Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Untwisting coronal loops send magnetic twist downward as Alfvén waves and grow a sunspot scar at their remote footpoint.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 18:06 UTC pith:5W2F5RW4

load-bearing objection Solid single-event demo of post-eruption reverse twist transfer growing a remote scar; the mechanism is real in the sim, the photosphere proxy and “majority” claim are the soft spots. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28089 v1 pith:5W2F5RW4 submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.SR

Back Reaction of the Untwisting Solar Corona Scars Sunspots

Chen Xing , Xin Cheng , Guillaume Aulanier , Mingde Ding This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords sunspot scarmagnetic twistAlfvén wavesback reactioncoronal mass ejectionsolar flaremagnetic reconnectionphotospheric magnetic field
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Coronal magnetic fields are usually thought to be slaves of the dense photosphere, yet this paper shows a clear reverse influence. After a failed eruption, large-scale loops that gained twist through reconnection later untwist; the released twist travels back down the loops as Alfvén waves and piles up current at the distant footpoint boundary, building a long-lived scar inside a sunspot umbra. Joint space observations of two active regions and a matching magnetohydrodynamics run establish the causal chain. If the picture is right, many previously puzzling photospheric field changes tied to flares and coronal mass ejections become quantitative consequences of the same reverse twist transfer, and sunspot and starspot fields can evolve under an atmospheric twist circulation that subsurface convection alone does not predict.

Core claim

The untwisting of coronal loops that became twisted by reconnection during a failed eruption reverse-transfers magnetic twist from the corona to the lower atmosphere in the form of Alfvén waves. That transfer enhances the direct current at the boundary of the loops’ remote footpoint and manifests as the long-lasting growth of a sunspot scar, more than 70 Mm from the eruption site.

What carries the argument

Alfvénic reverse transfer of magnetic twist: reconnection-injected twist that is redistributed along the reconnected loops and propagates downward as Alfvén waves, arriving at the remote footpoint boundary where it strengthens the direct current and grows the scar.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation’s chosen horizontal layer above a frozen, no-flow bottom boundary is treated as a faithful proxy for how the real dense photosphere responds to downward Alfvénic twist.

What would settle it

High-cadence vector magnetograms of a comparable remote sunspot that show no sustained growth in direct current while the overlying coronal loops visibly untwist, or a simulation in which a realistic high-beta, partially ionized bottom erases the scar, would break the claimed causal link.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Most puzzling photospheric magnetic changes associated with CMEs and flares can be read as reverse twist transfer rather than purely local photospheric motions.
  • The same process can enhance horizontal fields near polarity inversion lines and drive unconventional sunspot rotations during flares.
  • Forward and reverse twist transfer together form a circulation that can exchange magnetic helicity between distinct active regions even outside eruptions.
  • Sunspot and starspot fields can evolve in ways not expected from convection and subsurface flux emergence alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Timing lags between coronal untwisting signatures and photospheric current growth could furnish an independent Alfvén-travel-time measurement across active-region loops.
  • If reverse twist transfer is common, routine monitoring of sunspot scars might diagnose prior reconnection events that left little lasting coronal imprint.
  • Space-weather helicity budgets that ignore atmospheric twist circulation may systematically mis-assign free energy between neighboring active regions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a back-reaction of the corona on the photosphere: after a failed eruption in AR 12268/70 (30 Jan 2015), large-scale overlying loops that were twisted by reconnection subsequently untwist, while a remote sunspot scar in AR 12270 grows, with its integral negative (direct) current rising by ~73%. Joint SDO/AIA–HMI analysis places the scar at the western footpoint boundary of the twisted loops and documents the spatiotemporal correlation between coronal untwisting and scar growth. An observationally inspired zero-β MHD simulation (fan-spine plus modified Titov–Démoulin rope) produces a failed eruption, injects reconnection-driven twist into overlying field, and forms a scar-like structure at a remote footpoint boundary via downward Alfvénic transport of τ = J·B/B². The authors argue this reverse twist transfer is a viable mechanism for many CME/flare-related photospheric magnetic changes and for unexpected sunspot/starspot evolution.

Significance. If the mechanism holds, the paper supplies a concrete, wave-mediated pathway for coronal restructuring to alter photospheric currents and field inclination away from the flare site and after the impulsive phase—addressing a long-standing controversy about whether and how the low-β corona can back-react on the high-β photosphere. Strengths include public SDO data, a carefully thresholded integral-Jz time series with HMI-based error bars, a scar that is not hand-inserted in the simulation, field-line tracing that separates disturbance-induced from reconnection-induced twist, and an explicit Alfvén-speed shift test of τ propagation (fig. S4F–G). Code (MPI-AMRVAC) and simulation data are stated to be available. The result would matter for interpreting stepwise and gradual photospheric field changes in flares/CMEs and for magnetic-helicity exchange between active regions and starspots.

