Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Quantifying Uncertainties in Solar Wind Forecasting Due to Incomplete Solar Magnetic Field Information

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Missing solar magnetic data alone causes 59-121 km/s wind forecast errors

desk verdict A carefully controlled multi-model sensitivity experiment that gives a plausible range for map-induced forecast error, but the absolute numbers rest on an unvalidated synthetic Sun and uncalibrated perturbations. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19534 v1 pith:6UH25MZK submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.SR

Stephan G. Heinemann , Jens Pomoell , Ronald M. Caplan , Mathew J. Owens , Shaela Jones , Lisa Upton , Bibhuti Kumar Jha , Charles N. Arge This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarwindforecastingheliosphericmodelingmagneticfieldsynopticchartssurfacefluxtransportspaceweatheruncertaintyquantificationCarringtonrotation
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 asks how much of the error in ambient solar wind forecasts comes specifically from incomplete information about the Sun's magnetic field, rather than from model physics. To isolate that source, the authors generate a synthetic solar rotation with a surface flux transport model, declare one map the ground truth, and create 15 modified maps that mimic far-side aging, polar field errors, resolution limits, and smoothing. They feed all 16 maps into three operational solar wind models—WSA, HUXt, and EUHFORIA—and measure the spread in predicted speed at Earth's latitude. The central result is that incomplete magnetic information alone produces root-mean-square errors of 59, 87, and 121 km/s in the three models, and the spread widens to 77-172 km/s when the models are compared with MHD reference runs. A practical mitigation already visible in the numbers is that predicting a range of speeds from a small latitude band around Earth shrinks the deviation from the ground truth by 20-77%.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a controlled perturbation experiment around a synthetic ground truth. AFT, a surface flux transport model that advects magnetic field by differential rotation, meridional flow, and convective simulations, produces 27 daily full-Sun maps, and the middle map is treated as the truth. From it the authors build one unperturbed and 15 perturbed magnetograms: a synoptic chart assembled from a single viewpoint, a distance-dependent smooth to mimic far-side aging, ±30% pole-field scaling using a $\sin^6$ function, pole filling above 68.5 degrees, resolution changes by factors of 2, 1/2, and 1/4, and six Gaussian smoothings from 0.5 to 3.0 degrees. Feeding these maps through WSA, HUXt, EUHFORIA, and two MAS heating configurations converts map-level uncertainty into physical units—km/s of solar wind speed at Earth—which is the conversion needed to quantify the problem.

What would settle it

Take a real, well-observed Carrington rotation, build the same 15 perturbation maps from actual synoptic magnetograms, run the three forecast models, and check whether the observed in-situ solar wind speed at L1 falls inside the modified-map envelope; if the observed speed frequently falls outside, the synthetic ground truth overstates how much of real forecast error is driven by missing magnetic information.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a controlled error budget: when the only thing changed between runs is the magnetic map used as input, the resulting spread in solar wind speed at Earth's location is comparable in size to the spread seen when different models are run on identical maps. The median modified-map run misses the ground-truth run by 59 km/s for HUXt, 87 km/s for WSA, and 121 km/s for EUHFORIA, and the three models' forecasts differ from the thermodynamic MHD reference by an average of roughly 121-127 km/s. The largest single contributor among the tested perturbations is the synoptic-chart construction, which combines the aging effect with the absence of far-side information. The paper also finds that the ground-truth forecast frequently falls outside the envelope of the perturbed runs, so a naive ensemble of uncertain maps is not guaranteed to bracket the true solution. Consequently, the authors argue, replacing a point forecast with a velocity range derived from a latitude cloud around Earth reduces the chance of missing the ground truth by 20-77%, and better full-Sun magnetic coverage could cut ambient-wind forecast error by roughly 100 km/s near 1 au.

