Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

A Non-Spherical Model for the Solar Coronal Magnetic Field

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that swapping the standard spherical source surface for a non-spherical surface of constant magnetic-field strength restores the Sun's missing open magnetic flux without shrinking coronal loops.

desk verdict A practical but not yet self-consistent non-spherical source-surface model; the open-flux match is partly fitted, partly real. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.01028 v2 pith:SL2LOIJA submitted 2026-04-01 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Ziqi Wu , Jiansen He , Chuanpeng Hou , Tom van Doorsselaere , Rui Zhuo , Tianhang Chen , Liping Yang , David Pontin
show 2 more authors
Daniel Verscharen Fang Shen
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords coronalmagneticfieldopenfluxproblemsourcesurfacepotentialextrapolationsolarwindmappingheliospherichelmetstreamersnon-spherical
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

The paper develops a coronal magnetic-field extrapolation in which the surface where field lines are declared open — the source surface — is no longer a sphere but a surface of constant field strength extracted from an initial potential-field solution. Because this surface dips downward beneath helmet-streamer cusps, the model opens field lines preferentially near open–closed boundaries, producing about three times as much open magnetic flux (13.0 versus 4.6 in standard units) while keeping loop heights in the observed range from 0.05 to 1.08 solar radii. The authors show the modeled field matches extreme-ultraviolet and coronagraph images and reproduces near-Sun interplanetary field polarity and magnitude better than the standard model under the same open-flux constraint. The paper states that the surface is not iterated to full self-consistency and that the best variant is selected by matching observed open flux, so part of the flux increase is imposed by construction rather than freely predicted.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Non-Spherical Source Surface (NSSS), a constant-|B| isosurface extracted from an initial potential-field solution and then used as the zero-potential upper boundary of a finite-element Laplace solver. The load-bearing property is that it is not a level surface in radius: it dips toward the Sun beneath current sheets at the cusps of helmet streamers, so the number of field lines that reach it and become open is larger locally than a sphere at the same mean height would allow. The surrounding structure is computed with a current-sheet layer, an exit sphere at 10 solar radii, and a spiral mapping to interplanetary space.

What would settle it

Run the NSSS extraction on the magnetic field of an MHD coronal simulation where the true open/closed boundary is known, then test whether the constant-|B| surface coincides with that boundary and reproduces the observed open flux without choosing an initial radius; if the match fails, the geometrical mechanism is not the cause of the extra flux.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the long-standing open-flux problem — models systematically predicting less open magnetic flux than spacecraft observe — can be substantially reduced by changing the shape of the source surface rather than by lowering it everywhere. The authors construct a Non-Spherical Potential Field model whose upper boundary is the isosurface of |B| from an initial potential-field source-surface solution. The isosurface automatically forms concave pockets under external current sheets at the bases of helmet streamers, so the potential-field layer is thinner there; lower loops open near separatrix boundaries while taller loops remain closed elsewhere. For a solar-maximum interval

Load-bearing premise

The model rests on assuming that a constant-|B| surface extracted from an initial spherical solution is a good stand-in for the physical surface where field lines open; the paper admits it cannot yet prove this surface would be self-consistently both a field-strength isosurface and a zero-potential surface, and the best-case variant is chosen to match observed open flux.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With one magnetogram as input, the same workflow yields coronal topology, current-sheet structure, and interplanetary field predictions, so source-surface height no longer has to be tuned separately for each purpose.
  • Open flux can be raised to observed levels without forcing all loops below a small height, removing a known artifact of simply lowering the spherical source surface.
  • Solar-wind source footpoints become more compact and localized than in models with a spherical surface, concentrating the missing flux near open–closed boundaries.
  • The resulting field can serve as a more realistic initial condition for global magnetohydrodynamic simulations of the corona and heliosphere.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the constant-|B| source surface is as representative as the results suggest, future models could treat the source surface as an output of the field solution rather than an adjustable parameter, removing the residual tuning against observed open flux.
  • The compactness of modeled solar-wind source regions implies that the cross-hemisphere footpoint drift seen in spherical models may be an artifact of an over-high uniform boundary; slow-wind source mapping for space-weather connections could become more reliable.
  • The same finite-element extraction could be applied to MHD coronal solutions or to magnetograms of other stars, making the open-flux geometry testable beyond the Sun.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the Non-Spherical Potential Field (NSPF) model, which replaces the spherical source surface of the classic PFSS model with a non-spherical source surface (NSSS) defined as an isosurface of |B| extracted from an initial PFSS solution. The potential field is then recomputed with u=0 on the NSSS, and the field is extended through a Schatten-type current-sheet layer to 10 R_sun and then as a Parker spiral. For Carrington Rotation 2282, the authors compare NSPF fields (for initial radii 2.2, 2.5, 3.0 R_sun) with PFSS+PFCS models, using EUV and white-light images, total open flux, and PSP in-situ IMF measurements. They report that the NSPF model with R_ini=2.2 R_sun yields an open flux of 13.01 Gs·R_sun^2 (close to the observed value), produces more complex open-field regions consistent with EUV observations, and better predicts IMF polarity reversals than PFSS+PFCS with the same flux. The paper emphasizes that the NSSS dips to 1.05 R_sun, preserving loop heights up to ~1.08 R_sun, thereby solving the open-flux problem without uniformly lowering the source surface.

