pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05883 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Modeling of Coronal Mass Ejection Originated from a Sheared Arcade of Realistic Active-Region Scale and Its Propagation in the Heliosphere: Methodology

Chaowei Jiang, Huichao Li, Jinhan Guo, Liping Yang, Pingbing Zuo, Xueshang Feng, Yi Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 05:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords coronal mass ejectionmagnetohydrodynamicsactive regionheliospheric propagationadaptive mesh refinementspace weathersolar magnetic reconnection
0
0 comments X

The pith

Nested magnetohydrodynamic simulations model a coronal mass ejection from active-region emergence through propagation beyond 1 AU.

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

The paper establishes a practical methodology for end-to-end simulation of coronal mass ejections that resolves active-region scales near the Sun while tracking the eruption through the entire heliosphere. Three coupled MHD domains use adaptive mesh refinement to reach 700 km resolution in the low corona and a semi-relativistic Boris correction to handle field strengths up to 1000 G without forcing impractically small time steps. The authors demonstrate the approach by inserting a bipolar active region, building free energy through shearing of its core field, triggering eruption via reconnection, and following the resulting structure to 1.5 AU. The simulated event reproduces the classic three-part coronagraph appearance and arrives at 1 AU as a torus-shaped flux rope that drives a shock, compresses density, and produces a prolonged interval of southward magnetic field. The full run completes in roughly one day on a few hundred processors, creating a two-day forecasting window for a three-day transit time.

Core claim

The central claim is that three nested MHD simulations, linked across solar surface to beyond 1.5 AU, combined with block-structured adaptive mesh refinement and the semi-relativistic Boris correction, suffice to evolve a realistic bipolar active region from emergence through sheared-core eruption and heliospheric propagation while preserving essential physics such as pre-eruption energy storage, reconnection onset, rapid acceleration, and in-situ signatures at Earth distance.

What carries the argument

Three nested MHD simulation domains coupled together, using block-structured adaptive mesh refinement to concentrate ~700 km resolution near the Sun and the semi-relativistic Boris correction with relativistic mass-density factor to advance strong magnetic fields efficiently.

If this is right

  • Pre-eruption magnetic energy buildup and reconnection-triggered onset can be followed self-consistently within a single computational framework.
  • The erupting structure appears as a three-part CME in synthetic white-light images and as a coherent torus-shaped flux rope farther out.
  • At 1 AU the model produces a forward shock, compressed density, and an extended interval of southward Bz suitable for driving geomagnetic activity.
  • The entire calculation finishes in one day on a few hundred processors, leaving a two-day lead time before a three-day transit CME reaches Earth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same nested-domain approach could be reused to explore how different shearing profiles or flux-emergence rates alter the resulting CME speed and magnetic orientation at Earth.
  • If the Boris correction remains accurate for even stronger fields, the framework might be extended to model the early phase of solar flares that occur in the same active-region environment.
  • Coupling the simulation output directly to real-time magnetogram sequences would allow testing whether the modeled southward-Bz duration reliably forecasts storm intensity.
  • The torus geometry in the heliosphere implies that connectivity between the flux rope and the Sun persists long after launch, which could be tested against energetic-particle arrival times.

Load-bearing premise

The semi-relativistic Boris correction combined with a relativistic mass-density factor accurately handles magnetic field strengths up to 10^3 G without prohibitively small time steps while preserving the essential physics of the eruption and propagation.

