pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.06926 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · physics.space-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Towards a Fully Automated Pipeline for Short-Term Forecasting of In Situ Coronal Mass Ejection Magnetic Field Structure

Hannah T. R\"udisser , Emma E. Davies , Ute V. Amerstorfer , Christian M\"ostl , Eva Weiler , Andreas J. Weiss , Justin Le Lou\"edec , Martin A. Reiss
show 1 more author
Gautier Nguyen
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 06:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph
keywords coronal mass ejectionsspace weather forecastingin-situ magnetic fieldflux rope reconstructionautomated pipelinesolar wind observationsL1 forecasts
0
0 comments X

The pith

Automated pipeline forecasts CME magnetic fields at L1 with comparable accuracy from initial in-situ data alone.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a fully automated system that links remote-sensing alerts to arrival predictions, automatic detection of magnetic obstacles in real-time solar wind data, and ongoing flux-rope reconstructions to issue short-term forecasts of the magnetic field that will reach Earth. Evaluation across dozens of events shows that forecasts started right after obstacle onset already reach accuracy levels close to those obtained after the entire event has passed, with typical errors of roughly five hours in the timing of field extrema and ten nanotesla in strength. This matters for operational space weather because it allows warnings to be generated and updated without human intervention or waiting for complete observations. The work also notes that further data adds little systematic gain and that many events deviate from simple flux-rope shapes.

Core claim

For 61 events with ground-truth counterparts, forecasts issued from the first portion of in-situ magnetic obstacle data achieve performance comparable to full-event reconstructions, with typical errors of about five hours in the timing of magnetic field extrema and ten nanotesla in field strength metrics, and with only limited systematic improvement as more of the event is observed.

What carries the argument

Iterative 3DCORE flux-rope reconstructions driven by ARCANE deep-learning detection of magnetic obstacles, updated continuously within an arrival-time window from the ELEvo model.

If this is right

  • Operational centers could issue initial magnetic field forecasts within hours of obstacle onset rather than after the event ends.
  • The pipeline runs without manual input once triggered by a DONKI entry, enabling continuous updates as new measurements arrive.
  • Performance plateaus early, so resources can focus on rapid detection rather than waiting for complete passages.
  • Systematic underestimation of extrema points to the need for adjustments when events depart from simple flux-rope geometry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same early-data sufficiency could be tested on other spacecraft or at different heliocentric distances to check generality.
  • Event-by-event classification of complexity might further reduce the observed variability in forecast errors.
  • Integration with existing arrival-time services could shorten the lead time for geomagnetic storm warnings.
  • If partial data suffice, the approach lowers the data volume needed for reliable forecasts in future missions.

Load-bearing premise

The 3DCORE model and ARCANE detector correctly identify and reconstruct real coronal mass ejection magnetic structures even when only the start of the event has been observed.