major comments (4)
  1. [Materials and Methods S4; Fig. 5; fig. S3] Materials and Methods S4 and Fig. 5: The causal claim that Alfvénic reverse twist transfer scars the photosphere is demonstrated only on an elevated “observation layer” (z = 0.293) above a strictly line-tied, no-flow bottom where Bz is frozen and no scar can form. The zero-β equations (S3, Eqs. 6–10) omit photospheric inertia, partial ionization, and the β-transition reflection/transmission physics that control how much downward twist actually modifies photospheric B and J. The quantitative analogy between modeled current growth (fig. S3) and the observed ~73% rise in integral negative current (Fig. 3M) is therefore an untested extrapolation. Please either (i) quantify expected Alfvén travel times, reflection coefficients, and residual transmitted twist into a β ≳ 1 layer, or (ii) substantially soften the causal language so that the simulation is presented as a coronal-to-chromospheric d
  2. [Abstract; Discussion] Abstract and Discussion: The claim that these findings provide “a viable and quantitative interpretation for the majority of puzzling photospheric changes associated with CMEs and/or flares” is not supported by the single failed-eruption case plus one tuned simulation. The Discussion correctly notes that reverse twist transfer “may” also explain enhanced horizontal fields near PILs and sunspot rotations, but those links are not demonstrated here and compete with other published mechanisms (e.g., reconnection-driven loop contraction). Please replace “majority” / “quantitative interpretation for the majority” with language scoped to the documented class of events (remote footpoint-boundary current enhancement after twist injection and subsequent untwisting), and clearly separate demonstrated results from plausible extensions.
  3. [Supplementary Text; Fig. 2; Fig. 3M] Supplementary Text and Fig. 3M vs Fig. 2: The scar’s integral negative current rises from ~07:34–11:34 UT, while clear coronal untwisting is shown mainly at 08:00–10:12 UT (131 Å then 304 Å). The Supplementary Text invokes longer invisible untwisting, low Alfvén speed in the lower atmosphere, and multiple reflections, but no travel-time or path-length estimate is given for the observed loop system (~70+ Mm remote footpoint). Without that, the timing offset remains a free parameter. Please add an order-of-magnitude Alfvén transit-time calculation along representative reconnected field lines (observed and/or simulated) and show that it is consistent with the lag between coronal morphological untwisting and the continued rise of integral Jz.
  4. [Materials and Methods S2; Fig. 3M] Results (Eruption-induced Growth of Sunspot Scar) and Materials and Methods S2: Identification of the arc-shaped umbral feature as a “sunspot scar” in the sense of Xing et al. (2024) rests on morphology, inclined field, and bipolar Jz at the flux-rope footpoint boundary. The integral-Jz pipeline uses a fixed threshold Jc built from the mean and std of negative Jz over a box that already contains the scar, and occasionally averages two region definitions when disjoint patches appear. Please test robustness of the ~73% post-eruption rise to (i) alternative thresholds (e.g., percentiles or a pre-eruption-only baseline), (ii) a fixed spatial mask versus the time-varying contour, and (iii) exclusion of pixels near the 100 G horizontal/vertical cutoff, and report whether the rise remains significant within the stated σ_I.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract opening: “Despite, coronal magnetic restructuring…” is ungrammatical; revise to “Nevertheless,” or “Despite this,”.
  2. [Fig. 1; Fig. 2] Fig. 1 and Fig. 2: Several panels would benefit from a consistent scale bar in Mm and a clearer mark of the scar location on the overview panels (not only in the zoom-ins).
  3. [Results (MHD Simulation); S3] Materials and Methods S3: State explicitly that the run is zero-β (energy equation omitted) in the main text when the simulation is first introduced, not only in S3, so readers immediately know thermal-pressure and chromospheric-evaporation pathways are excluded by construction.
  4. [Fig. 4; Fig. 5] Fig. 4 / Fig. 5: Define the squashing-degree threshold (Q > 1000) and the units of τ in the captions; τ = J·B/B² is introduced in the text but not always labeled on color bars.
  5. [References and Notes] References: Ensure consistent formatting of author lists and DOIs; a few entries (e.g., conference volumes) are harder to resolve than the SDO/instrument papers.
  6. [Abstract; Introduction; Discussion] Typos / wording: “Alfvenic” → “Alfvénic” with diacritic consistently; “coined in (30)” → “coined by Hudson et al. (30)” or similar; “starspots” warning in the abstract is fine but should cross-reference the stellar citations (52, 53) already in the Discussion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: mechanism is supported by independent SDO data and a dynamics-generated scar in MHD; only minor self-citation for scar nomenclature.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Results, Eruption-induced Growth of Sunspot Scar; ref. 36]
    "The properties of the arc-shaped structure in AR 12270 are similar to those of the sunspot scar (36) which is an arc-shaped structure with an inclined magnetic field in the sunspot umbra. ... its current on the side adjacent to the flux rope belongs to the direct current of the flux rope, while its opposite-sign current on the other side constitutes part of the return current (36). In consequence, the arc-shaped structure observed here is recognized as a sunspot scar"

