Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

The Quasi-Radial Field-line Tracing (QRaFT): an Adaptive Segmentation of the Open-Flux Solar Corona

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 QRaFT recovers field-aligned structures in coronagraph images, with numerical tests showing 4–7 degree alignment to the underlying MHD magnetic field.

desk verdict A useful, clearly-described open-source tracing method whose headline accuracy number is in-sample and post-filter; worth peer review but needs stricter validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14894 v1 pith:RDYVLNKR submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.SR physics.data-anphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Vadim M. Uritsky , Christopher E. Rura , Cooper Downs , Shaela I. Jones , Charles Nickolos Arge , Nathalia Alzate This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.data-anphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solarcoronacoronagraphimagesegmentationopenmagneticfluxquasi-radialfield-linetracingMHDsimulationwhite-lightimagingspaceweatherplane-of-skyfield
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 presents QRaFT, an image-processing method for tracing quasi-radial, field-aligned structures in white-light images of the faint open solar corona. Its central claim is that the traced features approximate the plane-of-sky orientation of the steady-state open magnetic field: in synthetic images built from a thermodynamic MHD simulation, the misalignment between extracted features and the model field is about 4–7 degrees, with roughly 80% of traced locations within 10 degrees. If that accuracy carries over to real observations, QRaFT gives modelers a usable empirical handle on the open-flux geometry that shapes the solar wind and the propagation of coronal mass ejections. The paper demonstrates the method on MHD-synthesized density and polarized-brightness images, a STEREO COR1 coronagraph image, and a 2017 total solar eclipse image.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the enhanced polar image $I_{\rm enh}(\varphi,\rho) = I''/I''_{\rm tr}$, the unsigned second-order azimuthal derivative of the smoothed, radially detrended image normalized by its large-scale azimuthal trend. In plane-polar coordinates a quasi-radial structure appears as an azimuthal intensity crest, and the unsigned second derivative produces sharp local maxima at the crest and its wings that adaptive thresholding can detect. The detector loops over percentile thresholds and inner radial boundaries, labels contiguous pixel clusters, and represents each cluster by a polynomial fit to its radial sequence of azimuthal centroids, yielding continuous traced features with local orientation angles $\xi$ and a misalignment angle $\theta$ relative to the outward model field.

What would settle it

Apply QRaFT to synthetic white-light images from a structurally different, independently built coronal MHD model; if the median misalignment against that model's magnetic field clearly exceeds 7 degrees, the claimed accuracy is a property of the test model rather than a general property of the tracing method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the azimuthal structure of a radially detrended coronagraph image encodes the local orientation of the open coronal magnetic field. QRaFT deliberately sacrifices radial intensity gradients, which carry little field-geometry information, in favor of azimuthal gradients that mark narrow quasi-radial density structures. After remapping to polar coordinates, anisotropic smoothing, unsigned second-order azimuthal differencing, adaptive percentile thresholding, and a sliding inner radial boundary, the detected pixel clusters are interpolated into continuous features whose segment angles match the outward plane-of-sky magnetic field of the underlying thermodynamic MHD solution to within roughly 4–7 degrees. To the authors' knowledge, no other method traces open-field structures in routinely collected non-eclipse coronagraph images, and QRaFT is offered as a fill for that gap.

