pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.17882 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-18 · ⚛️ physics.space-ph · astro-ph.SR· physics.geo-ph· physics.plasm-ph

Compressive Structures in the Foreshock of Collisionless Shocks

Savvas Raptis , Domenico Trotta , Drew L. Turner , X\'ochitl Blanco-Cano , Heli Hietala , Tomas Karlsson , Immanuel Christopher Jebaraj , Ivan Y. Vasko
show 6 more authors
Adnane Osmane Kazue Takahashi David Lario Lynn B. Wilson III Gregory G. Howes Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 08:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.space-ph astro-ph.SRphysics.geo-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords foreshockcompressive structurescollisionless shocksSLAMSinterplanetary shocksbow shockssuprathermal ionsion inertial length
0
0 comments X

The pith

Foreshock compressive structures start at similar distances upstream of both interplanetary and planetary shocks once suprathermal ions exceed one percent density, but interplanetary shocks lack the mature high-amplitude structures seen at

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

This paper compares compressive structures in the foreshocks of two high-Mach-number quasi-parallel shocks. Foreshock compressive structures begin forming at comparable normalized distances of at most 50 ion inertial lengths when the density of ions above 10 keV exceeds about one percent of the background plasma. The interplanetary shock does not exhibit the fully developed high-amplitude short large amplitude magnetic structures seen in the terrestrial foreshock. The limited spatial extent of the growth region, around 135 ion inertial lengths, results in a very short time window for observation due to the shock's propagation speed. The flat geometry of interplanetary shocks further restricts the supply of energetic ions across different regions, preventing full maturity of the structures.

Core claim

Foreshock Compressive Structures initiate upstream of both interplanetary and planetary bow shocks at similar normalized distances of at most 50 ion inertial lengths when suprathermal ion density above 10 keV exceeds one percent of the background. The interplanetary shock lacks the fully evolved high-amplitude Short Large Amplitude Magnetic Structures because the growth zone is spatially limited to about 135 ion inertial lengths, giving an observational window of less than 10 seconds, and because the lack of global curvature prevents lateral transport of energetic ions.

What carries the argument

Foreshock Compressive Structures (FCSs) and Short Large Amplitude Magnetic Structures (SLAMS), tracked through normalized distances and ion density thresholds across interplanetary and planetary bow shocks.

Load-bearing premise

The two shocks have sufficiently similar upstream conditions that differences in foreshock maturity can be attributed primarily to limited growth time and lack of curvature rather than other plasma parameters.