Load-bearing premise

The whole uncertainty budget is measured against a synthetic Sun produced by AFT without data assimilation; if that synthetic field does not statistically resemble the real Sun, the RMSE numbers apply only to this artificial realization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the synthetic ground truth is representative, roughly half of the typical 100-120 km/s forecast skill gap at 1 au can be attributed to input magnetic maps rather than to the wind model itself, so better magnetic observations are a direct path to better ambient forecasts.
  • Operational forecasts that quote a single speed at Earth should be supplemented by a speed interval sampled from a latitude band: the paper's numbers suggest a ±12 degree band cuts the deviation from truth by 61-77%.
  • Ensembles built only from perturbed magnetograms can miss the true state; the ground-truth run falls outside the modified-map envelope for some longitude ranges, so uncertainty quantification needs model diversity as well as input perturbations.
  • The synoptic-chart construction is the dominant tested error source, adding at least 10, 40, and 70 km/s for HUXt, WSA, and EUHFORIA, so reducing the aging effect through more frequent full-Sun maps or far-side data should have the largest payoff.
  • Different models disagree with each other more than any single model disagrees with its own perturbed inputs, so multi-model spread, not within-model ensemble width, is the conservative measure of current forecast uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the perturbation sizes—Gaussian widths of 0.5-3.0 degrees and ±30% polar scaling—are not calibrated to any instrument, the absolute RMSE numbers should be read as order-of-magnitude estimates; a calibration against simultaneous multi-viewpoint magnetograms would either confirm or rescale them.
  • The latitude-cloud mitigation suggests a cheap operational upgrade: instead of tracing one field line to Earth, issue a probabilistic interval from several closely spaced latitudes, and score it directly against historical in-situ spacecraft data where the true speed is known.
  • The paper's assumption that the synthetic Sun is the truth means every RMSE measures deviation from an artificial reality; repeating the experiment with a real, well-observed solar rotation degraded to Earth-only coverage would show how well the modified-map envelope brackets actual observed speeds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a synthetic 'ground truth' solar magnetic field from one 27-day Advective Flux Transport (AFT) model run without data assimilation, generates a set of modified maps designed to mimic far-side aging, polar-field uncertainty, resolution changes, and smoothing, and then feeds these maps into WSA, HUXt, EUHFORIA, and MAS. Comparing the resulting solar wind speed profiles at Earth's nominal latitude, it reports within-model RMSEs of 59, 87, and 121 km/s relative to the ground-truth map run, larger spreads of 77–172 km/s when comparing to MAS runs, and RMSD reductions of 20–77% when predictions are drawn from latitude intervals around Earth. The paper concludes that incomplete magnetic field information contributes roughly 100 km/s of uncertainty in background solar wind forecasts and that multi-latitude prediction intervals can mitigate part of this uncertainty.