    Identification and the direct/return-current reading of the observed arc rest on the authors’ own prior definition of “sunspot scar” rather than an external standard. This is nomenclature and interpretive framing only: the measured ~73% rise in integral negative Jz and the simulation’s scar formation do not algebraically or statistically reduce to that citation, so the step is minor and not load-bearing for the reverse-transfer mechanism.

full rationale

The paper’s central chain—failed-eruption reconnection twists overlying loops; post-eruption untwisting correlates with remote integral-Jz growth; an observationally inspired zero-β MHD run produces a scar without hand-insertion and shows reconnection-injected twist propagating as Alfvén waves (τ shifted at local v_A)—does not reduce by construction to its inputs. Observed Bz/Bh/Jz and AIA morphology are public SDO products; the scar current integral is a thresholded integral of measured Jz, not a fitted target renamed as prediction. In the simulation the scar is absent at t=0 and appears at the remote footpoint boundary after reconnection and downward twist transport along traced lines L1 vs L2; Alfvénic transfer is checked by matching shifted τ profiles to local Alfvén speed, not by defining the outcome equal to the input. The sole mild circularity-adjacent element is nomenclature: the arc structure is labeled a “sunspot scar” by appeal to the authors’ prior paper (ref. 36), which supplies the direct/return-current interpretation. That citation is not required for the causal claim (current growth and wave transport stand without it) and does not force the result. The elevated “observation layer” (z=0.293) above a frozen-Bz line-tied bottom is a modeling assumption that may limit physical fidelity, but that is a correctness/proxy issue, not definitional or fit circularity. Score 1 reflects only that minor self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on standard solar MHD and observational practice plus a few modeling choices that map corona to photosphere. No new particles or forces are invented; the sunspot scar is an observational structure previously named by overlapping authors. Free parameters are the usual simulation tuning knobs (TD rope and fan-spine multipole coefficients chosen so the eruption fails after substantial reconnection) and the empirical Jz threshold for scar integration.

free parameters (4)
  • Modified TD flux-rope parameters (R, a, d, I, I0, apex height, footpoint locations) = R=0.8, a=0.3, d=0.2, I=-6.313, I0=0.675 (dimensionless); apex z=0.6
    Hand-tuned so the rope erupts, reconnects with much of the fan-spine field, then fails, matching the observed failed eruption (Methods S3).
  • Fan-spine multipole source coefficients and positions (c_m, x_m, y_m, z_m) = e.g. c1=28.2 at (4.66,0,-2.2), etc.
    Four sub-photospheric sources set the initial potential fan-spine topology to mimic ARs 12268/70 (Methods S3).
  • Jz scar integration threshold Jc = Jc ≈ −0.011 A m−2
    Empirical cut Jc = average over time of (mean negative Jz − std) in a fixed box, used to define the negative-current scar region (Methods S2).
  • Observation-layer height z=0.293 = z=0.293 (code units; ~2.93 Mm)
    Chosen above the line-tied boundary so B can respond to coronal evolution while still feeling line-tying; scar diagnostics are reported only on this plane (Methods S4).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD with numerical resistivity only; zero plasma β in the simulation domain.
    Standard for large-scale coronal eruption simulations; stated in Methods S3. Neglects thermal pressure, radiation, and explicit resistivity that could affect wave damping and photospheric coupling.
  • domain assumption Photosphere is effectively line-tied (no-flow bottom boundary, fixed Bz on first physical layer).
    Methods S3–S4; classical high-β line-tying assumption. Forces the scar analysis onto an elevated layer.
  • domain assumption Vertical current Jz from HMI vector magnetograms (with |Bh|,|Bz|>100 G mask) traces the direct/return current structure of the flux-rope footpoint.
    Methods S2 and scar identification following Xing et al. 2024; standard but subject to 180° ambiguity and noise in transverse field.
  • domain assumption Magnetic twist along a field line is adequately measured by τ = J·B/B², and its propagation at the local Alfvén speed demonstrates Alfvénic transport.
    Used throughout Results and fig. S4; standard proxy, not a full helicity density integral.
  • ad hoc to paper The arc-shaped umbral structure with inclined field and bipolar Jz at the flux-rope footpoint boundary is the same class of object previously called a sunspot scar.
    Identification step in Results citing Xing et al. 2024; load-bearing for naming and for linking to direct vs return current.
invented entities (1)
  • Alfvénic reverse transfer of magnetic twist as the driver of sunspot-scar growth no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide the causal mechanism linking post-eruption coronal untwisting to remote photospheric current enhancement.
    Not a new particle or force, but a named process assembled from known wave physics and reconnection twist injection; independent_evidence is partial (simulation shows Alfvén-speed shift of τ; observations show only correlation and timing).

