pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.09226 · v1 · pith:TVULFZR4new · submitted 2026-06-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Predictability of a solar flare in May 2024 using observational data-driven MHD simulations

Takafumi Kaneko This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 15:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords solar flare predictionMHD simulationsdata-driven modelingphotospheric velocitymagnetic reconnectionactive region evolutionX-class flare
0
0 comments X

The pith

Incorporating observed photospheric velocities in MHD simulations extends solar flare prediction lead time beyond one hour.

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

The paper tests whether data-driven magnetohydrodynamic simulations can forecast solar flares using only pre-onset observations. For the X1.6 flare in active region 13663 on 3 May 2024, the velocity-driven model reproduced the flare's timing, location, and energy release when photospheric velocities were supplied as boundary input. Halting the boundary driving more than one hour before onset prevented the flare from appearing in the simulation, while continuing with the velocity field measured at the final pre-flare time allowed the model to develop the event more than one hour ahead. The simulation also traced the trigger to a two-step reconnection sequence beginning with tether-cutting reconnection.

Core claim

The X1.6 flare was triggered by two-step reconnection in which initial tether-cutting reconnection enabled subsequent breakout reconnection; the velocity-driven MHD simulation reproduced the rapid rise in thermal and kinetic energy at the observed time and place when the photospheric velocity field at the last observation time was used, thereby achieving a prediction lead time exceeding one hour.

What carries the argument

Velocity-driven MHD model that derives the photospheric velocity field from time-series magnetograms and applies it as the time-dependent boundary condition to evolve the coronal magnetic field.

If this is right

  • Fixing the photospheric magnetic field more than one hour before onset prevents reproduction of the flare in the simulation.
  • The flare trigger consists of tether-cutting reconnection followed by breakout reconnection.
  • Using the velocity field measured at the final pre-flare observation extends the usable prediction window beyond one hour.
  • Quantitative forecasting of flare magnitude is not yet achieved with this approach.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Continuous high-cadence velocity measurements from the photosphere could support operational flare forecasting systems.
  • The same velocity-driven setup might be tested on other active regions to check whether the one-hour lead-time result generalizes.
  • Higher spatial resolution magnetograms would likely reduce uncertainty in the derived velocity fields and tighten the timing of predicted energy release.

Load-bearing premise

The photospheric velocity field measured from magnetograms before the flare accurately drives the subsequent coronal evolution that produces the flare.

What would settle it

A simulation that receives velocity boundary input only up to more than one hour before the actual flare onset and shows no rapid increase in thermal and kinetic energy density at the observed flare site and time would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.09226 by Takafumi Kaneko.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Panel (a): Soft X-ray flux observed by GOES. Panel (b): EUV image observed by SDO/AIA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Panel (a) shows the magnetic fluxes of AR 13663 within the field of view shown in panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time series of the multiwavelength AIA images before and during the X1.6 flare. The top, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal evolution of the MHD simulation for the typical case. Panels (a), (c), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temporal evolution of the current sheet and two-step reconnection process. Panels (a), (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Panel (a): Temporal evolution of the maximum thermal energy density in the simulation and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panels (a), (b) and (c) show the temporal evolution of the thermal energy change [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Panels (a)–(c) and (d)–(f) show the temporal evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Panel (a): Temporal evolution of the maximum thermal energy density in each case for Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as Figure 9 but for Model E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Panels (a) and (b) show the temporal evolution of the thermal energy change [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Magnetic structure in each case at around the actual flare onset time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Panels (a) and (b) show the temporal evolution of the free magnetic energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Temporal evolution of the current sheet in S72 and E72. Panels (a), (c), and (e) show S72, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We examined the applicability of observational data-driven magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations to flare prediction. The target event was the X1.6 flare that occurred in NOAA AR 13663 at 02:22 UT on 3 May 2024. We employed a velocity-driven model, in which the photospheric velocity field was derived from the time-series magnetograms to use as the boundary input. The simulation showed a rapid increase in both thermal and kinetic energy density around the actual onset time and location of the X1.6 flare. We revealed that the flare was triggered by two-step reconnection, in which the initial tether-cutting reconnection facilitated the subsequent breakout reconnection. We further examined whether the flare could be reproduced when the boundary input was stopped prior to the actual flare onset time, assuming the situation in which the flare must be predicted using the data before it actually occurs. When the photospheric magnetic field was fixed more than 1 hour before the actual flare onset time, the flare was not reproduced in the simulations. In contrast, when the photospheric velocity field at the final observation time was incorporated to infer the subsequent magnetic evolution, the prediction lead time could be extended beyond 1 hour. On the other hand, quantitative prediction of the magnitude of flares remains a subject for future study.