Significance. The study addresses an important operational problem with a clean experimental idea: controlled perturbations of input magnetograms can isolate the contribution of incomplete magnetic field information from other forecast error sources, and running three standard operational models under identical inputs is a useful design. The transparent statement of the synthetic 'ground truth' assumption and the comparison against two MAS heating configurations are strengths. If the quantitative values were validated or explicitly treated as a proof-of-concept sensitivity envelope, the approach would be a valuable template for input-uncertainty quantification in solar wind forecasting. As it stands, the specific numbers are conditional on an unvalidated synthetic Sun and on uncalibrated perturbation amplitudes, and the headline mitigation result is partly a consequence of the interval-based metric rather than of improved forecast information.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] The paper states that 'we assume that this set of maps represents the actual state of the Sun, i.e., the ground truth' for an AFT run without data assimilation, using SARG active regions and GRaFg random flux (Section A.1). No comparison of this synthetic sequence to observed magnetograms, synoptic maps, or observed flux-transport statistics is provided. Consequently, the RMSE values reported in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 (59–121 km/s within models and 77–172 km/s against MAS) are properties of one stochastic realization of a model Sun, not of real incomplete magnetic field information. The authors should either validate the synthetic maps statistically against observations or explicitly reframe the absolute magnitudes as proof-of-concept sensitivity estimates rather than as observational uncertainties.
  2. [Section 2 and Section 3] The perturbation amplitudes are chosen by hand and are not calibrated to measurements: Gaussian kernel widths of 0.5–3.0 degrees, a ±30% sin6 polar-field scaling, uniform polar filling above 68.5 degrees, and the GRaFg parameters are all plausible but arbitrary. Because the reported RMSEs scale directly with the perturbation amplitude, the headline numbers (59, 87, and 121 km/s; 77–172 km/s against MAS) are not tied to observed map-to-map discrepancies. The manuscript should either calibrate the perturbations to measured uncertainties (for example, differences between contemporaneous maps from different instruments or between synoptic and data-assimilated maps) or report how the results depend on perturbation amplitude, so that the quantitative conclusions are not artifacts of the chosen perturbation magnitudes.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Table 2, Eq. (12)] The 'cloud of points' mitigation result is strongly influenced by the definition of the RMSD metric: Eq. (12) assigns zero deviation whenever the ground-truth value falls inside the lower/upper bounds, so widening the latitude interval mechanically reduces RMSD. The reported 20–40%, 38–57%, and 61–77% reductions are therefore partly guaranteed by the metric rather than by genuine forecast skill. Please separate the geometric effect of interval widening from actual predictive improvement, for example by reporting interval coverage probabilities or by testing the latitude-interval predictions against observed solar wind time series rather than against the synthetic ground-truth profile.
  4. [Sections 2, 4.2, and 4.3] All conclusions rest on a single 27-day AFT realization and a single set of map modifications, so there is no estimate of realization-to-realization or rotation-to-rotation scatter. This matters for the robustness of the qualitative differences between models, such as the reported anti-correlation of EUHFORIA with the ground-truth run in Section 4.2. A multi-rotation or multi-realization analysis, or at least an explicit sensitivity test over independent synthetic realizations, is needed before the values can be treated as general uncertainty estimates for solar wind forecasting.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 3] The map counting is inconsistent: the text says 16 maps including the ground truth map and 15 variations, but Figures 2–3 appear to show only 14 modified maps in addition to the ground truth if the MAS-processed map in Figure 2b is not an operational input. Please clarify exactly which maps were used as input for WSA, HUXt, EUHFORIA, and MAS.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Table 3] The text gives the HUXt median-vs-ground-truth RMSE as 58.6 km/s, whereas Table 3 lists RMSE = 59.2 km/s and sigma_RMSE = 58.6 km/s; please harmonize the quoted value.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The '20–77%' mitigation range is presented as a single headline number, but it corresponds to three different latitude intervals (±4°, ±8°, and ±12°); the abstract and discussion should make this dependence explicit.
  4. [Section 5] The concluding sentence that increased operational coverage 'could reduce the uncertainty in the background solar wind by approximately 100 km/s near 1 au' is not directly supported by the experimental design, which perturbs existing maps rather than simulating the effect of added far-side or polar observations. Please soften or reframe this claim.
  5. [Figures 2 and 3] The panel labels and color-bar annotations are very small and difficult to read; larger fonts or separate labeled panels would improve reproducibility and clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 20–77% 'mitigation' claim is a self-definitional consequence of the RMSD interval metric; the 59–121 km/s sensitivity study is otherwise non-circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, Figure 6, and Eq. 12 in Table 2]
    "We then determined the deviation of the runs using the “ground truth map” map from the corresponding solar wind velocities derived from these latitude intervals. I.e., a larger latitude interval leads to a broader predicted range of solar wind velocities and is, therefore, more likely to encompass the “ground truth map” run. ... By doing so, the RMSD (for one profile e.g., at λ = 0◦ the RMSD defaults to the RMSE) decreases by 20–40%, 38–57%, and 61–77% for the different latitude intervals."

    The metric in Eq. 12 is defined to return 0 whenever the reference profile lies inside the interval [Li, Ui] and to penalize only the distance to the nearest bound when it does not. The 'cloud of latitudes' analysis constructs wider intervals by adding model solutions at ±4, ±8, and ±12 degrees, so the reference is definitionally more likely to be inside and the RMSD must monotonically decrease as the interval widens. The reported 20–77% reduction is therefore a direct arithmetic consequence of the scoring rule, not an independent empirical demonstration that forecast accuracy has improved. The paper's own sentence, 'a larger latitude interval ...

full rationale

The central RMSE quantification (59, 87, and 121 km/s within HUXt, WSA, and EUHFORIA; 77–172 km/s against MAS) is a controlled sensitivity experiment: the same models are run with a set of modified synthetic magnetograms and compared to one reference map, with no parameters fitted to the target results and no circular inversion of the forecast error into the perturbation amplitudes. The self-citations to AFT, SARG, HUXt, WSA, and EUHFORIA are ordinary method and code references, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and they do not by themselves make the derivation circular. The main circularity is the 'cloud of points around Earth can mitigate uncertainties by up to 20–77%' conclusion: the RMSD metric in Eq. 12 awards zero error inside the constructed latitude interval, so expanding the interval trivially improves the score, and the mitigation claim is partly a restatement of the metric's definition. The unvalidated AFT 'ground truth' and the uncalibrated perturbation amplitudes are important limitations on external validity, but they are assumptions about realism rather than logical circularity, so they are noted here rather than scored as additional circular steps.