Significance. If the approach is valid, the NSPF model offers a promising, practical alternative to the common practice of lowering the PFSS source surface to fix the open-flux problem, and it could improve solar wind source mapping. The paper is honest about its main limitation—the lack of demonstrated self-consistency of the NSSS—and provides reproducible open-source code (FEM-PFS based on FEniCS/DOLFINx), which is a strength. The quantitative open-flux comparison in Table 1 is useful, and the idea of extracting a non-spherical surface from an isosurface of |B| is a concrete step forward. However, the central claims that the model 'successfully reproduces' coronal topology, IMF properties, and solar wind source regions are weakened by two load-bearing issues: (i) the NSSS is not shown to be a self-consistent source surface for the recomputed field, and (ii) the optimal configuration is selected using the same observed open flux and PSP data that are later used for validation. The physical mechanism for opening field at R_SS,min=1.05 R_sun is not quantitatively supported. These issues may be addressable in a revision, but they are central to the paper's headline conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2.3] The NSSS is extracted from an initial PFSS solution and then used as a Dirichlet boundary (u=0) for a new potential-field solve. The final field is not guaranteed to have |B| nearly constant on the NSSS; the authors explicitly state they cannot demonstrate convergence to a self-consistent NSSS and that the surface 'tends to shrink during the iterative process.' This is load-bearing because the physical justification in §2.2.2 assumes the NSSS is simultaneously a |B| isosurface and a zero-potential open-field boundary. If the final NSSS is not an isosurface of the recomputed field, the increased open flux (Table 1) may be an artifact of imposing an irregular boundary rather than a physically self-consistent representation of the source surface. Please quantify the deviation (e.g., a histogram or map of |B| on the final NSSS), test at least one additional iteration step, and report how the
  2. [§2.2.3 and §3.3] The optimal NSPF configuration (R_ini=2.2 R_sun) is selected by matching the observed open flux and PSP IMF measurements: the text states 'varying the initial spherical source-surface radius, and then use observational constraints to select the optimal NSSS configuration.' The resulting A=1.0 metric in Fig. 5a is therefore a fit to the same data that are used to claim successful reproduction of IMF properties. This circularity is central to the paper's validation. Please provide an out-of-sample test—for example, fix R_ini based on a different Carrington rotation or use independent constraints (such as coronal hole areas or white-light streamer positions) before comparing to PSP—or explicitly reframe the R_ini dependence as calibration rather than prediction. Without this, the headline agreement is not a falsifiable prediction.
  3. [§3.2 and Table 1] The NSSS reaches a minimum radius of 1.05 R_sun in the preferred configuration. At these heights, the coronal plasma beta and dynamic pressure are generally expected to be much less than unity, and the Alfvén surface is typically well above 1.05 R_sun. The physical argument in §2.2.2—that field lines open where ram pressure exceeds magnetic tension—is not quantified for this regime, and the NSSS is defined via |B|, not via beta or the stated pressure balance. The claim that the NSPF model solves the open-flux problem 'physically' requires evidence that the field can indeed open at such low heights (e.g., comparison with MHD simulations, observed streamer cusp heights, or a quantitative beta/ram-pressure analysis along the NSSS). Please add such a check or temper the physical interpretation accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption reads 'interstellar magnetic field'; this should be 'interplanetary magnetic field.'
  2. [References] The reference 'Neukrich, T.' appears to be a typo for 'Neukirch, T.' (in Zhu et al. 2022). Please check all author names.
  3. [§3.1] The comparison to EUV and white-light images is qualitative ('provide the best match to the observed coronal rays'). For a model that claims to 'successfully reproduce' coronal topology, a quantitative metric (e.g., overlap of open-field regions with coronal holes, location of streamer rays) would strengthen the conclusion. As written, the topology comparison is illustrative rather than definitive.
  4. [Eq. (3)] The linear form L(v) is written with 'brvds' in the text; this appears to be a LaTeX rendering issue for b_r v ds. Please ensure the symbol is defined (b_n is used in Eq. 1).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Best-performing NSSS is selected using the same PSP open-flux data it is later used to validate; EUV/white-light topology checks remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.2.3 (NSSS selection); §3.2 Eq. 5; §3.3 Eqs. 6–9 and Fig. 5a]
    "As a practical alternative, one may constrain the optimal NSSS by requiring that the modeled open magnetic flux match the observed value. Accordingly, in this study, we perform the source-surface extraction only once for each case, varying the initial spherical source-surface radius, and then use observational constraints to select the optimal NSSS configuration. While this approach is not formally rigorous, it is both practical and effective for our purposes."