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 26265 in / 3952 out tokens · 78470 ms · 2026-07-31T18:06:54.135758+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The evolution of magnetic fields in the tenuous solar corona is predominantly governed by the motions of the underlying dense photosphere. Despite, coronal magnetic restructuring driven by magnetic reconnection between interacting coronal fields can sometimes react backwards to change photospheric magnetic fields. However, the mechanism of reactions remains undetermined. Here, we report the discovery of a back-reaction phenomenon: the untwisting of coronal loops that become twisted during reconnection in an eruption results in enhanced currents at the boundary of their footpoint away from the eruption, manifesting as the growth of a sunspot scar. It is revealed to arise from the Alfvenic reverse transfer of magnetic twist from the corona to the lower atmosphere, thanks to joint space observations and a magnetohydrodynamics simulation. These findings provide a viable and quantitative interpretation for the majority of puzzling photospheric changes associated with coronal mass ejections and/or flares and warn for unexpected magnetic field evolutions in sunspots and starspots.

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

74 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Considering the uncertainty in magnetic field measurement, we only calculate𝐽𝑧 in regions with both horizontal and vertical field strength larger than 100 G

    First, we derive the distribution of the vertical current density (𝐽 𝑧) in AR 12270 using the SHARP CEA-coordinate vector magnetic field. Considering the uncertainty in magnetic field measurement, we only calculate𝐽𝑧 in regions with both horizontal and vertical field strength larger than 100 G

  2. [2]

    The integral negative current is derived by integrating𝐽 𝑧 in the negative-current region of the sunspot scar, which is identified with a negative𝐽 𝑧 stronger than a fixed threshold. To determine the threshold, we first calculate the average (𝐽 𝑖 𝑎 <0) and the standard deviation (𝐽𝑖 𝑠𝑑 >0) of negative𝐽 𝑧 in the region (51.02≤𝑥≤56,−11≤𝑦≤−7.88, unit is CEA ...

  3. [3]

    In most cases, we identify only one region and then calculate the integral of the negative current within

    Then, we use this threshold to determine the negative-current region in the sunspot scar every 12 minutes. In most cases, we identify only one region and then calculate the integral of the negative current within. However, in a few cases, we also identify some negative-current patches adjacent but disjoint to the major negative-current region. In this cas...

  4. [4]

    At each pixel of determined negative-current region in sunspot scar, the error of the𝑥- component of magnetic field𝜎 𝐵𝑥 and that of the𝑦-component of magnetic field𝜎 𝐵𝑦 are provided by the SHARP data. The error of the current in each pixel arising from the error of horizontal field𝜎 𝐼𝑖 is then given by: 𝜎𝐼𝑖 = 1 𝜇0 √︃ (Δ𝑥𝜎𝐵𝑥)2+(Δ𝑦𝜎 𝐵𝑦)2,(3) where the subsc...

  5. [5]

    observation layer

    For cases in which the negative-current region is only determined once, the error of the integral negative current in the sunspot scar due to the horizontal field error, i.e.,𝜎𝐼𝐵, is given by: 𝜎𝐼𝐵 = vt 𝑛∑︁ 𝑖=1 𝜎2 𝐼𝑖 ,(4) 11 where𝑛refers to the number of pixels in the negative-current region. For other cases where the negative-current region is determined ...

  6. [6]

    Wiegelmann, J

    T. Wiegelmann, J. K. Thalmann, S. K. Solanki, The magnetic field in the solar atmosphere. Astron. Astrophys. Rev.22, 78 (2014), doi:10.1007/s00159-014-0078-7

    doi:10.1007/s00159-014-0078-7 2014

  7. [7]

    A. A. Vidotto, Stellar Coronal and Wind Models: Impact on Exoplanets, inHandbook of Exoplanets, H. J. Deeg, J. A. Belmonte, Eds., p. 26 (2018), doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7 26

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7 2018

  8. [8]

    Elovaara, Finnish Experiences with Grid Effects of GIC’S, inSpace Weather : Re- search Towards Applications in Europe 2nd European Space Weather Week (ESWW2), J

    J. Elovaara, Finnish Experiences with Grid Effects of GIC’S, inSpace Weather : Re- search Towards Applications in Europe 2nd European Space Weather Week (ESWW2), J. Lilensten, Ed., vol. 344 ofAstrophysics and Space Science Library(2007), p. 311, doi: 10.1007/1-4020-5446-7 27

    work page doi:10.1007/1-4020-5446-7 2007

  9. [9]

    G. D. Holman,et al., Implications of X-ray Observations for Electron Acceleration and Propagation in Solar Flares.Space Sci. Rev.159(1-4), 107–166 (2011), doi:10.1007/ s11214-010-9680-9

    2011

  10. [10]