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 paper examines data-driven MHD simulations of the X1.6 flare in NOAA AR 13663 on 3 May 2024. Using photospheric velocity fields derived from time-series magnetograms as boundary driving, the simulation reproduces a rapid increase in thermal and kinetic energy density at the observed flare time and location. The authors attribute the flare to two-step reconnection (tether-cutting followed by breakout). They further test predictability by stopping boundary input prior to onset: fixed-B conditions more than 1 h before onset fail to produce the flare, while incorporating the final pre-onset velocity field extends the lead time beyond 1 h. Quantitative flare magnitude prediction is noted as future work.

Significance. If the central result holds under quantitative scrutiny, the work demonstrates that velocity-driven observational MHD models can extend flare prediction lead times beyond 1 hour for at least this event by evolving the magnetic field from pre-onset flows. The explicit contrast between fixed-B and velocity-driven cases provides a clear test of the role of photospheric driving. Strengths include the use of real magnetogram time series without free parameters fitted to the flare itself and the mechanistic insight into reconnection sequence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and main text: the central claim that the velocity-driven run reproduces the flare at the observed time/location and enables >1 h lead time rests on an unquantified 'rapid increase in energy density.' No numerical values, error bars, spatial overlap metrics, or direct comparison to observed GOES light curve or energy release are provided, so the degree of agreement cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Abstract] The velocity derivation and boundary implementation: the abstract states that the photospheric velocity field at the final observation time is used to infer subsequent evolution, but without details on how velocities are computed from magnetogram pairs (e.g., DAVE4VM or similar), the assumed error level, or the precise time of the 'final observation,' it is impossible to confirm that only pre-onset data were used or to assess sensitivity of the >1 h lead time.
minor comments (2)
  1. The description of 'two-step reconnection' would benefit from explicit figures or time slices showing the sequence of tether-cutting and breakout in the simulation volume.
  2. Notation for energy densities (thermal vs. kinetic) and the precise definition of 'onset time' in the simulation should be clarified for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address the two major comments point by point below. We agree that both quantification of the energy increase and additional methodological details on velocity derivation are needed to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and main text: the central claim that the velocity-driven run reproduces the flare at the observed time/location and enables >1 h lead time rests on an unquantified 'rapid increase in energy density.' No numerical values, error bars, spatial overlap metrics, or direct comparison to observed GOES light curve or energy release are provided, so the degree of agreement cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation is qualitative and that quantitative metrics are required for proper evaluation. In the revised manuscript we will report specific numerical values for the factor of increase in thermal and kinetic energy densities at the flare time and location, include spatial overlap metrics (such as the fraction of simulated high-energy voxels overlapping the observed flare ribbons from AIA or HMI data), and add any available temporal alignment with the GOES X-ray flux rise. While we explicitly state that quantitative magnitude prediction remains future work, these metrics will allow assessment of the reproduction claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The velocity derivation and boundary implementation: the abstract states that the photospheric velocity field at the final observation time is used to infer subsequent evolution, but without details on how velocities are computed from magnetogram pairs (e.g., DAVE4VM or similar), the assumed error level, or the precise time of the 'final observation,' it is impossible to confirm that only pre-onset data were used or to assess sensitivity of the >1 h lead time.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit methodological transparency. The revised paper will add a methods subsection detailing the velocity computation technique applied to the magnetogram time series (including the specific algorithm and any assumptions), the estimated velocity uncertainties or error levels, the exact timestamps of the input magnetograms, and the precise time of the final observation used for the boundary driving. This will confirm that only pre-onset data were employed and enable readers to evaluate the sensitivity of the reported lead time. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain uses observed time-series magnetograms to derive photospheric velocities as explicit external boundary inputs to an MHD simulation. The central test (fixed-B case fails to reproduce the flare when input stops >1 h prior, while velocity-driven case succeeds) is an emergent simulation outcome, not a quantity defined by construction, fitted to the target flare, or reduced via self-citation. No load-bearing step matches any enumerated circularity pattern; the reported lead-time extension is a direct consequence of evolving the independent observational data forward.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that magnetogram-derived velocities provide a sufficient and accurate boundary condition for the MHD evolution up to flare onset.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Photospheric velocity field derived from time-series magnetograms can be used as the boundary input for a velocity-driven MHD model that reproduces flare onset.
    This is the core modeling choice stated in the abstract for the velocity-driven approach.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5761 in / 1206 out tokens · 24373 ms · 2026-06-27T15:17:28.224527+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A Model for Solar Coronal Mass Ejections