What would settle it

A collection of events where forecasts from the first hours of magnetic obstacle data show timing or amplitude errors several times larger than those from the full data set, or where the automated boundaries fail to match expert identifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06926 by Andreas J. Weiss, Christian M\"ostl, Emma E. Davies, Eva Weiler, Gautier Nguyen, Hannah T. R\"udisser, Justin Le Lou\"edec, Martin A. Reiss, Ute V. Amerstorfer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Parameter distributions used in the ELEvo simulations. (a) Histogram of γ values based on B. Vrˇsnak et al. (2013), where each bar corresponds to the indicated γ interval (e.g. 0.0-0.2, 0.2-0.4, etc.) and the bar height denotes the percentage of events in that interval. (b) Histogram of background solar wind speed (Vsw ) values from the same source, with the bars representing the labeled speed intervals. (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example visualization of an ELEvo simulation on April 23, 2023 15:00 UT. The yellow dot in the center represents the Sun, and the green dot indicates Earth’s position. Each blue semi-ellipse corresponds to a CME, with the solid blue line showing the ensemble mean and the shaded blue area representing ±2 standard deviations across the ensemble members. window, we determine te ± 2σte, which corresponds to ap… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of arrival time prediction errors from ELEvo simulations, compared against observed IPS arrival times listed in the DONKI catalog. Of the 196 IPSs observed, ELEvo predicted 149 of the associated events to arrive at Earth. The remaining events were not predicted to impact Earth, as their propagation direction and angular half-width placed Earth outside their modeled path under the assumption of… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of detection performance as a function of the waiting time δ. (a) F1 Score and mean relative delay (expressed as a percentage of the event duration) as a function of δ for the sheath region. (b) F1 Score and mean relative delay (in percent of duration) as a function of δ for the magnetic obstacle (MO). then describe how this framework is adapted in the present work for real-time application, where… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example 3DCORE reconstruction of the event launched on April 21, 2023, observed by Wind. (a) In situ magnetic field measurements (solid lines) together with the corresponding 3DCORE fitting results. The shaded region indicates the 2σ spread of the ensemble, and the dashed colored lines represent the ensemble mean. The vertical black dashed lines mark the start and end times of the MO, which define the reco… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example showing the iterative 3DCORE short-term forecast procedure for the event launched on April 21, 2023, observed by Wind on 2023 April 24, also used as an example in Figure 5a. The fitting results are shown after: (a) 1 hour, (b) 2 hours, (c) 3 hours, (d) 6 hours, (e) 12 hours and (f) for the complete event. 3.3.1. Evaluation of 3DCORE A. J. Weiss et al. (2021a) conducted a proof-of-concept study to e… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic overview of the operational NEXUS pipeline. Blue boxes denote real-time data products, where E and D(t) correspond to the descriptions in the pseudo code in Algorithm 1. Gray boxes represent the three coupled models and their internal components, and magenta boxes indicate model outputs. Dotted lines illustrate which data products are used as inputs by each model, solid lines show how model outpu… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of the real-time NEXUS pipeline for the event launched on August 22, 2014 plotted on August 27, 2014 at 05:50 UT, 3 hours after the detected start of the detected MO. Panel (a) shows the ELEvo ensemble simulation with the target CME in magenta and other concurrent CMEs in blue; the shaded region indicates the ensemble spread. Earth (green dot) lies in the trailing part of the ensemble, implying tha… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Annual numbers of events and arrivals according to different data sources between 2013 and 2025. whether these detections fall within the ELEvo-predicted arrival time windows. The yearly distribution of all event and arrival counts is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Timeline comparison of events and arrivals for two example years, (a) 2018, (b) 2022. Shown are ELEvo-predicted arrival windows (orange), events (including sheath and MO) listed in the ICMECAT (green), ARCANE-detected events (in￾cluding sheath and MO, magenta) and DONKI-listed IPS arrivals at L1 (blue crosses). Gray areas indicate intervals without sufficient in situ data coverage. coupling have evolved s… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Upset plot illustrating the overlap between DONKI-listed shock arrivals, ICMECAT events, ARCANE detections and their associated reconstructions within ELEvo-predicted arrival windows. Bars show the number of events in each unique combination of data sources, while the connected dots below indicate the contributing sets. The two combinations highlighted in red correspond to the subsets that together form t… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Metrics as a function of observation time. Each panel shows the distribution of the respective evaluation metric for all events and prediction times (1 h, 2 h, 3 h, 6 h, 12 h and for the full event). (a) RMSE of the total magnetic field strength, (b) RMSE of the BZ component, (c) absolute difference between the maximum magnitude of the magnetic field vector of the actual observations and the 3DCORE recons… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present an automated pipeline for operational short-term forecasting of coronal mass ejection (CME) magnetic field structure at L1, coupling arrival time prediction, in situ detection, and iterative flux rope reconstruction, following near-real-time remote-sensing CME identification. The system is triggered by new entries in the CCMC DONKI database and first applies the drag-based ELEvo model to determine whether an Earth impact is expected and estimate arrival time. This estimate defines a temporal window constraining the search for CME signatures in real-time L1 in situ solar wind data, where the magnetic obstacle (MO) is automatically detected using the deep learning model ARCANE. Upon MO onset, iterative reconstructions with the semi-empirical flux rope model 3DCORE are performed, using a Monte Carlo fitting scheme, producing continuously updated forecasts of the remaining magnetic field profile. We evaluate the pipeline using 3870 archived DONKI entries and archived NOAA real-time in situ data from 2013-2025, assessing forecast performance at different stages of MO observation. For 61 events with an associated ground-truth counterpart in the ICMECAT catalog, forecasts based on initial MO data already achieve performance comparable to full-event reconstructions. Typical errors are ~5 hours in timing of magnetic field extrema and ~10 nT in field strength metrics, with limited systematic improvement as more of the event is observed. Results show substantial event variability and systematic underestimation of extrema, indicating deviations from ideal flux rope assumptions. These findings demonstrate the potential of fully autonomous real-time forecasting while highlighting limitations imposed by event complexity and model representational capacity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an automated pipeline for short-term forecasting of CME magnetic field structure at L1, triggered by DONKI entries. It chains the ELEvo drag-based model for Earth-impact and arrival-time prediction, the ARCANE deep-learning detector for magnetic-obstacle (MO) intervals in real-time L1 data, and iterative Monte-Carlo 3DCORE flux-rope reconstructions that update forecasts as more of the MO is observed. On 3870 archived DONKI events (2013-2025) the authors report that, for the 61 events possessing an ICMECAT counterpart, forecasts initialized with only the first portion of the MO already achieve timing errors of ~5 h and field-strength errors of ~10 nT, comparable to full-event reconstructions, with limited further improvement as more data arrive.