    V. V. Zharkova,et al., Recent Advances in Understanding Particle Acceleration Processes in Solar Flares.Space Sci. Rev.159(1-4), 357–420 (2011), doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9803-y

    doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9803-y 2011

  11. [11]

    G. A. Gary, Plasma Beta above a Solar Active Region: Rethinking the Paradigm.Solar Phys. 203(1), 71–86 (2001), doi:10.1023/A:1012722021820

    doi:10.1023/a:1012722021820 2001

  12. [12]

    L. M. Green, B. Kliem, Flux Rope Formation Preceding Coronal Mass Ejection Onset.Astro- phys. J. Lett.700(2), L83–L87 (2009), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L83

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/l83 2009

  13. [13]

    Liu,et al., Magnetic Helicity in Emerging Solar Active Regions.Astrophys

    Y. Liu,et al., Magnetic Helicity in Emerging Solar Active Regions.Astrophys. J.785(1), 13 (2014), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/13

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/13 2014

  14. [14]

    Magara, D

    T. Magara, D. W. Longcope, Injection of Magnetic Energy and Magnetic Helicity into the Solar Atmosphere by an Emerging Magnetic Flux Tube.Astrophys. J.586(1), 630–649 (2003), doi:10.1086/367611. 17

    work page doi:10.1086/367611 2003

  15. [15]

    Shimizu, B

    T. Shimizu, B. W. Lites, Y. Bamba, High-speed photospheric material flow observed at the po- larity inversion line of a𝛿-type sunspot producing an X5.4 flare on 2012 March 7.Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan66, S14 (2014), doi:10.1093/pasj/psu089

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psu089 2012

  16. [16]

    X. L. Yan,et al., The Formation and Magnetic Structures of Active-region Filaments Observed by NVST, SDO, and Hinode.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series219(2), 17 (2015), doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/17

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/17 2015

  17. [18]

    Fan, The Emergence of a Twisted Flux Tube into the Solar Atmosphere: Sunspot Rotations and the Formation of a Coronal Flux Rope.Astrophys

    Y. Fan, The Emergence of a Twisted Flux Tube into the Solar Atmosphere: Sunspot Rotations and the Formation of a Coronal Flux Rope.Astrophys. J.697(2), 1529–1542 (2009), doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1529

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1529 2009

  18. [19]

    Aulanier, T

    G. Aulanier, T. T ¨or¨ok, P. D´emoulin, E. E. DeLuca, Formation of Torus-Unstable Flux Ropes and Electric Currents in Erupting Sigmoids.Astrophys. J.708(1), 314–333 (2010), doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/314

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

  19. [20]

    S. K. Antiochos, Helicity Condensation as the Origin of Coronal and Solar Wind Structure. Astrophys. J.772(1), 72 (2013), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/72

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/72 2013

  20. [21]

    Q. Liu, C. Xia, Formation of Quiescent Prominence Magnetic Fields by Supergranulations. Astrophys. J. Lett.934(1), L9 (2022), doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac80c6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac80c6 2022

  21. [22]

    Patsourakos,et al., Decoding the Pre-Eruptive Magnetic Field Configurations of Coronal Mass Ejections.Space Sci

    S. Patsourakos,et al., Decoding the Pre-Eruptive Magnetic Field Configurations of Coronal Mass Ejections.Space Sci. Rev.216(8), 131 (2020), doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00757-9

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00757-9 2020

  22. [23]

    B. V. Somov, T. Kosugi, T. Sakao, Collisionless Three-dimensional Reconnection In Impulsive Solar Flares.Astrophys. J.497(2), 943–956 (1998), doi:10.1086/305492

    work page doi:10.1086/305492 1998

  23. [24]

    Aulanier, The return of the jet.Nature Astronomy5, 1096–1097 (2021), doi:10.1038/ s41550-021-01416-x

    G. Aulanier, The return of the jet.Nature Astronomy5, 1096–1097 (2021), doi:10.1038/ s41550-021-01416-x. 18

    2021

  24. [25]

    S. K. Antiochos, The Magnetic Topology of Solar Eruptions.Astrophys. J. Lett.502(2), L181–L184 (1998), doi:10.1086/311507

    work page doi:10.1086/311507 1998

  25. [26]

    Aulanier, J

    G. Aulanier, J. Dud´ık, Drifting of the line-tied footpoints of CME flux-ropes.Astron. Astrophys. 621, A72 (2019), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834221

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834221 2019

  26. [27]

    Wang,et al., Rapid Changes of Magnetic Fields Associated with Six X-Class Flares

    H. Wang,et al., Rapid Changes of Magnetic Fields Associated with Six X-Class Flares. Astrophys. J.576(1), 497–504 (2002), doi:10.1086/341735

    work page doi:10.1086/341735 2002

  27. [28]

