arxiv: 2605.03330 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP· physics.plasm-ph

Recognition: unknown

COCONUT: Toward practical time-evolving Sun-to-Earth magnetohydrodynamic modeling

Andrea Lani, Brigitte Schmieder, Fan Zhang, Haopeng Wang, Hyun-Jin Jeong, Jasmina M. Magdaleni\'c Zhukov, Junyan Liu, Ketevan Arabuli, Lingyu Dong, Luis Linan, Mahdi Najafi-Ziyazi, Martina Condoluci, Myrthe Flossie, Nicolas Wijsen, Quentin Noraz, Rayan Dhib, Rui Zhuo, Stefaan Poedts, Tinatin Baratashvili

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 14:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPphysics.plasm-ph

keywords time-evolving MHDsolar coronasolar windSun-to-Earth modelingimplicit solverCarrington rotationL1 and L5 pointsmagnetograms

0 comments

The pith

Time-evolving MHD simulations from the Sun to 1 AU capture magnetic field changes that steady-state models miss.

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

The paper establishes that a single implicit magnetohydrodynamic model can run time-dependent simulations of the solar corona and wind all the way out to 1 AU. By comparing these runs against traditional quasi-steady-state calculations, it demonstrates that the continuous evolution of the inner-boundary magnetic field produces clear differences in plasma parameters at locations such as the L1 and L5 points. The single-model approach is shown to be computationally efficient while removing the need to couple separate coronal and inner-heliosphere codes and the uncertainties that coupling introduces. A sympathetic reader would care because the results point to more accurate representations of solar wind conditions near Earth and to the value of synchronized, evolving magnetic observations for global simulations.

Core claim

We extend the implicit time-evolving coronal MHD model out to 1 AU and utilise it to investigate solar coronal and wind evolutions around a solar maximum Carrington rotation. We compare quasi-steady-state and time-evolving Sun-to-Earth simulations to evaluate the impact of the inner-boundary magnetic field evolution, which is neglected in steady-state simulations, on background plasma parameters. The results show that the time-evolving implicit MHD modelling approach yields noticeable differences compared to oversimplified steady-state simulations, and is efficient enough for practical applications. Modelling the solar corona and wind using a single MHD model simplifies the modelling pipline

What carries the argument

Implicit time-dependent MHD solver that incorporates continuous updates to the inner-boundary magnetic field across the full domain from the solar surface to 1 AU.

If this is right

Time-evolving simulations produce different temporal histories of plasma parameters at L1 and L5 than steady-state runs do.
A single MHD model for the entire Sun-to-Earth domain removes coupling uncertainties between separate coronal and inner-heliosphere codes.
The overall consistent evolutionary trends support the use of L5 observations to forecast solar wind conditions near Earth roughly four days ahead.
The method remains efficient enough for routine application around periods of solar maximum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same single-model framework could be tested on intervals that include coronal mass ejections to quantify improvements in space-weather arrival predictions.
Direct comparison of the model outputs against simultaneous in-situ data from multiple spacecraft would provide a concrete test of forecast skill.
Adopting continuous magnetic driving as standard input might reduce systematic biases that arise when static magnetograms are used for long-term studies.

Load-bearing premise

The implicit solver stays numerically stable and physically accurate when the domain reaches 1 AU and the inner-boundary magnetic field evolves continuously without new instabilities or extra physics modules.