Significance. If the central performance numbers hold on a broader sample, the work would constitute a concrete step toward fully autonomous, real-time CME magnetic-structure forecasting. The integration of an existing arrival model, a trained detector, and continuous Monte-Carlo fitting is technically coherent and directly relevant to operational space-weather services. The observation that partial-MO data already suffice is operationally attractive, although the reported systematic underestimation of extrema and large event-to-event scatter indicate that representational limits of the ideal flux-rope assumption remain a practical constraint.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation / Results (abstract and §4)] The headline performance figures (~5 h timing, ~10 nT field-strength errors) and the claim of “limited systematic improvement” are computed exclusively on the 61 ICMECAT-matched events. The pipeline is stated to have been run on all 3870 DONKI entries, yet no detection-success rate, forecast-error statistics, or failure-mode analysis is supplied for the remaining ~3800 events (or for cases in which ARCANE returns no usable MO interval). Because the 61 events are precisely those for which an external catalog match exists, the reported metrics cannot be taken as representative of the operational population the system must handle.
  2. [Methods / Data set description] Event-selection criteria, post-hoc exclusions, and the precise definition of “ICMECAT counterpart” are not described. Without these details it is impossible to judge whether the 61-event subset preferentially selects events whose magnetic structure is closest to the ideal 3DCORE geometry, thereby inflating apparent performance.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions “substantial event variability” but supplies neither the range nor the standard deviation of the reported errors; a short quantitative statement would improve interpretability.
  2. [Methods] Notation for the Monte-Carlo fitting parameters and the precise definition of the “initial MO” window used for the early forecasts should be stated explicitly in the methods section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped us clarify the scope and limitations of our evaluation. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional details on event selection and pipeline statistics across the full DONKI sample.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation / Results (abstract and §4)] The headline performance figures (~5 h timing, ~10 nT field-strength errors) and the claim of “limited systematic improvement” are computed exclusively on the 61 ICMECAT-matched events. The pipeline is stated to have been run on all 3870 DONKI entries, yet no detection-success rate, forecast-error statistics, or failure-mode analysis is supplied for the remaining ~3800 events (or for cases in which ARCANE returns no usable MO interval). Because the 61 events are precisely those for which an external catalog match exists, the reported metrics cannot be taken as representative of the operational population the system must handle.

