Literature Review Common pitfalls
Pitfalls to avoid when writing the solar/NF2 literature review.
Scientific pitfalls
- Do not claim the corona is directly measured in full 3D. The whole point is that extrapolation is needed.
- Do not present potential fields as wrong/useless. They are useful baselines; they just cannot represent currents/free energy.
- Do not imply the photosphere is perfectly force-free. This is one of the central reasons NLFFF extrapolation is difficult.
- Do not judge NF2 only by field-line plots or training loss. Use physical diagnostics: boundary agreement, divergence, force-freeness, energy, and topology.
- Do not blur HMI, SHARP, HARP, and CEA. They refer to different things. See SHARP data product, HARP active-region patch ID, and CEA projection.
Writing pitfalls
- Avoid “machine learning solves X” vibes. Better: “NF2 provides a neural representation/optimisation strategy for X”.
- Avoid citation dumps. Each citation should have a job: data source, classical method, neural method, benchmark active region, or diagnostic.
- Avoid generic PINN hype unless it is tied back to NLFFF residuals.
- Keep the review funnel-shaped: broad solar-coronal motivation → magnetic extrapolation → NLFFF difficulty → NF2/PINNs → Andrew’s evaluation plan.