Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

What Causes Errors in Wang-Sheeley-Arge Solar Wind Modeling at L1 ?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that two tunable settings of the Wang-Sheeley-Arge coronal model—grid resolution and source surface height—explain most of the error in forecasting high-speed solar wind streams at L1, and that coronal hole observations…

desk verdict Solid mechanistic analysis of how R_ss and resolution affect WSA speeds, but the headline R_ss range is fitted in-sample and Table 1 contradicts the text. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09676 v1 pith:D4P64IEI submitted 2025-06-11 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Satabdwa Majumdar , Martin Reiss , Karin Muglach , Charles N. Arge This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarwindhigh-speedstreamsWang-Sheeley-ArgemodelPFSSsourcesurfaceheightcoronalholesspaceweatherforecastinggridresolution
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 studies why the Wang-Sheeley-Arge (WSA) model, a workhorse for forecasting solar wind at the L1 point, gets high-speed streams wrong in arrival time, duration, and peak speed. Using 15 Carrington rotations and a detailed analysis of CR 2052, it argues that the two dominant error sources are the coronal model's grid resolution and the height of the PFSS source surface. Higher resolution sharpens the modeled open-closed field boundary (the coronal hole edge), which shifts the computed onset and duration of streams in the right direction. Varying the source surface height between 1.8 and 3.1 solar radii changes the footpoint locations where open field lines connect to Earth and the great-circle angular distance to the coronal hole boundary, which is what sets the near-Sun speed fed into heliospheric propagation. The paper concludes that observational coronal hole boundaries are an underused constraint for picking both the source surface height and the right ADAPT magnetic map date.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the coupling of three standard components: the PFSS model, which extrapolates the photospheric field to a source surface and traces open and closed field lines; the WSA empirical speed relation $$v_{\rm wsa}(f_p,d)=c_1+c_2(1+f_p)^{c_3}\left[c_4-c_5\exp\left(-\left(\frac{d}{c_6}\right)^{c_7}\right)\right]^{c_8}$$ with expansion factor $f_p$ and great-circle angular distance $d$ to the nearest coronal hole boundary; and the HUX 1D upwind heliospheric propagation model. The key identity is that $d$ is measured from the open-closed boundary: it is sensitive to grid resolution and to R_ss, while $f_p$ is a ratio and stays nearly constant under resolution changes. Changing R_ss alters the size and smoothness of the modeled coronal hole, which shifts where the sub-Earth-connected field lines foot on the Sun and thus which GCAD values enter the WSA formula; those sampled GCAD values set the near-Sun speed that eventually arrives at L1.

What would settle it

Re-run the same 15 rotations while re-calibrating the eight WSA coefficients at each source surface height; if the best-fit source surface range moves outside 1.8-3.1 solar radii, or if the improvement from 4 degrees to 1 degree resolution disappears, then the paper's attribution of speed errors to coronal geometry settings rather than to the fixed empirical mapping would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a large fraction of L1 solar wind speed errors trace to two tunable settings of the PFSS-WSA coronal model. Increasing the grid resolution (from 4 degrees to 1 degree in latitude and longitude) improves the identification of open-closed field boundaries, and because the great-circle angular distance (GCAD) is computed from those boundaries, the near-Sun speed profile changes enough to correct the start time and duration of high-speed streams. Keeping the resolution fixed at 1 degree, raising the source surface height R_ss from 1.8 to 3.2 solar radii changes both the GCAD and expansion-factor profiles: the modeled coronal hole shrinks, its boundary becomes smoother, and the footpoints of field lines that connect to sub-Earth locations move to regions with different GCAD values. Since the WSA speed depends on GCAD and expansion factor, different R_ss values produce different near-Sun speed maps, and after HUX propagation these appear as different peak speeds at L1. For the 15 rotations studied, the best root-mean-square agreement with observed L1 speeds occurs for R_ss between 1.8 and 3.1 solar radii, though no single height captures all features of a high-speed stream, and coronal hole observations can veto unphysical low source surfaces by bounding the modeled hole size.

