Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 114 references

CME propagation in the dynamically coupled space weather tool: COCONUT + EUHFORIA

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 This paper reports the first time-dependent coupling of the coronal MHD model COCONUT to the heliospheric forecast tool EUHFORIA, allowing flux-rope CMEs to be followed continuously from the solar surface to Earth.

desk verdict Genuinely new time-dependent COCONUT-EUHFORIA coupling; the demonstration is plausible but the unverified super-Alfvénic boundary condition and short live-boundary window keep it from being a validated forecast. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19340 v1 pith:MQHEB6JH submitted 2024-11-28 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

L. Linan , T. Baratashvili , A. Lani , B. Schmieder , M. Brchnelova , J. H. Guo , S. Poedts This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords coronalmassejectionsspaceweatherforecastingMHDsimulationfluxropesolarcoronaheliosphereCOCONUTEUHFORIA
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 establishes that the coronal model COCONUT and the heliospheric forecast tool EUHFORIA can be joined into a single time-dependent chain that carries a flux-rope coronal mass ejection (a coherent, twisted magnetic structure) from the solar surface to Earth. Instead of injecting an idealized CME model at 0.1 AU as standard EUHFORIA does, the chain saves the evolving magnetic field, velocity, density, and temperature on a 21.5-solar-radius sphere in COCONUT and feeds those maps into EUHFORIA as a continuously updated inner boundary. For six test cases spanning two flux-rope models, the solar wind in EUHFORIA behaves as a direct extension of the coronal wind, and the CME's thermodynamic and magnetic signatures, including a pre-formed sheath, cross the interface smoothly and reach L1 with their main structural features preserved. The paper concludes that this coupled chain is a new space-weather forecasting tool that can predict flux-rope CME characteristics at L1, with the amplitudes at Earth set by the flux rope's initial properties at the Sun.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the time series of coupling files: COCONUT is run in time-accurate mode with a flux rope inserted at the photosphere, and every twenty iterations (about 144 seconds of physical time) the three magnetic-field components, three velocity components, temperature, and density are interpolated from COCONUT's unstructured mesh onto a 360-by-180 structured grid at the $21.5\,R_\odot$ interface. A modified EUHFORIA identifies the two boundary files bracketing the current simulation time and linearly interpolates between them to update its inner-boundary ghost cells at every step. This one-way transfer is valid only because the interface flow is assumed to be supersonic and super-Alfvénic, so no signal can propagate back toward the Sun. The full-MHD version of COCONUT supplies the background solar wind, and the TDm and RBSL flux-rope models provide the coronal disturbances whose imprints are carried through the boundary.

What would settle it

During a coupled run, compute the local Alfvén and sound Mach numbers over the whole $21.5\,R_\odot$ sphere for the full CME passage; if any patch is sub-Alfvénic or subsonic, the one-way boundary assumption is violated, and the smooth transition at the interface would have to be treated as a boundary artifact rather than genuine propagation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a coronal MHD simulation and a heliospheric MHD simulation can be dynamically coupled at 21.5 solar radii through a time series of boundary maps, so that a CME's evolution in the low corona is not lost when it enters the heliosphere. In the six test cases, the heliospheric solar wind in EUHFORIA matches the coronal solar wind across the interface, and the disturbances created by flux-rope propagation in COCONUT continue to evolve in EUHFORIA with a smooth transition. Comparing the magnetic field components at 10 solar radii, at the 21.5-solar-radius interface, at 68 solar radii, and at Earth, the authors find that the transient magnetic structures expand self-similarly, with the field amplitude falling roughly as a power law with fitted exponent near $-1.5$, while the overall profile shapes, including sign changes in the $B_y$ and $B_z$ components, persist to Earth. The pre-formed sheath that develops ahead of the flux rope in the corona is inserted through the boundary and continues to grow in the heliosphere, which the authors argue should make sheath predictions closer to observations than models that only form a sheath from 0.1 AU onward.

