Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Magnetic Topology of quiet-Sun Ellerman bombs and associated Ultraviolet brightenings

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quiet-Sun Ellerman bombs and their ultraviolet counterparts are linked by four magnetic topologies, most involving a 3D null point.

desk verdict Good taxonomy paper, but the UV-at-null claim for the high-null case doesn't survive the projection check. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03211 v2 pith:TNVKTD5Y submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.SR

Aditi Bhatnagar , Avijeet Prasad , Luc Rouppe van der Voort , Daniel Nóbrega-Siverio , Jayant Joshi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords quiet-SunEllermanbombsmagnetictopology3Dnullpointfan-spinereconnectionultravioletbrighteningspotentialfieldextrapolationH-betaobservations
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

Quiet-Sun Ellerman bombs (QSEBs) are small magnetic reconnection events in the lower solar atmosphere, and only a minority coincide with ultraviolet brightenings in the transition region. This paper tries to establish what magnetic geometry allows the two kinds of events to be coupled. Using high-resolution H-beta images, coordinated ultraviolet slit-jaw images, and potential-field extrapolations of photospheric magnetograms, it identifies four configurations: a simple dipole, and three fan-spine topologies built around a three-dimensional null point, with the QSEB at the outer spine, the inner spine, or the dome footpoints. In all fan-spine cases the ultraviolet brightening sits near the 3D null, whose height ranges from 0.2 Mm to 2.6 Mm. If this is right, magnetic connectivity, not just spatial proximity, determines whether a photospheric bomb and a transition-region flash belong to the same reconnection event.

What carries the argument

The central object is a three-dimensional magnetic null point, a location where the magnetic field vanishes, together with its fan-spine skeleton: a dome-shaped separatrix surface whose footpoints ring one polarity, and two spine field lines, inner and outer, meeting at the null. The argument is carried by potential-field extrapolations of line-of-sight photospheric magnetograms, with nulls located by tracing field lines seeded where the squashing factor is large. The dipole case provides the minimal mechanism: loops between opposite polarities shrink and cancel, releasing energy as the apex drops. In the fan-spine cases, the null is the presumed reconnection site and the ultraviolet brightening marks it, while the QSEB marks the footpoint reached by energy transport along a spine or dome.

