ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation O O O O
tokens: field is almost horizontal and the field lines are concave-up. These are also locations where plasma can accumulate and eventually form a prominence (Aulanier Demoulin 1998 ; Lionello et al. 2002 ; van Ballegooijen 2004 ; Dudík et al. 2008 , 2012 ; Mackay van Ballegooijen 2009 ; Gibson 2015 ). The orange magnetic field lines extend up to z = 0.01 above the magnetic dips. If we scale our active region to the size of a typical active region hosting quiescent prominences, i.e., about 300 Mm, then orange magnetic field lines extend up to km above the magnetic dips. This is comparable with the (chromospheric) pressure scale height, therefore resulting in a reasonable proxy of quiescent prominences as the ones discussed in Filippov Den ( 2001 ). A comparison between each simulation suggests that different photospheric motions may result in prominences with similar shapes, but different morphologies. The side views of “Run C” show that the prominence is fragmented in its central part, i.e., it has a region devoid of dips at low altitudes, and it is also asymmetric: one of its ends is higher than the other one. This is not the case for “Run D1” where the distribution of the dips seems to follow a more homogeneous circular shape. One difference between the two cases is the asymmetry of the flows that formed the flux rope: the flows in “Run C” have a higher degree of asymmetry compared with “Run D1.” The details of the formation process may therefore influence the exact morphology of the flux rope and that of the dips, with these differences becoming more difficult to detect in the proximity of the flux rope’s axis ( ZAG15 ). The right-hand side panels show the evolution of the system at three different times. The configuration in the top panels is stable, the one in the middle is unstable in the low diffusion regime, but stable in the high diffusion regime, while the configuration in the bottom panel is unstable also in the high diffusion regime. The top-two horizontal yellow lines indicate the critical decay index and critical height for the onset of the instability under “high” and “low” diffusion conditions (see Table 1 ), while the bottom lines in all three models indicate the height where the decay index is n = 1.1. For “Run C” (respectively, “D1,”“D2”) at the time of the onset of the eruption in “low” diffusion regime, the apex of the axis of the MFR, i.e., the location where the stability criteria should be evaluated, has reached a height where the decay index is n = 1.4 (respectively, ) while the highest magnetic dips reach a height where n = 1.1. Interestingly, this value n = 1.1 is independent of the particular formation process in the three cases presented here. This suggests that the apparent instability criterion as evaluated at the location of the prominence is less sensitive to the flux rope formation process compared to when it is evaluated at the axis of the flux rope. Similarly to the flux ropes discussed in ZAG15 , these MFRs are