Load-bearing premise

The entire transfer of information hinges on the flow at the 21.5-solar-radius interface remaining supersonic and super-Alfvénic throughout the CME passage, so that the one-way boundary condition loses nothing, and on the boundary maps saved every ~144 seconds with linear time interpolation capturing the sharp CME front without distortion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Forecasts of CME arrival at Earth will now include whatever acceleration, deflection, heating, and sheath formation happened in the corona, rather than starting from an idealized injection at 0.1 AU.
  • The initial flux-rope parameters (model type, magnetic flux, geometry) become the dominant control on the predicted L1 profiles, so observational determination of those parameters is required for event-specific forecasts.
  • Because the magnetic field profiles at Earth retain the sign-change structure seen at 10 solar radii, the geoeffective $B_z$ orientation can in principle be traced back to the solar-source flux-rope configuration.
  • The chain provides a test bed for studying sheath and magnetic-ejecta evolution with distance, including comparison with multi-spacecraft measurements of how CME magnetic fields decay outward.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would expect the same boundary-file coupling scheme to transfer to other heliospheric MHD codes, because the interface data are standard MHD quantities; the only requirement is that the receiving code can ingest time-dependent inner-boundary maps.
  • A numerical test the paper does not report is a convergence check on output cadence: rerunning one case with files saved every ~14 seconds instead of ~144 seconds would show whether linear temporal interpolation samples the sharp CME front adequately.
  • The persistent high-speed stream in the CME wake appears to be an artifact of keeping the photospheric magnetic field fixed during the run; allowing the solar surface to evolve with a time series of magnetograms should dissipate that stream and would change the late-time L1 profiles.
  • If the super-Alfvénic assumption holds for faster CMEs in solar-maximum conditions, the chain should work in more active epochs; if it does not, a two-way or overlapping-domain coupling would become necessary.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a time-dependent coupling between the coronal MHD model COCONUT and the heliospheric model EUHFORIA. Six CME simulations are run in COCONUT (three Titov-Démoulin and three RBSL flux ropes) for about 24 hours; the plasma state on the spherical surface at 21.5 R_sun is saved every ~144 s and used via linear temporal interpolation as a time-varying inner boundary for EUHFORIA. The authors show smooth transitions of density, temperature, velocity, and magnetic field across the model interface, qualitatively consistent magnetic and thermodynamic profiles at L1 across the six cases, and a power-law decay of the magnetic field amplitude with heliocentric distance (exponent about -1.5). They conclude that the dynamically coupled COCONUT+EUHFORIA chain constitutes a new space weather forecasting tool that can predict flux-rope CME characteristics at L1, including a pre-formed sheath.