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

The central numerical results rest on two classes of unverified choices: the synthetic ground truth being a faithful stand-in for the real Sun, and the perturbation magnitudes being representative of actual observational errors. No new physical entities are introduced. The empirical constants in WSA/EUHFORIA are inherited from prior publications and are not fitted in this paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Far-side Gaussian smoothing kernel widths = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 degrees, plus distance-dependent kernel for aging
    Chosen by hand to simulate the loss of far-side information in synoptic charts; not calibrated to actual observation geometry or instrument sensitivity.
  • Polar field perturbation amplitude = ±30% using sin6(latitude) function
    Arbitrary magnitude chosen to represent polar field uncertainty; not derived from measurements of polar field variability.
  • HMI pole-fill threshold = 68.5 degrees latitude, replaced by uniform mean field strength
    Replicates a standard HMI data processing convention, but the threshold and replacement value are pragmatic choices, not physically justified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The AFT synthetic magnetic field evolution over one rotation represents the true state of the Sun.
    Stated in Section 2: 'we assume that this set of maps represents the actual state of the Sun, i.e., the ground truth'. All uncertainty estimates are measured relative to this assumed truth.
  • ad hoc to paper A Gaussian filter with distance-dependent kernel emulates the aging of far-side magnetic field observations.
    Introduced in Section 2; no empirical calibration of filter width as a function of time or distance to the actual evolution of active regions.
  • domain assumption The synoptic chart constructed from 27 daily AFT maps reproduces the properties of operational synoptic charts.
    Used in Section 2; depends on the assumption that central-meridian stacking over a rotation is equivalent to how operational maps are built.
  • domain assumption The WSA and EUHFORIA empirical solar wind speed formulas (Eqs. A1, A2) are valid for the synthetic magnetic field distributions.
    The formulas and constants come from prior empirical fits; the paper does not revalidate them for synthetic maps.
  • domain assumption The solar wind is quasi-steady over the rotation, so the steady-state solution at a fixed point represents the in-situ time series.
    Used throughout the analysis to map longitude to time; ignores transient evolution of the corona over the 27-day window.
  • domain assumption MAS model runs with two heating configurations span a representative range of MHD solutions.
    The paper uses MAS as a comparative reference, not as truth; this assumption underlies the cross-model spread comparison in Section 4.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying Uncertainties in Solar Wind Forecasting Due to Incomplete Solar Magnetic Field Information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6UH25MZK

@misc{pith2026250419534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying Uncertainties in Solar Wind Forecasting Due to Incomplete Solar Magnetic Field Information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6UH25MZK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19534}
}
read the original abstract

Solar wind forecasting plays a crucial role in space weather prediction, yet significant uncertainties persist due to incomplete magnetic field observations of the Sun. Isolating the solar wind forecasting errors due to these effects is difficult. This study investigates the uncertainties in solar wind models arising from these limitations. We simulate magnetic field maps with known uncertainties, including far-side and polar field variations, as well as resolution and sensitivity limitations. These maps serve as input for three solar wind models: the Wang-Sheeley-Arge (WSA), the Heliospheric Upwind eXtrapolation (HUXt), and the European Heliospheric FORecasting Information Asset (EUHFORIA). We analyze the discrepancies in solar wind forecasts, particularly the solar wind speed at Earth's location, by comparing the results of these models to a created "ground truth" magnetic field map, which is derived from a synthetic solar rotation evolution using the Advective Flux Transport (AFT) model. The results reveal significant variations within each model with a RMSE ranging from 59-121 km/s. Further comparison with the thermodynamic Magnetohydrodynamic Algorithm outside a Sphere (MAS) model indicates that uncertainties in the magnetic field data can lead to even larger variations in solar wind forecasts compared to those within a single model. However, predicting a range of solar wind velocities based on a cloud of points around Earth can help mitigate uncertainties by up to 20-77%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19534 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the methodological approach used in this study. We begin by analyzing one solar rotation of artificial magnetic fields to determine the “ground truth map” and generate modified maps that account for observational uncertainties in 15 different ways. Next, we run three operational models with the modified maps: HUXt, WSA, and EUHFORIA, and compare their results to those obtained from the “ground truth map… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnetic maps used in this study. (a) The base or ”ground truth” map. (b) The ”ground truth” map modified for MAS model runs. (c) A synoptic chart created from a 27-day sample of maps. (d-f) Synoptic charts with varying resolutions: double, half, and quarter, respectively. (g) The ”ground truth” map with increased smoothing as a function of distance from the Earth-facing point, simulating uncertainty in surface flux… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Continuation from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Solar wind solutions of the MHD models (from top to bottom: MASWTD, MASHM2, and EUHFORIA) for 215R⊙ and the processed “ground truth map” (MAS) and the “ground truth map” for EUHFORIA. The white solid, dashed and dotted lines correspond λ = 0◦ ,±4 ◦ ,±8 ◦ ,±12◦ respec￾t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Deviation (RMSD) of the runs using the “ground truth map” compared to modified runs at λ = 0◦ and in the ±4 ◦ , ±8 ◦ , and ±12◦ intervals. The central bar corre￾sponds to the median of all 15 modified map results, the box represents the 20th and 80th percentiles, and t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Forecast solar wind speeds for HUXt, WSA and EUHFORIA (top to bottom). The black line represents the run with the ground truth map, the thin lines are all the runs using the modified maps, the thick line is the median of all the runs and the shaded areas are the 80th a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the MAS results with the results of the full sample of runs using the modified and ”ground truth” maps. Panels (a) and (b) show the MASWTD results, while panels (c) and (d) show the MASHM2 results. The solid and dashed lines represent the cut at λ = 0◦ th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Hݿ>K! ]\ [] F5WN [ I