    Authors: We agree that the quantitative error metrics are reported only for the 61 ICMECAT-matched events because these are the cases for which independent ground-truth magnetic field profiles are available for direct comparison. Comprehensive error statistics cannot be computed for the remaining events without equivalent validated catalogs. In the revised manuscript we have added a new paragraph in §4 that reports the overall execution statistics across all 3870 DONKI entries: the fraction of events for which ELEvo predicts an Earth-directed impact, the number of cases in which ARCANE successfully identifies an MO interval inside the predicted arrival window, and the incidence of non-detections or non-convergent 3DCORE fits. We have also revised the abstract and conclusions to state explicitly that the quoted timing and field-strength errors apply to the validated ICMECAT-matched subset. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods / Data set description] Event-selection criteria, post-hoc exclusions, and the precise definition of “ICMECAT counterpart” are not described. Without these details it is impossible to judge whether the 61-event subset preferentially selects events whose magnetic structure is closest to the ideal 3DCORE geometry, thereby inflating apparent performance.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. The revised manuscript now includes an explicit description of the selection pipeline in Section 2. The 61 events are defined as DONKI entries (2013–2025) that possess a temporal match in ICMECAT, where the ICMECAT start time lies within ±12 h of the ELEvo-predicted L1 arrival and the in-situ data exhibit a clear magnetic obstacle. Post-hoc exclusions comprise events for which ARCANE returns no MO interval or for which the Monte-Carlo 3DCORE fit fails to converge to stable parameters. A new table has been added that tabulates the number of events retained after each filtering step, allowing readers to assess possible selection effects. While we cannot exclude that the matched subset is somewhat less complex than the full population, the substantial event-to-event scatter and systematic underestimation of extrema already reported in the original manuscript indicate that even these events deviate from ideal flux-rope assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; pipeline applies external models to independent data with external validation

full rationale

The described pipeline chains pre-existing models (ELEvo for arrival, ARCANE for detection, 3DCORE for reconstruction) on archived DONKI and NOAA data. Forecast performance is measured against the independent ICMECAT catalog for the 61 matched events, not against the same fitted parameters or self-generated ground truth. No equations or steps reduce by construction to their inputs; the iterative Monte Carlo fitting to initial MO data and subsequent comparison to later observations constitutes a standard out-of-sample test rather than a self-referential loop. Self-citations to model origins are present but not load-bearing for the reported error metrics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The pipeline rests on standard heliophysics models whose internal parameters and geometric assumptions are inherited rather than derived here; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • 3DCORE flux-rope parameters
    Semi-empirical model parameters (orientation, size, magnetic field strength) are fitted via Monte Carlo to partial in-situ data; these are free parameters adjusted per event.
  • ELEvo drag coefficient and launch parameters
    Arrival-time model parameters are taken from prior calibration or fitted to the specific CME.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Coronal mass ejections can be represented as ideal flux ropes whose magnetic field evolution follows the 3DCORE semi-empirical equations
    Invoked when the pipeline performs iterative reconstructions upon MO detection.
  • domain assumption The ARCANE deep-learning model reliably identifies magnetic obstacle boundaries in real-time L1 data
    Required for the automated detection step that triggers reconstruction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5635 in / 1669 out tokens · 29373 ms · 2026-05-16T06:26:28.110358+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2025, Space Science Reviews, 221, 12, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w

    Al-Haddad, N., & Lugaz, N. 2025, Space Science Reviews, 221, 12, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w 2025

  2. [2]

    P., Lugaz, N., & Roussev, I

    Al-Haddad, N., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., Savani, N. P., Lugaz, N., & Roussev, I. I. 2018, Solar Physics, 293, 73, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1288-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-018-1288-3 2018

  3. [3]

    P., et al

    Al-Haddad, N., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., Savani, N. P., et al. 2013, Solar Physics, 284, 129, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0244-5 28

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0244-5 2013

  4. [4]

    L., Barnes, D., et al

    Amerstorfer, T., Lou¨ edec, J. L., Barnes, D., et al. 2025, Predicting CME Arrivals with Heliospheric Imagers from L5: A Data Assimilation Approach, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2512.09738

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.09738 2025

  5. [5]

    A., et al

    Amerstorfer, T., Hinterreiter, J., Reiss, M. A., et al. 2021, Space Weather, 19, e2020SW002553, doi: 10.1029/2020SW002553

    work page doi:10.1029/2020sw002553 2021

  6. [6]