Load-bearing premise

The method's claimed accuracy rests on the premise that the simulated corona used to build the test images is geometrically similar enough to the real corona that the 4–7 degree alignment measured against the simulation's own magnetic field transfers to real coronagraph observations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QRaFT output can be overlaid on model field-line maps as a direct visual and quantitative check of where a simulated corona's open-field geometry matches the observed white-light structure.
  • Misalignment statistics such as the COR1 example can be interpreted as data-derived measures of model boundary quality, since a boundary magnetogram 14 days old produces larger apparent errors.
  • The method's accuracy is highest in open-flux regions and degrades in closed-flux streamers, so practical use should focus on open-corona segmentation and treat closed-loop encounters as flagged outliers.
  • As space-borne coronagraphs approach eclipse-image quality, QRaFT-style tracing could be run systematically for operational solar wind and CME forecasting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 4–7 degree alignment is confirmed with independent field measurements, misalignment maps could be used as a data-driven spatial score for coronal model skill, highlighting specific longitudes and heights where a model's field geometry is wrong.
  • Comparing QRaFT features against an emissivity-weighted, line-of-sight-integrated model field, rather than the plane-of-sky field at each node, would probably shrink the apparent misalignment in real coronagraph data and could be tested immediately on the paper's synthetic pB images.
  • Running QRaFT on a sequence of coronagraph images over a solar cycle could track the evolution of open-flux boundaries in white light and connect them to coronal-hole observations and solar wind stream structure.
  • Because QRaFT intentionally discards closed-loop features, pairing it with an active-region loop tracer would produce a combined observational connectivity map of the whole corona.
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. This paper introduces QRaFT, an image-processing pipeline that detects quasi-radial, field-aligned structures in white-light coronagraph images and uses their local orientation as a proxy for the plane-of-sky direction of the open coronal magnetic field. The method is described in detail: radial detrending, transformation to polar coordinates, anisotropic smoothing, unsigned second-order azimuthal differencing, adaptive percentile thresholding with a sliding inner boundary, cluster labeling, polynomial interpolation of feature nodes, computation of local orientation angles, and automatic feature validation filters. Validation is performed on synthetic images from a single thermodynamic MAS MHD simulation—both a central-plane density array and a FORWARD-computed pB image—where the ground-truth magnetic field is known, and the authors report a characteristic misalignment of about 4–7 degrees for surviving features. The paper also demonstrates the pipeline on a STEREO/COR1 image and on a 2017 total-solar-eclipse image, and it argues that QRaFT provides an empirical constraint for coronal and solar-wind models.