    The control parameter R_ini sets the height and concavity of the NSSS, which directly determines the total open flux Φ_total = ∫_SS |B_n| dS (Eq. 5) and, through Eq. 6, the modeled IMF at PSP. The paper selects R_ini = 2.2 R⊙ by requiring the modeled open flux/PSP IMF to match observations, then reports A=1.0, P=0.97, RMSE=0.10 for that same selected run as a successful prediction. The IMF-magnitude agreement is therefore the selection criterion restated as a validation metric rather than an independent test. The EUV/white-light topology and loop-height comparisons are not fitted and provide independent content, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: initial PFSS solution → extract NSSS as an isosurface of |B| → solve Laplace equation with u=0 on that NSSS → add SCS-style current-sheet layer → Parker-spiral mapping to PSP. The main circular step is in §2.2.3: the initial source-surface radius R_ini is varied (2.2, 2.5, 3.0 R⊙) and the optimal NSSS configuration is chosen using the observed open magnetic flux and PSP IMF. Because the open flux, and hence the modeled IMF magnitude, is controlled by the resulting NSSS geometry, the later claim that the R_ini=2.2 model 'predicts' the IMF with A=1.0 (Fig. 5a) is partly the selection criterion restated as a validation score. The paper itself concedes the non-rigorous nature of this step. Separately, §2.2.3 explicitly acknowledges that the iterative procedure is not shown to converge to a self-consistent NSSS that is simultaneously an isosurface of |B| and of the magnetic potential, and that the NSSS shrinks during iteration; this is a validity limitation rather than a circular reduction. The EUV/white-light topology comparisons, open-field map complexity, and loop-height distributions are not fitted to the PSP flux data and constitute independent evidence, which prevents a score of 8–10. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the Hou et al. (2024) citation is used only for the standard Parker-spiral mapping, and the Schulz et al. (1978) isogauss-surface concept is an external historical antecedent. Overall, partial circularity arises from using the validation observable to select the model configuration, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the potential-field and source-surface assumptions inherited from PFSS, plus the paper-specific assumption that an isosurface of |B| is a good proxy for the physical source surface. The latter is not derived and the paper explicitly states iterative self-consistency is not demonstrated. Tuning R_ini against observed IMF open flux adds a fitted parameter that directly affects the headline flux and IMF agreement.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial spherical source-surface radius R_ini = 2.2 R_sun (selected as optimal)
    The NSSS is extracted from the PFSS solution computed with R_ini. Three values (2.2, 2.5, 3.0 R_sun) are tested and the best is chosen by comparing modeled IMF with PSP in-situ data, i.e., fit to the very quantity the model is claimed to predict (§2.2.3, §3.3).
  • Isovalue of |B| used for NSSS extraction = max(|B|) on the initial spherical source surface
    This choice sets the location and size of the NSSS; the paper notes 'alternatively, a specific isovalue may be chosen' (§2.2.2), so it is a free modeling choice.
  • Exit sphere radius R_ES = 10 R_sun
    Interface between the current-sheet layer and the Parker-spiral layer; chosen by hand without observational constraint (§2.2.4, Fig. 1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The coronal field below the source surface is current-free and satisfies ∇²u=0
    Eq (1), Sec 2.1.1; the potential-field hypothesis inherited from PFSS.
  • domain assumption The source surface is a zero-potential surface where field lines become open and radial
    Sec 1 and Eq (1) Dirichlet condition u=0 on Γ_out.
  • ad hoc to paper An isosurface of |B| extracted from a PFSS solution approximates the physical non-spherical source surface
    Sec 2.2.2: 'We propose a better NSSS... the isosurface of |B| could serve as a good approximation.' No derivation from plasma physics; the paper admits self-consistency is not demonstrated (§2.2.3).
  • ad hoc to paper The recalculated NSSS remains a zero-potential/open surface even though it is no longer an exact |B| isosurface
    Sec 2.2.3: after recalculation 'the source surface is defined as the zero-potential surface and therefore is no longer the exact isosurface of the total magnetic field'.
  • domain assumption Reversing the sign of the weaker polarity at the source surface and re-solving Laplace in the outer shell reproduces the heliospheric current sheet
    Sec 1 and Sec 2.2.4; Schatten (1971) SCS/PFCS approach.
  • domain assumption Beyond the exit sphere, field lines follow Parker spirals with constant measured solar wind speed
    Eq (4) and Sec 3.3; propagation time Δt = r_PSP/v_r,sw.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Non-Spherical Model for the Solar Coronal Magnetic Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SL2LOIJA