What would settle it

Running both the time-evolving and quasi-steady-state versions for the same Carrington rotation and finding no measurable differences in density, velocity, or magnetic field at L1 and L5 would show that the continuous boundary evolution does not matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03330 by Andrea Lani, Brigitte Schmieder, Fan Zhang, Haopeng Wang, Hyun-Jin Jeong, Jasmina M. Magdaleni\'c Zhukov, Junyan Liu, Ketevan Arabuli, Lingyu Dong, Luis Linan, Mahdi Najafi-Ziyazi, Martina Condoluci, Myrthe Flossie, Nicolas Wijsen, Quentin Noraz, Rayan Dhib, Rui Zhuo, Stefaan Poedts, Tinatin Baratashvili.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Illustration of the Sun-to-Earth model chain; the blue lines highlight the modules under development. In the Sun-to-Earth model chain, as illustrated in view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Distributions of radial velocity Vr (km S−1 ; left) along the longitude intersecting the Sun-Earth line, calculated from the time-evolving Sun-to-Earth simulation, and the corresponding absolute differences ADVr (km S−1 ; right) between the time-evolving and quasi-steady-state simulations, presented at 0.1 AU (top) and 1 AU (bottom). The overlaid orange dashed lines indicate the magnetic field neutral lin… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Distributions of the northward magnetic field strength Bz (nT; left) along the longitude intersecting the Sun-Earth line, calculated from the time-evolving Sun-to-Earth simulation, and the corresponding absolute differences ADBz (nT; right) between the time-evolving and quasi-steadystate simulations, presented at 0.1 AU (top) and 1 AU (bottom). The overlaid orange dashed lines indicate the magnetic neutra… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Timing diagrams of the averaged radial velocity Vr,Ave (km s−1 ; top left) and the corresponding relative differences RDAve,Vr (km s−1 ; top right) between the time-evolving and quasi-steady-state simulations, evaluated at 3 Rs (grey solid lines), 0.1 AU (red dashed lines), and 1 AU (blue dashed lines). Also shown are the timing diagrams of the averaged northward magnetic field strength |Bz|Ave (nT; bottom… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Timing diagrams of the radial velocity Vr (km S−1 ; left) and northward magnetic field strength Bz (nT; left) simulated by the time-evolving (TE; solid lines) and quasi-steady-state (ST; dashed lines) Sun-to-Earth COCONUT and observed by two virtual satellites placed at the L1 and L5 points during the simulated period. The dashed lines represent the corresponding EUHFORIA simulation results, driven by the … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Due to computational efficiency and numerical stability limitations, coronal simulations constrained by static magnetograms are typically performed first and then used to drive inner-heliosphere (IH) models. In this paper, we calculate the Sun-to-Earth coronal and wind evolutions using a single time-evolving MHD model, showing that implicit MHD models have the potential to meaningfully simplify and improve the overall Sun-to-Earth modelling pipeline. We extend the implicit time-evolving coronal MHD model COCONUT out to 1 AU, and utilise it to investigate solar coronal and wind evolutions around a solar maximum Carrington rotation (CR). We compare quasi-steady-state and time-evolving Sun-to-Earth simulations to evaluate the impact of the inner-boundary magnetic field evolution, which is neglected in steady-state simulations, on background plasma parameters. Comparisons with commonly used coupled Sun-to-Earth simulations are also conducted to further validate and assess the Sun-to-Earth model COCONUT. The results show that the time-evolving implicit MHD modelling approach yields noticeable differences compared to oversimplified steady-state simulations, and is efficient enough for practical applications. Modelling the solar corona and wind using a single MHD model simplifies the modelling pipeline and avoids uncertainties associated with coupling different coronal and IH models. The noticeable differences in the temporal evolution of plasma parameters at the L1 and L5 points highlight the need to use continuously evolving, synchronised magnetic field observations to improve global coronal and solar wind simulations, whereas the overall consistent evolutionary trend reveals the reliability of using L5 observations to forecast solar wind conditions near Earth about four days in advance.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

COCONUT extended to 1 AU with time-dependent boundaries produces differences from steady-state runs but the quantitative checks on stability and accuracy are still light.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this group has taken their existing implicit coronal MHD code and run it as a single model all the way to 1 AU while letting the inner-boundary magnetogram evolve with time. That produces noticeable changes in the plasma parameters at L1 and L5 compared with the usual steady-state approach, and they argue the run times stay practical for operational work. They also compare against standard coupled coronal-plus-heliosphere setups and note that the single-model route removes some coupling uncertainties.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the implicit MHD model COCONUT to perform time-evolving Sun-to-Earth simulations out to 1 AU within a single framework. For a solar-maximum Carrington rotation, it compares these runs against quasi-steady-state simulations (neglecting inner-boundary evolution) and against standard coupled coronal-heliospheric models, reporting noticeable differences in plasma parameters at L1 and L5 and asserting that the approach is computationally efficient enough for practical use while simplifying the modeling pipeline.