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    D., & Newkirk , G

    Altschuler , M. D., & Newkirk , G. 1969, title Magnetic Fields and the Structure of the Solar Corona. I: Methods of Calculating Coronal Fields , , 9, 131, 10.1007/BF00145734

    doi:10.1007/bf00145734 1969

  5. [5]

    N., Henney, C

    Arge, C. N., Henney, C. J., Koller, J., et al. 2010, title Air Force Data Assimilative Photospheric Flux Transport ( ADAPT ) Model , AIP Conference Proceedings, 1216, 343, 10.1063/1.3395870

    doi:10.1063/1.3395870 2010

  6. [6]

    N., & Pizzo , V

    Arge , C. N., & Pizzo , V. J. 2000, title Improvement in the prediction of solar wind conditions using near-real time solar magnetic field updates , , 105, 10465, 10.1029/1999JA000262

    doi:10.1029/1999ja000262 2000

  7. [7]

    G., Temmer , M., et al

    Asvestari , E., Heinemann , S. G., Temmer , M., et al. 2019, title Reconstructing Coronal Hole Areas With EUHFORIA and Adapted WSA Model: Optimizing the Model Parameters , Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 8280, 10.1029/2019JA027173

    doi:10.1029/2019ja027173 2019

  8. [8]

    2022, title HUXt An open source, computationally efficient reduced-physics solar wind model, written in Python , Frontiers in Physics, 10, 1005621, 10.3389/fphy.2022.1005621

    Barnard , L., & Owens , M. 2022, title HUXt An open source, computationally efficient reduced-physics solar wind model, written in Python , Frontiers in Physics, 10, 1005621, 10.3389/fphy.2022.1005621

    arXiv 2022

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    A., Petrie , G

    Bertello , L., Pevtsov , A. A., Petrie , G. J. D., & Keys , D. 2014, title Uncertainties in Solar Synoptic Magnetic Flux Maps , , 289, 2419, 10.1007/s11207-014-0480-3

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Stulajter, M

    Caplan, R. M., Stulajter, M. M., & Linker, J. A. 2023, in 2023 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops (IPDPSW) (IEEE), 582–590, 10.1109/ipdpsw59300.2023.00101

    2023

  3. [11]

    M., Stulajter , M

    Caplan , R. M., Stulajter , M. M., Linker , J. A., et al. 2025, title Open-source Flux Transport (OFT). I. HipFT -- High-performance Flux Transport , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.06377, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.06377

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    W., Spence , H

    Case , A. W., Spence , H. E., Owens , M. J., Riley , P., & Odstrcil , D. 2008, title Ambient solar wind's effect on ICME transit times , , 35, L15105, 10.1029/2008GL034493

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Miki \'c , Z., et al

    Downs , C., Linker , J. A., Miki \'c , Z., et al. 2013, title Probing the Solar Magnetic Field with a Sun-Grazing Comet , Science, 340, 1196, 10.1126/science.1236550

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    A., & Velli, M

    Downs, C., Lionello, R., Mikić, Z., Linker, J. A., & Velli, M. 2016, title CLOSED-FIELD CORONAL HEATING DRIVEN BY WAVE TURBULENCE, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 180, 10.3847/0004-637x/832/2/180

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Caplan, R

    Downs, C., Linker, J. A., Caplan, R. M., et al. 2024, title Towards a Digital Twin of the Solar Corona, Science, Under revision

    2024

  8. [16]

    R., & Heinold, D

    Hanna, S. R., & Heinold, D. W. 1986, Simple Statistical Methods for Comparative Evaluation of Air Quality Models (Boston, MA: Springer US), 441--452, 10.1007/978-1-4757-9125-9_29