Significance. If the stated accuracy holds in an out-of-sample sense, QRaFT would fill a genuine gap: it is, to my knowledge, the first published method aimed specifically at tracing open-flux coronal structures in routinely collected non-eclipse coronagraph images. The strengths of the paper are substantial: the algorithm is specified in enough mathematical detail to be reimplemented; the source code is publicly available on GitHub; the synthetic test is a real consistency check, because the algorithm does not take the model magnetic field as input and no equation reduces to fitted values; and the authors are unusually candid about the limitations, including closed-loop contamination, the model-data mismatch in the COR1 comparison, and the deferral of systematic validation to a companion paper. The principal weakness is that the headline 4–7 degree claim is measured on the same model snapshot used to tune the processing parameters and only on features that survive the validation filters, so its transferability to real observations is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Fig. 7, Table 2] The central quantitative claim—that QRaFT features are aligned within ~4–7 degrees of the model magnetic field—is computed from a single MAS snapshot, and the QRaFT processing keywords in Table 2 (PSI MAS column) are customized for that data source, as Section 2.2 states that these parameters must be optimized for image resolution, noise, and radial range. Moreover, the statistics in Fig. 7 are computed only for features that survive the validation filters of Eqs. (25)–(31), which reject short, curved, and faint features. Because those filters preferentially remove the least field-aligned and most loop-like detections, the quoted accuracy is a post-selection property of the pipeline, not an unconditional property of the tracing. The paper provides no train/test separation, no second model snapshot, and no independent model check. To support the abstract's claim, please provide out-of-sample validation (e.g., a different MAS time step or a different MHD model) and, ideally, report the misalignment statistics for all features before filtering as well as for the validated subset.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 9] The COR1 comparison is presented as a performance demonstration, but the ground truth is the same MAS model whose boundary magnetograms predate the COR1 observation by up to 14 days (Section 3.1). The measured degradation in Fig. 9 (P(10°) = 51.8%) is therefore an inseparable mixture of QRaFT error and model-data mismatch, as the authors themselves acknowledge. This means the manuscript contains no quantitative validation of QRaFT against an independent source of real-image ground truth. If the paper is to support the claim that QRaFT transfers to real coronagraph images, the authors need either to compare against a more contemporaneous model run or to state explicitly, in the abstract and conclusions, that real-image validation is currently qualitative only.
  3. [§4, §3.1] The paper defers the 'more systematic performance and error analysis' to Rura et al. (2025), which is cited as under review. The present manuscript thus does not, on its own, contain the evidence needed to support the headline 4–7 degree accuracy claim beyond a single, in-sample, post-filter measurement. I recommend that the authors make the current manuscript self-contained for its main claim—for example, by including a multi-snapshot or multi-viewing-angle error analysis, or by explicitly rephrasing the claim as a preliminary finding pending the companion paper. This is a load-bearing issue because the abstract's numerical claim is the paper's primary takeaway.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2] In the paragraph following Eq. (4), the sentence 'the detrended image Idetr(x, y) undergoes is transformed into plane polar coordinates' contains a grammatical error ('undergoes is transformed'); please remove 'is'.
  2. [§2.5, Eq. (25) vicinity] There is a typo in the text after Eq. (25): 'local magnetic filed orientation' should read 'local magnetic field orientation'.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The phrase 'The first raw of the panels' in the caption of Fig. 7 should be 'The first row of the panels'.
  4. [§3.3, Fig. 11] The section mentions that some visually identifiable quasi-radial structures are missed by QRaFT, but no quantitative detection-completeness measure is provided; a simple statement of the fraction of visual structures recovered would strengthen the demonstration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QRaFT's feature tracing never consumes the model magnetic field, and the quoted alignment is a measured statistic rather than a fitted parameter or definitional identity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is algorithmically self-contained. The QRaFT pipeline (Sections 2.2-2.5) operates only on image intensity (radial detrending Eq. 3, polar transform Eq. 4, second-order azimuthal differencing Eq. 6, adaptive thresholding Eq. 9, cluster tracing Eqs. 10-15, and filtering Eqs. 25-31); the model magnetic field enters only at the validation stage through the misalignment metric of Eq. 24, not as an input to detection. The 4-7 degree claim is therefore a measured statistic on surviving features, not a quantity fitted from the field. The strongest concern is that the synthetic test in Section 3.1 uses the same MAS snapshot to create both the density/pB images and the ground-truth field, and the processing keywords in Table 2 are customized per data source, so the quoted alignment is in-sample and partly post-selection after the validation filters. That is a legitimate limitation for out-of-sample accuracy, but it is not circular: no equation reduces the output to the input, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the analogous model-data mismatch in the COR1 example (Section 3.2: 'the quantitative metrics provided in Fig. 9 should be interpreted as data-derived measures of the accuracy of the model run setup rather than performance benchmarks of the segmentation code'). Self-citations to Jones et al. (2016, 2017, 2020) and Uritsky (2022, 2024) provide context and code provenance rather than load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz arguments. No circular step meeting the quoted-reduction standard was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method depends on a small set of physical assumptions about coronal plasma (field-aligned brightness), a set of hand-tuned image-processing parameters, and a model-based validation scaffold. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Coordinate transformation bins (dp, dr) = dp = 1 deg, dr = 2 px for all image types (Table 2)
    Chosen by hand to balance resolution and smoothness in the rectangular-to-polar mapping (Eq. 4).
  • Smoothing window sizes (sx, sp, sr) = MAS: 12, 3, 15; COR1: 4, 3, 25; TSE: 2, 2, 10 (Table 2)
    Define the anisotropic low-pass filter in Eq. 5; values are optimized per data source and affect which structures survive to the differencing step.
  • Azimuthal differencing and detrending scales (ps, pd) = ps = 2, pd = 5 phi-bins for all image types (Table 2)
    Set the scales of Eq. 6 and Eq. 7; larger values would blur features, smaller values would amplify noise.
  • Threshold percentiles and counts (np, p1, p2) = MAS: 20, 0.80, 0.99; COR1: 30, 0.60, 0.99; TSE: 20, 0.60, 0.99 (Table 2)
    Control the adaptive threshold set in Eq. 9; the choice changes which pixel clusters are detected and hence the final feature set.
  • Validation filter thresholds (w1, w2, l1, l2, vn, vi, vc) = MAS/COR1: 2, 10, 10, 30, 10, 0.20, 0.005; TSE: 2, 10, 10, 60, 10, 0.02, 0.005 (Table 2)
    Applied in Eqs. 25-31; these hand-tuned thresholds decide which traced features are kept, and because the accuracy statistics are computed only on kept features, they directly influence the reported 4-7 degree alignment.
  • Polynomial interpolation order M = Not stated in the paper
    Appears in Eq. 15; the order controls smoothing of the traced lines and is not listed in Table 2, leaving a small reproducibility gap.
  • Inner radial boundary r1 and radial range (r1, r2) = r1 = 110 px (MAS, COR1), 190 px (TSE); r2 = 0 (unused), Table 2
    Sets the minimum heliocentric distance used for detection; affects which low-altitude features are included.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Optical gradients in the corona are aligned with the local magnetic field because cross-field thermal conduction is strongly suppressed (perpendicular-to-parallel ratio ~1e-10 or smaller).
    Invoked in Section 2.1 as the justification for interpreting brightness structures as field-aligned; it is a standard result in coronal physics, but it is an assumption about the real corona that QRaFT inherits.
  • domain assumption Open-field coronal regions are quasi-radial, so features with large deviation from radial direction can be discarded as closed loops.
    Used in Section 2.4 to define the relative radial angle (Eq. 22) and in the filtering (31); this is a simplification of the real open-field geometry, especially near streamers and polarity inversion lines.
  • ad hoc to paper The unsigned second-order azimuthal derivative of the detrended polar image identifies the locations of quasi-radial structures.
    Introduced in Eq. (6) and illustrated with Gaussian examples in Fig. 1; no formal proof is given that this operator uniquely or optimally isolates field-aligned features, and its output depends on the smoothing and differencing scales.
  • domain assumption The MAS thermodynamic MHD simulation with WTD heating and a photospheric boundary map produces synthetic white-light images whose density structure, projected and Thomson-scattered, is a valid proxy for the real corona in the open-flux regions.
    Section 3.1 uses the same MAS solution to build the synthetic images and to supply the ground-truth magnetic field, so the reported 4-7 degree alignment is a measure of internal consistency within one model snapshot, not an independent validation against observed coronal fields.
  • domain assumption The plane-of-sky projection of the model magnetic field is the correct reference direction for comparing features detected in line-of-sight integrated pB images.
    Section 3.2 notes that features measured in LOS-integrated observations are compared with POS B, and that an emissivity-weighted average would be more appropriate; this assumption remains unquantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Quasi-Radial Field-line Tracing (QRaFT): an Adaptive Segmentation of the Open-Flux Solar Corona." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RDYVLNKR

