.8, and 0.2. The observed upper envelope is therefore express…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms of the derived (a) τ and (b) ω obtained from all analyzed events. The arrows (orange) denote the median values in each panel. 0  0  0  0  0  0  0   0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histograms of the total number of magnetic field-line turns (n) derived for all MC events. We parameterize the assumed flux-rope axis length as λd, where d is the Sun–spacecraft distance at the observation time. The black curve uses λ = 2, corresponding to an axis leng…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distributions of twist density and total twist number for the MC sample along the heliocentric distance in astronomical units (AU). Left panel: twist density τ versus heliocentric distance. Right panel: total twist number n versus heliocentric distance [PITH_FULL_IMAG…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., et al

    Abbo, L., Ofman, L., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2016, SSRv, 201, 55, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0264-1

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0264-1 2016

  2. [2]

    1999, SoPh, 185, 41, doi: 10.1023/A:1005141432432

    Bennett, K., Roberts, B., & Narain, U. 1999, SoPh, 185, 41, doi: 10.1023/A:1005141432432

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005141432432 1999

  3. [3]

    Burlaga, L., Sittler, E., Mariani, F., & Schwenn, R. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 6673, doi: 10.1029/JA086iA08p06673

    doi:10.1029/ja086ia08p06673 1981

  4. [4]

    W., & Loughhead, R

    Dungey, J. W., & Loughhead, R. E. 1954, Australian Journal of Physics, 7, 5, doi: 10.1071/PH540005

    work page doi:10.1071/ph540005 1954

  5. [5]

    A., & Moore, R

    Gary, G. A., & Moore, R. L. 2004, ApJ, 611, 545, doi: 10.1086/422132

    work page doi:10.1086/422132 2004

  6. [6]

    1960, MNRAS, 120, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/120.2.89

    Gold, T., & Hoyle, F. 1960, MNRAS, 120, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/120.2.89

    doi:10.1093/mnras/120.2.89 1960

  7. [7]

    2010, ApJ, 714, 343, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/343

    Guo, Y., Schmieder, B., Démoulin, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 343, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/343

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/1/343 2010

  8. [8]

    W., & Priest, E

    Hood, A. W., & Priest, E. R. 1981, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 17, 297, doi: 10.1080/03091928108243687

    doi:10.1080/03091928108243687 1981

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Yamamoto, T. T. 2011, ApJ, 738, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/161

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    T., et al

    Inoue, S., Shiota, D., Yamamoto, T. T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/17

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    W., & Burlaga, L

    Klein, L. W., & Burlaga, L. F. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 613, doi: 10.1029/JA087iA02p00613

    1982 doi

  4. [12]

    D., Johnson, J

    Kruskal, M. D., Johnson, J. L., Gottlieb, M. B., & Goldman, L. M. 1958, Physics of Fluids, 1, 421, doi: 10.1063/1.1724359

    1958 doi

  5. [13]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/94

    Liu, J., Wang, Y., Liu, R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/94

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    1950, Ark

    Lundquist, S. 1950, Ark. Fys., 2, 361 Möstl, C., Isavnin, A., Boakes, P. D., et al. 2017, Space Weather, 15, 955, doi: 10.1002/2017SW001614 Möstl, C., Weiss, A. J., Bailey, R. L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb9a1

    1950 doi

  7. [15]

    2007, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 4, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2007-1 Régnier, S., Amari, T., & Kersalé, E

    Pulkkinen, T. 2007, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 4, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2007-1 Régnier, S., Amari, T., & Kersalé, E. 2002, A&A, 392, 1119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020993

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    2003, SoPh, 214, 313, doi: 10.1023/A:1024257603143

    Romano, P., Contarino, L., & Zuccarello, F. 2003, SoPh, 214, 313, doi: 10.1023/A:1024257603143

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Yurchyshyn, V., et al

    Schmidt, D., Schad, T. A., Yurchyshyn, V., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1148, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02564-0

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 2, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2006-2

    Schwenn, R. 2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 2, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2006-2

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    1957, Soviet Phys

    Shafranov, V. 1957, Soviet Phys. JETP, 5

    1957

  12. [20]

    K., Zaqarashvili, T

    Srivastava, A. K., Zaqarashvili, T. V., Kumar, P., & Khodachenko, M. L. 2010, ApJ, 715, 292, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/292

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    1991, SoPh, 136, 151, doi: 10.1007/BF00151701

    Vrsnak, B., Ruzdjak, V., & Rompolt, B. 1991, SoPh, 136, 151, doi: 10.1007/BF00151701

    1991 doi

  14. [22]

    2017, Nature Communications, 8, 1330, doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01207-x

    Wang, W., Liu, R., Wang, Y., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 1330, doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01207-x

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 1543, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020494

    Wang, Y., Zhou, Z., Shen, C., Liu, R., & Wang, S. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 1543, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020494

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 9316, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023075

    Wang, Y., Zhuang, B., Hu, Q., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 9316, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023075

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 3238, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024971

    Wang, Y., Shen, C., Liu, R., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 3238, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024971

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    2001, ApJL, 551, L115, doi: 10.1086/319829

    Yan, Y., Deng, Y., Karlický, M., et al. 2001, ApJL, 551, L115, doi: 10.1086/319829

    2001 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1105, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02626-3

    Zhou, G. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1105, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02626-3

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    2019, ApJL, 877, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab21cb

    Zhou, Z., Cheng, X., Zhang, J., et al. 2019, ApJL, 877, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab21cb

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, ApJL, 927, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5740 20

    Zhou, Z., Jiang, C., Liu, R., et al. 2022, ApJL, 927, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5740 20

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7666

    Zhou, Z., Liu, R., Cheng, X., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7666

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab139e

    Zhuang, B., Wang, Y., Hu, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab139e

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.