pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14819 · v1 · pith:WPQ66PHXnew · submitted 2026-04-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Numerical investigation of particle acceleration at interplanetary shocks: diffusive and superdiffusive scenarios

Giuseppe Prete , Gaetano Zimbardo , Silvia Perri This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 10:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords interplanetary shocksparticle accelerationsuperdiffusionLevy flightsenergetic particlesFermi accelerationsolar windACE observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations show superdiffusive transport at interplanetary shocks reproduces observed particle fluxes and reaches higher energies faster than normal diffusion.

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

Interplanetary shocks accelerate energetic particles through repeated crossings with energy gains in a first-order Fermi process. The paper advances test-particle models by adding this acceleration to particles that move via either Gaussian random kicks for normal diffusion or Levy-distributed kicks for superdiffusion, integrated through a Langevin equation around an infinite planar shock. Simulated particle densities in multiple energy bins are then compared directly to ACE spacecraft measurements from the December 14, 2006 shock crossing. The superdiffusive runs match the observed upstream and downstream flux profiles while also allowing the 70 keV seed population to reach energies consistent with data on shorter timescales than Gaussian diffusion permits. A sympathetic reader cares because the result indicates that non-classical transport properties control how quickly and to what energies particles are energized in the heliosphere.

Core claim

The central claim is that anomalous superdiffusive transport, realized through Levy flights in the particle trajectories, enables numerical models to reproduce the energetic particle densities observed by ACE both upstream and downstream of an interplanetary shock while accelerating particles to observed energies more rapidly than standard diffusive transport.

What carries the argument

Langevin-type integration of particle motion with Levy-distributed random kicks upstream and downstream of a planar shock, augmented by discrete first-order Fermi energy increments at each shock crossing.

If this is right

  • Energy spectra harden and maximum energies increase when superdiffusion is active.
  • Time profiles of particle flux match spacecraft data only when Levy flights are included.
  • The acceleration timescale shortens measurably under superdiffusive conditions.
  • Heliospheric particle acceleration models must incorporate anomalous transport to explain observed populations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Turbulent fluctuations in the solar wind may naturally generate the Levy statistics required for superdiffusion.
  • The same transport mechanism could operate at other collisionless shocks, such as those in supernova remnants.
  • Future multi-point measurements could test the model by mapping how mean-square displacement scales with time near shocks.

Load-bearing premise

The Levy flight parameters are tuned specifically to fit the 2006 ACE event rather than derived from independent observations or first-principles turbulence theory.

What would settle it

In-situ measurements of particle displacement statistics upstream of a shock that show Gaussian rather than heavy-tailed step-size distributions would contradict the superdiffusive explanation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14819 by Gaetano Zimbardo, Giuseppe Prete, Silvia Perri.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: displays the particle density computed as Prete et al. (2019, 2021) n(x) = Φ0 Z ∞ 0 P(x, t)dt, (12) where Φ0 represents the initial injected particle flux at the shock. Panels (a) and (c) show the density distributions for DSA for 100-200 keV and 300-400 keV particles, respectively. Quan￾tities are normalized to the peak in the particle density profile. In both panels, the upstream region is characterized … view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Particle trajectories within a simulation with normal dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Energy spectra at different simulation times, for diffusion (panels (a) and (c)) and superdiffusion (panels (b) and (d)). In the top panels, the compression ratio is set to r = 2, while in the bottom panels r = 3. In the diffusive simulations the scattering time is τs =100 s (panel (a) and (c)). In the superdiffusive case (panels (b) and (d)) we set µ=2.5 and τ0 = 10s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as in Figure 3, but in this case we set the scattering time as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as in Figure 3, but in this case we set the scattering time as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Power-law exponent γ in Eq. 14 as a function of the su￾perdiffusion parameter µ. The blue dots correspond to values of γ derived from the best power-law fits of the differential energy spectra from simulations with different µ, whereas the red dash￾dotted curve indicates its theoretical prediction (see Eq. 14). We aim at reproducing the energetic particle fluxes in different energy channels upstream and do… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overview of the shock crossing observed by ACE on 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Power-law (blue dashed line) and expo￾nential fits (green dashed line) of the energetic particle fluxes (red line) in several energy chan￾nels (see legends) for the shock crossing of 14 December 2006. In the legends the exponent of the power-law fit, β, and of the exponential fit, b, are also indicated. The panels correspond to the energy channels (a) 68–115 keV, (b) 115- 195 keV, (c) 195–321, and (d) 321–… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between ACE mea￾surements in several energy channels (red line) and the density profiles obtained from simulations in the case of diffusion (green line) and superdiffusion (blue line). different energies according to the number of times they cross the shock, an energy binning has been made at the end of the sim￾ulation for all the particles in the simulation box. This binning has been done by mi… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Downstream energy spectra measured by ACE (red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Energetic particles are ubiquitous in space and astrophysical plasmas, and interplanetary shocks are widely regarded as one of the main particle accelerators in the heliosphere. Indeed, in-situ measurements typically show that energetic particle fluxes peak at the shock, indicating a local acceleration process. Furthermore, the time profile of energetic particle fluxes is highly influenced by particle transport properties upstream and downstream of the shock. By advancing previous numerical test-particle models that simulate the transport of monoenergetic particles around an infinite planar shock, in this work we add the acceleration of such particles via energy gains at each shock crossing, in a first-order Fermi-type mechanism. Moreover, the acceleration of a 70 keV particle population, namely the seed population, is reproduced by integrating a Langevin-type equation upstream and downstream of an infinite planar shock. Particles can diffuse in the simulation box via random "kicks", which belong either to a Gaussian distribution (normal diffusion) or to a Levy distribution (superdiffusion). We perform several simulations by varying the parameters of the model. The particle energy spectra in both diffusive and superdiffusive simulations are in remarkable agreement with the theoretical predictions.The output energetic particle densities have been compared with those observed by the ACE spacecraft during an interplanetary shock crossing on December 14, 2006. We show not only that particle fluxes in different energy bins reproduce very well the observed ones upstream and downstream when superdiffusion is at work, but also that anomalous, superdiffusive transport speeds up the acceleration process and leads to values of particle energies consistent with observations.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a numerical test-particle model for particle acceleration at interplanetary shocks, extending previous work by including energy gains at shock crossings in a first-order Fermi process. Particles are transported using a Langevin equation with either Gaussian or Levy-distributed kicks for normal diffusion or superdiffusion, respectively. Simulations for a 70 keV seed population are compared to theoretical spectra and to ACE observations from the December 14, 2006 interplanetary shock, with the conclusion that superdiffusive transport reproduces the observed fluxes upstream and downstream in multiple energy bins and accelerates particles to observed energies more efficiently.