    1998, 16, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x ˇCalogovi´ c, J., Dumbovi´ c, M., Sudar, D., et al

    Bothmer, V., & Schwenn, R. 1998, 16, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x ˇCalogovi´ c, J., Dumbovi´ c, M., Sudar, D., et al. 2021, Solar Physics, 296, 114, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01859-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x 1998

  7. [7]

    V., & Richardson, I

    Cane, H. V., & Richardson, I. G. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 1156, doi: 10.1029/2002JA009817

    work page doi:10.1029/2002ja009817 2003

  8. [8]

    J., & Palmadesso, P

    Chen, J., Cargill, P. J., & Palmadesso, P. J. 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 14701, doi: 10.1029/97JA00936 Cical` o, S., Alessi, E. M., Provinciali, L., et al. 2025, Astrophysics and Space Science, 370, 83, doi: 10.1007/s10509-025-04473-0

    work page doi:10.1029/97ja00936 1997

  9. [9]

    S., D´ emoulin, P., & Mandrini, C

    Dasso, S., Nakwacki, M. S., D´ emoulin, P., & Mandrini, C. H. 2007, Solar Physics, 244, 115, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9034-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-007-9034-2 2007

  10. [10]

    E., Winslow, R

    Davies, E. E., Winslow, R. M., Scolini, C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac731a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac731a 2022

  11. [11]

    E., M¨ ostl, C., Owens, M

    Davies, E. E., M¨ ostl, C., Owens, M. J., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 656, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040113

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040113 2021

  12. [12]

    E., R¨ udisser, H

    Davies, E. E., R¨ udisser, H. T., Amerstorfer, U. V., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad64cb 2024

  13. [13]

    Real-time prediction of two geomagnetic storms using Solar Orbiter as a far upstream solar wind monitor

    Davies, E. E., Weiler, E., M¨ ostl, C., et al. 2025, Real-Time Prediction of Geomagnetic Storms Using Solar Orbiter as a Far Upstream Solar Wind Monitor, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.13892

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.13892 2025

  14. [14]

    P., Biffis, E., Hapgood, M

    Eastwood, J. P., Biffis, E., Hapgood, M. A., et al. 2017, Risk Analysis, 37, 206, doi: 10.1111/risa.12765

    work page doi:10.1111/risa.12765 2017

  15. [15]

    1960, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 120, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/120.2.89

    Gold, T., & Hoyle, F. 1960, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 120, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/120.2.89

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/120.2.89 1960

  16. [16]

    W., Forsyth, R

    Good, S. W., Forsyth, R. J., Eastwood, J. P., & M¨ ostl, C. 2018, Solar Physics, 293, 52, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1264-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-018-1264-y 2018

  17. [17]

    Gosling, J. T. 1990, Geophysical Monograph Series, 58, 343, doi: 10.1029/GM058p0343

    work page doi:10.1029/gm058p0343 1990

  18. [18]

    J., Attrill, G., et al

    Hapgood, M., Angling, M. J., Attrill, G., et al. 2021, Space Weather, 19, e2020SW002593, doi: 10.1029/2020SW002593

    work page doi:10.1029/2020sw002593 2021

  19. [19]

    A., & Nieves-Chinchilla, T

    Hidalgo, M. A., & Nieves-Chinchilla, T. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 748, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/109

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/109 2012

  20. [20]

    A., et al

    Hinterreiter, J., Amerstorfer, T., Reiss, M. A., et al. 2021, Space Weather, 19, e2020SW002674, doi: 10.1029/2020SW002674

    work page doi:10.1029/2020sw002674 2021

  21. [21]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/267

    Isavnin, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/267

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/267 2016

  22. [22]

    E., Dumbovi´ c, M., et al

    Kay, C., Davies, E. E., Dumbovi´ c, M., et al. 2026, Space Weather

    work page 2026

  23. [23]

    L., & Collado-Vega, Y

    Kay, C., Mays, M. L., & Collado-Vega, Y. M. 2022, Space Weather, 20, e2021SW002914, doi: 10.1029/2021SW002914

    work page doi:10.1029/2021sw002914 2022

  24. [24]