What would settle it

Observe the same two regions from a disk-center or high-mu vantage that resolves the full magnetic vector and reconstruct the magnetic skeleton with a nonlinear force-free or magnetohydrostatic extrapolation; if the 3D nulls identified here disappear, move by more than the few-hundred-kilometer spatial offsets, or fail to sit at the UV brightening locations, the claimed topological link is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that co-spatial, co-temporal quiet-Sun Ellerman bombs and ultraviolet brightenings are linked by a small set of repeatable magnetic topologies, and that in the most common complex cases the link is a three-dimensional magnetic null with a fan-spine structure. The paper identifies four such topologies in two regions of a quiet-Sun field: a dipole whose loops shrink as opposite polarities cancel, with the UV brightening near the loop tops, and three variants of a fan-spine null in which the UV brightening forms at the null and the QSEB forms at the footpoint of the outer spine, the footpoint of the inner spine, or the footpoints of the fan surface. The null height varies from about 0.2 Mm to 2.6 Mm with footpoint field strength, and the estimated QSEB energy release is $10^{23}$ to $10^{24}$ ergs, toward the lower end of active-region Ellerman-bomb energies. Some QSEBs that appear near a UV brightening are not topologically connected to it, so proximity by itself does not establish a shared reconnection episode.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the assumption that a current-free potential-field extrapolation of the line-of-sight magnetic field, uncorrected for projection effects, reproduces the real magnetic topology and null-point heights in this quiet-Sun region; if the neglected transverse fields and currents matter, the identified spines, fan connections, and null heights would not match the actual structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fan-spine topologies with a 3D null become a standard explanation for why some QSEBs are accompanied by transition-region brightenings while most are not.
  • Null height is set by the strength of the footpoint field: stronger footpoints push the reconnection site higher, so events with higher nulls should more often show coronal counterparts.
  • A QSEB and a nearby UV brightening may be unrelated; studies pairing the two must check magnetic connectivity, not just overlap.
  • Energy estimates of $10^{23}$ to $10^{24}$ ergs give a quantitative target for simulations of quiet-Sun reconnection.
  • If the same topology drives all four configurations, simultaneous brightenings at dipole, inner-spine, outer-spine, and dome footpoints should be possible, but small events appear to favor only the strongest footpoints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The four topologies may be successive phases of a single evolving structure rather than separate classes: flux emergence builds a dipole against pre-existing field, forming a fan-spine null whose height rises and falls with flux cancellation.
  • If energy transport down spines is the mechanism, H-beta wing brightening should have a threshold in footpoint field strength; this could be tested by comparing the line-of-sight field at many dome footpoints with and without QSEBs.
  • At disk center the UV brightening should appear vertically above the null rather than offset toward the limb; measuring the offset distribution in a larger sample would test the projection interpretation and the null heights directly.
  • Applying the same analysis to active-region Ellerman bombs and UV bursts with stronger fields predicts taller nulls and larger energy releases, extending the scenario beyond the quiet Sun.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes coordinated SST Hβ, IRIS SJI 1400, and photospheric magnetogram observations of quiet Sun regions to investigate the magnetic topology of quiet-Sun Ellerman bombs (QSEBs) and their associated ultraviolet (UV) brightenings. Using FFT-based potential field extrapolations from line-of-sight magnetograms, the authors identify four magnetic configurations that link QSEBs to UV brightenings: a simple dipole and three fan-spine topologies with a 3D magnetic null point. In the fan-spine cases, UV brightenings are claimed to occur near the null while QSEBs are located at the outer spine, inner spine, or fan-surface footpoints. The reported null heights range from 0.2 to 2.6 Mm, and the estimated energy release during QSEBs falls in the range of 10^23 to 10^24 ergs. The paper explicitly acknowledges several limitations, including the use of only BLOS without projection correction, the potential field (current-free) assumption, and the approximate nature of the energy estimates.

Significance. If the topological associations are correct, this paper provides valuable observational evidence that QSEBs and UV brightenings in the quiet Sun can be linked through 3D null reconnection, extending the EB-UV burst connection to smaller, quieter regions and demonstrating a variety of magnetic configurations. The use of high-resolution SST Hβ and IRIS SJI data is a strength, and the authors are transparent about many methodological limitations. However, the central claim that UV brightenings occur at the 3D null is not yet independently established because the vertical placement of the SJI 1400 layer is tied to the null height and because the extrapolation relies on uncorrected line-of-sight data at a large viewing angle. The paper also supplies energy estimates that are explicitly based on potential-field energy changes, which need to be framed carefully. Overall, the work is a useful observational study, but the main topological conclusions require robustness checks before they can be accepted as definitive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2] The 3D rendering places the SJI 1400 layer at the height of the extrapolated 3D null point, so the vertical coincidence between the UV brightening and the null is an interpretive choice rather than an independent measurement. The horizontal association shown in Fig. 7c is then computed from the same extrapolated field that defines the null. To break this circularity, the authors should present the UV brightening as a 2D detection, report the horizontal distance between its centroid and the projected null position with uncertainty estimates, and avoid assigning a single height to the SJI 1400 layer in the visualizations.
  2. [Section 5.1] The potential field extrapolation uses only the line-of-sight component of the magnetic field at µ=0.48 without correcting for projection effects, and it assumes a current-free field. At a viewing angle of 61°, a null at 2.5 Mm height is displaced by roughly 4.5 Mm along the line of sight, which is comparable to the QSEB-UV offsets and to the null heights themselves. The authors should quantify how the null location, the spine/fan connectivity, and the null height change if the boundary is deprojected, if the transverse field components (from the Milne-Eddington inversions) are included in a linear force-free or nonlinear force-free extrapolation, or if the 6.4 G noise is propagated through the extrapolation. Without such a robustness test, the inferred topology and the statement that UV brightenings occur at the null are not yet firmly established.
  3. [Section 4.1, Fig. 5] The energy release is estimated from the decrease in potential field energy within a fixed volume. Since the potential field is the minimum-energy state for a given boundary, this quantity is not the free magnetic energy that can be converted during reconnection; it is a lower bound on the energy change of the potential component. The results section should clearly state that the quoted 10^23–10^24 erg values are potential-field energy changes, not the actual released free energy, and that the true energy release could be higher.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The description of the seed point biasing for field line tracing is vague; please specify the number of seeds, the exact bias rule, and how the results depend on the seed distribution.
  2. [Figure 7c] The caption lists several markers (orange crosses, yellow circles, red star, blue/red circles, cyan star) but does not define all of them; a complete legend in the caption would improve readability.
  3. [Section 4.2] The statement that QSEB-A 'likely occurs due to energy transport from the reconnection site' is a plausible interpretation but is not directly tested; please mark such interpretive statements clearly as speculation.
  4. [Abstract and text] The notation for numerical ranges is inconsistent (e.g., '10^23 to 10^24' in the abstract vs. '10 23 to 1024' in the text); please ensure consistent superscript formatting throughout.
  5. [General] The paper is a case study of six events in two regions; the authors should explicitly state that the four configurations are representative examples rather than a statistically validated classification.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The key 'UV brightening near the 3D null' association is partially built into the visualization: the SJI 1400 layer is placed at the null height, so vertical coincidence is imposed rather than measured; otherwise the magnetic-topology analysis is not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Magnetic field extrapolation (last sentence)]
    "For a visual comparison of the extrapolated magnetic field lines with QSEBs in Hβ and UV brightenings in the SJI 1400 Å channel in 3D, we have placed the QSEBs in Hβ slightly above the photosphere, while for the UV brightenings, the SJI 1400 layer is placed at different heights based on the height of the 3D null point."