Significance. If the coupling is physically sound, this is a valuable step: it replaces the ad-hoc insertion of CME models at 0.1 AU with a disturbance that has evolved self-consistently through the corona, and it is the first time-dependent COCONUT-EUHFORIA linkage. The study benefits from six test cases covering two independent flux-rope models; the CME parameters are inputs, not fitted to the outputs; the self-similar expansion exponent is derived from simulation points, not assumed; and the paper explicitly acknowledges several limitations (fixed photospheric field, sequential workflow, high computational cost). The main caveat is that the central claim of a forecasting tool is supported only by idealized test cases with arbitrarily chosen CME parameters and no comparison to in-situ observations; the 'forecasting tool' wording in the abstract and conclusion is stronger than the presented evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1.1, §4.2, §4.4] The one-way coupling assumption is asserted but never verified. The paper states at 21.5 R_sun that 'we expect a supersonic and super-Alfvénic solar wind' and that 'it is crucial to ensure that the solar wind is not sub-Alfvénic in COCONUT', but no Mach-number or characteristic-speed diagnostic is shown for the July 2019 full-MHD solution or for any of the time-dependent runs. The full-MHD COCONUT wind is bimodal, and the slow streamer-belt plasma near the equatorial plane is exactly where sub-Alfvénic conditions could occur; moreover, during the passage of the sheath and ejecta across the interface, B and density are strongly perturbed, so the condition must hold in every boundary snapshot, not only in the ambient wind. If any radial characteristic speed becomes inward, prescribing all eight MHD variables in the EUHFORIA ghost cells is an overspecified boundary problem that can generate spurious reflected waves, making the smooth transition and the Earth profiles partly numerical artifacts rather than genuine propagation. Please add a quantitative verification, e.g., time- and space-dependent Alfvén and fast-mode Mach numbers at R_b=21.5 R_sun for all six simulations, and show that all radial characteristics are outward throughout the CME passage.
  2. [§4.4] The live coupling covers only about one seventh of the forecast phase. The text states that eleven days are used for relaxation and seven days for the forecast, but the coupling files cover only 1/7 of that forecast phase; for the remaining six days the last available boundary map is used. Since the COCONUT runs stop after about 24 hours, the CME front has crossed the interface within the live period, but the subsequent evolution of the solar wind boundary (including the CME wake and the persistent high-speed stream) is frozen. The Earth profiles in Fig. 12 are therefore mostly the result of propagation of the injected disturbance with a static boundary condition, not of a continuously coupled chain. The authors should either extend the COCONUT simulations through the full forecast phase, or explicitly quantify the time interval during which the boundary is live and discuss how the frozen boundary after day one affects the late-time Earth profiles and the 'dynamically coupled' claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.5] The sentence 'the maximum density ranges between 6×10^10 m^-3 and 4×10^8 m^-3' contradicts Fig. 12, whose density panel shows values on the order of 10^8 m^-3 (approximately 6×10^8 to 4×10^8 m^-3); the subsequent comparison with COCONUT values of 1.6–2.2×10^10 m^-3 should be corrected accordingly.
  2. [§4.2] In the discussion of the RBSL simulations, the text states that 'the radial velocity varies from 1263 km/s (TDm_2) to 1804 km/s (TDm_3)'; the parenthetical labels should be RBSL_2 and RBSL_3, respectively.
  3. [§4.1 and Table 1] The initial magnetic flux for RBSL_3 is given as 18×10^20 Mx in the text but as 15×10^20 Mx in Table 1; please state which value was used and correct the inconsistency, since the amplitude ordering of the results is attributed to the flux.
  4. [§4.5] The reference 'cf. Fig. 4.3' should be 'cf. Fig. 9'.
  5. [§4.4] The smooth transition across the interface is assessed visually from Fig. 10; a quantitative measure, such as the relative difference of each variable across the interface for the six cases, would strengthen the claim that the boundary treatment does not distort the transmitted physics.
  6. [§3.2] The linear temporal interpolation between boundary files saved every ~144 s is described, but the possible distortion of a sharp CME front by this interpolation is not assessed; a brief estimate of the front displacement per file interval relative to the grid resolution would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: COCONUT boundary files are genuine inputs, EUHFORIA L1 profiles are simulated outputs, and the power-law decay is fitted from, not assumed into, the simulation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a simulation pipeline, not a fitting or self-referential argument. The free parameters (flux-rope model, zeta, magnetic flux, geometry) are set at the solar surface in COCONUT; the coupling files at 21.5 R_sun are outputs of the COCONUT MHD evolution; EUHFORIA then evolves those boundary data through the heliosphere. The L1 profiles in Figs. 9, 12, and 13 are therefore genuine outputs, not quantities that were fitted or imposed. The consistency between the COCONUT boundary and the EUHFORIA inner-boundary solution is a sanity check of the interpolation/implementation, and while the boundary values are by construction equal at the interface, the subsequent propagation and Earth profiles are not forced. The magnetic-field decay exponent of about -1.50 is obtained by fitting four simulation-derived maxima and is explicitly called highly approximate, so it is not an assumed input presented as a prediction. The paper's reliance on prior work by the same authors (Linan et al. 2023, Guo et al. 2024a,b, Baratashvili et al. 2024) supplies code implementations and heating-model context, but the central coupled-transmission claim is supported by the simulations presented here, not by those citations alone. The unverified super-Alfvenic/supersonic condition at the interface is a physical-validity risk, but it is an assumption about the boundary treatment, not a circular reduction of the results to the inputs.