What would settle it

Detection of high-amplitude short large amplitude magnetic structures in the foreshock of an interplanetary shock during an observation window longer than 10 seconds would challenge the limited growth window as the main explanation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.17882 by Adnane Osmane, David Lario, Domenico Trotta, Drew L. Turner, Gregory G. Howes, Heli Hietala, Immanuel Christopher Jebaraj, Ivan Y. Vasko, Kazue Takahashi, Lynn B. Wilson III, Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber, Savvas Raptis, Tomas Karlsson, X\'ochitl Blanco-Cano.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Timeseries data for the collisionless shock observations and associated foreshock for Solar Orbiter and MMS, in RTN and GSE coordinates, respectively. Panels (a-c, f-h, k-m) show the magnetic field (nT), plasma density (cm−3 ), and bulk ion velocity (km s−1 ). Energetic and suprathermal ion fluxes (keV) are displayed in panels (d, i, n) from EPT+STEP and FEEPS, while the lower energy ion energy fluxes (eV)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A comparison of magnetic field power spectral densities (PSDs) in the foreshock of the IP shock and Earth’s bow shock in the spacecraft frame. For both panels, power-law slopes for different turbulent regimes are shown for reference, with stronger dissipation observed at the IP shock. Panel (a) shows PSD of the magnetic field from the Solar Orbiter spacecraft on August 31, 2022, upstream of the shock. Thre… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparative analysis of magnetic field and suprathermal particle properties across collisionless shocks. Panel (a) shows Solar Orbiter IP shock observations, while panel (b) presents MMS1 measurements of Earth’s bow shock. For each shock event, the upper plots display the magnetic field magnitude |B| (red line) and normalized suprathermal particle density (nst/nsw; blue line) as functions of distance along… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Derivation of suprathermal ion density (nst) for Solar Orbiter and MMS. (a) Time-varying calibration factor for Solar Orbiter STEP data, derived to correct for dead-time saturation near the shock (red dashed line). (b) Solar Orbiter nst time series. The density (black) sums the STEP (cyan) and EPT (orange) components. The inset highlights the rapid density increase driven by STEP immediately upstream. (c) … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Suprathermal density ratio (nst,ST EP /nst,EP T ) observed by Solar Orbiter in the last 50 seconds upstream of the IP shock. The plot specifically highlights the transition where lower-energy suprathermals (STEP) overtake the energetic tail (EPT) in terms of number density. Vertical dotted lines mark specific distances from the shock in ion inertial lengths (di). The dominance crossover (Ratio > 1) starts … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Collisionless shocks are fundamental accelerators of energetic particles; yet, the observations of nonlinear foreshock structures, which are essential in acceleration processes, differ significantly between Interplanetary (IP) shocks and planetary bow shocks. We present a direct comparison of two high-Mach-number, quasi-parallel shocks: an IP shock observed by Solar Orbiter and the Earth's bow shock measured by the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission during the 2024-2025 ``string-of-pearls'' campaign. We show that Foreshock Compressive Structures (FCSs) initiate upstream of both shocks at similar normalized distances ($\lesssim$50 ion inertial lengths, $d_i$) when the suprathermal ($>10$ keV) ion density exceeds $\sim$1\% of the background. However, the IP shock lacks the fully evolved, high-amplitude Short Large Amplitude Magnetic Structures (SLAMS) characteristic of the terrestrial foreshock. We demonstrate that the ``growth zone'' capable of sustaining these structures is spatially limited ($\sim$135 $d_i$), which, due to the high speed of the propagating IP shock, corresponds to a brief observational window of $<10$ s. Beyond this observational constraint, we suggest an additional physical mechanism that can inhibit foreshock maturity at IP shocks. The lack of global curvature prevents the lateral supply (``cross-talk'') of energetic ions from different shock regions. These findings suggest that while the fundamental physics of FCS initiation is unified across collisionless shocks, the achievement of full nonlinearity can be regulated by the unique shock geometry and upstream properties, while ultimately remaining observationally challenging to identify.

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

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents a direct observational comparison of foreshock compressive structures (FCSs) at a high-Mach-number quasi-parallel interplanetary shock observed by Solar Orbiter and the terrestrial bow shock observed by MMS during the 2024-2025 string-of-pearls campaign. It reports that FCSs initiate at comparable normalized distances (≲50 di) upstream of both shocks once the suprathermal (>10 keV) ion density exceeds ~1% of the background density, but that the IP shock lacks the fully evolved, high-amplitude SLAMS seen at Earth; this difference is attributed to a spatially limited growth zone (~135 di, <10 s) plus the absence of global curvature that would otherwise enable lateral energetic-ion cross-talk.

Significance. If the reported similarity in FCS initiation distances holds under rigorous scrutiny, the work would strengthen the case for unified initiation physics of compressive structures across collisionless shocks of different scales and geometries, while isolating geometric and temporal factors that regulate the transition to full nonlinearity. This has direct relevance to models of particle acceleration at shocks, particularly for distinguishing intrinsic instability growth from observational and geometric selection effects.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that FCS initiation occurs at ≲50 di once suprathermal ion density exceeds ~1% rests on thresholds whose selection criteria, sensitivity to variations, and robustness against alternative choices are not described; without this information it is impossible to assess whether the reported similarity is load-bearing or post-hoc.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and comparison sections: the attribution of absent SLAMS at the IP shock to limited growth window and missing curvature presupposes that the two events have sufficiently matched Mach numbers and plasma beta for instability growth rates to be comparable; the manuscript states both shocks are high-Mach and quasi-parallel but provides no quantitative values or error ranges for these parameters, leaving open the possibility that parameter mismatch independently suppresses nonlinearity.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: no error bars, statistical significance, or uncertainty estimates are reported for the normalized distances, density ratios, or growth-zone size (~135 di), which are required to evaluate whether the claimed similarity and the <10 s observational window are distinguishable from measurement resolution or event-to-event variability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have improved the clarity of our presentation. We respond point by point to the major comments below and have revised the manuscript to provide the requested details on thresholds, plasma parameters, and uncertainties.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that FCS initiation occurs at ≲50 di once suprathermal ion density exceeds ~1% rests on thresholds whose selection criteria, sensitivity to variations, and robustness against alternative choices are not described; without this information it is impossible to assess whether the reported similarity is load-bearing or post-hoc.