@misc{pith2026260401028,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Non-Spherical Model for the Solar Coronal Magnetic Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SL2LOIJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.01028}
}
read the original abstract

The coronal magnetic field plays a fundamental role in governing coronal activities, driving space-weather events, and shaping the heliosphere. Due to a lack of direct observations, extrapolation models such as the Potential Field Source Surface (PFSS) model become the primary method to obtain the three-dimensional magnetic field distribution in the corona. However, the PFSS model cannot solve the long-standing open-flux problem, in which the extrapolated open magnetic flux is significantly lower than that inferred from in-situ measurements. To address this issue, we develop a Non-Spherical Potential Field (NSPF) model. The model introduces a Non-Spherical Source Surface (NSSS) defined as an isosurface of the total magnetic field. The NSSS naturally forms concave structures beneath external current sheets, enabling the model to generate substantially more open magnetic flux while yielding a physically plausible distribution of open field regions. As a result, the NSPF model successfully reproduces complex coronal magnetic topologies, interplanetary magnetic field properties, and solar wind source mappings. Our refined coronal magnetic model provides a useful framework for future research on solar and heliospheric magnetic coupling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.01028 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The structure of the NSPF model. The model comprises three concentric layers: (1) a potential field layer; (2) a current sheet layer; (3) an interplanetary layer. The interface between the potential field and current sheet layers is the non-spherical source surface, while the interface between the current sheet and interplanetary layers is the exit sphere (located at 10R⊙). Magnetic field lines and layer boundaries … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the workflow of the NSPF model. (a) extraction of the NSSS from a potential field-layer magnetic field computed with a spherical source surface; (b) recalculation of the potential field-layer magnetic field under the NSSS; (c) computation of the magnetic field in the current sheet layer and the IMF; and (d) optional iteration of the NSSS to match the observed open magnetic flux. 2.2.1. Initial Soluti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Model results compared with coronagraph observations. Panels (a–c) show NSPF models with initial source surface radii of 3.0 R⊙, 2.5 R⊙, and 2.2 R⊙, respectively. Panels (d–f) show PFSS+PFCS models with source surface radii of 2.5 R⊙, 2.0 R⊙, and 1.5 R⊙. In each panel, background images are from SDO/AIA 171 ˚A and SOHO/LASCO C2, taken on 2024 March 28 at 02:04 UT. The colors of magnetic field lines indicate their po… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the modeled open-field maps and the SDO/AIA Carrington map. The background image is taken from the SDO/AIA 193 ˚A Carrington map dataset (A. Thernisien et al. 2024). Red and blue shading indicate positive and negative open-field regions derived from …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between the modeled IMF and PSP’s in-situ measurements. (a) NSPF models vs. observations. (b) PFSS+PFCS models vs. observations. (c) PFSS models vs. observations. In each panel, the black solid line denotes the observed IMF, while the colored dashed lines re…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Source regions of the observed solar wind. The inner sphere shows the photospheric radial magnetic field distribution; the outer surface is the source surface. The solid curve on the source surface marks solar wind footpoints, colored by observed magnetic polarity (pin…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., et al