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

The central claim rests on the validity of the MHD models, the flux rope initialization models, and the interpolation procedures. All numerical parameters are taken from prior work or set by hand for the test cases. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • TDm instability parameter zeta = 35, 50, 70
    Chosen by hand to control flux rope magnetic flux and initial speed; not fitted to data.
  • RBSL initial magnetic flux F = 8, 12, 15 (Table 1; text says 18 for RBSL_3) x 10^20 Mx
    Chosen by hand to set flux rope strength; text and table are inconsistent.
  • TDm flux rope geometry (R, a, d) = R=0.3 R_sun, a=0.1 R_sun, d=0.15 R_sun
    Taken from Linan et al. (2023), not fitted in this paper.
  • RBSL geometry (h, theta, xc, xh) = h=0.17 R_sun, theta=60 deg, xc=xh=0.5
    Set by hand to produce S-shaped flux ropes, based on prior work.
  • Heating parameters H0 and lambda = H0=4e-5 erg cm^-3 s^-1 G^-1, lambda=0.7 R_sun
    Taken from Baratashvili et al. (2024) and used unchanged; not fitted here.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Ideal MHD equations with a polytropic index of 1.5 in EUHFORIA are adequate for heliospheric propagation.
    Section 3.1.1: the polytropic assumption is standard in EUHFORIA.
  • domain assumption The TDm and RBSL models produce approximately force-free flux ropes representative of CMEs.
    Section 2.2: these models are taken from Titov et al. 2014, 2018 and prior COCONUT implementations.
  • domain assumption The empirical heating term (Eq. 8) produces a realistic solar wind in the full MHD COCONUT run.
    Section 2.1: justified by Baratashvili et al. (2024) for this specific magnetogram date.
  • domain assumption The solar wind at 21.5 R_sun is supersonic and super-Alfvénic, validating the one-way boundary coupling.
    Section 3.1.1: 'we expect a supersonic and super-Alfvénic solar wind, meaning that no information travels towards the Sun.'
  • ad hoc to paper Linear temporal interpolation between boundary files (saved every ~144 s) accurately represents the time-varying boundary for EUHFORIA.
    Section 3.2: the interpolation is implemented to handle variable EUHFORIA time steps, but its accuracy for sharp CME fronts is not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CME propagation in the dynamically coupled space weather tool: COCONUT + EUHFORIA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MQHEB6JH

@misc{pith2026241119340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CME propagation in the dynamically coupled space weather tool: COCONUT + EUHFORIA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MQHEB6JH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19340}
}
abstract

This paper aims to present the time-dependent coupling between the coronal model COolfluid COroNal UnsTructured (COCONUT) and the heliospheric forecasting tool EUHFORIA. We perform six COCONUT simulations where a flux rope is implemented at the solar surface using either the Titov-D\'emoulin CME model or the Regularized Biot-Savart Laws (RBSL) CME model. At regular intervals, the magnetic field, velocity, temperature, and density of the 2D surface $R_{b}=21.5~\;R_{\odot}$ are saved in boundary files. This series of coupling files is read in a modified version of EUHFORIA to update progressively its inner boundary. After presenting the early stage of the propagation in COCONUT, we examine how the disturbance of the solar corona created by the propagation of flux ropes is transmitted into EUHFORIA. In particular, we consider the thermodynamic and magnetic profiles at L1 and compare them with those obtained at the interface between the two models. We demonstrate that the properties of the heliospheric solar wind in EUHFORIA are consistent with those in COCONUT, acting as a direct extension of the coronal domain. Moreover, the disturbances initially created from the propagation of flux ropes in COCONUT continue evolving from the corona in the heliosphere to Earth with a smooth transition at the interface between the two simulations. Looking at the profile of magnetic field components at Earth and different distances from the Sun, we also find that the transient magnetic structures have a self-similar expansion in COCONUT and EUHFORIA. However, the amplitude of the profiles depends on the flux rope model used and its properties, thus emphasizing the important role of the initial properties in solar source regions for accurately predicting the impact of CMEs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19340 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Magnetic and thermodynamic quantities derived from the surface at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The different phases of an updated EUHFORIA run. The same inner boundary file is used to construct the solar wind throughout the relaxation phase. From the magnetogram date corresponding to the first coupling file, the inner boundary ghost cells of EUHFORIA at a given time t are updated using temporal interpolation of the information in the two files bracketing this particular time t. In this subsection, we will des… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Synoptic magnetogram for July 2, 2019. The upper panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Meridional plane of the radial velocity after the steady [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cross-sections along the equatorial plane of the density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of the TDm and RBSL models implemented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Equatorial plane of the distribution of the heating term, temperature, and radial velocity at di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 2D surface map of the magnetic field amplitude as saved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Velocity, magnetic field, density, and temperature evolu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Composite Visualization of the Equatorial Plane from COCONUT and EUHFORIA. Each panel contains two parts: the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of the TDm flux rope model and the RBSL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of Earth’s magnetic and thermodynamic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolution of the magnetic components at di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    Afanasiev, A., Vainio, R., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 614, A4

    2018

  2. [2]

    1981, Space Science Reviews, 28, 121

    Akasofu, S.-I. 1981, Space Science Reviews, 28, 121

    1981

  3. [3]

    Altschuler, M. D. & Newkirk, G. 1969, Solar Physics, 9, 131

    1969

  4. [4]

    2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 5318

    Ando, H., Shiota, D., Imamura, T., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 5318