    1986 doi

  9. [17]

    H., Williams , P

    Hathaway , D. H., Williams , P. E., Dela Rosa , K., & Cuntz , M. 2010, title The Advection of Supergranules by the Sun's Axisymmetric Flows , , 725, 1082, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1082

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    G., Temmer , M., Hofmeister , S

    Heinemann , S. G., Temmer , M., Hofmeister , S. J., et al. 2021, title How to Estimate the Far-Side Open Flux Using STEREO Coronal Holes , , 296, 141, 10.1007/s11207-021-01889-z

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, title Assessing the Performance of EUHFORIA Modeling the Background Solar Wind , , 294, 170, 10.1007/s11207-019-1558-8

    Hinterreiter , J., Magdalenic , J., Temmer , M., et al. 2019, title Assessing the Performance of EUHFORIA Modeling the Background Solar Wind , , 294, 170, 10.1007/s11207-019-1558-8

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    K., & Upton , L

    Jha , B. K., & Upton , L. A. 2024, title Predicting the Timing of the Solar Cycle 25 Polar Field Reversal , , 962, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad20d2

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    K., MacNeice , P

    Jian , L. K., MacNeice , P. J., Taktakishvili , A., et al. 2015, title Validation for solar wind prediction at Earth: Comparison of coronal and heliospheric models installed at the CCMC , , 13, 316, 10.1002/2015SW001174

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Lionello , R., Miki \'c , Z., Titov , V

    Linker , J. A., Lionello , R., Miki \'c , Z., Titov , V. S., & Antiochos , S. K. 2011, title The Evolution of Open Magnetic Flux Driven by Photospheric Dynamics , The Astrophysical Journal, 731, 110, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/110

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Miki \'c , Z., Lionello , R., et al

    Linker , J. A., Miki \'c , Z., Lionello , R., et al. 2003, title Flux cancellation and coronal mass ejections , Physics of Plasmas, 10, 1971, 10.1063/1.1563668

    2003 doi

  16. [25]

    A., Torok, T., Downs, C., et al

    Linker, J. A., Torok, T., Downs, C., et al. 2024 b , title CORHEL-CME: An Interactive Tool For Modeling Solar Eruptions, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2742, 012012, 10.1088/1742-6596/2742/1/012012

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    A., et al

    Lionello , R., Downs , C., Linker , J. A., et al. 2013, title Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections , The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 76, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/76

    2013 doi

  18. [28]

    A., & Miki \'c , Z

    Lionello , R., Linker , J. A., & Miki \'c , Z. 2009 b , title Multispectral Emission of the Sun During the First Whole Sun Month: Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations , , 690, 902, 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/902

    2009 doi

  19. [29]

    A., Miki \'c , Z., & Riley, P

    Lionello, R., Linker, J. A., Miki \'c , Z., & Riley, P. 2006, title The latitudinal excursion of coronal magnetic field lines in response to differential rotation: MHD simulations, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 642, L69

    2006

  20. [30]

    2014, title VALIDATING A TIME-DEPENDENT TURBULENCE-DRIVEN MODEL OF THE SOLAR WIND, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 120, 10.1088/0004-637x/784/2/120

    Lionello, R., Velli, M., Downs, C., et al. 2014, title VALIDATING A TIME-DEPENDENT TURBULENCE-DRIVEN MODEL OF THE SOLAR WIND, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 120, 10.1088/0004-637x/784/2/120

    2014 doi

  21. [31]

    2013, title Problems in RMSE-based wave model validations, Ocean Modelling, 72, 53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.08.003

    Mentaschi, L., Besio, G., Cassola, F., & Mazzino, A. 2013, title Problems in RMSE-based wave model validations, Ocean Modelling, 72, 53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.08.003

    2013 doi

  22. [32]

    2018, title Predicting the corona for the 21 August 2017 total solar eclipse , Nature Astronomy, 2, 913, 10.1038/s41550-018-0562-5

    Miki \'c , , Z., Downs , C., et al. 2018, title Predicting the corona for the 21 August 2017 total solar eclipse , Nature Astronomy, 2, 913, 10.1038/s41550-018-0562-5

    2018 doi

  23. [33]

    Miki \'c , Z., & Linker , J. A. 1996, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 382, Proceedings of the eigth International solar wind Conference: Solar wind eight, ed. D. Winterhalter , J. T. Gosling , S. R. Habbal , W. S. Kurth , & M. Neugebauer (AIP), 104--10...