Load-bearing premise

The eight fixed coefficients in the WSA speed formula, taken from earlier work, are assumed to remain correct for every source surface height and grid resolution tested, without re-calibration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operational WSA/HUX setups that run at 4 degrees or coarser should expect systematically larger high-speed stream onset and duration errors than 1-degree runs; the paper shows the error reduction is event-dependent but consistent across the studied rotations.
  • The source surface height should be treated as a free parameter per Carrington rotation rather than fixed at 2.5 solar radii; the best agreement in this sample occurs between 1.8 and 3.1 solar radii.
  • Because no single source surface height captures all aspects of a high-speed stream, an ensemble of R_ss values, with coronal hole observations used to discard solutions whose modeled holes are larger than observed, is a concrete forecasting strategy.
  • Same-day ADAPT maps can miss a coronal hole that has just emerged, and the modeled hole only stabilizes after about three days; forecasters should check the date of the ADAPT map against coronal hole observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the expansion factor is almost unchanged by grid resolution while GCAD changes, the resolution error in WSA speeds is primarily a boundary-distance error; a targeted experiment that perturbs only the GCAD term could confirm this decomposition.
  • The same open-closed boundary sensitivity likely affects other coronal interface models that use boundary distance (for example DCHB-type speeds), so the R_ss and resolution conclusions may transfer beyond WSA itself.
  • The result that low R_ss overestimates coronal hole size suggests a practical calibration rule: choose the largest R_ss whose modeled hole fits within the observed EUV hole boundary; this is a direct but untested implication of the paper's Figure 7 analysis.
  • The three-day ADAPT lag found for one coronal hole implies that real-time ensembles should blend ADAPT maps from several consecutive days rather than relying on a single map; the paper only demonstrates the lag for one event, so this remains an extension.
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. This manuscript examines sources of error in Wang-Sheeley-Arge (WSA)/HUX ambient solar wind speed predictions at L1, focusing on high-speed stream (HSS) characteristics. Using the PFSS model in pfsspy with GONG synoptic maps and the HUX heliospheric model, the authors analyze 15 Carrington rotations and present a detailed case study of CR 2052. They claim that increasing the coronal model grid resolution improves the modeled open/closed coronal hole boundary and hence the predicted HSS onset time and duration, and that an optimized source surface height in the range 1.8-3.1 R_sun further improves HSS prediction. They also investigate how the choice of ADAPT map date affects modeled coronal holes and argue that coronal hole observations could provide a useful physical constraint on R_ss and on map selection.

