Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Combined Surface Flux Transport and Helioseismic Far-side Active Region Model (FARM)

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Seismic far-side data improve modeled Sun-wide magnetic fields

desk verdict FARM is a solid, transparent engineering step toward including far-side active regions in SFT models, but its headline improvement rests on a model-dependent calibration and a qualitative open-field comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18701 v1 pith:QJU3ULKK submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.SR

Dan Yang , Stephan G. Heinemann , Robert H. Cameron , Laurent Gizon This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords surfacefluxtransporthelioseismicfar-sideimagingactiveregionsspaceweathersolarmagneticfieldholographyopenSDO/HMI
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

This paper builds a model that combines a surface flux transport (SFT) model of the Sun's magnetic field with active regions detected on the far side using helioseismic holography. The authors convert seismic phase shifts into estimates of unsigned magnetic flux for each detected active region, assign polarities using Hale's law, and insert these regions as sources into the SFT model. They find that including these far-side active regions improves agreement between modeled open-field areas and EUV observations, and argue this can lead to better space-weather forecasting. The central claim is that helioseismic far-side imaging can substantially improve the accuracy of full-surface magnetic field maps used as boundary conditions for solar wind models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the combined surface flux transport and helioseismic Far-side Active Region Model (FARM), which uses the Baumann (2005) SFT code with daily assimilation of front-side SDO/HMI magnetograms. The load-bearing identity is the linear calibration C = -245 G $rad^{-1}$ between integrated seismic phase shift and unsigned magnetic flux (Equation 8), which converts helioseismic maps into magnetic-field source terms inserted through Equation 12.