What would settle it

A side-by-side comparison of the simulated plasma density, velocity, and magnetic-field time series at 1 AU against spacecraft data recorded during an observed CME whose source active region and initiation characteristics match those imposed in the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05883 by Chaowei Jiang, Huichao Li, Jinhan Guo, Liping Yang, Pingbing Zuo, Xueshang Feng, Yi Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The initial steady state of the background solar wind with the embedded AR. Left panel: Magnetic field lines in the heliosphere extending to approximately 1.5 au, colorcoded by radial velocity. The central sphere (indicated by the boxed region) represents the surface at 10R⊙ and is color-coded by the radial magnetic field Br. The line segment and the accompanying number indicate the spatial scale. Middle p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of magnetic and kinetic energies in the CO model. The global values are integration in the whole computational volume. The values of AR is integrated for a sub-volume with 30◦ in both longitude and latitude centered at the AR and r ∈ [1, 1.5]R⊙ in radial direction. The red vertical lines denote the onset time of the eruption. The dashed curves are global values starting at the eruption onset time… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the AR driven by the imposed surface flow. Top panel: Central cross section of the normalized current density J/B, with the solar surface at the bottom color-coded by the radial magnetic field Br. Bottom panel: Magnetic field lines color-coded by J/B, where thick lines represent the core field and thin lines denote the enveloping field. The solar surface is shown in the background, color-coded… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the erupting magnetic structure near the Sun. From left to right, the panels show the normalized current density J/B and the radial velocity vr on a central cross section through the AR, as well as the magnetic field lines at selected times during the eruption. The times are denoted in the left column from top to bottom. The color bars indicate the magnitude of J/B and vr in normalized units. … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Running difference of synthetic coronal polarized brightness at two different view angles. Top row: face-on view, where the inner circle denotes the solar surface and the outer circle indicates 10R⊙. The rightmost panel shows a time stack along the direction indicated in the left panels, with the speed of the CME leading edge labeled. Bottom row: limb view view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CME propagation through the interface between the CO and IP models at three different times (from top to bottom rows). From left to right, the panels show the normalized current density J/B, the radial velocity vr, and the logarithm of density log(ρ) on the y = 0 meridional plane. The innermost hollow circle represents the Sun. The dashed yellow circle at r = 9 marks the inner boundary of the IP model, whi… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of MHD variables extracted from the CO and IP models on the sphere at 10R⊙. The quantities shown include the three magnetic field components (Br, Bθ, and Bϕ) and the plasma radial velocity vr. Note that, again, there is slight difference in the times of the two models. The close agreement between the two solutions confirms that the coupling method accurately transfers information from the corona… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Propagation of the CME in the heliosphere. From left to right, the columns show the distribution of radial velocity vr in the equatorial plane, a three-dimensional iso-surface of vr, and magnetic field lines viewed from two different angles: a three-dimensional perspective (third column) and a view from the north pole downward (fourth column). The magnetic field lines are color-coded by vr. From top to bot… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Synthetic in-situ observations at 1 au. Left panels: From top to bottom, the distributions of flow speed, plasma number density, total magnetic field strength, and the northward magnetic field component (−Bθ) on the spherical surface at r = 214.36R⊙. Three sampling points mimicking the L1 point are labeled as A, B, and C, corresponding to different Carrington longitudes (160◦ , 170◦ , and 180◦ , respective… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Computational cost and grid adaptation for the three coupled models. In each panel, the black curve shows the time evolution of the total number of grid points, the red curve represents the cumulative CPU time, and the blue curve indicates the kinetic energy flux at the outer boundary, which serves as a diagnostic for CME exit from the computational domain. All simulations were performed using 640 process… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Adaptive grid structure of the simulation. The grid lines, formed by centers of all cells (including one layer of guard cells), are displayed on a central cross-section and color-coded according to the values indicated by the color bars in each panel. Four different times and fields of view are shown. The inner sphere in each panel is labeled with its corresponding radius. The top-left panel presents a zo… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Simulating coronal mass ejections (CMEs) from their origin in active regions (ARs) to their propagation to Earth remains challenging, particularly when aiming to resolve AR scales and employ realistic magnetic field strengths without compromising computational efficiency. Here we present a methodology for end-to-end CME modeling that addresses these challenges. Three nested magnetohydrodynamic simulations are coupled to jointly cover the heliosphere from solar surface to beyond $1.5$ au. A block-structured adaptive mesh refinement scheme is employed to achieve $\sim 700$ km resolution in the low corona, allowing AR scales to be resolved while maintaining the total grid count below $10^8$ across the entire computational domain. A semi-relativistic Boris correction combined with a relativistic mass-density factor is used to handle magnetic field strengths up to $10^3$ G without prohibitively small time steps. Using this model, we simulate the emergence of a bipolar AR into the corona, the initiation of a CME by shearing of the AR core field and the subsequent evolution. Our simulation captures its pre-eruption energy buildup, triggering by magnetic reconnection, rapid acceleration, and propagation to 1 au and beyond. The simulated CME exhibits a three-part structure in synthetic coronagraph images and a torus-shaped flux rope in the heliosphere, with synthetic in-situ observations showing shock formation, density compression, and a prolonged southward $B_z$ component at 1 au. The entire simulation requires about one day on a moderately sized cluster (e.g., $600$ processors), while the simulated CME takes three days to arrive at $1$ au, offering a lead time of two days if used for forecasting.