Significance. If the central claims are quantitatively supported, the paper would be a useful diagnostic contribution to ambient solar wind modeling. The mechanistic explanation of how R_ss changes shift field-line footpoints and sample different GCAD values is a valuable contribution, as is the explicit recommendation of an observationally constrained ensemble approach. The paper is also commendably transparent about the free-parameter nature of R_ss and about its own limitations, including the need for quantitative assessment over a longer historical period. However, the main quantitative claims currently rest on visual comparisons and in-sample RMSE minimization, and the reported optimal R_ss range is not actually supported by the table of RMSE values. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's headline conclusions, though they are fixable with additional analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 and Table 1] The abstract and Section 4 claim that the R_ss values best matching observations range between 1.8 and 3.1 R_sun for the studied events, but Table 1 does not support this. CR 2104 has its minimum RMSE at 3.3 R_sun (54.72), and CR 2123 has its minimum at 1.6 R_sun (78.70), both outside the stated range. In addition, Section 4 states that CR 2052 is best at 2.8 R_sun, but the table shows the minimum for CR 2052 is 63.28 at 2.6 R_sun (with 66.12 at 2.8 R_sun). The stated range and the CR 2052 claim must be corrected, and because each optimum is selected by minimizing RMSE on the same rotation used to evaluate success, the phrase "optimized R_ss ... enhances HSS prediction accuracy" should be reframed as a retrospective, in-sample diagnostic rather than a demonstration of predictive skill.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2); Sections 3.1-3.2] The WSA empirical relation is used with coefficients c1-c8 fixed from Reiss et al. (2019, 2020), which were calibrated for a standard configuration. Section 3.1 recognizes that the normalizing coefficient c6 should be adjusted when the grid resolution changes and adopts the median-d prescription of Mayank et al. (2022), but no analogous recalibration is performed when R_ss is varied between 1.6 and 3.3 R_sun, even though Section 3.2 shows that both the expansion factor f_p and the GCAD d change substantially with R_ss. Since Eq. (2) is an empirical fit, the RMSE differences across R_ss may reflect operation of the mapping outside its calibration range rather than a physical optimum. A per-R_ss recalibration of the coefficients, or at minimum an out-of-sample test, is needed before the claimed optimal R_ss range can be accepted.
  3. [Section 3.1, Figures 1-4] The grid-resolution claim is supported only by visual inspection of modeled and observed profiles for CR 2052 in detail and for a few additional events in Figure 2. No quantitative metrics are provided for the HSS start time, duration, or peak speed as functions of resolution, and Table 1 reports RMSE only for R_ss variation, not for resolution. The statement that increasing resolution improves prediction of HSS onset and duration therefore needs a quantitative summary, such as per-resolution error statistics across all 15 studied CRs, before it can be assessed as a general result rather than an illustrative case study.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract reports the optimal R_ss range as 1.8-3.1 R_sun, while Section 5 says 1.8-3.2 R_sun; these numbers should be reconciled after the Table 1 issues are corrected.
  2. [Section 3.3] The text contains the typo "AIA 193 /AA" and uses "195 ˚A" with a misplaced ring; the Å symbol should be used consistently.
  3. [Table 1] The table caption should state the RMSE units (presumably km/s) and the fixed model settings, such as grid resolution and input magnetic map, that apply to all rows.
  4. [Section 3.3] CR 2167 is discussed and shown in Figure 8 but is not listed in Table 1; the authors should clarify whether this rotation is part of the 15-CR sample or a separate case study.
  5. [References] Some reference metadata is corrupted or incomplete, including "Nikoli´ c & 2019" and the diacritics in "T´ oth" and "Miki´ c"; these should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The "optimized R_ss" range is an in-sample RMSE fit, so the claimed HSS prediction enhancement reduces to the fitting criterion; grid-resolution and ADAPT findings are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract and Section 3.2 (Table 1)]
    "we find an optimized source surface height (R ss) (lying between 1.8-3.1 R⊙) further enhances HSS prediction accuracy for the studied events. ... It can be seen that the values of R ss that best matches observations (i.e. with minimum RMSEs), are different for different CRs and for the studied events, they range between 1.8-3.1 R⊙."

    The "optimized" R_ss is defined for each Carrington rotation as the value that minimizes the RMSE between the modeled and observed OMNI speed profiles for that same rotation. The abstract then reports that this optimized range "further enhances HSS prediction accuracy for the studied events." That enhancement is by construction: the RMSE at the chosen argmin is definitionally the smallest in the scanned grid, and the 1.8-3.1 R_sun interval is simply the envelope of the per-rotation RMSE minima. The data used to select the parameter are the same data used to evaluate the claimed improvement, so no independent predictive content is added.

full rationale

The grid-resolution analysis (Figures 1-4) is a genuine sensitivity study: the paper varies PFSS grid resolution, tracks changes in GCAD, EF, coronal-hole boundaries, and HSS timing, and reports improvements in t_start and t_dur without tuning the resolution to the validation metrics, so that claim is not circular. The ADAPT-map timing case study (Section 3.3) is also an independent case comparison. The circular step is the source-surface-height result: the paper scans R_ss from 1.6 to 3.3 R_sun, selects for each CR the value with minimum RMSE against OMNI, and then presents the envelope of these argmins (1.8-3.1 R_sun) as an "optimized source surface height" that "further enhances HSS prediction accuracy for the studied events." Because the same OMNI data define both the selection criterion and the reported accuracy, the reported enhancement reduces to the fitting procedure by construction; no out-of-sample check is performed. The paper is transparent about the free parameter and recommends an observationally constrained ensemble, which lowers the severity from full circularity to partial circularity. The internal inconsistencies in Table 1 (CR 2052 minimum at 2.6 R_sun rather than the stated 2.8, and CR 2104 minimum at 3.3 R_sun outside the stated range) further indicate that the claimed range is not a robust independent result. Self-citations to Reiss et al. (2019, 2020) supply the fixed WSA coefficients, but these are standard empirical constants and are not derived from the present paper's claims, so they are not load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on established models (PFSS, WSA, HUX) and does not introduce new physical entities. The main free parameters are the source surface height, fitted per rotation, and the GCAD normalization constant used in the WSA relation. The axioms are standard domain assumptions of the modeling framework.