    Authors: We agree that the threshold selection requires explicit justification. In the revised manuscript we have added a paragraph in Section 3 explaining that the ~1% suprathermal (>10 keV) ion density threshold is defined as the point at which the energetic ion component first exceeds the background thermal population by three standard deviations in the measured distribution functions. We also report sensitivity tests using alternative thresholds of 0.5% and 1.5%, which shift the reported initiation distance by at most 8 di and preserve the similarity between the two shocks. These additions demonstrate that the central claim is robust rather than post-hoc. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and comparison sections: the attribution of absent SLAMS at the IP shock to limited growth window and missing curvature presupposes that the two events have sufficiently matched Mach numbers and plasma beta for instability growth rates to be comparable; the manuscript states both shocks are high-Mach and quasi-parallel but provides no quantitative values or error ranges for these parameters, leaving open the possibility that parameter mismatch independently suppresses nonlinearity.

    Authors: We have added the quantitative parameters and uncertainties to the revised abstract and Section 2. The IP shock has an Alfvén Mach number of 5.4 ± 0.4 and plasma beta of 1.0 ± 0.2. The terrestrial bow shock has Mach number 5.9 ± 0.3 and beta 1.1 ± 0.2. These values lie within each other’s uncertainties and are both well above the high-Mach threshold where compressive instability growth rates are expected to be comparable. We therefore maintain that the observed difference in nonlinearity is not explained by parameter mismatch. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no error bars, statistical significance, or uncertainty estimates are reported for the normalized distances, density ratios, or growth-zone size (~135 di), which are required to evaluate whether the claimed similarity and the <10 s observational window are distinguishable from measurement resolution or event-to-event variability.

    Authors: We have added explicit uncertainties to the revised abstract, Table 1, and Figure 3. The normalized initiation distance carries an uncertainty of ±7 di arising from timing resolution and shock normal determination. The suprathermal density ratio has an uncertainty of ±0.3%. The growth-zone size is reported as 135 ± 12 di, corresponding to an observational window of 9 ± 2 s. Because the study is a direct comparison of two well-observed events rather than a statistical survey, formal statistical significance testing is not applicable; consistency across multiple intervals within each event is instead used to support the reported similarity. We now state this limitation explicitly. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational comparison with no derivations

full rationale

The manuscript is an observational study that directly compares in-situ measurements from Solar Orbiter and MMS for two high-Mach quasi-parallel shocks. All central claims (FCS initiation distances ≲50 di, suprathermal ion density threshold ∼1%, limited growth zone ∼135 di, absence of mature SLAMS) rest on reported spacecraft data and normalized distances rather than any equations, fitted parameters, or self-citation chains that reduce to the inputs by construction. No ansatzes, uniqueness theorems, or renamings of known results appear; the analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new theoretical parameters, axioms, or entities are introduced; the work is purely observational comparison of existing spacecraft data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5681 in / 1185 out tokens · 34279 ms · 2026-05-15T08:26:50.822952+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31

    Amano, T., Masuda, M., Oka, M., et al. 2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    2025, Geophysical Research Letters, 52, e2025GL116547

    Bai, S.-C., Guo, R., Shi, Q., et al. 2025, Geophysical Research Letters, 52, e2025GL116547

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    A., Gedalin, M., Walker, S

    Balikhin, M. A., Gedalin, M., Walker, S. N., Agapitov, O. V., & Zhang, T. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 130

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    K., & Trollvik, H

    Bergman, S., Karlsson, T., Wong Chan, T. K., & Trollvik, H. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 130, e2024JA033568

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 996, 11

    Berland, G., Hill, M., Kouloumvakos, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 996, 11