What would settle it

Compare FARM's inserted far-side active region fluxes and polarities directly against Solar Orbiter/PHI magnetograms of the same regions at the same times; a systematic mismatch in unsigned flux beyond the stated calibration error, or a polarity error rate substantially above the 4.2% manual correction rate found on the front side, would invalidate the linear calibration and the Hale-law polarity assignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a proof of concept that far-side active regions detected via helioseismic holography can be converted into magnetic-field source terms and inserted into a surface flux transport model, improving the modeled Sun-wide magnetic field. The key methodological step is an empirical linear relation, C = -245 G $rad^{-1}$, linking the integrated seismic phase shift across an active-region pole to its unsigned magnetic flux. Polarity is assigned from Hale's law, with approximate flux balance enforced between the two polarities. Over 2010-2024 the model inserted 859 active regions, and comparisons of modeled open-field areas with EUV observations show substantial improvement when far-side active regions are included.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration constant between seismic phase shift and magnetic flux is computed using fluxes from the SFT model itself, so if the transport model's diffusion, meridional flow, or initial conditions bias far-side flux of emerged regions, every inserted active region inherits that bias and the claimed open-field improvement could partly reflect the model's own assumptions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Space-weather models using FARM boundary conditions should produce more accurate heliospheric magnetic fields and solar wind forecasts than models that ignore far-side emergence.
  • The method provides a systematic, automatic way to include far-side active regions over decades, filling the gap left by single-event manual insertions like the earlier ADAPT study.
  • The statistical catalog of 859 far-side active regions, with their flux, area, and pole configuration, can serve as a benchmark for comparing helioseismic detection with other far-side observations such as Solar Orbiter/PHI magnetograms.
  • The explicit treatment of anti-Hale regions (4.2% of the sample) highlights the limitation of polarity assignment by Hale's law and motivates future work on polarity inference from seismology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The agreement improvement with EUV open fields suggests that even coarse far-side flux insertion can outweight the errors in the transport model's far-side evolution, but the observed improvement may be partly an artifact of the SFT reference used for calibration rather than a purely seismic gain.
  • If the calibration constant is stable over solar cycles, the same method could be applied retroactively to GONG seismic data, extending FARM-like maps before the SDO era and enabling long-term space-weather hindcasts.
  • Testing FARM against Solar Orbiter/PHI far-side magnetograms for individual active regions would directly validate the assumed linear relation and the polarity assignment, providing a sharper falsifier than aggregate open-field agreement.
  • The 1.2% average flux increase (up to 25.3% at insertion time) suggests that the largest impact of far-side inclusion occurs near emergence, implying that operational space-weather models could benefit most from rapid insertion within a day of detection.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 'FARM', a combined surface flux transport and helioseismic far-side active region model. It detects far-side active regions from seismic phase-shift maps, converts the integrated seismic phase shift of each detected pole into unsigned magnetic flux using a linear calibration against an SFT-model reference, assigns polarities via Hale's law (with manual correction of anti-Hale cases), and inserts model bipolar regions into the SFT simulation. Over 2010-2024 it models 859 active regions, with average total unsigned flux 7.84e21 Mx and average area 4.48e10 km^2; including these regions increases total unsigned flux by 1.2-1.3% on average and up to about 25% in individual cases. The paper claims that comparisons of modeled open-field areas with EUV observations show a substantial improvement when far-side active regions are included, and concludes that FARM can significantly improve space-weather modeling.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, FARM would provide a practical, fully automated way to incorporate helioseismic far-side observations into full-surface magnetograms, which are routinely used as boundary conditions for corona and solar-wind models. The paper has clear strengths: it uses an improved helioseismic holography method, builds a 14-year catalog of far-side active-region events, and explicitly states its key assumptions. However, the validation is currently qualitative and single-epoch, and the seismic-to-flux calibration is performed against the same SFT model that FARM modifies, so the claimed improvement is not yet quantitatively secured. The authors themselves concede in the Conclusions that Solar Orbiter/PHI provides an opportunity for future validation and calibration, which underlines the absence of an independent test in the present work.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, Eq. (8)] The calibration constant C = -245 G rad^-1 in Eq. (8) is fitted against unsigned fluxes computed from the SFT model itself, not from direct far-side magnetograms. Section 2.4 states the assumption that 'on average the SFT model reproduces their evolution well enough for the SFT model to reproduce the amount of unsigned magnetic flux,' and the reader is given no estimate of the scatter or uncertainty of the fit in Figure 4. Because the inserted far-side flux is exactly C times the integrated seismic phase, any bias in the SFT reference flux (e.g., from the chosen diffusion coefficient, meridional flow, or initial condition) is inherited by every inserted active region and propagates directly into the claimed open-field improvement. This is a load-bearing issue: the central validation does not independently test the seismic-to-flux relation. Please report the uncertainty in C, the number of calibration regions, and at least a partial check of the flux calibration against SO/PHI far-side magnetograms (or another independent data set).
  2. [§4, Figure 7] The abstract's central claim of 'substantial improvement' rests on a visual comparison of PFSS open-field footpoints overlaid on EUV synoptic charts for a single date, 17 April 2013. No statistical score (e.g., coronal-hole overlap, hit rate/false-alarm rate, or correlation) is computed, and no sample of multiple Carrington rotations is presented. Visual inspection of one epoch is not sufficient to establish that including far-side active regions systematically improves modeled open fields. Please provide a quantitative comparison over a set of dates or Carrington rotations spanning different activity levels, and state the PFSS source-surface height and whether the result is sensitive to that choice.
  3. [§2.7] The polarity correction for anti-Hale active regions is manual and relies on matching far-side detections to front-side magnetograms. The paper reports that 4.2% of regions were corrected and that 3.0% could not be reliably associated; those unassociated regions, along with any anti-Hale regions that dissolved before reaching the front side, retain an unverified polarity assignment. Since open-field connectivity is polarity-sensitive and the inserted regions can contribute up to roughly 25% excess local flux, the effect of these residual polarity uncertainties on the open-field comparison should be quantified, for example by flipping the polarities of the unverified subset and recomputing the validation metric.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §3] The numbers for the flux increase are inconsistent: the abstract says 'an average increase of 1.2% (up to 25.3%)' while §3 states 'a 1.3% higher total unsigned flux' and 'up to 23.2% more flux.' Please reconcile these values and define precisely what 'average' and 'up to' refer to.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The rotation profile is printed as '13.38 − 13.2 − 2.3 cos^2 θ − 1.62 cos^4 θ', which appears to contain a typo; the constant term 13.2 likely should not be subtracted, or the expression should be written with the standard coefficients (e.g., 13.38 − 2.30 cos^2 θ − 1.62 cos^4 θ).
  3. [§2.4] The selection of calibration regions is described as requiring 'a mean field strength of at least 17 G over active regions in the SFT model' and as restricting to regions 'observed on the disk before their detection on the Sun's far side.' Please clarify whether the selection uses actual HMI magnetograms or the SFT model output, and how the 17 G threshold is applied in time.
  4. [§2.6, Eq. (12)] The insertion time t_e is defined as the time when the flux of B_p(t_e) is 15% higher than that of B_p(t_e − Δt) and the SFT model without far-side inputs at t_e; the wording is ambiguous because the comparison point for 'the coinciding SFT model' is not clear. Please rephrase the criterion.
  5. [Figure 7 caption] The caption states that panels g and h 'show the combined EUV synoptic charts only without overlaying open-field maps,' but panels d and e are already described as EUV charts with overlays; the distinction between d/e and g/h should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the seismic-to-flux calibration uses SFT-model fluxes as a transfer standard, but the headline open-field improvement is validated against independent EUV/STEREO observations and is not forced by the fit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Equation (8) is an empirical calibration: the constant C = -245 G rad^-1 is fitted by regressing unsigned fluxes taken from an SFT model (without far-side inputs) against integrated seismic phase shifts for active regions previously observed on the front side. This is a transfer standard, not the target claim. The target claim is that inserting far-side active regions into the SFT model improves agreement with EUV open-field observations, and that comparison is external: Figure 7 overlays PFSS open-field footpoints from FARM and from the baseline SFT model on combined SDO/AIA and STEREO 195 Å synoptic charts, and the improvement is assessed against those observations, not against the calibration data. The far-side fluxes inserted in FARM are not validated against the same SFT fluxes used to fit C; they are applied to newly detected far-side regions, including anti-Hale corrections checked against HMI data when regions rotate into view. No self-citation is load-bearing: Yang, Gizon, and Barucq (2023) is cited for the seismic maps and has been independently checked against SO/PHI magnetograms (Yang et al. 2023); Cameron et al. (2010) and Liang et al. (2018) supply standard empirical transport inputs. The paper explicitly flags the calibration assumption in Section 2.4: 'We assume that on average the SFT model reproduces their evolution well enough for the SFT model to reproduce the amount of unsigned magnetic flux,' and the Conclusions note that SO/PHI offers a future opportunity to validate and calibrate FARM. That is a model-dependence/robustness limitation, not a circular reduction: a wrong SFT flux calibration would bias FARM's inserted fluxes, but the open-field improvement is not equal to the calibration relation by construction. The demonstration is qualitative and limited to one date, which is a strength-of-evidence issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper inherits many standard assumptions of surface flux transport and helioseismic far-side imaging, but the item that carries the most weight is the stated assumption in Section 2.4 that the SFT reference maps accurately reproduce the flux of front-side-emerged active regions on the far side. The free parameters listed above are either fitted to data in this paper or tuned to observations in prior work, and they directly affect the FARM output.