    Kay, C., Opher, M., & Evans, R. M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/168

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/168 2015

  25. [25]

    2024, Space Weather, 22, e2023SW003796, doi: 10.1029/2023SW003796

    Kay, C., & Palmerio, E. 2024, Space Weather, 22, e2023SW003796, doi: 10.1029/2023SW003796

    work page doi:10.1029/2023sw003796 2024

  26. [26]

    2024, Space Weather, 22, e2024SW003951, doi: 10.1029/2024SW003951

    Kay, C., Palmerio, E., Riley, P., et al. 2024, Space Weather, 22, e2024SW003951, doi: 10.1029/2024SW003951

    work page doi:10.1029/2024sw003951 2024

  27. [27]

    Kilpua, E., Koskinen, H. E. J., & Pulkkinen, T. I. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41116-017-0009-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s41116-017-0009-6 2017

  28. [28]

    Kilpua, E. K. J., Isavnin, A., Vourlidas, A., Koskinen, H. E. J., & Rodriguez, L. 2013, Annales Geophysicae, 31, 1251, doi: 10.5194/angeo-31-1251-2013

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-31-1251-2013 2013

  29. [29]

    Kilpua, E. K. J., Lugaz, N., Mays, M. L., & Temmer, M. 2019, Space Weather, 17, 498, doi: 10.1029/2018SW001944

    work page doi:10.1029/2018sw001944 2019

  30. [30]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/255

    Kubicka, M., M¨ ostl, C., Amerstorfer, T., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/255

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/255 2016

  31. [31]

    S., O’Brien, H., et al

    Laker, R., Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., et al. 2024, Space Weather, 22, e2023SW003628, doi: 10.1029/2023SW003628

    work page doi:10.1029/2023sw003628 2024

  32. [32]

    J., M¨ ostl, C., et al

    Leitner, M., Farrugia, C. J., M¨ ostl, C., et al. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A06113, doi: 10.1029/2006JA011940

    work page doi:10.1029/2006ja011940 2007

  33. [33]

    P., Jones, J

    Lepping, R. P., Jones, J. A., & Burlaga, L. F. 1990, Journal of Geophysical Research, 95, 11957, doi: 10.1029/JA095iA08p11957

    work page doi:10.1029/ja095ia08p11957 1990

  34. [34]

    M., Green, L

    Long, D. M., Green, L. M., Pecora, F., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 955, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acefd5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acefd5 2023

  35. [35]

    J., Winslow, R

    Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., Winslow, R. M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 864, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad9f4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad9f4 2018

  36. [36]

    Lugaz, N., Temmer, M., Wang, Y., & Farrugia, C. J. 2017, Solar Physics, 292, 64, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1091-6 29

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-017-1091-6 2017

  37. [37]

    O., Al-Haddad, N., et al

    Lugaz, N., Lee, C. O., Al-Haddad, N., et al. 2024, Space Science Reviews, 220, 73, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01108-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01108-8 2024

  38. [38]

    2025, Space Weather, 23, 2024SW004189, doi: 10.1029/2024SW004189

    Lugaz, N., Al-Haddad, N., Zhuang, B., et al. 2025, Space Weather, 23, 2024SW004189, doi: 10.1029/2024SW004189

    work page doi:10.1029/2024sw004189 2025

  39. [39]

    1950, Ark

    Lundquist, S. 1950, Ark. Fys., 2, 361

    work page 1950

  40. [40]

    2022, Advances in Space Research, 70, 1614, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2022.05.004

    Lugaz, N. 2022, Advances in Space Research, 70, 1614, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2022.05.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2022.05.004 2022

  41. [41]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 994, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0ca1

    Mao, D., Shen, C., Chi, Y., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 994, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0ca1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0ca1 2025

  42. [42]

    M., Perez-Alanis, C

    Moreno, M. M., Perez-Alanis, C. A., & Manoharan, P. K. 2025, X-CME: From In Situ Flux-Rope Reconstruction to CME Propagation Forecasting, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2512.01561 M¨ ostl, C., Rollett, T., Frahm, R. A., et al. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7135, doi: 10.1038/ncomms8135 M¨ ostl, C., Isavnin, A., Boakes, P. D., et al. 2017, Space Weather, 15,...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.01561 2025