Significance. If the numerical stability and physical fidelity of the extended-domain runs are confirmed, the work would demonstrate that a unified time-dependent MHD model can capture the dynamical effects of evolving photospheric fields on solar-wind structure, thereby reducing coupling uncertainties and supporting more accurate operational forecasts of solar-wind conditions at Earth.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results sections: the central claim that time-evolving simulations produce 'noticeable differences' and 'reliable' evolutionary trends at L1/L5 is not supported by any quantitative metrics (relative differences, RMS errors, correlation coefficients, or statistical significance tests); without these, it remains unclear whether the reported differences exceed numerical uncertainties or arise from the intended physical effect of boundary evolution.
[Numerical Methods] Numerical setup and validation: no convergence studies, time-step statistics, residual histories, or resolution-sensitivity tests are presented for the domain extended to 1 AU with continuously updated inner-boundary magnetograms; this information is required to verify that the implicit solver remains stable and physically accurate, which is load-bearing for the claim of practical feasibility.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract uses the term 'oversimplified steady-state simulations' without explicitly stating which physical assumptions (e.g., fixed boundary, neglect of time-dependent driving) are being relaxed in the time-evolving case.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results sections: the central claim that time-evolving simulations produce 'noticeable differences' and 'reliable' evolutionary trends at L1/L5 is not supported by any quantitative metrics (relative differences, RMS errors, correlation coefficients, or statistical significance tests); without these, it remains unclear whether the reported differences exceed numerical uncertainties or arise from the intended physical effect of boundary evolution.

Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics are needed to substantiate the claims and to confirm that differences arise from physical boundary evolution rather than numerical effects. In the revised manuscript we will add relative differences, RMS errors, and correlation coefficients for plasma parameters at L1 and L5 between the time-evolving and quasi-steady-state runs. We will also report appropriate statistical significance tests. These additions will quantify the magnitude of the differences and strengthen the assertion that the evolutionary trends are reliable. revision: yes
Referee: [Numerical Methods] Numerical setup and validation: no convergence studies, time-step statistics, residual histories, or resolution-sensitivity tests are presented for the domain extended to 1 AU with continuously updated inner-boundary magnetograms; this information is required to verify that the implicit solver remains stable and physically accurate, which is load-bearing for the claim of practical feasibility.

Authors: We acknowledge that explicit numerical validation for the extended domain is required to support the claim of practical feasibility. In the revised manuscript we will include grid-convergence studies, time-step statistics from the implicit solver, residual histories for the full Sun-to-Earth runs, and resolution-sensitivity tests that also examine the effect of magnetogram update cadence. These diagnostics will demonstrate numerical stability and physical accuracy out to 1 AU. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from direct numerical simulations with external comparisons

full rationale

The paper reports numerical MHD simulations extending the COCONUT model from corona to 1 AU, comparing time-evolving runs against steady-state and coupled-model baselines. All load-bearing steps are simulation outputs (plasma parameters at L1/L5, efficiency metrics) rather than closed mathematical derivations. No equation reduces to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem that forces the central claim, and no ansatz is smuggled in. Self-citations to prior COCONUT development are background for the base solver; the present work's claims rest on the new extended-domain runs and their direct comparisons, which are independently falsifiable. This is the normal, non-circular case for a simulation study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, new entities, or non-standard axioms are stated. Relies on standard MHD equations and the assumption that observed magnetograms can drive time evolution.

axioms (2)

standard math Standard ideal magnetohydrodynamic equations govern the plasma and magnetic field evolution.
Core of any MHD solar wind model; invoked implicitly throughout.
domain assumption Inner-boundary magnetic field can be continuously updated from time-dependent observations without introducing unphysical artifacts.
Required for the time-evolving simulation described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5677 in / 1310 out tokens · 90354 ms · 2026-05-07T14:07:53.315209+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

[1]

N., Odstrcil, D., Pizzo, V

Arge, C. N., Odstrcil, D., Pizzo, V . J., & Mayer, L. R. 2003, AI P Conf. Proc., 679, 190

2003
[2]