    Abbo, L., Ofman, L., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2016, SSRv, 201, 55, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0264-1

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0264-1 2016

  2. [2]

    D., & Newkirk, Jr., G

    Altschuler, M. D., & Newkirk, Jr., G. 1969, SoPh, 9, 131, doi: 10.1007/BF00145734 14Wu et al

    doi:10.1007/bf00145734 1969

  3. [3]

    Linker, J. A. 2011, ApJ, 731, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/112

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/2/112 2011

  4. [4]

    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

  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]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2005, Physics of the Solar Corona. An Introduction with Problems and Solutions (2nd edition), doi: 10.1007/3-540-30766-4

    doi:10.1007/3-540-30766-4 2005

  7. [7]

    Babcock, H. W. 1967, Physica, 33, 102, doi: 10.1016/0031-8914(67)90263-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0031-8914(67)90263-7 1967

  8. [8]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab4da7 2020

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    T., Brooks, D

    Badman, S. T., Brooks, D. H., Poirier, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6610

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P

    Bale, S. D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P. R., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 49, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Badman, S

    Bale, S. D., Badman, S. T., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 237, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1818-7

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Dean, J

    Baratta, I. A., Dean, J. P., Dokken, J. S., et al. 2023, DOLFINx: the next generation FEniCS problem solving environment,, preprint doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10447666

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Boe, B., & Habbal, S

    Benavitz, L. F., Boe, B., & Habbal, S. R. 2024, ApJ, 974, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c6

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    E., Howard, R

    Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J., et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 357, doi: 10.1007/BF00733434

    1995 doi

  7. [15]

    M., & Kemball, A

    Crutcher, R. M., & Kemball, A. J. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 66, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00066

    2019

  8. [16]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    2009, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 79, 1309, doi: 10.1002/nme.2579

    Geuzaine, C., & Remacle, J.-F. 2009, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 79, 1309, doi: 10.1002/nme.2579

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 384, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1058810

    Gieseler, J., Dresing, N., Palmroos, C., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 384, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1058810

    2023

  11. [19]

    2016a, ApJ, 828, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/83

    Guo, Y., Xia, C., & Keppens, R. 2016a, ApJ, 828, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/83

    doi

  12. [20]

    2016b, ApJ, 828, 82, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/82

    Guo, Y., Xia, C., Keppens, R., & Valori, G. 2016b, ApJ, 828, 82, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/82

    doi

  13. [21]

    W., Hill, F., Hubbard, R

    Harvey, J. W., Hill, F., Hubbard, R. P., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 1284, doi: 10.1126/science.272.5266.1284

    1996

  14. [22]

    K., & Lynch, B

    Higginson, A. K., & Lynch, B. J. 2018, ApJ, 859, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc08

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1246, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02321-9

    Hou, C., He, J., Duan, D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1246, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02321-9

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al

    Kasper, J. C., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al. 2016, SSRv, 204, 131, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0206-3

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, A&A, 673, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245359

    Keppens, R., Popescu Braileanu, B., Zhou, Y., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245359

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Knizhnik, K. J. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1476498, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1476498

    2024

  19. [27]

    2019, A&A, 631, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935967

    Koskela, J., Virtanen, I., & Mursula, K. 2019, A&A, 631, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935967

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    F., & Hauptmann, M

    Kruse, M., Heidrich-Meisner, V., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., & Hauptmann, M. 2020, A&A, 638, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037734

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2025, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 15, 24, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2025021

    Kumar, S., Srivastava, N., Talpeanu, D.-C., et al. 2025, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 15, 24, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2025021

    2025

  22. [30]