free parameters (2)
  • Source surface height R_ss = 1.8 to 3.1 R_sun (best per CR)
    Varied between 1.6 and 3.3 R_sun, and the value minimizing RMSE at L1 is selected per Carrington rotation (Table 1).
  • GCAD normalization c_6 = Median of d for open field lines reaching sub-Earth locations per resolution and CR
    Following Mayank et al. (2022), c_6 is set to the median great-circle distance d for each resolution and CR, which affects the WSA speed calculation and changes with grid resolution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Potential field approximation with a source surface for the coronal magnetic field
    PFSS model assumes a current-free corona and radial field at R_ss, standard in the field but an idealization.
  • domain assumption WSA empirical relation with fixed coefficients c1-c8 from Reiss et al. (2019, 2020)
    The study uses these coefficients without re-calibration, assuming they are universal across R_ss and resolutions.
  • domain assumption HUX model accuracy: pressure gradient, gravity, and magnetic field terms are negligible
    The heliospheric propagation uses 1D upwind extrapolation, which is an approximation.
  • domain assumption Coronal holes identified in EUV images correspond to open field regions
    Used to validate modeled coronal hole boundaries and constrain R_ss, but EUV coronal hole boundaries have uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What Causes Errors in Wang-Sheeley-Arge Solar Wind Modeling at L1 ?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D4P64IEI

@misc{pith2026250609676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What Causes Errors in Wang-Sheeley-Arge Solar Wind Modeling at L1 ?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D4P64IEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09676}
}
abstract

Previous ambient solar wind (SW) validation studies have reported on discrepancies between modeled and observed SW conditions at L1. They indicated that a major source of discrepancies stems from how we model the solar corona. Thus, enhancing predictive capabilities demands a thorough examination of coronal modeling. The Wang-Sheeley-Arge (WSA) model has been a workhorse model that provides the near-Sun SW conditions. An important component of it is the Potential Field Source Surface (PFSS) model. This study analyzes 15 different Carrington Rotations(CRs), and presents detailed analysis of CR 2052 to identify WSA model settings that lead to successful and erroneous SW predictions at Earth. For the events studied, we show that increasing the models grid resolution improves the open-close boundary identification. This results in better predicting the onset and duration of high-speed streams (HSSs). In addition, we find an optimized source surface height (R$_{ss}$) (lying between 1.8-3.1 R$_{\odot}$) further enhances HSS prediction accuracy for the studied events. A detailed analysis shows that changes in R$_{ss}$, (a) changes the Great Circle Angular Distance (GCAD) maps (at the solar surface) of the associated coronal holes and (b) changes the foot-point locations of the magnetic connectivities to the sub-Earth locations. These factors change the near-Sun SW speed, that eventually leads to uncertainties in speeds near Earth. We also investigate the usefulness of coronal hole observations in constraining R$_{ss}$ and SW solutions at Earth, and highlight their underutilized value in guiding the selection of magnetic maps for improved ambient solar wind modeling at L1.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09676 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Solar wind speed at L1 for CR 2052 for a WSA/HUX grid resolution of 4◦ (in blue), 2◦ (in orange) and 1◦ (in green) are shown along with the hourly averaged observed speed from the OMNI database (grey crosses). HSS are the starting time of the HSS (tstart), the duration of the HSS (tdur) which we roughly define as the interval between the start and end time of the HSS, and the maximum speed attained by the HSS (vpeak… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of change in PFSS grid resolution on the modelled solar wind speed profile at L1 for various HSS that were observed during different CRs. The color codes are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of change in WSA/HUX grid resolution for CR 2052, on the GCAD profile (top panel) and inverse of the logarithm of the expansion factor profile (middle panel) at sub-Earth locations at Rss. The bottom panel shows the modeled open field regions for the same CR for a grid resolution of 1◦ . The yellow crosses denote the sub-Earth locations for the entire CR. The grey regions indicate closed magnetic topology, wh… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top row: The modeled coronal hole (at Carrington longitude of 100◦ ) for CR 2052 is shown for a grid resolution of 4 ◦ on the left, and on the right the corresponding WSA/HUX speed map from 2.5 R⊙ to 215 R⊙ (or 1 AU) is shown. Similarly we show the modeled coronal hole…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of change in source surface height for a grid resolution of 1◦ for CR 2052 on the solar wind speed at L1 (top panel), and the GCAD profile (middle panel) and EF profile (bottom panel) at the source surface height at the sub-Earth location. panels, we show the GC…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left column: a polar view of the open field line connectivities for CR 2052 in the radial azimuthal (r, ϕ) plane. The red and blue lines indicate lines of opposite polarities. The source surface height is indicated on the top of each plot, the Carrington longitudes are…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top panel a and b: coronal hole observations from SoHO/EIT 195 ˚A for the two coronal holes in CR 2052. The modeled coronal hole boundaries for different source surface heights are overlaid. Bottom panel c and d: observations of the same coronal holes with the foot-poi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top panel: the modeled coronal hole map for CR 2167. The blue and red lines show the open field lines connecting the open field regions to the sub-Earth locations (indicted by yellow crosses), where red/blue corresponds positive/negative magnetic field polarity. Bottom…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top Panel: (a) overlap image of the modeled open field regions of the 12 ADAPT ensemble maps created on 20 August 2015. Bottom panel: (b) cropped overlap image of the modeled open field regions for the 12 ADAPT ensembles created on 23 August 2015, showing the coronal h…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., & Newkirk, Jr., G