    Antiochos SK, DeVore CR, Klimchuk JA (1999) A Model for Solar Coronal Mass Ejections . 510(1):485--493, doi:10.1086/306563, astro-ph/9807220

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/306563 1999

  2. [2]

    The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) Vector Magnetic Field Pipeline: SHARPs -- Space-weather HMI Active Region Patches

    Bobra MG, Sun X, Hoeksema JT, Turmon M, Liu Y, Hayashi K, Barnes G, Leka KD (2014) The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) Vector Magnetic Field Pipeline: SHARPs - Space-Weather HMI Active Region Patches . 289(9):3549--3578, doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0529-3, 1404.1879

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0529-3 2014

  3. [3]

    162(1-2):357--402, doi:10.1007/BF00733434

    Brueckner GE, Howard RA, Koomen MJ, Korendyke CM, Michels DJ, Moses JD, Socker DG, Dere KP, Lamy PL, Llebaria A, Bout MV, Schwenn R, Simnett GM, Bedford DK, Eyles CJ (1995) The Large Angle Spectroscopic Coronagraph (LASCO) . 162(1-2):357--402, doi:10.1007/BF00733434

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00733434 1995

  4. [4]

    Physics of Plasmas 24(9):090501, doi:10.1063/1.4993929

    Chen J (2017) Physics of erupting solar flux ropes: Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) Recent advances in theory and observation . Physics of Plasmas 24(9):090501, doi:10.1063/1.4993929

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4993929 2017

  5. [5]

    The Origin of Major Solar Activity - Collisional Shearing Between Nonconjugated Polarities of Multiple Bipoles Emerging Within Active Regions

    Chintzoglou G, Zhang J, Cheung MCM, Kazachenko M (2019) The Origin of Major Solar Activity: Collisional Shearing between Nonconjugated Polarities of Multiple Bipoles Emerging within Active Regions . 871(1):67, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaef30, 1811.02186

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaef30 2019

  6. [6]

    Journal of Computational Physics , year = 2002, month = jan, volume =

    Dedner A, Kemm F, Kr \"o ner D, Munz CD, Schnitzer T, Wesenberg M (2002) Hyperbolic Divergence Cleaning for the MHD Equations . Journal of Computational Physics 175(2):645--673, doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6961 2002

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Domingo V, Fleck B, Poland AI (1995) The SOHO Mission: an Overview . 162(1-2):1--37, doi:10.1007/BF00733425

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00733425 1995

  8. [8]

    884(1):73, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e33, 1908.08643

    Duan A, Jiang C, He W, Feng X, Zou P, Cui J (2019) A Study of Pre-flare Solar Coronal Magnetic Fields: Magnetic Flux Ropes . 884(1):73, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e33, 1908.08643

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e33 2019

  9. [9]

    Duan A, Jiang C, Feng X (2025) Did a current sheet form prior to a major flare in solar active region 11158? 541(2):939--945, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf951

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf951 2025

  10. [10]

    975(2):206, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f53, 2409.17507

    Fan Y, Kazachenko MD, Afanasyev AN, Fisher GH (2024) A Data-driven Magnetohydrodynamic Simulation of the 2011 February 15 Coronal Mass Ejection from Active Region NOAA 11158 . 975(2):206, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f53, 2409.17507

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f53 2024

  11. [11]

    Estimating Electric Fields from Vector Magnetogram Sequences

    Fisher GH, Welsch BT, Abbett WP, Bercik DJ (2010) Estimating Electric Fields from Vector Magnetogram Sequences . 715(1):242--259, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/242, 0912.4916

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/1/242 2010

  12. [12]

    979(1):49, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9335, 2407.07665

    Hayakawa H, Ebihara Y, Mishev A, Koldobskiy S, Kusano K, Bechet S, Yashiro S, Iwai K, Shinbori A, Mursula K, Miyake F, Shiota D, Silveira MVD, Stuart R, Oliveira DM, Akiyama S, Ohnishi K, Ledvina V, Miyoshi Y (2025) The Solar and Geomagnetic Storms in 2024 May: A Flash Data Report . 979(1):49, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9335, 2407.07665

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9335 2025

  13. [13]

    64(2):303--321, doi:10.1007/BF00151441

    Hood AW, Priest ER (1979) Kink Instability of Solar Coronal Loops as the Cause of Solar Flares . 64(2):303--321, doi:10.1007/BF00151441

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00151441 1979

  14. [14]

    Nonlinear Force-Free Extrapolation of the Coronal Magnetic Field Based on the MHD Relaxation Method