Aschwanden, M. J. 2005, Physics of the Solar Corona. An Intro duction with Problems and Solutions (2nd edition) (V erlag Berlin Heidel berg New Y ork: Springer)

2005
[3]

J., Forsyth, R

Balogh, A., Southwood, D. J., Forsyth, R. J., et al. 1995, Sci ence, 268, 1007

1995
[4]

2024, A & A

Baratashvili, T., Brchnelova, M., Linan, L., Lani, A., & Poe dts, S. 2024, A & A

2024
[5]

2017, ApJL, 850, L29

Bourdin, P .-A. 2017, ApJL, 850, L29

2017
[6]

2022, ApJS, 263, 18

Brchnelova, M., Ku´ zma, B., Perri, B., Lani, A., & Poedts, S. 2022, ApJS, 263, 18

2022
[7]

Brchnelova, M., Zhang, F., Leitner, P ., et al. 2022, J. Plasm a Phys., 88, 905880205

2022
[8]

2025, A&A, 693, A74

Brchnelova, M., Gudiksen, B., Carlsson, M., Lani, A., & Poed ts, S. 2025, A&A, 693, A74

2025
[9]

Burlaga, L. F. 1984, Space Sci. Rev., 39, 255

1984
[10]

M., Linker, J

Caplan, R. M., Linker, J. A., Miki ´c, Z., et al. 2019, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1225, 012012

2019
[11]

M., Miki ´c, Z., Linker, J

Caplan, R. M., Miki ´c, Z., Linker, J. A., & Lionello, R. 2017, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. , 837, 012016

2017
[12]

N., Livingston, W

Cox, A. N., Livingston, W. C., & Matthews, M. S., eds. 1991, So lar Interior and

1991
[13]

Cranmer, S. R. 2010, ApJ, 710, 676

2010
[14]

Cranmer, S. R. & van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2005, ApJS, 156, 265

2005
[15]

Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kröner, D., et al. 2002, J. Comput. Phys ., 175, 645

2002
[16]

Detman, T., Smith, Z., Dryer, M., et al. 2006, J. Geophys. Res .: Space Phys., 111, A07102

2006
[17]

A., Caplan, R

Downs, C., Linker, J. A., Caplan, R. M., et al. 2025, Science, 388, 1306

2025
[18]

I., van der Holst, B., et al

Downs, C., Roussev, I. I., van der Holst, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1219

2010
[19]

P ., Biﬃs, E., Hapgood, M

Eastwood, J. P ., Biﬃs, E., Hapgood, M. A., et al. 2017, Risk Anal., 37, 206 Erdös, G. & Balogh, A. 2012, ApJ, 753, 130 Erdös, G. & Balogh, A. 2014, ApJ, 781, 50

2017
[20]

Evans, C. R. & Hawley, J. F. 1988, ApJ, 332, 659

1988
[21]

Feng, X. S. 2020, Magnetohydrodynamic Modeling of the Solar Corona and Heliosphere (Singapore: Springer)

2020
[22]

S., Jiang, C

Feng, X. S., Jiang, C. W., Xiang, C. Q., Zhao, X. P ., & Wu, S. T. 2012, ApJ, 758, 62

2012
[23]

S., Liu, X

Feng, X. S., Liu, X. J., Xiang, C. Q., Li, H. C., & Wei, F. S. 2019 , ApJ, 871, 226

2019
[24]

S., Lv, J

Feng, X. S., Lv, J. K., Xiang, C. Q., & Jiang, C. W. 2023, Mon. No t. R. Astron. Soc., 519, 6297

2023
[25]

S., Wang, H

Feng, X. S., Wang, H. P ., Xiang, C. Q., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 3 4

2021
[26]

S., Xiang, C

Feng, X. S., Xiang, C. Q., & Zhong, D. K. 2011, Sci Sin-Terrae, 41, 1

2011
[27]

S., Zhong, D

Feng, X. S., Zhong, D. K., Xiang, C. Q., & Zhang, Y . 2013b, Sci. China Earth Sci., 56, 1864 Fränz, M. & Harper, D. 2002, Planet. Space Sci, 50, 217

2002
[28]