@misc{pith2026250614894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Quasi-Radial Field-line Tracing (QRaFT): an Adaptive Segmentation of the Open-Flux Solar Corona},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RDYVLNKR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14894}
}
abstract

Optical observations of solar corona provide key information on its magnetic geometry. The large-scale open field of the corona plays an important role in shaping the ambient solar wind and constraining the propagation dynamics of the embedded structures, such as interplanetary coronal mass ejections. Rigorous analysis of the open-flux coronal regions based on coronagraph images can be quite challenging because of the depleted plasma density resulting in low signal-to-noise ratios. In this paper, we present an in-depth description of a new image segmentation methodology, the Quasi-Radial Field-line Tracing (QRaFT), enabling a detection of field-aligned optical coronal features approximating the orientation of the steady-state open magnetic field. The methodology is tested using synthetic coronagraph images generated by a three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic model. The results of the numerical tests indicate that the extracted optical features are aligned within $\sim 4-7$ degrees with the local magnetic field in the underlying numerical solution. We also demonstrate the performance of the method on real-life coronal images obtained from a space-borne coronagraph and a ground-based camera. We argue that QRaFT outputs contain valuable empirical information about the global steady-state morphology of the corona which could help improving the accuracy of coronal and solar wind models and space weather forecasts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14894 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Segmenting simulated quasi-radial coronal structures using unsigned second-order azimuthal differencing. Left column: a simple model of an azimuthal intensity profile represented by a single Gaussian function. Right column: A more complex model composed of several randomly generated Gaussian peaks. Panels (a) and (e): processed intensity profiles; panels (b) and (f): first-order azimuthal differences; panels (c) and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Explanation of the geometric parameters of pixel clusters detected by QRaFT. The number assigned to each pixel represents the label λ of the cluster to which it belongs as well as the subscript of its metrics defined in Section 2.4. R is the set of the radial positions involved in the cluster (12), Φ(ρ) is the two-level set of the azimuthal positions corre￾sponding to each ρ (11), δρ is the radial extent of the clus… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic diagram showing the angular metrics (21) - (24) at the location of a selected feature node. See text for details. arithmetic average of the angles obtained using different detection settings is used in the output data arrays. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: QRaFT segmentation of the central-plane density array in the MAS model. (a) Processed image array Idetr (3) in Cartesian coordinates after radial detrending and smoothing; (b) transformed array I(φ, ρ) (4) in plane polar coordinates; (c) the signed second-order azimuth…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: QRaFT segmentation of a synthetic pB image produce by MAS and FORWARD codes. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panels: Automatic validation of the QRaFT features detected in the central plane density (left) and pB brightness (right) outputs of the MAS model. Red lines show the validated features that meet the filtering conditions (25) - (31) and are included in the final da…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Misalignment angle statistics describing the discrepancy between the QRaFT features detected in the central-plane density array (top) and in the synthetic pB image (bottom) obtained from the MAS model, as compared to the POS orientation of the magnetic field in the sam…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: QRaFT segmentation of a COR1 pB image aligned with the synthetic MAS images shown in Section 3.1. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Misalignemnt angle statistics for the QRaFT features detected in the COR1 image. Notations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: QRaFT segmentation of a ground-based TSE image (courtesy of M. Druckm¨uller, P. Aniol and S. Habbal) acquired on 2017-08-21. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Validated QRaFT features of the studied 2017-08-21 TSE image reprojected to the rectangular coordinate system. The background TSE image is courtesy of M. Druckm¨uller, P. Aniol and S. Habbal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 28 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]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac10ca