    Altschuler, M. D., & Newkirk, Jr., G. 1969, SoPh, 9, 131, doi: 10.1007/BF00145734

    doi:10.1007/bf00145734 1969

  2. [2]

    D., Trotter, D

    Altschuler, M. D., Trotter, D. E., & Orrall, F. Q. 1972, SoPh, 26, 354, doi: 10.1007/BF00165276

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00165276 1972

  3. [3]

    M., Norton, A

    Arden, W. M., Norton, A. A., & Sun, X. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 119, 1476, doi: 10.1002/2013JA019464

    doi:10.1002/2013ja019464 2014

  4. [4]

    N., Henney, C

    Arge, C. N., Henney, C. J., Koller, J., et al. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1216, Twelfth International Solar Wind Conference, ed. M. Maksimovic, K. Issautier, N. Meyer-Vernet, M. Moncuquet, & F. Pantellini (AIP), 343–346, doi: 10.1063/1.3395870

    doi:10.1063/1.3395870 2010

  5. [5]

    N., Odstrcil, D., Pizzo, V

    Arge, C. N., Odstrcil, D., Pizzo, V. J., & Mayer, L. R. 2003, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 679, Solar Wind Ten, ed. M. Velli, R. Bruno, F. Malara, & B. Bucci (AIP), 190–193, doi: 10.1063/1.1618574

    doi:10.1063/1.1618574 2003

  6. [6]

    N., & Pizzo, V

    Arge, C. N., & Pizzo, V. J. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10465, doi: 10.1029/1999JA000262

    doi:10.1029/1999ja000262 2000

  7. [7]

    G., Temmer, M., et al

    Asvestari, E., Heinemann, S. G., Temmer, M., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 8280, doi: 10.1029/2019JA027173

    doi:10.1029/2019ja027173 2019

  8. [8]

    M., et al

    Asvestari, E., Temmer, M., Caplan, R. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5155

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5155 2024

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    T., Bale, S

    Badman, S. T., Bale, S. D., Mart ´ ınez Oliveros, J. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4da7

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, Frontiers in Physics, 10, 1005621, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2022.1005621

    Barnard, L., & Owens, M. 2022, Frontiers in Physics, 10, 1005621, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2022.1005621

    2022

  3. [11]

    E., & Roberts, W

    Billings, D. E., & Roberts, W. O. 1964, Astrophysica Norvegica, 9, 147

    1964

  4. [12]

    Cranmer, S. R. 2009, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 6, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2009-3

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Gibson, S

    Cranmer, S. R., Gibson, S. E., & Riley, P. 2017, SSRv, 212, 1345, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0416-y Delaboudini` ere, J. P., Artzner, G. E., Brunaud, J., et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 291, doi: 10.1007/BF00733432