free parameters (6)
  • Calibration constant C = -245 G rad^-1
    Fitted in Eq. 8, Section 2.4, to SFT model reference flux versus integrated seismic phase; no uncertainty reported.
  • Diffusion coefficient eta_h = 250 km^2/s
    Set in Section 2.1 to match the amplitude of polar field from observations (Figure 9, Cameron et al. 2010); affects SFT reference maps used in calibration.
  • Meridional flow amplitudes VMC and Vinflow = 14.2 m/s and 10.9 m/s
    Taken from Liang et al. (2018) in Section 2.1, Equations (3)-(5); helioseismically constrained but still model parameters that influence far-side evolution.
  • Detection threshold and minimum active region size = 3 sigma; 800 microhemispheres
    Chosen in Section 2.3 to suppress false detections; regions smaller than 800 microhemispheres are discarded, which affects which active regions enter the model.
  • Flux increase threshold for source insertion = 15%
    Chosen in Section 2.6 to define when an existing far-side active region is reinserted; impacts source term timing and flux statistics.
  • Calibration mean-field threshold = 17 G
    In Section 2.4, restricts calibration sample to active regions with mean field at least 17 G in SFT reference maps; post hoc selection.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The photospheric magnetic field is radially oriented and evolves as a passive scalar under rotation, meridional flow, and diffusion (Eq. 1).
    Standard SFT assumption invoked in Section 2.1; if the field is not passively advected at these scales, the reference maps used for calibration are biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Seismic phase shift integrated over a pole is linearly proportional to unsigned magnetic flux (Eq. 8).
    The linear form is assumed in Section 2.4 and the constant is fitted; no physical derivation or independent check is provided.
  • domain assumption Hale's law determines the polarity (leading polarity by hemisphere and cycle) of all inserted far-side active regions.
    Invoked in Sections 2.5 and 2.7; the paper itself shows 4.2% anti-Hale exceptions that had to be manually corrected.
  • ad hoc to paper The SFT model reproduces the far-side evolution of front-side-emerged active regions well enough to serve as calibration truth.
    Stated explicitly in Section 2.4; this is the load-bearing assumption identified in the weakest_assumption field.
  • domain assumption The tilt angle and pole separation of inserted regions follow empirical laws from Wang and Sheeley (1991) and Cameron et al. (2010) (Eqs. 9-10).
    These are standard empirical relations taken from prior literature and applied without modification to far-side regions in Section 2.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Combined Surface Flux Transport and Helioseismic Far-side Active Region Model (FARM)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QJU3ULKK