M., Owens, M., Macneil, A., & Lockwood, M

Frost, A. M., Owens, M., Macneil, A., & Lockwood, M. 2022, Sol . Phys., 297

2022
[29]

I., Chen, Y

Gombosi, T. I., Chen, Y . X., Glocer, A., et al. 2021, J. Space W eather Space Clim., 11, 42

2021
[30]

Groth, C. P . T., De Zeeuw, D. L., Gombosi, T. I., & Powell, K. G. 2000, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys., 105, 25053

2000
[31]

D., & Leer, B

Harten, A., Lax, P . D., & Leer, B. v. 1983, SIAM Review, 25, 35

1983
[32]

Hayashi, K. 2012, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys., 117

2012
[33]

P ., Cheung, M

Hayashi, K., Abbett, W. P ., Cheung, M. C. M., & Fisher, G. H. 2021, ApJS, 254, 1

2021
[34]

T., Abbett, W

Hoeksema, J. T., Abbett, W. P ., Bercik, D. J., et al. 2020, ApJ S, 250, 28

2020
[35]

W., Bian, X

Jiang, C. W., Bian, X. K., Sun, T. T., & Feng, X. S. 2021, Fronti ers in Physics, 9

2021
[36]

W., Feng, X

Jiang, C. W., Feng, X. S., Bian, X. K., et al. 2023

2023
[37]

B., van der Holst, B., et al

Jin, M., Manchester, W. B., van der Holst, B., et al. 2011, ApJ , 745, 6

2011
[38]

D., Tarr, L

Kee, N. D., Tarr, L. A., Schuck, P . W., Linton, M. G., & Leake, J . E. 2025, ApJ, 983, 80

2025
[39]

2005, in Proc

Kimpe, D., Lani, A., Quintino, T., Poedts, S., & V andewalle, S. 2005, in Proc. 12th European Parallel Virtual Machine and Message Passing Interface Con- ference, ed. D. K. B. Di Martino & J. J. Dongarra (Sorrento: Sp ringer), 520– 527

2005
[40]

King, J. H. & Papitashvili, N. E. 2005, J. Geophys. Res.: Spac e Phys., 110, A02104

2005
[41]

2005, in LNCS 3514, V ol

Lani, A., Quintino, T., Kimpe, D., et al. 2005, in LNCS 3514, V ol. 1, Compu- tational Science ICCS 2005, ed. V . S. Sunderan, G. D. van Alba da, P . M. A. Sloot, & J. J. Dongarra, Emory University (Atlanta, GA, USA: Springer), 281–286

2005
[42]

2013, in AIAA 2013-2589, 21th AIAA CFD Conference, San Diego (CA)

Lani, A., Villedieu, N., Bensassi, K., et al. 2013, in AIAA 2013-2589, 21th AIAA CFD Conference, San Diego (CA)

2013
[43]

C., Feng, X

Li, H. C., Feng, X. S., & Wei, F. S. 2021, J. Geophys. Res.: Spac e Phys., 126, e2020JA028870

2021
[44]

2025, A &A, 693, A229

Linan, L., Baratashvili, T., Lani, A., et al. 2025, A &A, 693, A229

2025
[45]

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

Linker, J. A., Torok, T., Downs, C., et al. 2024, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2742, 012012

2024
[46]

A., et al

Lionello, R., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 76 Article number, page 9 of 11 A&A proofs: manuscript no. Sun-to-Earth_COCONUT

2013
[47]

I., et al

Lionello, R., Downs, C., Mason, E. I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 7 7

2023
[48]

A., & Miki ´c, Z

Lionello, R., Linker, J. A., & Miki ´c, Z. 2009, ApJ, 690, 902

2009
[49]

Lionello, R., Miki ´c, Z., & Linker, J. A. 1999, Journal of Computational Physics , 152, 346

1999
[50]

Lockwood, M., Owens, M., & Rouillard, A. P . 2009, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys., 114 Manchester IV , W. B., Gombosi, T. I., Roussev, I., et al. 2004, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys, 109

2009
[51]

McClarren, R. G. & Hauck, C. D. 2010, J. Comput. Phys., 229, 55 97

2010
[52]