    The SJI 1400 image is a 2D map; its vertical position in the 3D renderings is an interpretive choice. Placing that layer at the extrapolated null height makes the UV brightening appear at the same altitude as the null by construction. The later statements that 'the UV brightenings occur near the 3D null point' (Sections 4.2-4.4, Fig. 7a-b, Fig. 12) therefore rest in part on the placement rather than on an independent height measurement. Only the horizontal offset between the UV feature and the null projection is data-derived; the vertical coincidence is imposed by the chosen rendering. The classification into dipole versus fan-spine topologies is independent of this choice, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The core magnetic-topology identification is not circular: the potential-field extrapolation is computed from photospheric BLOS data, the QSEB events are detected in Hβ via k-means clustering, and the UV brightenings are selected by a 5σ threshold in SJI 1400; none of these are fitted to the extrapolated null positions. The four topologies are read off the extrapolated field lines and squashing-factor-weighted null detection, so they have independent content relative to the UV data. However, the headline association 'UV brightenings occur near the 3D null point' is weakened by construction: the paper explicitly places the 2D SJI 1400 layer at the height of the extrapolated null for all 3D visualizations, which forces vertical coincidence between the UV map and the null in the figures. The horizontal agreement (e.g., orange null projections in Fig. 7c and Fig. 9b) is genuine data, but the claimed near-null location in 3D is partly an artifact of the rendering choice rather than a measured height coincidence. The potential-field assumption, projection effects at µ=0.48, and neglect of transverse field components are acknowledged in Section 5.1 and are correctness risks rather than circularity. The self-citation to Bhatnagar et al. (2024, Paper I) for event detection and alignment is methodological and not load-bearing for the topological conclusion. Overall, the paper contains one partial self-definitional step, giving a circularity score of 4 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis rests on standard solar observation and extrapolation techniques. The free parameters are analysis choices (thresholds, box sizes, integration heights) rather than fitted physical constants. The key assumptions are the potential field approximation and the use of BLOS only, both acknowledged in the paper.