  43. [43]

    2025, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 15, 21, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2025016

    Nguyen, G., Bernoux, G., & Ferlin, A. 2025, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 15, 21, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2025016

    work page doi:10.1051/swsc/2025016 2025

  44. [44]

    E., et al

    Nieves-Chinchilla, T., Szabo, A., Korreck, K. E., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab61f5 OpenAI. 2026, ChatGPT, GPT-5.2 https://chat.openai.com

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab61f5 2020

  45. [45]

    J., Skelton, A., Horne, R

    Oughton, E. J., Skelton, A., Horne, R. B., Thomson, A. W. P., & Gaunt, C. T. 2017, Space Weather, 15, 65, doi: 10.1002/2016SW001491

    work page doi:10.1002/2016sw001491 2017

  46. [46]

    Jackson, D. R. 2013, Space Weather, 11, 225, doi: 10.1002/swe.20040

    work page doi:10.1002/swe.20040 2013

  47. [47]

    J., Lockwood, M., & Barnard, L

    Owens, M. J., Lockwood, M., & Barnard, L. A. 2020, 18, e02507, doi: 10.1029/2020SW002507

    work page doi:10.1029/2020sw002507 2020

  48. [48]

    dos Santos, L

    Pal, S., G. dos Santos, L. F., Weiss, A. J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad54c3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad54c3 2024

  49. [49]

    2025, Space Weather, 23, e2025SW004452, doi: 10.1029/2025SW004452

    Palmerio, E. 2025, Space Weather, 23, e2025SW004452, doi: 10.1029/2025SW004452

    work page doi:10.1029/2025sw004452 2025

  50. [50]

    Palmerio, E., Kilpua, E. K. J., Witasse, O., et al. 2021, 19, e2020SW002654, doi: 10.1029/2020SW002654

    work page doi:10.1029/2020sw002654 2021

  51. [51]

    O., Richardson, I

    Palmerio, E., Lee, C. O., Richardson, I. G., et al. 2022, Space Weather, 20, e2022SW003215, doi: 10.1029/2022SW003215

    work page doi:10.1029/2022sw003215 2022

  52. [52]

    A., M¨ ostl, C., Bailey, R

    Reiss, M. A., M¨ ostl, C., Bailey, R. L., et al. 2021, Space Weather, 19, e2021SW002859, doi: 10.1029/2021SW002859

    work page doi:10.1029/2021sw002859 2021

  53. [53]

    Richardson, I. G. 2014, Solar Physics, 289, 3843, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0540-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0540-8 2014

  54. [54]

    G., & Cane, H

    Richardson, I. G., & Cane, H. V. 2004, 31, 2004GL020958, doi: 10.1029/2004GL020958

    work page doi:10.1029/2004gl020958 2004

  55. [55]

    A., Lionello, R., et al

    Riley, P., Linker, J. A., Lionello, R., et al. 2004, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 66, 1321, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2004.03.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2004.03.019 2004

  56. [56]

    L., Andries, J., et al

    Riley, P., Mays, M. L., Andries, J., et al. 2018, Space Weather, 16, 1245, doi: 10.1029/2018SW001962

    work page doi:10.1029/2018sw001962 2018

  57. [57]

    P., Poirier, N., Lavarra, M., et al

    Rouillard, A. P., Poirier, N., Lavarra, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6610 R¨ udisser, H. T., Nguyen, G., Le Lou¨ edec, J., Davies, E. E., & M¨ ostl, C. 2026, Space Weather, 24, e2025SW004537, doi: 10.1029/2025SW004537 R¨ udisser, H. T., Weiss, A. J., Le Lou¨ edec, J., et al. 2024, The Astr...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6610 2020

  58. [58]

    J., et al

    Ruffenach, A., Lavraud, B., Farrugia, C. J., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 43, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020628

    work page doi:10.1002/2014ja020628 2015

  59. [59]

    M., Winslow, R

    Salman, T. M., Winslow, R. M., & Lugaz, N. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027084, doi: 10.1029/2019JA027084