    O., Luhmann, J

    Lee, C. O., Luhmann, J. G., Hoeksema, J. T., Sun, X., & de Pater, I. 2010, in Solar Heliospheric and INterplanetary Environment (SHINE 2010), 10

    2010

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    H., Schulz, M., & Frazier, E

    Levine, R. H., Schulz, M., & Frazier, E. N. 1982, SoPh, 77, 363, doi: 10.1007/BF00156118

    1982 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]

    B., et al

    Liu, X., Liu, W., Manchester, IV, W. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.10974, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.10974

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    J., Yardley, S

    Lockwood, M., Owens, M. J., Yardley, S. L., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 976444, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.976444

    2022

  28. [36]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0f1e Miki´ c, Z., Downs, C., Linker, J

    Ma, X., Yang, L., Feng, X., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0f1e Miki´ c, Z., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 913, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0562-5

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    2020, ApJS, 246, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab61f4

    Panasenco, O., Velli, M., D’Amicis, R., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab61f4

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    I., & Wyper, P

    Pontin, D. I., & Wyper, P. F. 2015, ApJ, 805, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/39 R´ egnier, S. 2013, SoPh, 288, 481, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0367-8

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    A., Miki´ c, Z., et al

    Riley, P., Linker, J. A., Miki´ c, Z., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1510, doi: 10.1086/508565

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Petrie, G., Kuhn, J., et al

    Schad, T. A., Petrie, G., Kuhn, J., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadq1604, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adq1604

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Schatten, K. H. 1971, Cosmic Electrodynamics, 2, 232

    1971

  35. [43]

    H., Wilcox, J

    Schatten, K. H., Wilcox, J. M., & Ness, N. F. 1969, SoPh, 6, 442, doi: 10.1007/BF00146478 Non-spherical Potential Field Model15

    1969 doi

  36. [44]

    N., & Boucher, Jr., D

    Schulz, M., Frazier, E. N., & Boucher, Jr., D. J. 1978, SoPh, 60, 83, doi: 10.1007/BF00152334

    1978 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5200

    Shi, G., Feng, L., Ying, B., Li, S., & Gan, W. 2024, ApJ, 970, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5200

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05513

    Shoda, M., Tokoro, K., Shiota, D., & Imada, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05513

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2732, doi: 10.21105/joss.02732

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

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1450, doi: 10.21105/joss.01450

    Sullivan, B., & Kaszynski, A. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1450, doi: 10.21105/joss.01450

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, SDO/AIA Carrington Maps, Accessed on 2025-10-27 STEREO Science Center, doi: 10.48322/205Z-N617 van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I

    Thernisien, A., Hutting, L., Ugarte-Urra, I., et al. 2024, SDO/AIA Carrington Maps, Accessed on 2025-10-27 STEREO Science Center, doi: 10.48322/205Z-N617 van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I. V., Meng, X., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/81

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2006, A&A, 453, 737, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054751

    Neukirch, T. 2006, A&A, 453, 737, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054751

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    Wiegelmann, T., Petrie, G. J. D., & Riley, P. 2017, SSRv, 210, 249, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0178-3

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41116-020-00027-4

    Wiegelmann, T., & Sakurai, T. 2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41116-020-00027-4

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Pontin, D

    Wilkins, C. P., Pontin, D. I., Yeates, A. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcd65

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, Science, 386, 76, doi: 10.1126/science.ado2993

    Yang, Z., Tian, H., Tomczyk, S., et al. 2024, Science, 386, 76, doi: 10.1126/science.ado2993

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    Zhao, X., & Hoeksema, J. T. 1994, SoPh, 151, 91, doi: 10.1007/BF00654084

    1994 doi

  48. [56]

    Zhao, X., & Hoeksema, J. T. 1995, Advances in Space Research, 16, 181, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(95)00331-8

    1995 doi

  49. [57]

    2022, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 65, 1710, doi: 10.1007/s11431-022-2047-8

    Zhu, X., Neukrich, T., & Wiegelmann, T. 2022, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 65, 1710, doi: 10.1007/s11431-022-2047-8

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    N., Thizy, C., Galano, D., et al

    Zhukov, A. N., Thizy, C., Galano, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.00253, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.00253

    2025 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.