@misc{pith2026241118701,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Combined Surface Flux Transport and Helioseismic Far-side Active Region Model (FARM)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QJU3ULKK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18701}
}
abstract

Maps of the magnetic field at the Sun's surface are commonly used as boundary conditions in space-weather modeling. However, continuous observations are only available from the Sun's Earth-facing side. One commonly used approach to mitigate the lack of far-side information is to apply a surface flux transport (SFT) model to model the evolution of the magnetic field as the Sun rotates. Helioseismology can image active regions on the far side using acoustic oscillations, and hence has the potential to improve the modeled surface magnetic field. In this study, we propose a novel approach for estimating magnetic fields of active regions on the Sun's far side based on seismic measurements, and then include them into a SFT model. To calibrate seismic signal to magnetic field, we apply our SFT model to line-of-sight magnetograms from SDO/HMI to obtain reference maps of global magnetic fields. The resulting maps are compared with seismic maps on the Sun's far side computed using helioseismic holography. The spatial structure of the magnetic field within an active region is reflected in the spatial structure of seismic phase shifts. We assign polarities to the unipolar magnetic-field concentrations based on Hale's law and require approximate flux balance between the two polarities. From 2010 to 2024, we modeled 859 active regions, with an average total unsigned flux of $7.84\cdot 10^{21}$ Mx and an average area of $4.48\cdot 10^{10}$ km$^{2}$. Approximately $4.2\%$ of the active regions were found to have an anti-Hale configuration, which we manually corrected. Comparisons between modeled open-field areas and EUV observations reveal a substantial improvement in agreement when far-side active regions are included. This proof of concept study demonstrates the potential of the ``combined surface flux transport and helioseismic Far-side Active Region Model'' (FARM) to improve space-weather modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18701 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example magnetograms from SDO/HMI as inputs for the surface flux transport (SFT) model. Panel a: 720 s line-of-sight magnetogram from SDO/HMI on 17 June 2010 as viewed by the camera. Panel b: remapped magnetic fields in the Carrington reference frame using the magnetogram as shown in panel a. Panel c: full surface Br from JSOC/Stanford using synoptic maps from CARR 2097 (19 May – 16 June 2010), which is used as the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example helioseismic far-side images in Carrington reference frame. Line-of-sight magnetograms from SDO/HMI shown are on the front side in black and white in the range of -30 to 30 G. Seismic images are shown in the range of −6σψ to −1.5σψ, where σψ is the noise as measured from the quiet-Sun area in each map. Panels a and b are example maps on 25 March 2013 and 15 days later on 9 April 2013. In both panels, active … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example modeled active-region magnetic fields using helioseismic far-side maps. The top panels a1 to a3 show zoom of seismic phase maps around active regions with 1 to 3 poles. The middle panels b1 to b3 show corresponding modeled magnetic fields using seismic phase maps as seen on the top panels. The bottom panels c1 to c3 show the magnetograms when the active regions appear on the Earth’s side of view. 2.3. Locati… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Unsigned magnetic flux as a function of integrated seismic phase shifts from the individual pole in each active region. Magnetograms from the SFT model (without far-side inputs) are used to calculate the unsigned magnetic flux. We assume that the unsigned mag￾netic flu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A simple geometry plot of a bipolar active region which has a positive tilt angle in the northern hemisphere. The two circles indicate the leading (most westward) and the trailing polarities. The leading polarity is negative during even-numbered solar cycles (e.g., Sol…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of far-side active regions included in the model as a function of time, latitude, unsigned magnetic flux, and configuration. The y-axis shows the position of the geometric center of mass (latitudinal component only) and the x-axis shows the time when each …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Magnetograms and combined EUV filtergrams with overlaid PFSS model re￾sults from the 17 April 2013 12:00UT. Panels a and b show the SFT model without far-side inputs and FARM magnetograms with their respective open-field regions overlaid. Panels d and e show combined E…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Meridional flow model proposed by Liang et al. (2018) for Solar Cycle 23 & 24 (see, Equations 3 to 5). Inflows around active regions were taken into account. SOLA: main.tex; 2 December 2024; 1:04; p. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparisons of the polar field strength between FARM magnetograms (blue and red) and observations from SDO/HMI (gray). The polar field strength from FARM is calculated by taking the mean of the magnetic fields from ±60◦ to ±90◦. For HMI observations, we use the polar f…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Percentual excess of total unsigned magnetic flux and monthly sunspot number from the SILSO World Data Center (SILSO World Data Center 2024) over a full solar cycle. We define the excess flux as the ratio of the total unsigned flux calculated from FARM divided by the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Maksimovic, M., Issautier, K., Meyer-Vernet, N., Moncuquet, M., Pantellini, F