    2015

  5. [5]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 549, A66

    Aulanier, G., Démoulin, P., Schrijver, C., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 549, A66

    2013

  6. [6]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 543, A110

    Aulanier, G., Janvier, M., & Schmieder, B. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 543, A110

    2012

  7. [7]

    G., & Panasyuk, M

    Baker, D., Daly, E., Daglis, I., Kappenman, J. G., & Panasyuk, M. 2004, Effects of space weather on technology infrastructure

    2004

  8. [8]

    2024, A&A, 690, A184

    Baratashvili, T., Brchnelova, M., Linan, L., Lani, A., & Poedts, S. 2024, A&A, 690, A184

    2024

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    2022, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 667, A133

    Baratashvili, T., Verbeke, C., Wijsen, N., & Poedts, S. 2022, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 667, A133

    2022

  2. [10]

    & Daglis, I

    Bothmer, V . & Daglis, I. A. 2007, Space weather: physics and effects (Springer Science & Business Media)

    2007

  3. [11]

    2022, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series, 263, 18

    Brchnelova, M., Ku´ zma, B., Perri, B., Lani, A., & Poedts, S. 2022, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series, 263, 18

    2022

  4. [12]

    2022, Journal of Plasma Physics, 88, 905880205

    Brchnelova, M., Zhang, F., Leitner, P., et al. 2022, Journal of Plasma Physics, 88, 905880205

    2022

  5. [13]

    1964, in AAS NASA Symposium on the Physics of Solar Flares: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Goddard Space Flight Center,

    Carmichael, H. 1964, in AAS NASA Symposium on the Physics of Solar Flares: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Goddard Space Flight Center,

    1964

  6. [14]

    50, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 451

    Greenbelt, Maryland, October 28-30, 1963, V ol. 50, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 451

    1963

  7. [15]

    & Kendall, P

    Chandrasekhar, S. & Kendall, P. C. 1957, The Astrophysical Journal, 126, 457

    1957

  8. [16]

    2017, Science China Earth Sciences, 60, 1383

    Cheng, X., Guo, Y ., & Ding, M. 2017, Science China Earth Sciences, 60, 1383

    2017

  9. [17]

    V ., Matthaeus, W

    Chhiber, R., Usmanov, A. V ., Matthaeus, W. H., & Goldstein, M. L. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 89

    2021

  10. [18]

    1998, Space science reviews, 86, 257

    Chiu, M., V on-Mehlem, U., Willey, C., et al. 1998, Space science reviews, 86, 257

    1998

  11. [19]

    Chorin, A. J. 1997, Journal of Computational Physics, 135, 118

    1997

  12. [20]

    2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645 Démoulin, P

    Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kröner, D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645 Démoulin, P. 2010, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1216, 329

    2002

  13. [21]

    & Giacalone, J

    Desai, M. & Giacalone, J. 2016, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 13, 3

    2016

  14. [22]

    I., van der Holst, B., et al

    Downs, C., Roussev, I. I., van der Holst, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1219

    2010

  15. [23]

    Dungey, J. W. 1961, Physical Review Letters, 6, 47

    1961

  16. [24]

    2017, Risk analysis, 37, 206

    Eastwood, J., Biffis, E., Hapgood, M., et al. 2017, Risk analysis, 37, 206

    2017

  17. [25]

    2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 251

    Forbes, T., Linker, J., Chen, J., et al. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 251

    2006

  18. [26]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 7

    Fox, N., Velli, M., Bale, S., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 7

    2016

  19. [27]

    Gosling, J. T. 1993, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 98, 18937

    1993

  20. [28]

    V ., Babu, M., & Nair, A

    Hajra, R., Sunny, J. V ., Babu, M., & Nair, A. G. 2022, Solar Physics, 297, 97

    2022

  21. [29]

    & Clark, K

    Harten, R. & Clark, K. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 23

    1995

  22. [30]

    1974, Solar Physics, 34, 323

    Hirayama, T. 1974, Solar Physics, 34, 323

    1974

  23. [31]

    Hollweg, J. V . 1978, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 16, 689

    1978

  24. [32]

    2021, Geosciences, 11, 314

    Hosteaux, S., Chané, E., & Poedts, S. 2021, Geosciences, 11, 314

    2021

  25. [33]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 267

    Isavnin, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 267

    2016

  26. [34]

    2013, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 555, A77

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., Pariat, E., & Demoulin, P. 2013, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 555, A77