J., Bame, S

McComas, D. J., Bame, S. J., Barker, P ., et al. 1998, Space Sci . Rev., 86, 1572

1998
[53]

G., Lyon, J

Merkin, V . G., Lyon, J. G., Lario, D., Arge, C. N., & Henney, C. J. 2016, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys., 121, 2866

2016
[54]

2007, ApJS, 170, 228 Miki´c, Z., Downs, C., Linker, J

Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228 Miki´c, Z., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy , 2, 913 Miki´c, Z., Lionello, R., Mok, Y ., Linker, J. A., & Winebarger, A. R . 2013, ApJ, 773, 94

2007
[55]

Mok, Y ., Miki´c, Z., Lionello, R., & Linker, J. A. 2005, ApJ, 621, 1098

2005
[56]

2025, RA S Tech

Murteira, J., Brchnelova, M., Lani, A., & Poedts, S. 2025, RA S Tech. Instrum., 4, rzaf030

2025
[57]

S., et al

Parenti, S., Réville, V ., Brun, A. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 7 5

2022
[58]

S., Réville, V ., & Strugarek, A

Perri, B., Brun, A. S., Réville, V ., & Strugarek, A. 2018, J. P lasma Phys., 84

2018
[59]

2023, ApJ, 943, 124

Perri, B., Ku´ zma, B., Brchnelova, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 124

2023
[60]

2022, ApJ, 936 , 19

Perri, B., Leitner, P ., Brchnelova, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936 , 19

2022
[61]

Poedts, S., Lani, A., Scolini, C., et al. 2020, J. Space Weath er Space Clim., 10, 57

2020
[62]

& Poedts, S

Pomoell, J. & Poedts, S. 2018, J. Space Weather Space Clim., 8 , A35

2018
[63]

Priest, E. R. 2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun (Cambri dge: Cambridge University Press) Réville, V . & Brun, A. S. 2017, ApJ, 850, 45

2014
[64]

M., et al

Riley, P ., Lionello, R., Caplan, R. M., et al. 2021, A & A, 650

2021
[65]

F., Magdaleni, J., et al

Samara, E., Pinto, R. F., Magdaleni, J., et al. 2021, A & A, 648 , A35

2021
[66]

2023, A & A, 672, 14

Schleich, S., Boro Saikia, S., Ziegler, U., Güdel, M., & Bart el, M. 2023, A & A, 672, 14

2023
[67]

C., Zhang, J., Wei, W

Shen, F., Y ang, Z. C., Zhang, J., Wei, W. W., & Feng, X. S. 2018, The Astro- physical Journal, 866, 18

2018
[68]

1998, Space Sci

Smith, C., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N., et al. 1998, Space Sci. Re v., 86, 613

1998
[69]

Smith, E. J. & Balogh, A. 1995, GRL, 22, 3317

1995
[70]

A., Kee, N

Tarr, L. A., Kee, N. D., Linton, M. G., Schuck, P . W., & Leake, J. E. 2024, ApJS, 270, 30 Török, T., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 75 Tóth, G., van der Holst, B., Sokolov, I. V ., et al. 2012, J. Com put. Phys., 231, 870 van der Holst, B., Huang, J., Sachdeva, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 9 25, 146 van der Holst, B., Manchester, W. B., Frazin...

2024
[71]

MHD modeling of magnetic flux evolution around solar maximum by the coronal model COCONUT

Wang, H. P ., Poedts, S., Lani, A., et al. 2026b [ arXiv:2601.10675]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[72]

G., Page, D

Wenzel, K.-P ., Marsden, R. G., Page, D. E., & Smith, E. J. 1992 , Astron. Astro- phys. Suppl. Ser., 92, 207

1992
[73]

M., Landi, E., Manchester, W

Wraback, E. M., Landi, E., Manchester, W. B., & Szente, J. 202 5, ApJ, 980, 30 Y alim, M., V anden Abeele, D., Lani, A., Quintino, T., & Decon inck, H. 2011, Journal of Computational Physics, 230, 6136 Y alim, M. S., Pogorelov, N., & Liu, Y . 2017, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 837, 012015 Y ang, L. P ., Wang, H. P ., Feng, X. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 31 Y ang,...

2011