    Inoue S, Magara T, Pandey VS, Shiota D, Kusano K, Choe GS, Kim KS (2014) Nonlinear Force-free Extrapolation of the Coronal Magnetic Field Based on the Magnetohydrodynamic Relaxation Method . 780(1):101, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/101, 1311.3592

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/1/101 2014

  15. [15]

    Double arc instability in the solar corona

    Ishiguro N, Kusano K (2017) Double Arc Instability in the Solar Corona . 843(2):101, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa799b, 1706.06112

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa799b 2017

  16. [16]

    AIAA Journal 55(5):1487--1510, doi:10.2514/1.J055493

    Jameson A (2017) Origins and Further Development of the Jameson-Schmidt-Turkel Scheme . AIAA Journal 55(5):1487--1510, doi:10.2514/1.J055493

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j055493 2017

  17. [17]

    A New Code for Nonlinear Force-Free Field Extrapolation of the Global Corona

    Jiang C, Feng X, Xiang C (2012) A New Code for Nonlinear Force-free Field Extrapolation of the Global Corona . 755(1):62, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/62, 1206.1989

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/1/62 2012

  18. [18]

    MHD Simulation of a Sigmoid Eruption of Active Region 11283

    Jiang C, Feng X, Wu ST, Hu Q (2013) Magnetohydrodynamic Simulation of a Sigmoid Eruption of Active Region 11283 . 771(2):L30, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L30, 1306.1009

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/l30 2013

  19. [19]

    Nature Communications 7:11522, doi:10.1038/ncomms11522

    Jiang C, Wu ST, Feng X, Hu Q (2016) Data-driven magnetohydrodynamic modelling of a flux-emerging active region leading to solar eruption . Nature Communications 7:11522, doi:10.1038/ncomms11522

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms11522 2016

  20. [20]

    The Innovation 3:100236, doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2022.100236

    Jiang C, Feng X, Guo Y, Hu Q (2022) Data-driven modeling of solar coronal magnetic field evolution and eruptions . The Innovation 3:100236, doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2022.100236

    work page doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2022.100236 2022

  21. [21]

    The Role of Erupting Sigmoid in Triggering a Flare with Parallel and Large-Scale Quasi-Circular Ribbons

    Joshi NC, Liu C, Sun X, Wang H, Magara T, Moon YJ (2015) The Role of Erupting Sigmoid in Triggering a Flare with Parallel and Large-scale Quasi-circular Ribbons . 812(1):50, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/50, 1509.01792

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/50 2015

  22. [22]

    909(2):155, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe414, 2101.12395

    Kaneko T, Park SH, Kusano K (2021) Data-driven MHD Simulation of Successive Solar Plasma Eruptions . 909(2):155, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe414, 2101.12395

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe414 2021

  23. [23]

    974(2):168, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a54, 2408.06430

    Kang Y, Kaneko T, Leka KD, Kusano K (2024) Data-driven MHD Simulation of the Formation of a Magnetic Flux Rope and an Inclined Solar Eruption . 974(2):168, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a54, 2408.06430

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a54 2024

  24. [24]

    Torus instability

    Kliem B, T \"o r \"o k T (2006) Torus Instability . 96(25):255002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002, physics/0605217

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.255002 2006

  25. [25]

    Solar Physics , keywords =

    Lemen JR, Title AM, Akin DJ, Boerner PF, Chou C, Drake JF, Duncan DW, Edwards CG, Friedlaender FM, Heyman GF, Hurlburt NE, Katz NL, Kushner GD, Levay M, Lindgren RW, Mathur DP, McFeaters EL, Mitchell S, Rehse RA, Schrijver CJ, Springer LA, Stern RA, Tarbell TD, Wuelser JP, Wolfson CJ, Yanari C, Bookbinder JA, Cheimets PN, Caldwell D, Deluca EE, Gates R, G...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8 2012

  26. [26]

    683(2):1192--1206, doi:10.1086/589738

    Lynch BJ, Antiochos SK, DeVore CR, Luhmann JG, Zurbuchen TH (2008) Topological Evolution of a Fast Magnetic Breakout CME in Three Dimensions . 683(2):1192--1206, doi:10.1086/589738

    work page doi:10.1086/589738 2008

  27. [27]

    Connecting the Sun and the Solar Wind: The Self-consistent Transition of Heating Mechanisms

    Matsumoto T, Suzuki TK (2014) Connecting the Sun and the solar wind: the self-consistent transition of heating mechanisms . 440(2):971--986, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu310, 1402.0316

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stu310 2014

  28. [28]

    552(2):833--848, doi:10.1086/320559

    Moore RL, Sterling AC, Hudson HS, Lemen JR (2001) Onset of the Magnetic Explosion in Solar Flares and Coronal Mass Ejections . 552(2):833--848, doi:10.1086/320559

    work page doi:10.1086/320559 2001

  29. [29]