    2013

  27. [35]

    Kaiser, M. L. & Adams, W. J. 2007, in 2007 IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE, 1–8

    2007

  28. [36]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 168 Article number, page 18 of 19 L

    Kay, C., Opher, M., & Evans, R. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 168 Article number, page 18 of 19 L. Linan et al.: CME propagation in the dynamically coupled space weather tool: COCONUT + EUHFORIA

    2015

  29. [37]

    Kay, C., Opher, M., & Evans, R. M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 5

    2013

  30. [38]

    2005, in Re- cent Advances in Parallel Virtual Machine and Message Passing Interface, ed

    Kimpe, D., Lani, A., Quintino, T., Poedts, S., & Vandewalle, S. 2005, in Re- cent Advances in Parallel Virtual Machine and Message Passing Interface, ed. B. Di Martino, D. Kranzlmüller, & J. Dongarra (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 520–527

    2005

  31. [39]

    & Pomoell, J

    Kissmann, R. & Pomoell, J. 2012, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 34, A763

    2012

  32. [40]

    & Dalla, S

    Klein, K.-L. & Dalla, S. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 212, 1107

    2017

  33. [41]

    & Pneuman, G

    Kopp, R. & Pneuman, G. 1976, Solar Physics, 50, 85

    1976

  34. [42]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 660, A84

    Kouloumvakos, A., Kwon, R., Rodríguez-García, L., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 660, A84

    2022

  35. [43]

    P., Wu, Y ., et al

    Kouloumvakos, A., Rouillard, A. P., Wu, Y ., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 876, 80 Ku´ zma, B., Brchnelova, M., Perri, B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 31

    2019

  36. [44]

    2005, in Computational Science – ICCS 2005, ed

    Lani, A., Quintino, T., Kimpe, D., et al. 2005, in Computational Science – ICCS 2005, ed. V . S. Sunderam, G. D. van Albada, P. M. A. Sloot, & J. J. Dongarra (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 279–286

    2005

  37. [45]

    2013, in AIAA 2013-2589, 21th AIAA CFD Conference, San Diego (CA)

    Lani, A., Villedieu, N., Bensassi, K., et al. 2013, in AIAA 2013-2589, 21th AIAA CFD Conference, San Diego (CA)

    2013

  38. [46]

    2024, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A103

    Linan, L., Maharana, A., Poedts, S., Schmieder, B., & Keppens, R. 2024, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A103

    2024

  39. [47]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A101

    Linan, L., Regnault, F., Perri, B., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A101

    2023

  40. [48]

    A., Torok, T., Downs, C., et al

    Linker, J. A., Torok, T., Downs, C., et al. 2024, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2742, 012012

    2024

  41. [49]

    A., & Miki ´c, Z

    Lionello, R., Linker, J. A., & Miki ´c, Z. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 690, 902

    2008

  42. [50]

    A., & Miki´c, Z

    Lionello, R., Linker, J. A., & Miki´c, Z. 2009, ApJ, 690, 902

    2009

  43. [51]

    2005, Planetary and Space Science, 53, 3

    Liu, Y ., Richardson, J., & Belcher, J. 2005, Planetary and Space Science, 53, 3

    2005

  44. [52]

    J., Winslow, R

    Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., Winslow, R. M., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 10

    2016

  45. [53]

    B., & Gombosi, T

    Lugaz, N., Manchester IV , W. B., & Gombosi, T. I. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 627, 1019

    2005

  46. [54]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal

    Ma, M., Yang, L., Shen, F., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal

    2023

  47. [55]

    2022, Advances in Space Research, 70, 1641

    Maharana, A., Isavnin, A., Scolini, C., et al. 2022, Advances in Space Research, 70, 1641

    2022

  48. [56]

    2023, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 675, A136

    Maharana, A., Scolini, C., Schmieder, B., & Poedts, S. 2023, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 675, A136

    2023

  49. [57]

    I., et al

    Manchester, I., B, W., Gombosi, T. I., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics, 109

    2004

  50. [58]

    2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116

    McGregor, S., Hughes, W., Arge, C., Owens, M., & Odstrcil, D. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116

    2011

  51. [59]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 23

    Merkin, V ., Lionello, R., Lyon, J., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 23

    2016

  52. [60]

    2011, Geophysical Research Letters, 38

    Merkin, V ., Lyon, J., McGregor, S., & Pahud, D. 2011, Geophysical Research Letters, 38

    2011

  53. [61]

    2007, Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 170, 228 Miki´c, Z., Linker, J

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 170, 228 Miki´c, Z., Linker, J. A., Schnack, D. D., Lionello, R., & Tarditi, A. 1999, Physics of Plasmas, 6, 2217 Müller, D., Cyr, O. S., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astr...