free parameters (4)
  • UV brightening detection threshold = 5 sigma above median background
    Hand-chosen threshold to select the strongest UV brightening events; directly affects which events are considered associated with QSEBs.
  • Extrapolation box sizes = 256x256x256 pixels (Region 1), 600x560x256 pixels (Region 2)
    Chosen so that the bottom boundary is approximately flux balanced; box size influences the extrapolated field and the computed null heights.
  • Energy integration height = z = 415 km or 276 km depending on the event
    Chosen to extend slightly beyond the loop heights; the magnetic energy release estimates depend on this choice.
  • Seed point biasing for field line tracing = bias toward stronger |BLOS| and large squashing factor
    Analysis choice that determines which field lines are traced and where null points are searched; affects the visualization and identification of topological features.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The coronal magnetic field is potential (current-free) over the observed regions.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 and Section 5.1 to justify the FFT-based potential field extrapolation. The quiet Sun is weakly magnetized, but currents may still be present, so this is an approximation.
  • domain assumption The line-of-sight component of the photospheric magnetic field is sufficient to reconstruct the magnetic topology when the transverse components are noisy.
    Section 5.1 states that transverse components near the limb are noisy and the 180-degree ambiguity is unresolved, so only BLOS is used. This assumes the topology can be recovered from BLOS alone.
  • domain assumption Spatial offsets between QSEBs and UV brightenings are primarily due to projection of different formation heights.
    Used in Section 5.2 to relate the null height to the observed limbward offset and to match the AIA 171 brightening distance. Other causes of offsets, such as alignment errors, are not fully excluded.
  • standard math The squashing factor computed from the extrapolated potential field correctly identifies separatrices and null points.
    Section 3.2: seed points are biased with a large squashing factor to locate nulls. This relies on standard QSL theory and on the accuracy of the extrapolated field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Topology of quiet-Sun Ellerman bombs and associated Ultraviolet brightenings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNVKTD5Y

@misc{pith2026241203211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Topology of quiet-Sun Ellerman bombs and associated Ultraviolet brightenings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNVKTD5Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03211}
}
read the original abstract

Quiet-Sun Ellerman bombs (QSEBs) are small-scale magnetic reconnection events in the lower atmosphere of the quiet Sun. Recent work has shown that a small percentage of them can occur co-spatially and co-temporally to ultraviolet (UV) brightenings in the transition region. We aim to understand how the magnetic topologies associated with closely occurring QSEBs and UV brightenings can facilitate energy transport and connect these events. We used high-resolution H-beta observations from the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope (SST) and detected QSEBs using k-means clustering. We obtained the magnetic field topology from potential field extrapolations using spectro-polarimetric data in the photospheric Fe I 6173 A line. To detect UV brightenings, we used coordinated and co-aligned data from the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) and imposed a threshold of 5 sigma above the median background on the (IRIS) 1400 A slit-jaw image channel. We identify four distinct magnetic configurations that associate QSEBs with UV brightenings, including a simple dipole configuration and more complex fan-spine topologies with a three-dimensional (3D) magnetic null point. In the fan-spine topology, the UV brightenings occur near the 3D null point, while QSEBs can be found close to the footpoints of the outer spine, the inner spine, and the fan surface. We find that the height of the 3D null varies between 0.2 Mm to 2.6 Mm, depending on the magnetic field strength in the region. We note that some QSEBs and UV brightenings, though occurring close to each other, are not topologically connected with the same reconnection process. We find that the energy released during QSEBs falls in the range of 10^23 to 10^24 ergs. This study shows that magnetic connectivity and topological features, like 3D null points, are crucial in linking QSEBs in the lower atmosphere with UV brightenings in the transition region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03211 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the observed region in Hβ blue wing, SJI 1400, and magnetic field (BLOS). The two white squares mark the regions with continuous QSEB and UV brightening activity. The first four events analysed in this paper occur in Region 1, and the fifth event occurs in Region 2. Red contours at the top outline the QSEB detections. Yellow contours outline >5σ UV brightenings. The arrow in the top panel shows the direc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cartoons schematising the magnetic topologies derived from potential field extrapolations for co-occurring QSEBs and UV brightenings. Panel (a) shows a dipole configuration with a black vertical line marking the polarity inversion line (PIL). Panels (b), (c), and (d) depict UV brightenings occurring at the null point of a fan-spine topology. These three panels highlight various possible locations for QSEBs: near the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Details of the QSEB with dipole magnetic topology in Region 1, at the instance of maximum wing enhancement in the wings of the Hβ line. The top row shows the QSEB in Hβ −0.6 Å, the BLOS map with contours at 2σ above the noise level, and SJI 2796 and 1400. SJI 2796 and 1400 are at a different time, as the UV brightening begins before the QSEB. The yellow contour in panel d) shows a region with >5σ intensity in SJI 14… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnetic topology of the two QSEBs with dipole configuration in Region 1. Panels a) and c) show the loops connecting the positive and negative polarities before the two QSEBs occur. The height of the loops in panels a) and c) are 200 km and 323 km, respectively. The he…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of positive and negative magnetic flux and magnetic energy for the two QSEBs with dipole magnetic field configuration in Region 1. The error in positive and negative flux is shown as thin-shaded regions along the curves. The region used to calculate these qua…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Magnetic fan-spine topology showing a UV brightening at a magnetic null point and a QSEB at the outer spine’s footpoint, resembling the configuration in Fig. 2b. Panels a) and b) show the same instance from different viewpoints. Two QSEBs are observed near the UV brigh…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of positive and negative magnetic flux and magnetic energy for the two QSEBs of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Magnetic fan-spine topology showing the UV brightening at the 3D null and QSEB at one of the footpoints of the fan surface. This resembles the cartoon shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Details of the QSEB occurring at the footpoint of the inner spine of a 3D fan-spine topology in Region 2. The top row shows the QSEB in Hβ +0.6 Å, in Hβ core, the BLOS map with contours at 2σ above the noise level, and SJI 1400. The yellow contours in panel d) show re…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Magnetic fan-spine topology showing the UV brightening at the 3D null and QSEB at the footpoint of the inner spine. This resembles the sketch shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Overview of the observed SST region in AIA 171 Å and SJI 1400 Å, at their original resolution. The black dashed box in AIA 171 Å and yellow dashed box in SJI 1400 Å outline the CHROMIS field of view. White boxes highlight Region 1 and Region 2, with cyan cross markers…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Automatic detection of Ellerman bombs in the H$\alpha$ line