    1996 doi

  24. [34]

    A., Lionello , R., Riley , P., & Titov , V

    Mikic , Z., Linker , J. A., Lionello , R., Riley , P., & Titov , V. S. 2010, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2010, SH42A--09

    2010

  25. [35]

    A., Schnack , D

    Miki \'c , Z., Linker , J. A., Schnack , D. D., Lionello , R., & Tarditi , A. 1999, title Magnetohydrodynamic modeling of the global solar corona , Physics of Plasmas, 6, 2217, 10.1063/1.873474

    1999 doi

  26. [36]

    A., Schnack, D

    Miki\'c, Z., Linker, J. A., Schnack, D. D., Lionello, R., & Tarditi, A. 1999, title Magnetohydrodynamic modeling of the global solar corona, Phys. Plasmas, 6, 2217

    1999

  27. [37]

    A., et al

    Miki \'c , Z., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2018, title Predicting the corona for the 21 August 2017 total solar eclipse, Nature Astronomy, 1

    2018

  28. [38]

    G., et al

    Milo s i \'c , D., Temmer , M., Heinemann , S. G., et al. 2023, title Improvements to the Empirical Solar Wind Forecast (ESWF) model , , 298, 45, 10.1007/s11207-022-02102-5

    2023 doi

  29. [39]

    M \"u ller , D., St. Cyr , O. C., Zouganelis , I., et al. 2020, title The Solar Orbiter mission. Science overview , , 642, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    2020 doi

  30. [40]

    Odstr c il , D., & Pizzo , V. J. 1999, title Three-dimensional propagation of CMEs in a structured solar wind flow: 1. CME launched within the streamer belt , , 104, 483, 10.1029/1998JA900019

    1999 doi

  31. [41]

    J., Spence , H

    Owens , M. J., Spence , H. E., McGregor , S., et al. 2008, title Metrics for solar wind prediction models: Comparison of empirical, hybrid, and physics-based schemes with 8 years of L1 observations , Space Weather, 6, S08001, 10.1029/2007SW000380

    2008 doi

  32. [42]

    J., Lang, M., Barnard, L., et al

    Owens, M. J., Lang, M., Barnard, L., et al. 2020, title A Computationally Efficient , Time-Dependent Model of the Solar Wind for Use as a Surrogate to Three-Dimensional Numerical Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations , Solar Phys., 295, 43, 10.1007/s11207-020-01605-3

    2020 doi

  33. [43]

    2024, title Impact of far-side structures observed by Solar Orbiter on coronal and heliospheric wind simulations , , 687, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349040

    Perri , B., Finley , A., R \'e ville , V., et al. 2024, title Impact of far-side structures observed by Solar Orbiter on coronal and heliospheric wind simulations , , 687, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349040

    2024 doi

  34. [44]

    2020, title Uncertainty Estimates of Solar Wind Prediction Using HMI Photospheric Vector and Spatial Standard Deviation Synoptic Maps , , 295, 138, 10.1007/s11207-020-01704-1

    Poduval , B., Petrie , G., & Bertello , L. 2020, title Uncertainty Estimates of Solar Wind Prediction Using HMI Photospheric Vector and Spatial Standard Deviation Synoptic Maps , , 295, 138, 10.1007/s11207-020-01704-1

    2020 doi

  35. [45]

    2019, title Time-dependent Data-driven Modeling of Active Region Evolution Using Energy-optimized Photospheric Electric Fields , , 294, 41, 10.1007/s11207-019-1430-x

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

    2019 doi

  36. [46]

    2018, title EUHFORIA: European heliospheric forecasting information asset , , 8, A35, 10.1051/swsc/2018020

    Pomoell , J., & Poedts , S. 2018, title EUHFORIA: European heliospheric forecasting information asset , , 8, A35, 10.1051/swsc/2018020

    2018

  37. [47]

    N., Staub , J., et al

    Posner , A., Arge , C. N., Staub , J., et al. 2021, title A Multi-Purpose Heliophysics L4 Mission , , 19, e2021SW002777, 10.1029/2021SW002777

    2021 doi

  38. [49]

    A., Temmer , M., Veronig , A

    Reiss , M. A., Temmer , M., Veronig , A. M., et al. 2016 b , title Verification of high-speed solar wind stream forecasts using operational solar wind models , Space Weather, 14, 495, 10.1002/2016SW001390

    2016 doi

  39. [50]