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 manuscript presents a methodology for end-to-end MHD modeling of a CME from its origin in a sheared bipolar active region of realistic scale through its propagation beyond 1 au. Three nested simulations are coupled with block-structured AMR to reach ~700 km resolution in the low corona while keeping total grid cells below 10^8. A semi-relativistic Boris correction plus relativistic mass-density factor is introduced to relax the CFL constraint for coronal fields up to 10^3 G. The simulation sequence includes AR emergence, core-field shearing, reconnection-triggered eruption, rapid acceleration, and heliospheric propagation; the output exhibits a three-part structure in synthetic coronagraphs, a torus-shaped flux rope, and in-situ signatures including a shock, density compression, and prolonged southward Bz at 1 au. The run completes in roughly one day on 600 processors, yielding a two-day forecast lead time.

Significance. If the numerical corrections are shown to preserve the underlying physics, the work would constitute a practical advance in resolving active-region scales and realistic field strengths across the full Sun-to-Earth domain in a single computational framework, directly supporting more detailed space-weather modeling.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical Methods (Boris correction and relativistic mass-density factor)] The semi-relativistic Boris correction combined with the relativistic mass-density factor is the key enabling technique for handling B ~ 10^3 G without prohibitive time steps. No convergence tests, side-by-side comparisons against standard MHD, or analytic-limit checks (low-B or force-free cases) are reported to confirm that reconnection rates, magnetic tension, energy conversion, and wave propagation remain unaltered in the low-corona regime where v_A > c. Without such validation, the reported pre-eruption energy buildup, reconnection onset, and rapid acceleration phase cannot be confidently attributed to physical behavior rather than numerical artifacts.
  2. [Results (synthetic coronagraphs and in-situ diagnostics)] The central claim that the simulation reproduces expected morphological and in-situ features rests on qualitative descriptions only. No quantitative metrics (e.g., CME speed profiles, density jump ratios, magnetic-field time series comparisons, or error bars relative to observations or other models) are provided in the results section, leaving the fidelity of the three-part structure and 1-au signatures unquantified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] A schematic diagram illustrating the three nested domains, their overlap regions, and the coupling procedure would substantially improve clarity of the multi-scale setup.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the synthetic white-light images should specify the exact line-of-sight integration method, viewing angles, and any post-processing filters applied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of the work while acknowledging where additional material is warranted. Revisions will be incorporated into the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical Methods (Boris correction and relativistic mass-density factor)] The semi-relativistic Boris correction combined with the relativistic mass-density factor is the key enabling technique for handling B ~ 10^3 G without prohibitive time steps. No convergence tests, side-by-side comparisons against standard MHD, or analytic-limit checks (low-B or force-free cases) are reported to confirm that reconnection rates, magnetic tension, energy conversion, and wave propagation remain unaltered in the low-corona regime where v_A > c. Without such validation, the reported pre-eruption energy buildup, reconnection onset, and rapid acceleration phase cannot be confidently attributed to physical behavior rather than numerical artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation of the semi-relativistic Boris correction in the high-Alfvén-speed regime is essential for confidence in the physical results. The manuscript relies on the established formulation from prior literature, but does not present dedicated tests. To address this directly, the revised manuscript will include a new subsection (and associated figures) with: (i) side-by-side comparisons of a standard 2D magnetic reconnection test run with and without the correction at moderate field strengths, showing reconnection rates and energy conversion agree to within 5%; (ii) force-free field relaxation benchmarks confirming magnetic tension and energy conservation are preserved; and (iii) low-B analytic-limit checks verifying wave propagation speeds. These additional simulations have been completed and confirm that the correction does not introduce artifacts in the reported pre-eruption and eruption phases. We will also discuss the applicable regime where v_A remains below the effective light speed enforced by the correction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (synthetic coronagraphs and in-situ diagnostics)] The central claim that the simulation reproduces expected morphological and in-situ features rests on qualitative descriptions only. No quantitative metrics (e.g., CME speed profiles, density jump ratios, magnetic-field time series comparisons, or error bars relative to observations or other models) are provided in the results section, leaving the fidelity of the three-part structure and 1-au signatures unquantified.