    Alzate, N., Morgan, H., Viall, N., & Vourlidas, A. 2021, ApJ, 919, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac10ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac10ca 2021

  3. [3]

    N., Hildner, E., Pizzo, V

    Arge, C. N., Hildner, E., Pizzo, V. J., & Harvey, J. W. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1319, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000503

    doi:10.1029/2001ja000503 2002

  4. [4]

    Henney, C. J. 2024, ApJ, 964, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20e2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad20e2 2024

  5. [5]

    N., Luhmann, J

    Arge, C. N., Luhmann, J. G., Odstrcil, D., Schrijver, C. J., & Li, Y. 2004, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 66, 1295, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2004.03.018

    doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2004.03.018 2004

  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]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2010, SoPh, 262, 399, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9531-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9531-6 2010

  8. [8]

    J., De Pontieu, B., & Katrukha, E

    Aschwanden, M. J., De Pontieu, B., & Katrukha, E. A. 2013, Entropy, 15, 3007, doi: 10.3390/e15083007FILE:/proj/ads/abstracts/

    work page doi:10.3390/e15083007file:/proj/ads/abstracts/ 2013

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    2008, SoPh, 248, 359, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9064-9

    Inhester, B. 2008, SoPh, 248, 359, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9064-9

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    T., Bale, S

    Badman, S. T., Bale, S. D., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039407

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Beedle, J. M. H., Rura, C. E., Simpson, D. G., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 253, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.786308

    2022

  4. [12]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc482 —

    Bemporad, A. 2020, ApJ, 904, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc482 —. 2023, ApJ, 946, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b8

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8ae6

    Boe, B., Habbal, S., & Druckm¨ uller, M. 2020, ApJ, 895, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8ae6

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    A., & Velli, M

    Downs, C., Lionello, R., Miki´ c, Z., Linker, J. A., & Velli, M . 2016, ApJ, 832, 180, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/180

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    2009, Pattern Recognition, 42, 2481, doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2009.03.010

    Durak, N., Nasraoui, O., & Schmelz, J. 2009, Pattern Recognition, 42, 2481, doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2009.03.010

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 3, 8, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2016.00008

    Gibson, S., Kucera, T., White, S., et al. 2016, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 3, 8, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2016.00008

    2016

  9. [17]

    A., Moses, J

    Howard, R. A., Moses, J. D., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 67, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9341-4

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    I., Davila, J

    Jones, S. I., Davila, J. M., & Uritsky, V. 2016, ApJ, 820, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/113

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    I., Uritsky, V., & Davila, J

    Jones, S. I., Uritsky, V., & Davila, J. M. 2017, ApJ, 844, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b7a

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    I., Uritsky, V

    Jones, S. I., Uritsky, V. M., Davila, J. M., & Troyan, V. N. 2020, ApJ, 896, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8cb9

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    I., Wang, T

    Jones, S. I., Wang, T. J., Arge, C. N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5751

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Kucera, T

    Kaiser, M. L., Kucera, T. A., Davila, J. M., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    Klimchuk, J. A. 2006, SoPh, 234, 41, doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0055-z —. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 373, 20140256, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0256

    2006

  16. [24]

    A., Knizhnik, K

    Klimchuk, J. A., Knizhnik, K. J., & Uritsky, V. M. 2023, ApJ, 942, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f41

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Garland, S. H. 2024, ApJL, 977, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad94dd

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    A., Heinemann, S

    Linker, J. A., Heinemann, S. G., Temmer, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac090a

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    A., & Miki´ c, Z

    Lionello, R., Linker, J. A., & Miki´ c, Z. 2009, ApJ, 690, 902, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/902

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/120

    Lionello, R., Velli, M., Downs, C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/120

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    Wheatland, M. S. 2014, ApJ, 783, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/102