    Arge, C.N., Henney, C.J., Koller, J., Compeau, C.R., Young, S., MacKenzie, D., Fay, A., Harvey, J.W.: 2010, Air Force Data Assimilative Photospheric Flux Transport (ADAPT) Model. In: Maksimovic, M., Issautier, K., Meyer-Vernet, N., Moncuquet, M., Pantellini, F. (eds.) Twelfth International Solar Wind Conference, American Institute of Physics Conference Se...

    work page 2010

  2. [3]

    DOI. ADS. Schou, J., Scherrer, P.H., Bush, R.I., Wachter, R., Couvidat, S., Rabello-Soares, M.C., Bogart, R.S., Hoeksema, J.T., Liu, Y., Duvall, T.L., Akin, D.J., Allard, B.A., Miles, J.W., Rairden, R., Shine, R.A., Tarbell, T.D., Title, A.M., Wolfson, C.J., Elmore, D.F., Norton, A.A., Tomczyk, S.: 2012, Design and Ground Calibration of the Helioseismic a...

    work page 2012

  3. [5]

    DOI. ADS. Kim, T., Park, E., Lee, H., Moon, Y.-J., Bae, S.-H., Lim, D., Jang, S., Kim, L., Cho, I.- H., Choi, M., Cho, K.-S.: 2019, Solar farside magnetograms from deep learning analysis of STEREO/EUVI data. Nat. Astron. 3,

    work page 2019

  4. [8]

    (2018) for Solar Cycle 23 & 24 (see, Equations 3 to 5)

    Meridional flow model proposed by Liang et al. (2018) for Solar Cycle 23 & 24 (see, Equations 3 to 5). Inflows around active regions were taken into account. SOLA: main.tex; 2 December 2024; 1:04; p. 17 Yang et al. Figure

    work page 2018

  5. [9]

    The polar field strength from F ARM is calculated by taking the mean of the magnetic fields from±60◦ to ±90◦

    Comparisons of the polar field strength between F ARM magnetograms (blue and red) and observations from SDO/HMI (gray). The polar field strength from F ARM is calculated by taking the mean of the magnetic fields from±60◦ to ±90◦. For HMI observations, we use the polar field strength provided by the JSOC (series name hmi.meanpf 720s at a 12hr cadence). 201...

    work page 2010

  6. [11]

    DOI. ADS. Baumann, I.J.: 2005, Magnetic flux transport on the Sun. PhD thesis, Georg August University of Gottingen, Germany. ADS. Cameron, R.H., Jiang, J., Schmitt, D., Sch¨ ussler, M.: 2010, Surface Flux Transport Mod- eling for Solar Cycles 15-21: Effects of Cycle-Dependent Tilt Angles of Sunspot Groups. Astrophys. J. 719(1),

    work page 2005

  7. [17]

    DOI. ADS. Upton, L.A., Ugarte-Urra, I., Warren, H.P., Hathaway, D.H.: 2024, The Advective Flux Trans- port Model: Improving the Far Side with Active Regions Observed by STEREO 304 ˚A. Astrophys. J. 968(2),

    work page 2024

  8. [50]

    DOI. ADS. Kaiser, M.L., Kucera, T.A., Davila, J.M., St. Cyr, O.C., Guhathakurta, M., Christian, E.: 2008, The STEREO Mission: An Introduction. Space Sci. Rev.136,

    work page 2008

Show all 23 references
  1. [67]

    DOI. ADS. Jeong, H.-J., Moon, Y.-J., Park, E., Lee, H., Baek, J.-H.: 2022, Improved AI-generated Solar Farside Magnetograms by STEREO and SDO Data Sets and Their Release. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 262(2),

    2022

  2. [81]

    DOI. ADS. Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, J. N. R.: 1991, Magnetic Flux Transport and the Sun’s Dipole Moment: New Twists to the Babcock-Leighton Model. Astrophys. J. 375,