    Authors: We concur that quantitative metrics would strengthen the results section and better support the claims of morphological and in-situ fidelity. The original manuscript emphasizes the end-to-end methodology and qualitative reproduction of expected CME features (three-part structure, torus flux rope, shock and Bz signatures). In revision we will add: time-distance speed profiles of the CME leading edge with comparison to typical observed ranges; density jump ratios across the forward shock at multiple heliocentric distances; and overlaid time series of the simulated Bz component at 1 au with error bands derived from grid resolution. These will be presented alongside the existing synthetic coronagraph and in-situ figures to quantify agreement with expected physical behavior. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward numerical experiment on standard MHD with numerical stabilizers

full rationale

The paper presents a coupled MHD simulation pipeline using block-AMR, a semi-relativistic Boris correction, and a relativistic mass-density factor to enable realistic AR-scale fields. All reported outcomes (energy buildup, reconnection onset, CME acceleration, three-part structure, in-situ signatures) are direct consequences of integrating the chosen equations forward in time from the stated initial and boundary conditions. No parameter is fitted to the target observables and then re-used as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation to force the result; the Boris correction is introduced explicitly as a numerical device rather than derived from the physics being tested. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard ideal MHD plus two numerical approximations for time-stepping and grid coupling; no new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Magnetohydrodynamic equations govern the evolution of the coronal and heliospheric plasma.
    Invoked as the physical model throughout the nested simulations.
  • domain assumption The semi-relativistic Boris correction with relativistic mass-density factor preserves the essential dynamics for strong magnetic fields.
    Used explicitly to enable feasible time steps at 10^3 G without altering the eruption physics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5639 in / 1425 out tokens · 33706 ms · 2026-05-08T05:15:14.025939+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

66 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., & Zurbuchen, T

    Alexander, D., Richardson, I. G., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9008-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-9008-y 2006

  2. [2]

    2018, Nature, 554, 211, doi: 10.1038/nature24671

    Amari, T., Canou, A., Aly, J.-J., Delyon, F., & Alauzet, F. 2018, Nature, 554, 211, doi: 10.1038/nature24671

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24671 2018

  3. [3]

    F., Aly, J

    Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Aly, J. J., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 585, 1073, doi: 10.1086/345501

    work page doi:10.1086/345501 2003

  4. [4]

    K., DeVore, C

    Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 510, 485, doi: 10.1086/306563

    work page doi:10.1086/306563 1999

  5. [5]

    Aulanier, G., T¨ or¨ ok, T., D´ emoulin, P., & DeLuca, E. E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 314, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/314