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja027084 2020

  60. [60]

    P., Owens, M

    Savani, N. P., Owens, M. J., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 731, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/109

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/2/109 2011

  61. [61]

    M., Lugaz, N., et al

    Scolini, C., Winslow, R. M., Lugaz, N., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e60

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e60 2022

  62. [62]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6216 St

    Scolini, C., Chan´ e, E., Temmer, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6216 St. Cyr, O. C., Mesarch, M. A., Maldonado, H. M., et al. 2000, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 62, 1251, doi: 10.1016/S1364-6826(00)00069-9 30

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6216 2020

  63. [63]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab48e9

    Telloni, D., Antonucci, E., Bemporad, A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab48e9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab48e9 2019

  64. [64]

    2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 656, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140648

    Telloni, D., Scolini, C., M¨ ostl, C., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 656, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140648

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140648 2021

  65. [65]

    2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A04221, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011257

    Temerin, M., & Li, X. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A04221, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011257

    work page doi:10.1029/2005ja011257 2006

  66. [66]

    G., et al

    Temmer, M., Scolini, C., Richardson, I. G., et al. 2023, Advances in Space Research, S0273117723005239, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.07.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2023.07.003 2023

  67. [67]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 194, 33, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/33

    Thernisien, A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 194, 33, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/33

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/33 2011

  68. [68]

    Thernisien, A., Vourlidas, A., & Howard, R. A. 2009, Solar Physics, 256, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9346-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9346-5 2009

  69. [69]

    Thernisien, A. F. R., Howard, R. A., & Vourlidas, A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 652, 763, doi: 10.1086/508254

    work page doi:10.1086/508254 2006

  70. [70]

    Vourlidas, A., Patsourakos, S., & Savani, N. P. 2019, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 377, 20180096, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2018.0096 Vrˇ snak, B.,ˇZic, T., Vrbanec, D., et al. 2013, Solar Physics, 285, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-0035-4

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2018.0096 2019

  71. [71]

    2004, Solar Physics, 222, 329, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000043576.21942.aa

    Wang, Y., Shen, C., Wang, S., & Ye, P. 2004, Solar Physics, 222, 329, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000043576.21942.aa

    work page doi:10.1023/b:sola.0000043576.21942.aa 2004

  72. [72]

    Webb and Timothy A

    Webb, D. F., & Howard, T. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2012-3

    work page doi:10.12942/lrsp-2012-3 2012

  73. [73]

    E., et al

    Weiler, E., M¨ ostl, C., Davies, E. E., et al. 2025, Space Weather, 23, 2024SW004260, doi: 10.1029/2024SW004260

    work page doi:10.1029/2024sw004260 2025

  74. [74]

    J., M¨ ostl, C., Amerstorfer, T., et al

    Weiss, A. J., M¨ ostl, C., Amerstorfer, T., et al. 2021a, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 252, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc9bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abc9bd

  75. [75]

    J., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., & M¨ ostl, C

    Weiss, A. J., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., & M¨ ostl, C. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7940

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7940 2024

  76. [76]

    J., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., M¨ ostl, C., et al

    Weiss, A. J., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., M¨ ostl, C., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 127, e2022JA030898, doi: 10.1029/2022JA030898

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ja030898 2022

  77. [77]

    J., M¨ ostl, C., Davies, E

    Weiss, A. J., M¨ ostl, C., Davies, E. E., et al. 2021b, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 656, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140919

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140919

  78. [78]

    Yermolaev, M. Y. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 117, 2011JA017139, doi: 10.1029/2011JA017139

    work page doi:10.1029/2011ja017139 2012

  79. [79]

    G., Webb, D

    Zhang, J., Richardson, I. G., Webb, D. F., et al. 2007, 112, 2007JA012321, doi: 10.1029/2007JA012321

    work page doi:10.1029/2007ja012321 2007

  80. [80]

    H., & Richardson, I

    Zurbuchen, T. H., & Richardson, I. G. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 31, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9010-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-9010-4 2006

Showing first 80 references.