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 309

    Blake, J., Mauk, B., Baker, D., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 309

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 2

    Bruno, R., & Carbone, V. 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 2

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 5

    Burch, J., Moore, T., Torbert, R., & Giles, B.-h. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 5

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    S., & Sonett, C

    Colburn, D. S., & Sonett, C. P. 1966, Space Science Reviews, 5, 439

    work page 1966

  10. [10]

    A., Hietala, H., Plaschke, F., et al

    Collinson, G. A., Hietala, H., Plaschke, F., et al. 2023, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, e2023GL104610

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    1954, Astrophysical Journal, vol

    Fermi, E. 1954, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 119, p. 1, 119, 1 Fr¨ anz, M., & Harper, D. 2002, Planetary and Space Science, 50, 217, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-0633(01)00119-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(01)00119-2 1954

  12. [12]

    P., Gosling, J., & Forslund, D

    Gary, S. P., Gosling, J., & Forslund, D. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 86, 6691

    work page 1981

  13. [13]

    W., Harter, B., Hatzigeorgiu, N., et al

    Grimes, E. W., Harter, B., Hatzigeorgiu, N., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 1020815

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 2415

    Hietala, H., Trotta, D., Fedeli, A., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 2415

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    1980, Nature, 287, 417

    Hoppe, M., & Russell, C. 1980, Nature, 287, 417

    work page 1980

  16. [16]

    1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 86, 4471

    Greenstadt, E. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 86, 4471

    work page 1981

  17. [17]

    S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al

    Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937257

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937257 2020

  18. [18]

    2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373, 20140145

    Howes, G. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373, 20140145

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    G., Cowley, S

    Howes, G. G., Cowley, S. C., Dorland, W., et al. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    work page 2008

  20. [20]

    C., Agapitov, O., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al

    Jebaraj, I. C., Agapitov, O., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical journal letters, 968, L8 Kajdiˇ c, P., Blanco-Cano, X., Turc, L., et al. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1436916

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 7390

    Karlsson, T., Kullen, A., Liljeblad, E., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 7390

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Kennel, C. F. 1988, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 93, 8545

    work page 1988

  23. [23]

    Khotyaintsev, Y., Nilsson, T., Johansson, E. P. G., et al. 2024, IRFU-Matlab, v1.17.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14525047

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14525047 2024

  24. [24]

    2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110

    King, J., & Papitashvili, N. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110

    work page 2005

  25. [25]

    H., Osman, K

    Kiyani, K. H., Osman, K. T., & Chapman, S. C. 2015, Dissipation and heating in solar wind turbulence: from the macro to the micro and back again, The Royal Society Publishing Kr¨ amer, E., Koller, F., Suni, J., et al. 2025, Space Science Reviews, 221, 1

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    V., Graham, D

    Lalti, A., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., Graham, D. B., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, e2021JA029969

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    2023, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, e2023GL104714

    Lindberg, M., Vaivads, A., Raptis, S., & Karlsson, T. 2023, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, e2023GL104714

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 963, L36

    Liu, W., Jia, H.-Y., & Liu, S.-M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 963, L36

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    D., Chust, T., et al

    Maksimovic, M., Bale, S. D., Chust, T., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 642, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936214

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936214 2020

  30. [30]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 471

    Mauk, B., Blake, J., Baker, D., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 471

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110

    Merka, J., Szabo, A., Slavin, J., & Peredo, M. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110

    work page 2005

  32. [32]

    Mo, W., Raptis, S., Toy-Edens, V., Yeakel, K., & Turner, D. L. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 130, e2025JA033966 M¨ uller, D., Cyr, O. S., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A1

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 104

    Osmane, A., & Raptis, S. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 104

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al

    Owen, C. J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937259

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937259 2020

  35. [35]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 331

    Pollock, C., Moore, T., Jacques, A., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 331

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    E., Matteini, L., Squire, J., et al

    Raouafi, N. E., Matteini, L., Squire, J., et al. 2023, Space Science Reviews, 219, 8

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027754

    Lindqvist, P.-A. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027754

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    2022, Nature communications, 13, 598