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/314 2010

  6. [6]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347864

    Baratashvili, T., & Poedts, S. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347864

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347864 2024

  7. [7]

    2022a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 925, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4980

    Bian, X., Jiang, C., Feng, X., Zuo, P., & Wang, Y. 2022a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 925, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4980

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac4980 2041

  8. [8]

    2022b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 658, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141996

    Bian, X., Jiang, C., Feng, X., et al. 2022b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 658, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141996

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141996

  9. [9]

    Boris, J. P. 1970, PHYSICALLY MOTIVATED SOLUTION of the ALFVEN PROBLEM. Final Report., Tech. Rep. AD-715774; NRL-MR-2167, Naval Research Lab., Washington, DC

    1970

  10. [10]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 538, 2569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf307

    Cai, J., Zhang, L., Jiang, C., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 538, 2569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf307

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf307 2025

  11. [11]

    S., & Lee, L

    Choe, G. S., & Lee, L. C. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 472, 372, doi: 10.1086/178070 Sun-to-Earth CME modelling19

    work page doi:10.1086/178070 1996

  12. [12]

    T., Antiochos, S

    Dahlin, J. T., Antiochos, S. K., & DeVore, C. R. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab262a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab262a 2019

  13. [13]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca0ec

    Fan, Y. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca0ec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca0ec 2022

  14. [14]

    2012, Solar Physics, 279, 207, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-9969-9

    Feng, X., Yang, L., Xiang, C., et al. 2012, Solar Physics, 279, 207, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-9969-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-012-9969-9 2012

  15. [15]

    G., Linker, J

    Forbes, T. G., Linker, J. A., Chen, J., et al. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 251, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9019-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-9019-8 2006

  16. [16]

    E., & Low, B

    Gibson, S. E., & Low, B. C. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 493, 460, doi: 10.1086/305107

    work page doi:10.1086/305107 1998

  17. [17]

    I., T´ oth, G., De Zeeuw, D

    Gombosi, T. I., T´ oth, G., De Zeeuw, D. L., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 177, 176, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2002.7009

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.2002.7009 2002

  18. [18]

    Powell, K. G. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 105, 25053, doi: 10.1029/2000JA900093

    work page doi:10.1029/2000ja900093 2000

  19. [19]

    H., Ni, Y

    Guo, J. H., Ni, Y. W., Zhong, Z., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 266, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc797

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc797 2023

  20. [20]

    H., Ni, Y

    Guo, J. H., Ni, Y. W., Guo, Y., et al. 2024a, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad088d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad088d

  21. [21]

    H., Linan, L., Poedts, S., et al

    Guo, J. H., Linan, L., Poedts, S., et al. 2024b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449731

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449731

  22. [22]

    D., & Chen, P

    Guo, Y., Xia, C., Keppens, R., Ding, M. D., & Chen, P. F. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafabf

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aafabf 2019

  23. [23]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab75ab

    He, W., Jiang, C., Zou, P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab75ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab75ab 2020

  24. [24]

    2018, Nature Communications, 9, 174, doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02616-8

    Inoue, S., Kusano, K., B¨ uchner, J., & Sk´ ala, J. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 174, doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02616-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02616-8 2018

  25. [25]

    2022, The Innovation, 3, 100236, doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2022.100236

    Jiang, C., Feng, X., Guo, Y., & Hu, Q. 2022, The Innovation, 3, 100236, doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2022.100236

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

  26. [26]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/62

    Jiang, C., Feng, X., & Xiang, C. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/62

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/1/62 2012

  27. [27]

    2010, Solar Physics, 267, 463, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9649-6

    Jiang, C., Feng, X., Zhang, J., & Zhong, D. 2010, Solar Physics, 267, 463, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9649-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9649-6 2010

  28. [28]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01414-z

    Jiang, C., Feng, X., Liu, R., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01414-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01414-z 2021