    V. V. Zharkova, S. I. Zharkov, S. S. Ipson, A. K. Benkhalil, Toward magnetic field dissi- pation during the 23 July 2002 solar flare measured with Solar and Heliospheric Observa- tory/Michelson Doppler Imager (SOHO/MDI) and Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spec- troscopic Imager (RHESSI).Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)110(A8), A08104 (2005)...

    work page doi:10.1029/2004ja010934 2002

  28. [29]

    G. J. D. Petrie, The Abrupt Changes in the Photospheric Magnetic and Lorentz Force Vectors during Six Major Neutral-line Flares.Astrophys. J.759(1), 50 (2012), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/ 759/1/50

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/ 2012

  29. [30]

    J. J. Sudol, J. W. Harvey, Longitudinal Magnetic Field Changes Accompanying Solar Flares. Astrophys. J.635(1), 647–658 (2005), doi:10.1086/497361

    doi:10.1086/497361 2005

  30. [31]

    H. Wang, N. Deng, C. Liu, Rapid Transition of Uncombed Penumbrae to Faculae during Large Flares.Astrophys. J.748(2), 76 (2012), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/76

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/76 2012

  31. [32]

    X. Sun, J. T. Hoeksema, Y. Liu, M. Kazachenko, R. Chen, Investigating the Magnetic Imprints of Major Solar Eruptions with SDO/HMI High-cadence Vector Magnetograms.Astrophys. J. 839(1), 67 (2017), doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa69c1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa69c1 2017

  32. [33]

    Bi,et al., Observation of a reversal of rotation in a sunspot during a solar flare.Nature Communications7, 13798 (2016), doi:10.1038/ncomms13798

    Y. Bi,et al., Observation of a reversal of rotation in a sunspot during a solar flare.Nature Communications7, 13798 (2016), doi:10.1038/ncomms13798

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms13798 2016

  33. [34]

    Liu,et al., Flare differentially rotates sunspot on Sun’s surface.Nature Communications7, 13104 (2016), doi:10.1038/ncomms13104

    C. Liu,et al., Flare differentially rotates sunspot on Sun’s surface.Nature Communications7, 13104 (2016), doi:10.1038/ncomms13104. 19

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms13104 2016

  34. [35]

    H. S. Hudson, G. H. Fisher, B. T. Welsch, Flare Energy and Magnetic Field Variations, in Subsurface and Atmospheric Influences on Solar Activity, R. Howe, R. W. Komm, K. S. Bala- subramaniam, G. J. D. Petrie, Eds., vol. 383 ofAstronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series(2008), p. 221

    2008

  35. [36]

    Y.-T. Lau, J. M. Finn, Three-dimensional Kinematic Reconnection in the Presence of Field Nulls and Closed Field Lines.Astrophys. J.350, 672 (1990), doi:10.1086/168419

    work page doi:10.1086/168419 1990

  36. [37]

    Masson, E

    S. Masson, E. Pariat, G. Aulanier, C. J. Schrijver, The Nature of Flare Ribbons in Coronal Null- Point Topology.Astrophys. J.700(1), 559–578 (2009), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/559

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/1/559 2009

  37. [38]

    Yang,et al., Imaging and Spectral Study on the Null Point of a Fan-spine Structure During a Solar Flare.Astrophys

    S. Yang,et al., Imaging and Spectral Study on the Null Point of a Fan-spine Structure During a Solar Flare.Astrophys. J.898(2), 101 (2020), doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ac7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ac7 2020

  38. [39]

    Cheng, J

    X. Cheng, J. Zhang, Y. Liu, M. D. Ding, Observing Flux Rope Formation During the Impulsive Phase of a Solar Eruption.Astrophys. J. Lett.732(2), L25 (2011), doi:10.1088/2041-8205/ 732/2/L25

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/ 2011

  39. [40]

    Zhang, X

    J. Zhang, X. Cheng, M.-D. Ding, Observation of an evolving magnetic flux rope before and during a solar eruption.Nature Communications3, 747 (2012), doi:10.1038/ncomms1753

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms1753 2012

  40. [41]

    C. Xing, G. Aulanier, B. Schmieder, X. Cheng, M. Ding, Identifying footpoints of pre-eruptive and coronal mass ejection flux ropes with sunspot scars.Astron. Astrophys.682, A3 (2024), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347053

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347053 2024

  41. [42]

    S. K. Solanki, Sunspots: An overview.Astron. Astrophys. Rev.11(2-3), 153–286 (2003), doi:10.1007/s00159-003-0018-4

    doi:10.1007/s00159-003-0018-4 2003

  42. [43]

    Toriumi, Y

    S. Toriumi, Y. Katsukawa, M. C. M. Cheung, Light Bridge in a Developing Active Region. I. Observation of Light Bridge and its Dynamic Activity Phenomena.Astrophys. J.811(2), 137 (2015), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/137

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/137 2015

  43. [44]

    Janvier,et al., Electric Currents in Flare Ribbons: Observations and Three-dimensional Standard Model.Astrophys