    Solar Physics , keywords =

    Pesnell WD, Thompson BJ, Chamberlin PC (2012) The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) . 275(1-2):3--15, doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3 2012

  30. [30]

    294(4):41, doi:10.1007/s11207-019-1430-x

    Pomoell J, Lumme E, Kilpua E (2019) Time-dependent Data-driven Modeling of Active Region Evolution Using Energy-optimized Photospheric Electric Fields . 294(4):41, doi:10.1007/s11207-019-1430-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-019-1430-x 2019

  31. [31]

    Numerical simulations of quiet Sun magnetism: On the contribution from a small-scale dynamo

    Rempel M (2014) Numerical Simulations of Quiet Sun Magnetism: On the Contribution from a Small-scale Dynamo . 789(2):132, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/132, 1405.6814

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/132 2014

  32. [32]

    290(12):3457--3486, doi:10.1007/s11207-015-0712-1

    Schmieder B, Aulanier G, Vr s nak B (2015) Flare-CME Models: An Observational Perspective (Invited Review) . 290(12):3457--3486, doi:10.1007/s11207-015-0712-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-015-0712-1 2015

  33. [33]

    H., Bush, R

    Schou J, Scherrer PH, Bush RI, Wachter R, Couvidat S, Rabello-Soares MC, Bogart RS, Hoeksema JT, Liu Y, Duvall TL, Akin DJ, Allard BA, Miles JW, Rairden R, Shine RA, Tarbell TD, Title AM, Wolfson CJ, Elmore DF, Norton AA, Tomczyk S (2012) Design and Ground Calibration of the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) Instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observato...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9842-2 2012

  34. [34]

    235(1-2):161--190, doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0068-7

    Schrijver CJ, De Rosa ML, Metcalf TR, Liu Y, McTiernan J, R \'e gnier S, Valori G, Wheatland MS, Wiegelmann T (2006) Nonlinear Force-Free Modeling of Coronal Magnetic Fields Part I: A Quantitative Comparison of Methods . 235(1-2):161--190, doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0068-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0068-7 2006

  35. [35]

    Living Reviews in Solar Physics , keywords =

    Shibata K, Magara T (2011) Solar Flares: Magnetohydrodynamic Processes . Living Reviews in Solar Physics 8(1):6, doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-6

    work page doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-6 2011

  36. [36]

    Three-dimensional simulation of the fast solar wind driven by compressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

    Shoda M, Suzuki TK, Asgari-Targhi M, Yokoyama T (2019) Three-dimensional Simulation of the Fast Solar Wind Driven by Compressible Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence . 880(1):L2, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2b45, 1905.11685

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2b45 2019

  37. [37]

    A Non-radial Eruption in a Quadrupolar Magnetic Configuration with a Coronal Null

    Sun X, Hoeksema JT, Liu Y, Chen Q, Hayashi K (2012) A Non-radial Eruption in a Quadrupolar Magnetic Configuration with a Coronal Null . 757(2):149, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/149, 1208.1097

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/149 2012

  38. [38]

    Hot Spine Loops and the Nature of a Late-Phase Solar Flare

    Sun X, Hoeksema JT, Liu Y, Aulanier G, Su Y, Hannah IG, Hock RA (2013) Hot Spine Loops and the Nature of a Late-phase Solar Flare . 778(2):139, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/139, 1310.1438

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/139 2013

  39. [39]

    890(2):103, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6b1f, 2001.03721

    Toriumi S, Takasao S, Cheung MCM, Jiang C, Guo Y, Hayashi K, Inoue S (2020) Comparative Study of Data-driven Solar Coronal Field Models Using a Flux Emergence Simulation as a Ground-truth Data Set . 890(2):103, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6b1f, 2001.03721

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6b1f 2020

  40. [40]

    o gler A, Shelyag S, Sch \

    V \"o gler A, Shelyag S, Sch \"u ssler M, Cattaneo F, Emonet T, Linde T (2005) Simulations of magneto-convection in the solar photosphere. Equations, methods, and results of the MURaM code . 429:335--351, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041507

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041507 2005

  41. [41]

    970(2):168, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad41e3

    Wang R, Fouhey DF, Higgins REL, Antiochos SK, Barnes G, Hoeksema JT, Leka KD, Liu Y, Schuck PW, Gombosi TI (2024) SuperSynthIA: Physics-ready Full-disk Vector Magnetograms from HMI, Hinode, and Machine Learning . 970(2):168, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad41e3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad41e3 2024