    astro-ph.SR 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    An automated star-finding-based pipeline detects and tracks 2,257 Ellerman bombs across ten solar datasets, reporting an average area of 0.44 arcsec^2, peak contrast of 1.4 times the quiet Sun, and a median lifetime o...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Alissandrakis, C. E. 1981, A&A, 100, 197

    work page 1981

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Berghmans, D., Auchère, F., Long, D. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, L4

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    2024, A&A, 689, A156

    Bhatnagar, A., Rouppe van der V oort, L., & Joshi, J. 2024, A&A, 689, A156

    2024

  4. [4]

    2019, ApJ, 875, L30

    Chen, Y ., Tian, H., Peter, H., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, L30

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    P., Peter, H., Young, P

    Chitta, L. P., Peter, H., Young, P. R., & Huang, Y . M. 2017, A&A, 605, A49 de la Cruz Rodríguez, J. 2019, A&A, 631, A153 de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., Löfdahl, M. G., Sütterlin, P., Hillberg, T., & Rouppe van der V oort, L. 2015, A&A, 573, A40 De Pontieu, B., Title, A. M., Lemen, J. R., et al. 2014, Sol. Phys., 289, 2733

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    C., Priest, E

    Demoulin, P., Henoux, J. C., Priest, E. R., & Mandrini, C. H. 1996, A&A, 308, 643

    1996

  7. [7]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 112

    Deng, N., Tritschler, A., Jing, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 112

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    1917, ApJ, 46, 298

    Ellerman, F. 1917, ApJ, 46, 298

    work page 1917

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Everitt, B. S. 1972, British Journal of Psychiatry, 120, 143–145

    1972

  2. [10]

    K., Rust, D

    Georgoulis, M. K., Rust, D. M., Bernasconi, P. N., & Schmieder, B. 2002, ApJ, 575, 506

    2002

  3. [11]

    V ., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V

    Gudiksen, B. V ., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V . H., et al. 2011, A&A, 531, A154

    2011

  4. [12]

    Gupta, G. R. & Tripathi, D. 2015, ApJ, 809, 82

    2015

  5. [13]