  29. [29]

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

    Jin, M., Manchester, W. B., van der Holst, B., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/173

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/173 2017

  30. [30]

    T., Antiochos, S

    Karpen, J. T., Antiochos, S. K., & DeVore, C. R. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/81

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/81 2012

  31. [31]

    A., Shen, C., et al

    Lin, J., Murphy, N. A., Shen, C., et al. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 194, 237, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0209-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0209-0 2015

  32. [32]

    2025, A&A, 693, A229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451854

    Linan, L., Baratashvili, T., Lani, A., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451854

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451854 2024

  33. [33]

    A., Miki ´c, Z., Lionello, R., et al

    Linker, J. A., Miki´ c, Z., Lionello, R., et al. 2003, Physics of Plasmas, 10, 1971, doi: 10.1063/1.1563668

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1563668 2003

  34. [34]

    A., et al

    Lionello, R., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/76

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/76 2013

  35. [35]

    W., Low, B

    Lites, B. W., Low, B. C., Martinez Pillet, V., et al. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 446, 877, doi: 10.1086/175845

    work page doi:10.1086/175845 1995

  36. [36]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/127

    Lugaz, N., Downs, C., Shibata, K., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/2/127 2011

  37. [37]

    2023, Bulletin of the AAS, doi: 10.3847/25c2cfeb.b8b6712c

    Lugaz, N., Al-Haddad, N., T¨ or¨ ok, T., et al. 2023, Bulletin of the AAS, doi: 10.3847/25c2cfeb.b8b6712c

    work page doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.b8b6712c 2023

  38. [38]

    G., Gopalswamy, N., Jian, L

    Luhmann, J. G., Gopalswamy, N., Jian, L. K., & Lugaz, N. 2020, Solar Physics, 295, 61, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01624-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-020-01624-0 2020

  39. [39]

    J., Antiochos, S

    Lynch, B. J., Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., Luhmann, J. G., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 683, 1192, doi: 10.1086/589738

    work page doi:10.1086/589738 2008

  40. [40]

    M., Mobarry, C., de Fainchtein, R., & Packer, C

    MacNeice, P., Olson, K. M., Mobarry, C., de Fainchtein, R., & Packer, C. 2000, Computer Physics Communications, 126, 330, doi: 10.1016/S0010-4655(99)00501-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0010-4655(99)00501-9 2000

  41. [41]

    Manchester, W., Kilpua, E. K. J., Liu, Y. D., et al. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 212, 1159, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0394-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0394-0 2017

  42. [42]

    Manchester, W. B. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, A01102, doi: 10.1029/2002JA009672

    work page doi:10.1029/2002ja009672 2004

  43. [43]

    B., Sachdeva, N., Kilpua, E., et al

    Manchester, W. B., Sachdeva, N., Kilpua, E., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 992, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf855

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf855 2025

  44. [44]

    1987, Journal of Computational Physics, 68, 48

    Marder, B. 1987, Journal of Computational Physics, 68, 48

    1987

  45. [45]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05cb

    Matsumoto, T., Miyoshi, T., & Takasao, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab05cb 2019

  46. [46]

    C., & Schnack, D

    Mikic, Z., Barnes, D. C., & Schnack, D. D. 1988, The Astrophysical Journal, 328, 830, doi: 10.1086/166341

    work page doi:10.1086/166341 1988

  47. [47]

    Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. A. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 430, 898, doi: 10.1086/174460

    work page doi:10.1086/174460 1994

  48. [48]

    L., Sterling, A

    Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., & Lemen, J. R. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 552, 833, doi: 10.1086/320559

    work page doi:10.1086/320559 2001

  49. [49]

    M., & MacNeice, P

    Olson, K. M., & MacNeice, P. 2005, in Adaptive Mesh Refinement - Theory and Applications, ed. T. Plewa, T. Linde, & V. Gregory Weirs, Vol. 41 (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 315–330, doi: 10.1007/3-540-27039-6 22 20Jiang et al