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    L., MacNeice, P

    Mays, M. L., MacNeice, P. J., Taktakishvili, A., et al. 2020, NASA/NOAA MOU Annex Final Report: Evaluating Model Advancements for Predicting CME Arrival Time. https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/static/files/CCMC SWPC annex final report.p

    2020

  24. [32]

    Henney, C. J. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 2866, doi: 10.1002/2015JA022200 Miki´ c, Z., Linker, J. A., Schnack, D. D., Lionello, R., &

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    1999, Physics of Plasmas, 6, 2217, doi: 10.1063/1.873474 Miki´ c, Z., Downs, C., Linker, J

    Tarditi, A. 1999, Physics of Plasmas, 6, 2217, doi: 10.1063/1.873474 Miki´ c, Z., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 913, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0562-5 Moraes Filho, V. P., Uritsky, V. M., Thompson, B. J.,

    1999 doi

  26. [34]

    E., & DeForest, C

    Gibson, S. E., & DeForest, C. E. 2024, ApJ, 975, 294, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a77

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2022, A&A, 663, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243439

    Navarro, A., Khomenko, E., Modestov, M., & Vitas, N. 2022, A&A, 663, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243439

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1226992, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1226992

    Odstrcil, D. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1226992, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1226992

    2023

  29. [37]

    J., & Arge, C

    Odstrcil, D., Pizzo, V. J., & Arge, C. N. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A02106, doi: 10.1029/2004JA010745 18

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    Odstrcil, D., Riley, P., & Zhao, X. P. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A02116, doi: 10.1029/2003JA010135

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    N., Staub, J., et al

    Posner, A., Arge, C. N., Staub, J., et al. 2021, Space Weather, 19, e02777, doi: 10.1029/2021SW002777

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    G., Vourlidas, A., et al

    Provornikova, E., Merkin, V. G., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83b1

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    I., Zaitseva, S

    Pudovkin, M. I., Zaitseva, S. A., & Benevolenska, E. E. 1979, J. Geophys. Res., 84, 6649, doi: 10.1029/JA084iA11p06649

    1979 doi

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    E., Uritsky, V

    Rura, C. E., Uritsky, V. M., Jones, S. I., et al. 2025, ApJ (under review)

    2025

  36. [44]

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

    1971

  37. [45]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 207, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    K., Inhester, B., & Sch¨ ussler, M

    Solanki, S. K., Inhester, B., & Sch¨ ussler, M. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 563, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/69/3/R02

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    Uritsky, V. M. 2022, QRaFT package: v2.0, v2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7410948 —. 2024, QRaFT package: v3.0. https://github.com/uritsky/QRaFT

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Davila, J

    Uritsky, V. M., Davila, J. M., Ofman, L., & Coyner, A. J. 2013, ApJ, 769, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/62

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    M., & Klimchuk, J

    Uritsky, V. M., & Klimchuk, J. A. 2024, ApJ, 961, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c53

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    M., Thompson, B

    Uritsky, V. M., Thompson, B. J., & DeVore, C. R. 2022, ApJ, 935, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74b4 van Hoven, G., & Mok, Y. 1984, ApJ, 282, 267, doi: 10.1086/162199

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    N., Pattichis, M., Hock-Mysliwiec, R

    Wallace, S., Arge, C. N., Pattichis, M., Hock-Mysliwiec, R. A., & Henney, C. J. 2019, SoPh, 294, 19, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1402-1

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    M., & Sheeley, Jr., N

    Wang, Y. M., & Sheeley, Jr., N. R. 1990, ApJ, 355, 726, doi: 10.1086/168805 —. 1992, ApJ, 392, 310, doi: 10.1086/171430

    1990 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Ulrich, R

    Wang, Y. M., Ulrich, R. K., & Harvey, J. W. 2022, ApJ, 926, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4491

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    2020, Astronomy and Computing, 30, 100341, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2019.100341

    Ye, J., Shen, C., Lin, J., & Mei, Z. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 30, 100341, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2019.100341

    2020

  48. [56]

    R., Amari, T., Contopoulos, I., et al

    Yeates, A. R., Amari, T., Contopoulos, I., et al. 2018, SSRv, 214, 99, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0534-1

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    H., & Richardson, I

    Zurbuchen, T. H., & Richardson, I. G. 2006, SSRv, 123, 31, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9010-4 19 APPENDIX Table 1. Main subroutines of the QRaFT package Name Purpose Equations (4) (5) (6) QRaFT Top-level subroutine implementing all processing steps 1 - 31 read const string Reads a...

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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