    M. Janvier,et al., Electric Currents in Flare Ribbons: Observations and Three-dimensional Standard Model.Astrophys. J.788(1), 60 (2014), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/60. 20

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/60 2014

  44. [45]

    V. S. Titov, P. D ´emoulin, Basic topology of twisted magnetic configurations in solar flares. Astron. Astrophys.351, 707–720 (1999)

    1999

  45. [46]

    G. H. Fisher, D. J. Bercik, B. T. Welsch, H. S. Hudson, Global Forces in Eruptive Solar Flares: The Lorentz Force Acting on the Solar Atmosphere and the Solar Interior.Solar Phys.277(1), 59–76 (2012), doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9907-2

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

  46. [47]

    P. A. Mu ˜noz, J. B¨ uchner, Kinetic turbulence in fast three-dimensional collisionless guide-field magnetic reconnection.Physical Review E98(4), 043205 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.98. 043205

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.98 2018

  47. [48]

    Khabarova, V

    O. Khabarova, V. Zharkova, Q. Xia, O. E. Malandraki, Counterstreaming Strahls and Heat Flux Dropouts as Possible Signatures of Local Particle Acceleration in the Solar Wind.Astrophys. J. Lett.894(1), L12 (2020), doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8cb8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8cb8 2020

  48. [49]

    Zharkova, Q

    V. Zharkova, Q. Xia, Plasma turbulence generated in 3D current sheets with single and multiple X-nullpoints.Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences8, 178 (2021), doi:10.3389/fspas. 2021.665998

    arXiv 2021

  49. [50]

    Barczynski, G

    K. Barczynski, G. Aulanier, S. Masson, M. S. Wheatland, Flare Reconnection-driven Magnetic Field and Lorentz Force Variations at the Sun’s Surface.Astrophys. J.877(2), 67 (2019), doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b3d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b3d 2019

  50. [51]

    Aulanier, Solar physics: When the tail wags the dog.Nature Physics12(11), 998–999 (2016), doi:10.1038/nphys3938

    G. Aulanier, Solar physics: When the tail wags the dog.Nature Physics12(11), 998–999 (2016), doi:10.1038/nphys3938

    doi:10.1038/nphys3938 2016

  51. [52]

    J. S. Castellanos Dur ´an, L. Kleint, B. Calvo-Mozo, A Statistical Study of Photospheric Magnetic Field Changes During 75 Solar Flares.Astrophys. J.852(1), 25 (2018), doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d37

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d37 2018

  52. [53]

    Pariat, S

    E. Pariat, S. K. Antiochos, C. R. DeVore, A Model for Solar Polar Jets.Astrophys. J.691(1), 61–74 (2009), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/61

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/1/61 2009

  53. [54]

    T ¨or¨ok, G

    T. T ¨or¨ok, G. Aulanier, B. Schmieder, K. K. Reeves, L. Golub, Fan-Spine Topology Formation Through Two-Step Reconnection Driven by Twisted Flux Emergence.Astrophys. J.704(1), 485–495 (2009), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/485. 21

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/1/485 2009

  54. [55]

    P. F. Wyper, C. R. DeVore, J. T. Karpen, B. J. Lynch, Three-Dimensional Simulations of Tearing and Intermittency in Coronal Jets.Astrophys. J.827(1), 4 (2016), doi:10.3847/0004-637X/ 827/1/4

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/ 2016

  55. [56]

    S. Yang, J. B¨ uchner, H. Zhang, Magnetic Helicity Exchange Between Neighboring Active Regions.Astrophys. J. Lett.695(1), L25–L30 (2009), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/L25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/l25 2009

  56. [57]

    J. J. Drake, G. Peres, S. Orlando, J. M. Laming, A. Maggio, On Stellar Coronae and Solar Active Regions.Astrophys. J.545(2), 1074–1083 (2000), doi:10.1086/317820

    work page doi:10.1086/317820 2000

  57. [58]

    Namekata,et al., Probable detection of an eruptive filament from a superflare on a solar-type star.Nature Astronomy6, 241–248 (2021), doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01532-8

    K. Namekata,et al., Probable detection of an eruptive filament from a superflare on a solar-type star.Nature Astronomy6, 241–248 (2021), doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01532-8

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01532-8 2021

  58. [59]

    J. R. Lemen,et al., The Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) on the Solar Dynamics Obser- vatory (SDO).Solar Phys.275(1-2), 17–40 (2012), doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

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

  59. [60]

    M. G. Bobra,et al., The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) Vector Magnetic Field Pipeline: SHARPs - Space-Weather HMI Active Region Patches.Solar Phys.289(9), 3549– 3578 (2014), doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0529-3

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

  60. [61]

    P. H. Scherrer,et al., The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) Investigation for the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).Solar Phys.275(1-2), 207–227 (2012), doi:10.1007/ s11207-011-9834-2