    2007

  54. [62]

    2003, Advances in Space Research, 32, 497

    Odstrcil, D. 2003, Advances in Space Research, 32, 497

    2003

  55. [63]

    2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109

    Odstrcil, D., Riley, P., & Zhao, X. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109

    2004

  56. [64]

    2012, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 83, 32

    Pahud, D., Merkin, V ., Arge, C., Hughes, W., & McGregor, S. 2012, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 83, 32

    2012

  57. [65]

    S., et al

    Parenti, S., Réville, V ., Brun, A. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 75

    2022

  58. [66]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 128, p. 664, 128, 664

    1958

  59. [67]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, 124

    Perri, B., Ku´ zma, B., Brchnelova, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, 124

    2023

  60. [68]

    2022, ApJ, 936

    Perri, B., Leitner, P., Brchnelova, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936

    2022

  61. [69]

    A., Fisher, G

    Pevtsov, A. A., Fisher, G. H., Acton, L. W., et al. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1387

    2003

  62. [70]

    & Kopp, R

    Pneuman, G. & Kopp, R. A. 1971, Solar physics, 18, 258

    1971

  63. [71]

    & Poedts, S

    Pomoell, J. & Poedts, S. 2018, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 8, A35

    2018

  64. [72]

    & Vainio, R

    Pomoell, J. & Vainio, R. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 151

    2012

  65. [73]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics

    Prete, G., Niemela, A., Schmieder, B., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics

    2023

  66. [74]

    2024, A&A, 683, A28

    Prete, G., Niemela, A., Schmieder, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A28

    2024

  67. [75]

    Reames, D. V . 2013, Space Science Reviews, 175, 53

    2013

  68. [76]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics, 125, e2020JA028150

    Regnault, F., Janvier, M., Démoulin, P., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics, 125, e2020JA028150

    2020

  69. [77]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 670, A14 Réville, V ., Parenti, S., Brun, A

    Regnault, F., Strugarek, A., Janvier, M., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 670, A14 Réville, V ., Parenti, S., Brun, A. S., et al. 2021, in SF2A-2021: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics. Eds.: A. Siebert, ed. A. Siebert,...

    2023

  70. [78]

    N’Diaye, J

    Marquette, M. N’Diaye, J. Richard, & O. Venot, 230–233 Réville, V ., Velli, M., Panasenco, O., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 24

    2020

  71. [79]

    2011, Solar Physics, 274, 361

    Riley, P., Lionello, R., Linker, J., et al. 2011, Solar Physics, 274, 361

    2011

  72. [80]

    2018, Central European Astrophysical Bulletin, 42, 11

    Rodari, M., Dumbovi ´c, M., Temmer, M., Holzknecht, L., & Veronig, A. 2018, Central European Astrophysical Bulletin, 42, 11

    2018

  73. [81]

    & Vandas, M

    Romashets, E. & Vandas, M. 2003, Geophysical research letters, 30

    2003

  74. [82]

    H., & Vaiana, G

    Rosner, R., Tucker, W. H., & Vaiana, G. S. 1978, ApJ, 220, 643

    1978

  75. [83]

    P., Plotnikov, I., Pinto, R

    Rouillard, A. P., Plotnikov, I., Pinto, R. F., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 45

    2016

  76. [84]

    2015, The Astro- physical Journal, 809, 158

    Sachdeva, N., Subramanian, P., Colaninno, R., & V ourlidas, A. 2015, The Astro- physical Journal, 809, 158

    2015

  77. [85]

    2017, Solar Physics, 292, 1

    Sachdeva, N., Subramanian, P., V ourlidas, A., & Bothmer, V . 2017, Solar Physics, 292, 1

    2017

  78. [86]

    B., et al

    Sachdeva, N., van Der Holst, B., Manchester, W. B., et al. 2019, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 887, 83

    2019

  79. [87]

    H., Wilcox, J

    Schatten, K. H., Wilcox, J. M., & Ness, N. F. 1969, Solar Physics, 6, 442

    1969

  80. [88]