    1991

  3. [114]

    DOI. ADS. Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, J. N. R.: 1989, Average Properties of Bipolar Magnetic Regions during Sunspot CYCLE-21. Solar Phys. 124(1),

    1989

  4. [141]

    DOI. ADS. Howard, R.A., Moses, J.D., Vourlidas, A., Newmark, J.S., Socker, D.G., Plunkett, S.P., Ko- rendyke, C.M., Cook, J.W., Hurley, A., Davila, J.M., Thompson, W.T., St Cyr, O.C., Mentzell, E., Mehalick, K., Lemen, J.R., Wuelser, J.P., Duncan, D.W., Tarbell, T.D., Wolfson,...

    2008

  5. [154]

    DOI. ADS. Liang, Z.-C., Gizon, L., Birch, A.C., Duvall, T.L., Rajaguru, S.P.: 2018, Solar meridional circulation from twenty-one years of SOHO/MDI and SDO/HMI observations. Helioseismic travel times and forward modeling in the ray approximation. Astron. Astrophys.619, A99. DOI...

    2018

  6. [229]

    DOI. ADS. SILSO World Data Center: 2024, The International Sunspot Number. International Sunspot Number Monthly Bulletin and online catalogue0. ADS. Snodgrass, H.B.: 1983, Magnetic rotation of the solar photosphere. Astrophys. J. 270,

    2024

  7. [264]

    DOI. ADS. Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, I., Hill, F., Lindsey, C.: 2007, Calibration of Seismic Signatures of Active Regions on the Far Side of the Sun. Astrophys. J. 669(2),

    2007

  8. [288]

    DOI. ADS. Solanki, S.K., del Toro Iniesta, J.C., Woch, J., Gandorfer, A., Hirzberger, J., Alvarez-Herrero, A., Appourchaux, T., Mart ´ ınez Pillet, V., P´ erez-Grande, I., Sanchis Kilders, E., Schmidt, W., G´ omez Cama, J.M., Michalik, H., Deutsch, W., Fernandez-Rico, G., Grau...

    2020

  9. [343]

    DOI. ADS. Arge, C.N., Henney, C.J., Hernandez, I.G., Toussaint, W.A., Koller, J., Godinez, H.C.: 2013, Modeling the corona and solar wind using ADAPT maps that include far-side observations. In: Zank, G.P., Borovsky, J., Bruno, R., Cirtain, J., Cranmer, S., Elliott, H., Giacal...

    2013

  10. [397]

    DOI. ADS. Knizhnik, K.J., Weberg, M.J., Zaveri, A.S., Ugarte-Urra, I., Wang, Y.-M., Upton, L.A., Provornikova, E.: 2024, The Effects of Including Farside Observations on In Situ Predictions of Heliospheric Models. Astrophys. J. 969(2),

    2024

  11. [761]

    DOI. ADS. Yang, D., Gizon, L., Barucq, H.: 2023, Imaging individual active regions on the Sun’s far side with improved helioseismic holography. Astron. Astrophys.669, A89. DOI. ADS. Yang, D., Gizon, L., Barucq, H., Hirzberger, J., Orozco Su´ arez, D., Albert, K., Albelo Jorge,...

    2023 arXiv

  12. [1382]

    DOI. ADS. Heinemann, S.G., Temmer, M., Hofmeister, S.J., Stojakovic, A., Gizon, L., Yang, D.: 2021, How to Estimate the Far-Side Open Flux Using STEREO Coronal Holes. Solar Phys. 296(9),

    2021

  13. [1799]

    DOI. ADS. SOLA: main.tex; 2 December 2024; 1:04; p. 15 Yang et al. M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O.C., Zouganelis, I., Gilbert, H.R., Marsden, R., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., Antonucci, E., Auch` ere, F., Berghmans, D., Horbury, T.S., Howard, R.A., Krucker, S., Maksimovic, M., Owen, C.J.,...

    2024

  14. [2024]

    We define the excess flux as the ratio of the total unsigned flux calculated from F ARM divided by the respective flux of the SFT model without far-side inputs

    over a full solar cycle. We define the excess flux as the ratio of the total unsigned flux calculated from F ARM divided by the respective flux of the SFT model without far-side inputs. SOLA: main.tex; 2 December 2024; 1:04; p. 18

    2024

  15. [3617]

    DOI. ADS. Lindsey, C., Braun, D.C.: 2000, Seismic Images of the Far Side of the Sun. Science 287,

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.