skip to main content
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Improving Empirical Magnetic Field Models by Fitting to In Situ Data Using an Optimized Parameter Approach

Abstract

A method for comparing and optimizing the accuracy of empirical magnetic field models using in situ magnetic field measurements is presented in this paper. The optimization method minimizes a cost function—τ—that explicitly includes both a magnitude and an angular term. A time span of 21 days, including periods of mild and intense geomagnetic activity, was used for this analysis. A comparison between five magnetic field models (T96, T01S, T02, TS04, and TS07) widely used by the community demonstrated that the T02 model was, on average, the most accurate when driven by the standard model input parameters. The optimization procedure, performed in all models except TS07, generally improved the results when compared to unoptimized versions of the models. Additionally, using more satellites in the optimization procedure produces more accurate results. This procedure reduces the number of large errors in the model, that is, it reduces the number of outliers in the error distribution. The TS04 model shows the most accurate results after the optimization in terms of both the magnitude and direction, when using at least six satellites in the fitting. It gave a smaller error than its unoptimized counterpart 57.3% of the time and outperformed the best unoptimized model (T02)more » 56.2% of the time. Its median percentage error in |B| was reduced from 4.54% to 3.84%. Finally, the difference among the models analyzed, when compared in terms of the median of the error distributions, is not very large. However, the unoptimized models can have very large errors, which are much reduced after the optimization.« less

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [1]
  1. Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE; LANL Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Program
OSTI Identifier:
1416290
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1414008
Report Number(s):
LA-UR-17-27140
Journal ID: ISSN 1542-7390
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC52-06NA25396
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Space Weather
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 15; Journal Issue: 12; Journal ID: ISSN 1542-7390
Publisher:
American Geophysical Union
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS; 58 GEOSCIENCES; Heliospheric and Magnetospheric Physics

Citation Formats

Brito, Thiago V., and Morley, Steven K. Improving Empirical Magnetic Field Models by Fitting to In Situ Data Using an Optimized Parameter Approach. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1002/2017SW001702.
Brito, Thiago V., & Morley, Steven K. Improving Empirical Magnetic Field Models by Fitting to In Situ Data Using an Optimized Parameter Approach. United States. doi:10.1002/2017SW001702.
Brito, Thiago V., and Morley, Steven K. Wed . "Improving Empirical Magnetic Field Models by Fitting to In Situ Data Using an Optimized Parameter Approach". United States. doi:10.1002/2017SW001702. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1416290.
@article{osti_1416290,
title = {Improving Empirical Magnetic Field Models by Fitting to In Situ Data Using an Optimized Parameter Approach},
author = {Brito, Thiago V. and Morley, Steven K.},
abstractNote = {A method for comparing and optimizing the accuracy of empirical magnetic field models using in situ magnetic field measurements is presented in this paper. The optimization method minimizes a cost function—τ—that explicitly includes both a magnitude and an angular term. A time span of 21 days, including periods of mild and intense geomagnetic activity, was used for this analysis. A comparison between five magnetic field models (T96, T01S, T02, TS04, and TS07) widely used by the community demonstrated that the T02 model was, on average, the most accurate when driven by the standard model input parameters. The optimization procedure, performed in all models except TS07, generally improved the results when compared to unoptimized versions of the models. Additionally, using more satellites in the optimization procedure produces more accurate results. This procedure reduces the number of large errors in the model, that is, it reduces the number of outliers in the error distribution. The TS04 model shows the most accurate results after the optimization in terms of both the magnitude and direction, when using at least six satellites in the fitting. It gave a smaller error than its unoptimized counterpart 57.3% of the time and outperformed the best unoptimized model (T02) 56.2% of the time. Its median percentage error in |B| was reduced from 4.54% to 3.84%. Finally, the difference among the models analyzed, when compared in terms of the median of the error distributions, is not very large. However, the unoptimized models can have very large errors, which are much reduced after the optimization.},
doi = {10.1002/2017SW001702},
journal = {Space Weather},
number = 12,
volume = 15,
place = {United States},
year = {2017},
month = {10}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 5 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

The THEMIS Mission
journal, April 2008


Solar wind parameters for magnetospheric magnetic field modeling: SOLAR WIND PARAMETERS
journal, November 2007

  • Qin, Z.; Denton, R. E.; Tsyganenko, N. A.
  • Space Weather, Vol. 5, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.1029/2006SW000296

A comparison of Cluster magnetic data with the Tsyganenko 2001 model: CLUSTER COMPARISON TO TSYGANENKO 2001
journal, June 2007

  • Woodfield, E. E.; Dunlop, M. W.; Holme, R.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 112, Issue A6
  • DOI: 10.1029/2006JA012217

<i>Introduction</i><br>The Cluster mission
journal, January 2001


The Nelder-Mead Simplex Procedure for Function Minimization
journal, February 1975


Phase space density analysis of the outer radiation belt energetic electron dynamics
journal, January 2006

  • Iles, Roger H. A.; Meredith, Nigel P.; Fazakerley, Andrew N.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, Issue A3
  • DOI: 10.1029/2005JA011206