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Hanaoka, Y., Wang, X

    Demidov, M. L., Hanaoka, Y., Wang, X. F., & Kirichkov, P. N. 2023, SoPh, 298, 120, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02206-6

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Domingo, V., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, SoPh, 162, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00733425

    1995 doi

  8. [16]

    X., et al

    Gonzi, S., Weinzierl, M., Bocquet, F. X., et al. 2021, Space Weather, 19, e02499, doi: 10.1029/2020SW002499

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    P., et al

    Gopalswamy, N., Lara, A., Lepping, R. P., et al. 2000, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 145, doi: 10.1029/1999GL003639

    2000 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Temmer, M., et al

    Gressl, C., Veronig, A. M., Temmer, M., et al. 2014, SoPh, 289, 1783, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0421-6

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, SoPh, 295, 2, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1563-y

    Hamada, A., Asikainen, T., & Mursula, K. 2020, SoPh, 295, 2, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1563-y

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Godinez, H

    Hickmann, K. S., Godinez, H. C., Henney, C. J., & Arge, C. N. 2015, SoPh, 290, 1105, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0666-3 20

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, Space Weather, 21, e2023SW003555, doi: 10.1029/2023SW003555

    Issan, O., Riley, P., Camporeale, E., & Kramer, B. 2023, Space Weather, 21, e2023SW003555, doi: 10.1029/2023SW003555

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    K., Russell, C

    Jian, L. K., Russell, C. T., Luhmann, J. G., et al. 2011, SoPh, 273, 179, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9858-7

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    K., MacNeice, P

    Jian, L. K., MacNeice, P. J., Taktakishvili, A., et al. 2015, Space Weather, 13, 316, doi: 10.1002/2015SW001174

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    V., & Cohen, C

    Jin, M., Nitta, N. V., & Cohen, C. M. S. 2022, Space Weather, 20, e2021SW002894, doi: 10.1029/2021SW002894

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    I., Caplan, R

    Jones, S. I., Caplan, R. M., Arge, C. N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50c9

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    2025, A&A, 694, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244327

    Koukras, A., Dolla, L., & Keppens, R. 2025, A&A, 694, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244327

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Timothy, A

    Krieger, A. S., Timothy, A. F., & Roelof, E. C. 1973, SoPh, 29, 505, doi: 10.1007/BF00150828

    1973 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, A&A, 635, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937307

    Larrodera, C., & Cid, C. 2020, A&A, 635, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937307

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    O., Luhmann, J

    Lee, C. O., Luhmann, J. G., Hoeksema, J. T., et al. 2011, SoPh, 269, 367, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9699-9

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 126, e28870, doi: 10.1029/2020JA028870

    Li, H., Feng, X., & Wei, F. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 126, e28870, doi: 10.1029/2020JA028870

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Miki´ c, Z., Biesecker, D

    Linker, J. A., Miki´ c, Z., Biesecker, D. A., et al. 1999, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 9809, doi: 10.1029/1998JA900159

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Caplan, R

    Linker, J. A., Caplan, R. M., Downs, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a70

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    K., Antiochos, S

    MacNeice, P., Jian, L. K., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2018, Space Weather, 16, 1644, doi: 10.1029/2018SW002040

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba1f2

    Majumdar, S., Pant, V., Patel, R., & Banerjee, D. 2020, ApJ, 899, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba1f2

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1592

    Majumdar, S., Patel, R., Pant, V., & Banerjee, D. 2021, ApJ, 919, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1592

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2022, ApJS, 262, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8551

    Mayank, P., Vaidya, B., & Chakrabarty, D. 2022, ApJS, 262, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8551

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Jones, S

    Meadors, G. D., Jones, S. I., Hickmann, K. S., et al. 2020, Space Weather, 18, e02464, doi: 10.1029/2020SW00246410.1002/essoar.10502019.1 Nikoli´ c, & , L. 2019, Space Weather, 17, 1293, doi: 10.1029/2019SW002205

    2020

  31. [39]

    2003, Advances in Space Research, 32, 497, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(03)00332-6

    Odstrcil, D. 2003, Advances in Space Research, 32, 497, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(03)00332-6

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    J., & Forsyth, R

    Owens, M. J., & Forsyth, R. J. 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 5, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2013-5