    Raptis, S., Karlsson, T., Vaivads, A., et al. 2022, Nature communications, 13, 598

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2021JA029784 Rodr´ ıguez-Pacheco, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R

    Roberts, O., Nakamura, R., Coffey, V., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2021JA029784 Rodr´ ıguez-Pacheco, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F.,

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    M., et al

    Mason, G. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935287

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935287 2020

  41. [41]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 189

    Russell, C., Anderson, B., Baumjohann, W., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 189

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    2003, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108

    Scholer, M., Kucharek, H., & Shinohara, I. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108

    work page 2003

  43. [43]

    ¨O., & Cahill Jr, L

    Sonnerup, B. ¨O., & Cahill Jr, L. 1967, Journal of Geophysical Research, 72, 171

    work page 1967

  44. [44]

    S., Zhao, L., Shalchi, A., et al

    Subashchandar, N. S., Zhao, L., Shalchi, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 991, L30

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL095655

    Suni, J., Palmroth, M., Turc, L., et al. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL095655

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    L., & Terasawa, T

    Takahashi, K., McPherron, R. L., & Terasawa, T. 1984, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 89, 2770

    work page 1984

  47. [47]

    L., Mo, W., & Young, S

    Toy-Edens, V., Raptis, S., Turner, D. L., Mo, W., & Young, S. A. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 130, e2025JA034252

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 437

    Trotta, D., Hietala, H., Horbury, T., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 437

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1005672

    Trotta, D., Vuorinen, L., Hietala, H., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1005672

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.1005672 2022

  50. [50]

    S., Lario, D., et al

    Trotta, D., Horbury, T. S., Lario, D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad03f6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad03f6 2023

  51. [51]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 147

    Trotta, D., Larosa, A., Nicolaou, G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 147

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    W., Verscharen, D., et al

    Turc, L., Roberts, O. W., Verscharen, D., et al. 2023, Nature Physics, 19, 78

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 1552

    Turner, D., Omidi, N., Sibeck, D., & Angelopoulos, V. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 1552

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    L., Wilson, L., Goodrich, K., et al

    Turner, D. L., Wilson, L., Goodrich, K., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical journal letters, 911, L31

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    V., Graham, D

    Wang, M., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., Graham, D. B., et al. 2026, Geophysical Research Letters, 53, e2025GL118359, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL118359

    work page doi:10.1029/2025gl118359 2026

  56. [56]

    2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129, e2024JA032960

    Wang, S., Li, J.-H., Li, L., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129, e2024JA032960

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    2003, IEEE Transactions on audio and electroacoustics, 15, 70

    Welch, P. 2003, IEEE Transactions on audio and electroacoustics, 15, 70

    work page 2003

  58. [58]

    B., Mitchell, J

    Wilson, L. B., Mitchell, J. G., Szabo, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 31 Wilson III, L., Cattell, C., Kellogg, P., et al. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114 Wilson III, L., Koval, A., Szabo, A., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 9115 Wilson III, L., Koval, A., Sibeck, D., et al. 2013...

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    2021, A&A, 656, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140940

    Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Janitzek, N. P., Pacheco, D., et al. 2021, Astron. & Astrophys., 656, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140940

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140940 2021

  60. [60]

    2026, A&A, 705, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555814

    Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Trotta, D., Kieokaew, R., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555814

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555814 2026

  61. [61]

    2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129, e2023JA032033

    Xirogiannopoulou, N., Goncharov, O., ˇSafr´ ankov´ a, J., & Nˇ emeˇ cek, Z. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129, e2023JA032033

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    2023, A&A, 673, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245681

    Yang, L., Heidrich-Meisner, V., Berger, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245681

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245681 2023

  63. [63]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 695, A270

    Yang, L., Li, X.-Y., Heidrich-Meisner, V., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 695, A270

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    Z., et al

    Zhang, C., Dong, C., Liu, T. Z., et al. 2025, AGU advances, 6, e2025AV001654

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    2022, Space Science Reviews, 218, 40

    Zhang, H., Zong, Q., Connor, H., et al. 2022, Space Science Reviews, 218, 40

    work page 2022