Modeling the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere during strong geomagnetic storms
journal, January 2005


Toward adapted time-dependent magnetospheric models: A simple approach based on tuning the standard model: ADAPTED MAGNETOSPHERIC MODELS
journal, January 2009

  • Kubyshkina, M.; Sergeev, V.; Tsyganenko, N.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 114, Issue A1
  • DOI: 10.1029/2008JA013547

Testing the isotropic boundary algorithm method to evaluate the magnetic field configuration in the tail
journal, May 1993

  • Sergeev, V. A.; Malkov, M.; Mursula, K.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 98, Issue A5
  • DOI: 10.1029/92JA02587

Dipolarization fronts and associated auroral activities: 1. Conjugate observations and perspectives from global MHD simulations: AURORA VARIATION OF DIPOLARIZATION FRONT
journal, October 2012

  • Ge, Y. S.; Zhou, X. -Z.; Liang, J.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 117, Issue A10
  • DOI: 10.1029/2012JA017676

Testing the accuracy of magnetospheric model field line mapping
journal, December 1996

  • Pulkkinen, T. I.; Tsyganenko, N. A.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 101, Issue A12
  • DOI: 10.1029/96JA02489

A statistical comparison of commonly used external magnetic field models: A COMPARISON OF MAGNETIC FIELD MODELS
journal, October 2008

  • McCollough, J. P.; Gannon, J. L.; Baker, D. N.
  • Space Weather, Vol. 6, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1029/2008SW000391

Modeling the growth phase of a substorm using the Tsyganenko Model and multi-spacecraft observations: CDAW-9
journal, November 1991

  • Pulkkinen, T. I.; Baker, D. N.; Fairfield, D. H.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 18, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.1029/91GL02002

Observation of repeated intense near-Earth reconnection on closed field lines with Cluster, Double Star, and other spacecraft
journal, January 2007

  • Sergeev, V.; Semenov, V.; Kubyshkina, M.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1029/2006GL028452

The Electric and Magnetic Field Instrument Suite and Integrated Science (EMFISIS) on RBSP
journal, June 2013


Observational determination of magnetic connectivity of the geosynchronous region of the magnetosphere to the auroral oval
journal, February 1996

  • Hones, E. W.; Thomsen, M. F.; Reeves, G. D.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 101, Issue A2
  • DOI: 10.1029/95JA00418

Multi-spacecraft observation of plasma dipolarization/injection in the inner magnetosphere
journal, January 2007


A magnetospheric magnetic field model with a warped tail current sheet
journal, January 1989


Modeling the Earth's magnetospheric magnetic field confined within a realistic magnetopause
journal, January 1995

  • Tsyganenko, N. A.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, Issue A4
  • DOI: 10.1029/94JA03193

Intercalibration of magnetospheric energetic electron data: ENERGETIC ELECTRON INTERCALIBRATION
journal, September 2005

  • Friedel, R. H. W.; Bourdarie, S.; Cayton, T. E.
  • Space Weather, Vol. 3, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1029/2005SW000153

Phase Space Density matching of relativistic electrons using the Van Allen Probes: REPT results
journal, September 2013

  • Morley, S. K.; Henderson, M. G.; Reeves, G. D.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 40, Issue 18
  • DOI: 10.1002/grl.50909

Magnetospheric current systems during stormtime sawtooth events
journal, January 2006

  • Pulkkinen, T. I.; Ganushkina, N. Y.; Tanskanen, E. I.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, Issue A11
  • DOI: 10.1029/2006JA011627

Solar energetic particle cutoff variations during the 29-31 October 2003 geomagnetic storm: SEP CUTOFF VARIATIONS
journal, May 2010

  • Kress, B. T.; Mertens, C. J.; Wiltberger, M.
  • Space Weather, Vol. 8, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1029/2009SW000488

Global quantitative models of the geomagnetic field in the cislunar magnetosphere for different disturbance levels
journal, November 1987


Comparison of Earth’s magnetospheric magnetic field models in the context of cosmic ray physics
journal, October 2008


Time-dependent magnetospheric configuration and breakup mapping during a substorm: MAGNETOSPHERIC CONFIGURATION DURING A SUBSTORM
journal, February 2011

  • Kubyshkina, M.; Sergeev, V.; Tsyganenko, N.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 116, Issue A5
  • DOI: 10.1029/2010JA015882

Problems with mapping the auroral oval and magnetospheric substorms
journal, October 2015

  • Antonova, E. E.; Vorobjev, V. G.; Kirpichev, I. P.
  • Earth, Planets and Space, Vol. 67, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1186/s40623-015-0336-6

Effect of dimensionality on the Nelder–Mead simplex method
journal, February 2006


Determination of errors in derived magnetic field directions in geosynchronous orbit: results from a statistical approach
journal, January 2016


Comparison of eight years magnetic field data from Cluster with Tsyganenko models in the inner magnetosphere
journal, January 2010


Recent highlights from Cluster, the first 3-D magnetospheric mission
journal, January 2015


Modeling the global magnetic field of the large-scale Birkeland current systems
journal, December 1996