    2012

  61. [62]

    W. D. Pesnell, B. J. Thompson, P. C. Chamberlin, The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). Solar Phys.275(1-2), 3–15 (2012), doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

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

  62. [63]

    G. E. Brueckner,et al., The Large Angle Spectroscopic Coronagraph (LASCO).Solar Phys. 162(1-2), 357–402 (1995), doi:10.1007/BF00733434

    doi:10.1007/bf00733434 1995

  63. [64]

    Domingo, B

    V. Domingo, B. Fleck, A. I. Poland, The SOHO Mission: an Overview.Solar Phys.162(1-2), 1–37 (1995), doi:10.1007/BF00733425

    doi:10.1007/bf00733425 1995

  64. [65]

    C. Xia, J. Teunissen, I. El Mellah, E. Chan ´e, R. Keppens, MPI-AMRV AC 2.0 for Solar and Astrophysical Applications.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series234(2), 30 (2018), doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6c8. 22

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa6c8 2018

  65. [66]

    Dedner,et al., Hyperbolic Divergence Cleaning for the MHD Equations.Journal of Com- putational Physics175(2), 645–673 (2002), doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    A. Dedner,et al., Hyperbolic Divergence Cleaning for the MHD Equations.Journal of Com- putational Physics175(2), 645–673 (2002), doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    arXiv 2002

  66. [67]

    Jiang, C.-W

    G.-S. Jiang, C.-W. Shu, Efficient Implementation of Weighted ENO Schemes.Journal of Computational Physics126(1), 202–228 (1996), doi:10.1006/jcph.1996.0130

    arXiv 1996

  67. [68]

    Shu, High Order Weighted Essentially Nonoscillatory Schemes for Convection Domi- nated Problems.SIAM Review51(1), 82–126 (2009), doi:10.1137/070679065

    C.-W. Shu, High Order Weighted Essentially Nonoscillatory Schemes for Convection Domi- nated Problems.SIAM Review51(1), 82–126 (2009), doi:10.1137/070679065

    doi:10.1137/070679065 2009

  68. [69]

    Tanaka, Finite Volume TVD Scheme on an Unstructured Grid System for Three-Dimensional MHD Simulation of Inhomogeneous Systems Including Strong Background Potential Fields

    T. Tanaka, Finite Volume TVD Scheme on an Unstructured Grid System for Three-Dimensional MHD Simulation of Inhomogeneous Systems Including Strong Background Potential Fields. Journal of Computational Physics111(2), 381–389 (1994), doi:10.1006/jcph.1994.1071

    arXiv 1994

  69. [70]

    C. Xing, G. Aulanier, X. Cheng, C. Xia, M. Ding, Unveiling the Initiation Route of Coronal Mass Ejections through Their Slow Rise Phase.Astrophys. J.966(1), 70 (2024), doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ad2ea9

    2024

  70. [71]

    Jiang,et al., A fundamental mechanism of solar eruption initiation.Nature Astronomy5, 1126–1138 (2021), doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01414-z

    C. Jiang,et al., A fundamental mechanism of solar eruption initiation.Nature Astronomy5, 1126–1138 (2021), doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01414-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01414-z 2021

  71. [72]

    E. R. Priest, P. D ´emoulin, Three-dimensional magnetic reconnection without null points. 1. Basic theory of magnetic flipping.J. Geophys. Res.100(A12), 23443–23464 (1995), doi: 10.1029/95JA02740

    doi:10.1029/95ja02740 1995

  72. [73]

    V. S. Titov, G. Hornig, P. D ´emoulin, Theory of magnetic connectivity in the solar corona.Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)107(A8), 1164 (2002), doi: 10.1029/2001JA000278

    doi:10.1029/2001ja000278 2002

  73. [74]

    Zhang, J

    P. Zhang, J. Chen, R. Liu, C. Wang, FastQSL: A Fast Computation Method for Quasi-separatrix Layers.Astrophys. J.937(1), 26 (2022), doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d61. Acknowledgments We thank Can Wang and Bo Li for valuable discussions. The numerical calculation was done on the computing facilities in the High Performance Computing Center of Nanjing University....

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d61 2022

  74. [1000]

    Observa1on layer

    (D) Similar to panel C but showing the bottom surface in panel B. 29 Y (Mm) 0 10 20 30 0 2 4 0 1.5 3 0 45 90 40 50 60 70 X (Mm) 0 10 20 30Y (Mm) 40 50 60 70 X (Mm) 40 50 60 70 X (Mm) -3 0 3 40 50 60 70 X (Mm) -1 0 1 0 10 20 30Y (Mm) 0 2 4 0 1.5 3 0 45 90 X (Mm) Y (Mm) 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 X (Mm) 40 50 60 70 X (Mm) 40 50 60 70 -3 0 3 X (Mm) 40 50 60 70 -...

    2015