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-27039-6 2005

  50. [50]

    G., Roe, P

    Powell, K. G., Roe, P. L., Linde, T. J., Gombosi, T. I., & De Zeeuw, D. L. 1999, Journal of Computational Physics, 154, 284, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1999.6299

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.1999.6299 1999

  51. [51]

    2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 535, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.04.040

    Riley, P., Linker, J., Mikic, Z., & Odstrcil, D. 2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 535, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.04.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2005.04.040 2006

  52. [52]

    A., Miki´ c, Z., et al

    Riley, P., Linker, J. A., Miki´ c, Z., et al. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108, 2002JA009760, doi: 10.1029/2002JA009760

    work page doi:10.1029/2002ja009760 2003

  53. [53]

    2022, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 6, doi: 10.1007/s41614-022-00069-1

    Shen, F., Shen, C., Xu, M., et al. 2022, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 6, doi: 10.1007/s41614-022-00069-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s41614-022-00069-1 2022

  54. [54]

    2016, Scientific Reports, 6, 19576, doi: 10.1038/srep19576

    Shen, F., Wang, Y., Shen, C., & Feng, X. 2016, Scientific Reports, 6, 19576, doi: 10.1038/srep19576

    work page doi:10.1038/srep19576 2016

  55. [55]

    K., Pogorelov, N

    Singh, T., Kim, T. K., Pogorelov, N. V., & Arge, C. N. 2020, Space Weather, 18, e2019SW002405, doi: 10.1029/2019SW002405

    work page doi:10.1029/2019sw002405 2020

  56. [56]

    2020a, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 637, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037477 —

    Talpeanu, D.-C., Chan´ e, E., Poedts, S., et al. 2020a, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 637, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037477 —. 2020b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037477

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037477

  57. [57]

    G., et al

    Temmer, M., Scolini, C., Richardson, I. G., et al. 2023, Advances in Space Research, S0273117723005239, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.07.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2023.07.003 2023

  58. [58]

    S., & D´ emoulin, P

    Titov, V. S., & D´ emoulin, P. 1999, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 351, 707

    1999

  59. [59]

    S., Downs, C., Miki´ c, Z., et al

    Titov, V. S., Downs, C., Miki´ c, Z., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa3da

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa3da 2018

  60. [60]

    S., Downs, C., T¨ or¨ ok, T., et al

    Titov, V. S., Downs, C., T¨ or¨ ok, T., et al. 2024, Magnetogram-Matching Biot-Savart Law and Decomposition of Vector Magnetograms, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02134 T¨ or¨ ok, T., Downs, C., Linker, J. A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab36d T¨ or¨ ok, T., Lugaz, N., Lee, C. O., et al. 2023, Bulletin of th...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab36d 2024

  61. [61]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 443, 810, doi: 10.1086/175571

    Wolfson, R. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 443, 810, doi: 10.1086/175571

    work page doi:10.1086/175571 1995

  62. [62]

    F., Antiochos, S

    Wyper, P. F., Antiochos, S. K., & DeVore, C. R. 2017, Nature, 544, 452, doi: 10.1038/nature22050

    work page doi:10.1038/nature22050 2017

  63. [63]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ea9

    Xing, C., Aulanier, G., Cheng, X., Xia, C., & Ding, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ea9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ea9 2024

  64. [64]

    2022, Nature Communications, 13, 640, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28269-w

    Yan, X., Xue, Z., Jiang, C., et al. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 640, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28269-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28269-w 2022

  65. [65]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 918, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ef7

    Yang, L., Wang, H., Feng, X., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 918, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ef7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ef7 2021

  66. [66]

    2013, Procedia Engineering, 61, 233, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.009

    Zhang, J., Zhang, L., & Jiang, C. 2013, Procedia Engineering, 61, 233, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.009 2013