    2015, Solar physics, 290, 3457

    Schmieder, B., Aulanier, G., & Vršnak, B. 2015, Solar physics, 290, 3457

    2015

  81. [89]

    1995, Solar Physics, 156, 337

    Schmieder, B., Heinzel, P., Wiik, J., et al. 1995, Solar Physics, 156, 337

    1995

  82. [90]

    J., Kauristie, K., Aylward, A

    Schrijver, C. J., Kauristie, K., Aylward, A. D., et al. 2015, Advances in Space Research, 55, 2745

    2015

  83. [91]

    2019, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 626, A122

    Scolini, C., Rodriguez, L., Mierla, M., Pomoell, J., & Poedts, S. 2019, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 626, A122

    2019

  84. [92]

    2007, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 112

    Shen, F., Feng, X., Wu, S., & Xiang, C. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 112

    2007

  85. [93]

    2013, Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 1457

    Shen, F., Shen, C., Wang, Y ., Feng, X., & Xiang, C. 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 1457

    2013

  86. [94]

    & Tanuma, S

    Shibata, K. & Tanuma, S. 2001, Earth, Planets and Space, 53, 473

    2001

  87. [95]

    & Kataoka, R

    Shiota, D. & Kataoka, R. 2016, Space Weather, 14, 56

    2016

  88. [96]

    S., & Pogorelov, N

    Singh, T., Yalim, M. S., & Pogorelov, N. V . 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 18

    2018

  89. [97]

    1975, Reviews of Plasma Physics, V ol

    Soloviev, L. 1975, Reviews of Plasma Physics, V ol. 6 (New York: Consultants Bureau), 257

    1975

  90. [98]

    H., Ahrens, J., Law, C., et al

    Squillacote, A. H., Ahrens, J., Law, C., et al. 2007, The paraview guide, V ol. 366 (Kitware Clifton Park, NY)

    2007

  91. [99]

    1966, Nature, 211, 695

    Sturrock, P. 1966, Nature, 211, 695

    1966

  92. [100]

    & Bothmer, V

    Temmer, M. & Bothmer, V . 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A70

    2022

  93. [101]

    Titov, V ., Török, T., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. A. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 790, 163

    2014

  94. [102]

    S., Downs, C., Miki´c, Z., et al

    Titov, V . S., Downs, C., Miki´c, Z., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, L21 Török, T., Berger, M. A., & Kliem, B. 2010, A&A, 516, A49 Tóth, G., Van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I. V ., et al. 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 870

    2018

  95. [103]

    1996, AIP Conference Proceedings, 382, 141

    Usmanov, A. 1996, AIP Conference Proceedings, 382, 141

    1996

  96. [104]

    V ., Goldstein, M

    Usmanov, A. V ., Goldstein, M. L., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 43

    2014

  97. [105]

    V ., Matthaeus, W

    Usmanov, A. V ., Matthaeus, W. H., Goldstein, M. L., & Chhiber, R. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 25 van der Holst, B., Manchester, W., Frazin, R., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 1373 van Driel-Gesztelyi, L. & Green, L. M. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Phy...

    2018

  98. [106]

    & Romashets, E

    Vandas, M. & Romashets, E. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 580, A123

    2015

  99. [107]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A50

    Verbeke, C., Baratashvili, T., & Poedts, S. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A50

    2022

  100. [108]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 627, A111

    Verbeke, C., Pomoell, J., & Poedts, S. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 627, A111

    2019

  101. [109]

    2019, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 377, 20180095

    Vlahos, L., Anastasiadis, A., Papaioannou, A., Kouloumvakos, A., & Isliker, H. 2019, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 377, 20180095

    2019

  102. [110]

    & Sheeley Jr, N

    Wang, Y .-M. & Sheeley Jr, N. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 355, 726

    1990

  103. [111]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 659, A187

    Wijsen, N., Aran, A., Scolini, C., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 659, A187

    2022

  104. [112]

    M., Lugaz, N., Philpott, L

    Winslow, R. M., Lugaz, N., Philpott, L. C., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 6101

    2015

  105. [113]

    2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109

    Xie, H., Ofman, L., & Lawrence, G. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109

    2004

  106. [114]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 54 Article number, page 19 of 19

    Xu, Y ., Zhu, J., & Guo, Y . 2020, ApJ, 892, 54 Article number, page 19 of 19

    2020

Pith tools

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