  • Tsyganenko, Nikolai A.; Stern, David P.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 101, Issue A12
  • DOI: 10.1029/96JA02735

Current sheet thickness in the near-Earth plasma sheet during substorm growth phase
journal, January 1990

  • Sergeev, V. A.; Tanskanen, P.; Mursula, K.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 95, Issue A4
  • DOI: 10.1029/JA095iA04p03819

An observational test of the Tsyganenko (T89a) model of the magnetospheric field
journal, November 1996

  • Thomsen, M. F.; McComas, D. J.; Reeves, G. D.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 101, Issue A11
  • DOI: 10.1029/96JA02318

Direct search methods: then and now
journal, December 2000

  • Lewis, Robert Michael; Torczon, Virginia; Trosset, Michael W.
  • Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 124, Issue 1-2
  • DOI: 10.1016/S0377-0427(00)00423-4

A Simplex Method for Function Minimization
journal, January 1965


Magnetospheric configurations from a high-resolution data-based magnetic field model: MAGNETOSPHERIC HIGH-RESOLUTION MODEL
journal, June 2007

  • Tsyganenko, N. A.; Sitnov, M. I.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 112, Issue A6
  • DOI: 10.1029/2007JA012260

Data-based modelling of the Earth's dynamic magnetosphere: a review
journal, January 2013


Magnetospheric currents during sawtooth events: Event-oriented magnetic field model analysis: MAGNETOSPHERIC CURRENTS DURING SAWTOOTH EVENTS
journal, August 2008

  • Kubyshkina, M.; Pulkkinen, T. I.; Ganushkina, N. Yu.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 113, Issue A8
  • DOI: 10.1029/2007JA012983

Storm-time distortion of the inner magnetosphere: How severe can it get?: DISTORTION OF THE INNER MAGNETOSPHERE
journal, May 2003

  • Tsyganenko, N. A.; Singer, H. J.; Kasper, J. C.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 108, Issue A5
  • DOI: 10.1029/2002JA009808

Self-consistent modeling of magnetic fields and plasmas in the inner magnetosphere: Application to a geomagnetic storm
journal, January 2006

  • Zaharia, Sorin; Jordanova, V. K.; Thomsen, M. F.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, Issue A11
  • DOI: 10.1029/2006JA011619

Modeling the ring current magnetic field during storms
journal, January 2002


A quantitative assessment of empirical magnetic field models at geosynchronous orbit during magnetic storms: TEST MAGNETIC FIELD MODELS
journal, April 2008

  • Huang, Chia-Lin; Spence, Harlan E.; Singer, Howard J.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 113, Issue A4
  • DOI: 10.1029/2007JA012623

The Cluster Magnetic Field Investigation: overview of in-flight performance and initial results
journal, January 2001


Science Objectives and Rationale for the Radiation Belt Storm Probes Mission
journal, September 2012


    Works referencing / citing this record:

    Measures of Model Performance Based On the Log Accuracy Ratio
    journal, January 2018

    • Morley, S. K.; Brito, T. V.; Welling, D. T.
    • Space Weather, Vol. 16, Issue 1
    • DOI: 10.1002/2017sw001669

    On the Role of Last Closed Drift Shell Dynamics in Driving Fast Losses and Van Allen Radiation Belt Extinction
    journal, May 2018

    • Olifer, L.; Mann, I. R.; Morley, S. K.
    • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 123, Issue 5
    • DOI: 10.1029/2018ja025190

    Calculation of Last Closed Drift Shells for the 2013 GEM Radiation Belt Challenge Events
    journal, November 2018

    • Albert, J. M.; Selesnick, R. S.; Morley, S. K.
    • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 123, Issue 11
    • DOI: 10.1029/2018ja025991

    Empirical Modeling of the Geomagnetosphere for SIR and CME‐Driven Magnetic Storms
    journal, July 2019

    • Andreeva, V. A.; Tsyganenko, N. A.
    • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 124, Issue 7
    • DOI: 10.1029/2018ja026008

    Observations and Fokker‐Planck Simulations of the L ‐Shell, Energy, and Pitch Angle Structure of Earth's Electron Radiation Belts During Quiet Times
    journal, February 2019

    • Ripoll, J. ‐F.; Loridan, V.; Denton, M. H.
    • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 124, Issue 2
    • DOI: 10.1029/2018ja026111

    Improved Simulations of The Inner Magnetosphere During High Geomagnetic Activity With the RAM‐SCB Model
    journal, June 2019

    • Engel, Miles A.; Morley, Steven K.; Henderson, Michael G.
    • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 124, Issue 6
    • DOI: 10.1029/2018ja026260

    Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling
    journal, February 2019

    • Tu, Weichao; Li, Wen; Albert, J. M.
    • Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 124, Issue 2
    • DOI: 10.1029/2018ja026414

    Testing Efficiency of Empirical, Adaptive, and Global MHD Magnetospheric Models to Represent the Geomagnetic Field in a Variety of Conditions
    journal, May 2019

    • Kubyshkina, M.; Sergeev, V. A.; Tsyganenko, N. A.
    • Space Weather, Vol. 17, Issue 5
    • DOI: 10.1029/2019sw002157