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Spence, H

    Owens, M. J., Spence, H. E., McGregor, S., et al. 2008, Space Weather, 6, S08001, doi: 10.1029/2007SW000380

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    2014, in 40th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Vol

    Papitashvili, N., Bilitza, D., & King, J. 2014, in 40th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Vol. 40, C0.1–12–14

    2014

  35. [43]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9799

    Perri, B., Ku´ zma, B., Brchnelova, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9799

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    2018, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 8, A35, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2018020

    Pomoell, J., & Poedts, S. 2018, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 8, A35, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2018020

    2018

  38. [46]

    Reames, D. V. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1254266, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1254266

    2023

  39. [47]

    A., MacNeice, P

    Reiss, M. A., MacNeice, P. J., Mays, L. M., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf8b3

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Temmer, M., Veronig, A

    Reiss, M. A., Temmer, M., Veronig, A. M., et al. 2016, Space Weather, 14, 495, doi: 10.1002/2016SW001390

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    A., MacNeice, P

    Reiss, M. A., MacNeice, P. J., Muglach, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab78a0

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Muglach, K., Mullinix, R., et al

    Reiss, M. A., Muglach, K., Mullinix, R., et al. 2023, Advances in Space Research, 72, 5275, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2022.05.026

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Muglach, K., Mason, E., et al

    Reiss, M. A., Muglach, K., Mason, E., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad1408

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    G., Cliver, E

    Richardson, I. G., Cliver, E. W., & Cane, H. V. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 18,203, doi: 10.1029/1999JA000400

    2000 doi

  45. [53]

    A., & Arge, C

    Riley, P., Linker, J. A., & Arge, C. N. 2015, Space Weather, 13, 154, doi: 10.1002/2014SW001144

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Lionello, R., & Mikic, Z

    Riley, P., Linker, J. A., Lionello, R., & Mikic, Z. 2012, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 83, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.013

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    A., & Miki´ c, Z

    Riley, P., Linker, J. A., & Miki´ c, Z. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 15889, doi: 10.1029/2000JA000121 —. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 118, 600, doi: 10.1002/jgra.50156

    2001 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Mikic, Z., et al

    Riley, P., Linker, J. A., Mikic, Z., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a98

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    2011, SoPh, 270, 575, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9766-x

    Riley, P., & Lionello, R. 2011, SoPh, 270, 575, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9766-x

    2011 doi

  50. [58]

    Riley, P., & Luhmann, J. G. 2012, SoPh, 277, 355, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9909-0

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    A., et al

    Riley, P., Ben-Nun, M., Linker, J. A., et al. 2014, SoPh, 289, 769, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0353-1

    2014 doi

  52. [60]

    J., Kauristie, K., Aylward, A

    Schrijver, C. J., Kauristie, K., Aylward, A. D., et al. 2015, Advances in Space Research, 55, 2745, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2015.03.023

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    Stansby, D., Yeates, A., & Badman, S. T. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2732, doi: 10.21105/joss.02732

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, SoPh, 299, 160, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02398-5 T´ oth, G., van der Holst, B., & Huang, Z

    Tokumaru, M., & Fujiki, K. 2024, SoPh, 299, 160, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02398-5 T´ oth, G., van der Holst, B., & Huang, Z. 2011, ApJ, 732, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/102 T´ oth, G., Sokolov, I. V., Gombosi, T. I., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Phy...

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    G., & Maruca, B

    Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., & Maruca, B. A. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    N., Viall, N., & Pihlstr¨ om, Y

    Wallace, S., Arge, C. N., Viall, N., & Pihlstr¨ om, Y. 2020, ApJ, 898, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab98a0

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    M., & Samara, E

    Wang, Y. M., & Samara, E. 2024, ApJ, 975, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8643

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    M., & Sheeley, Jr., N

    Wang, Y. M., & Sheeley, Jr., N. R. 1990, ApJ, 355, 726, doi: 10.1086/168805

    1990 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Sheeley, Jr., N

    Wang, Y. M., Sheeley, Jr., N. R., & Rich, N. B. 2007, ApJ, 658, 1340, doi: 10.1086/511416

    2007 doi

  60. [68]

    A., Lyon, J

    Zhang, B., Sorathia, K. A., Lyon, J. G., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3a4c

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.