    2019, A&A, 626, A33

    Hansteen, V ., Ortiz, A., Archontis, V ., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A33

    2019

  6. [14]

    H., Archontis, V ., Pereira, T

    Hansteen, V . H., Archontis, V ., Pereira, T. M. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 22

    2017

  7. [15]

    2010, PASJ, 62, 879

    Hashimoto, Y ., Kitai, R., Ichimoto, K., et al. 2010, PASJ, 62, 879

    2010

  8. [16]

    S., Scullion, E

    Huang, Z., Madjarska, M. S., Scullion, E. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1753

    2017

  9. [17]

    & Rouppe van der V oort, L

    Joshi, J. & Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M. 2022, A&A, 664, A72

    2022

  10. [18]

    Joshi, J., Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., & de la Cruz Rodríguez, J. 2020, A&A, 641, L5

    2020

  11. [19]

    2024, A&A, 687, A172

    Joshi, R., Aulanier, G., Radcliffe, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A172

    2024

  12. [20]

    K., et al

    Kahil, F., Hirzberger, J., Solanki, S. K., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A143

    2022

  13. [21]

    & Panos, B

    Kleint, L. & Panos, B. 2022, A&A, 657, A132

    2022

  14. [22]

    1982, Sol

    Kurokawa, H., Kawaguchi, I., Funakoshi, Y ., & Nakai, Y . 1982, Sol. Phys., 79, 77

    1982

  15. [23]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 17

    2012

  16. [24]

    2019, Atmosphere, 10, 488

    Li, S., Jaroszynski, S., Pearse, S., Orf, L., & Clyne, J. 2019, Atmosphere, 10, 488

    2019

  17. [25]

    S., et al

    Liu, R., Kliem, B., Titov, V . S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 148 Löfdahl, M. G., Hillberg, T., de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A68

    2016

  18. [26]

    Longcope, D. W. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 7

    2005

  19. [27]

    Longcope, D. W. & Parnell, C. E. 2009, Sol. Phys., 254, 51

    2009

  20. [28]

    & Raadu, M

    Nakagawa, Y . & Raadu, M. A. 1972, Sol. Phys., 25, 127

    1972

  21. [29]

    J., Freij, N., Reid, A., et al

    Nelson, C. J., Freij, N., Reid, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 16

    2017

  22. [30]

    J., Scullion, E

    Nelson, C. J., Scullion, E. M., Doyle, J. G., Freij, N., & Erdélyi, R. 2015, ApJ, 798, 19

    2015

  23. [31]

    & Zirin, H

    Nindos, A. & Zirin, H. 1998, Sol. Phys., 182, 381 Nóbrega-Siverio, D., Cabello, I., Bose, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A218 Nóbrega-Siverio, D., Martínez-Sykora, J., Moreno-Insertis, F., & Rouppe van der V oort, L. 2017, ApJ, 850, 153 Nóbrega-Siverio, D. & Moreno-Insertis, F. 20...

    1998

  24. [32]

    H., Nóbrega-Siverio, D., & Rouppe van der V oort, L

    Ortiz, A., Hansteen, V . H., Nóbrega-Siverio, D., & Rouppe van der V oort, L. 2020, A&A, 633, A58

    2020

  25. [33]

    2004, ApJ, 614, 1099

    Pariat, E., Aulanier, G., Schmieder, B., et al. 2004, ApJ, 614, 1099

    2004

  26. [34]

    2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 902

    Pariat, E., Aulanier, G., Schmieder, B., et al. 2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 902

    2006

  27. [35]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 3

    2012

  28. [36]

    2014, Science, 346, 1255726

    Peter, H., Tian, H., Curdt, W., et al. 2014, Science, 346, 1255726

    2014

  29. [37]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 129

    Prasad, A., Dissauer, K., Hu, Q., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 129

    2020

  30. [38]

    Priest, E. R. & Forbes, T. G. 2002, A&A Rev., 10, 313

    2002

  31. [39]

    K., et al

    Przybylski, D., Cameron, R., Solanki, S. K., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A91

    2022

  32. [40]

    G., et al

    Reid, A., Mathioudakis, M., Doyle, J. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 110

    2016

  33. [41]

    Reid, H. A. S., Vilmer, N., Aulanier, G., & Pariat, E. 2012, A&A, 547, A52

    2012

  34. [42]

    L., & Murabito, M

    Romano, P., Falco, M., Guglielmino, S. L., & Murabito, M. 2017, ApJ, 837, 173 Rouppe van der V oort, L., De Pontieu, B., Scharmer, G. B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, L6 Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., Joshi, J., & Krikova, K. 2024, A&A, 683, A190 Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., R...