    A., MacNeice , P

    Reiss , M. A., MacNeice , P. J., Muglach , K., et al. 2020, title Forecasting the Ambient Solar Wind with Numerical Models. II. An Adaptive Prediction System for Specifying Solar Wind Speed near the Sun , , 891, 165, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab78a0

    2020 doi

  40. [51]

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

    Reiss , M. A., Muglach , K., Mullinix , R., et al. 2023, title Unifying the validation of ambient solar wind models , Advances in Space Research, 72, 5275, 10.1016/j.asr.2022.05.026

    2023 doi

  41. [52]

    A., & Arge , C

    Riley , P., Linker , J. A., & Arge , C. N. 2015, title On the role played by magnetic expansion factor in the prediction of solar wind speed , Space Weather, 13, 154, 10.1002/2014SW001144

    2015 doi

  42. [53]

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

    Riley , P., Linker , J. A., Lionello , R., & Mikic , Z. 2012, title Corotating interaction regions during the recent solar minimum: The power and limitations of global MHD modeling , Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 83, 1, 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.013

    2012 doi

  43. [54]

    A., Mikic , Z., et al

    Riley , P., Linker , J. A., Mikic , Z., et al. 2019, title Can an Unobserved Concentration of Magnetic Flux Above the Poles of the Sun Resolve the Open Flux Problem? , , 884, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a98

    2019 doi

  44. [55]

    2011, title Mapping Solar Wind Streams from the Sun to 1 AU: A Comparison of Techniques , , 270, 575, 10.1007/s11207-011-9766-x

    Riley , P., & Lionello , R. 2011, title Mapping Solar Wind Streams from the Sun to 1 AU: A Comparison of Techniques , , 270, 575, 10.1007/s11207-011-9766-x

    2011 doi

  45. [56]

    M., Temmer , M., & Vr s nak , B

    Rotter , T., Veronig , A. M., Temmer , M., & Vr s nak , B. 2012, title Relation Between Coronal Hole Areas on the Sun and the Solar Wind Parameters at 1 AU , , 281, 793, 10.1007/s11207-012-0101-y

    2012 doi

  46. [57]

    M., Temmer , M., & Vr s nak , B

    Rotter , T., Veronig , A. M., Temmer , M., & Vr s nak , B. 2015, title Real-Time Solar Wind Prediction Based on SDO/AIA Coronal Hole Data , , 290, 1355, 10.1007/s11207-015-0680-5

    2015 doi

  47. [58]

    Schatten , K. H. 1971, title Current sheet magnetic model for the solar corona. , Cosmic Electrodynamics, 2, 232

    1971

  48. [59]

    K., del Toro Iniesta , J

    Solanki , S. K., del Toro Iniesta , J. C., Woch , J., et al. 2020, title The Polarimetric and Helioseismic Imager on Solar Orbiter , , 642, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935325

    2020 doi

  49. [60]

    Temmer , M., Hinterreiter , J., & Reiss , M. A. 2018, title Coronal hole evolution from multi-viewpoint data as input for a STEREO solar wind speed persistence model , , 8, A18, 10.1051/swsc/2018007

    2018

  50. [61]

    G., et al

    Temmer , M., Scolini , C., Richardson , I. G., et al. 2023, title CME Propagation Through the Heliosphere: Status and Future of Observations and Model Development , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.04851, 10.48550/arXiv.2308.04851

    2023 doi arXiv

  51. [62]

    o r \"o k, T., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2018, title Sun-to-Earth MHD Simulation of the 2000 July 14 “Bastille Day

    T \"o r \"o k, T., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2018, title Sun-to-Earth MHD Simulation of the 2000 July 14 “Bastille Day” Eruption, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 75

    2018

  52. [63]

    Upton , L., & Hathaway , D. H. 2014 a , title Predicting the Sun's Polar Magnetic Fields with a Surface Flux Transport Model , , 780, 5, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/5

    2014 doi

  53. [64]

    Upton , L., & Hathaway , D. H. 2014 b , title Effects of Meridional Flow Variations on Solar Cycles 23 and 24 , , 792, 142, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/142

    2014 doi

  54. [65]

    M., & Borovsky , J

    Viall , N. M., & Borovsky , J. E. 2020, title Nine Outstanding Questions of Solar Wind Physics , Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e26005, 10.1029/2018JA026005

    2020 doi

  55. [66]

    G., Cameron , R

    Yang , D., Heinemann , S. G., Cameron , R. H., & Gizon , L. 2024, title Combined Surface Flux Transport and Helioseismic Far-Side Active Region Model (FARM) , , 299, 161, 10.1007/s11207-024-02405-9

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.