    2017

  35. [43]

    2013, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol

    Vitas, N. 2013, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 440, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012007

    2013

  36. [44]

    2017, in SOLARNET IV: The Physics of the Sun from the Interior to the Outer Atmosphere, 85

    Scharmer, G. 2017, in SOLARNET IV: The Physics of the Sun from the Interior to the Outer Atmosphere, 85

    2017

  37. [45]

    B., Bjelksjo, K., Korhonen, T

    Scharmer, G. B., Bjelksjo, K., Korhonen, T. K., Lindberg, B., & Petterson, B. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Confer- ence Series, V ol. 4853, Innovative Telescopes and Instrumentation for Solar Astrophysics, ed. S. L. Keil & S. V . Avakyan, 341–350,

    2003

  38. [46]

    B., Narayan, G., Hillberg, T., et al

    Scharmer, G. B., Narayan, G., Hillberg, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, L69

    2008

  39. [47]

    B., Sliepen, G., Sinquin, J

    Scharmer, G. B., Sliepen, G., Sinquin, J. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A32

    2024

  40. [48]

    Severny, A. B. 1964, ARA&A, 2, 363

    1964

  41. [49]

    2023, A&A, 672, A47

    Skan, M., Danilovic, S., Leenaarts, J., Calvo, F., & Rempel, M. 2023, A&A, 672, A47

    2023

  42. [50]

    N., Chitta, L

    Smitha, H. N., Chitta, L. P., Wiegelmann, T., & Solanki, S. K. 2018, A&A, 617, A128

    2018

  43. [51]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 96

    Tian, H., Xu, Z., He, J., & Madsen, C. 2016, ApJ, 824, 96

    2016

  44. [52]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 174

    Tian, H., Zhu, X., Peter, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 174

    2018

  45. [53]

    S., Forbes, T

    Titov, V . S., Forbes, T. G., Priest, E. R., Miki ´c, Z., & Linker, J. A. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1029

    2009

  46. [54]

    S., Hornig, G., & Démoulin, P

    Titov, V . S., Hornig, G., & Démoulin, P. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1164

    2002

  47. [55]

    Toriumi, S., Katsukawa, Y ., & Cheung, M. C. M. 2017, ApJ, 836, 63 Török, T., Linton, M. G., Leake, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 149 Van Noort, M., Rouppe Van Der V oort, L., & Löfdahl, M. G. 2005, Sol. Phys., 228, 191

    2017

  48. [56]

    Vissers, G. J. M., Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., & Rutten, R. J. 2013, ApJ, 774, 32

    2013

  49. [57]

    Vissers, G. J. M., Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., Rutten, R. J., Carlsson, M., & De Pontieu, B. 2015, ApJ, 812, 11 Vögler, A., Shelyag, S., Schüssler, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 429, 335

    2015

  50. [58]

    2008, ApJ, 684, 736

    Watanabe, H., Kitai, R., Okamoto, K., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 736

    2008

  51. [59]

    Watanabe, H., Vissers, G., Kitai, R., Rouppe van der V oort, L., & Rutten, R. J. 2011, ApJ, 736, 71

    2011

  52. [60]

    R., Tian, H., Peter, H., et al

    Young, P. R., Tian, H., Peter, H., et al. 2018, Space Sci. Rev., 214, 120

    2018

  53. [61]

    2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 7

    Zhang, Q. 2024, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 8, 7

    2024

  54. [62]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 52 Article number, page 14 of 14

    Zhao, J., Schmieder, B., Li, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 52 Article number, page 14 of 14

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.