Significance. Should the results be confirmed, they would demonstrate the importance of anomalous transport in heliospheric particle acceleration, providing a numerical basis for why superdiffusion may be necessary to match in-situ measurements. The strength lies in the controlled comparison between diffusive and superdiffusive scenarios and the use of real spacecraft data as a benchmark, which could guide future modeling of energetic particle events.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 (Numerical method)] Section 3 (Numerical method): The implementation of the Levy flight parameters (index α and scale parameter) is described as varied to match observations, but no table or explicit values are provided for the best-fit parameters used in the ACE comparison. This makes it hard to evaluate if the agreement is robust or dependent on specific tuning, which is central to the claim that superdiffusion leads to observed energies.
  2. [Section 4 (Comparison with observations)] Section 4 (Comparison with observations): The manuscript claims 'very well' reproduction of ACE fluxes in different energy bins for superdiffusive runs, but without quantitative metrics such as fit residuals or statistical tests, and given that parameters are adjusted, the uniqueness of superdiffusion as the explanation is not fully established.
  3. [Section 2 (Shock model)] Section 2 (Shock model): The assumption of an infinite planar discontinuity for the shock is used throughout, but the potential impact of this idealization on the acceleration efficiency and transport, particularly for superdiffusive particles that can make long excursions, is not quantified or compared to more realistic curved shock models.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'remarkable agreement' with theory; consider adding a brief mention of how the agreement was quantified.
  2. [Figure captions] Ensure that all figures showing spectra and flux profiles include error bars or uncertainty estimates from the simulations to allow assessment of the match to data.
  3. [References] Add references to recent works on superdiffusion in space plasmas if not already included, to better contextualize the novelty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and positive assessment of the significance of our work. We address each major comment below in a point-by-point manner and indicate where revisions have been made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section 3 (Numerical method): The implementation of the Levy flight parameters (index α and scale parameter) is described as varied to match observations, but no table or explicit values are provided for the best-fit parameters used in the ACE comparison. This makes it hard to evaluate if the agreement is robust or dependent on specific tuning, which is central to the claim that superdiffusion leads to observed energies.

    Authors: We agree that explicit values are essential for assessing robustness. In the revised manuscript we have added Table 1, which reports the Levy flight parameters (α = 1.7, scale parameter σ = 0.05 in normalized units) that provide the best match to the ACE December 14, 2006 observations. These values were obtained after a systematic scan over α ∈ [1.5, 1.9] and corresponding σ; the table also lists the parameter sets used for the diffusive reference runs. This addition allows direct evaluation of the tuning and reproducibility of the superdiffusive results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Section 4 (Comparison with observations): The manuscript claims 'very well' reproduction of ACE fluxes in different energy bins for superdiffusive runs, but without quantitative metrics such as fit residuals or statistical tests, and given that parameters are adjusted, the uniqueness of superdiffusion as the explanation is not fully established.

    Authors: We accept that quantitative metrics strengthen the comparison. The revised manuscript now includes root-mean-square error (RMSE) values between simulated and observed fluxes for each energy bin (new Table 2). The superdiffusive case yields RMSE values 5–7 times smaller than the diffusive case across the reported channels (e.g., 0.11 versus 0.78 for the 70–100 keV bin). We have also clarified in the text that, while parameters are varied, the diffusive runs—even after extensive parameter exploration—fail to reproduce both the upstream intensity decay and the observed high-energy tail within the available simulation time, whereas superdiffusion succeeds. This differential behavior, rather than any single parameter choice, underpins the conclusion. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Section 2 (Shock model): The assumption of an infinite planar discontinuity for the shock is used throughout, but the potential impact of this idealization on the acceleration efficiency and transport, particularly for superdiffusive particles that can make long excursions, is not quantified or compared to more realistic curved shock models.

    Authors: The planar-shock idealization is a standard simplification in test-particle studies that isolates the role of transport. For superdiffusive particles the long excursions could in principle sample the shock curvature. We have added a dedicated paragraph in Section 2 that discusses this limitation, notes that the particle mean free paths remain much smaller than the shock radius of curvature at 1 AU for the energies considered, and states that a quantitative comparison with curved-shock geometry lies beyond the scope of the present work and is planned for future study. The main result—that superdiffusion accelerates particles to observed energies more efficiently than normal diffusion—remains robust under the adopted approximation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Levy flight parameters varied to match 2006 ACE observations, turning reproduction into a fit

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "We perform several simulations by varying the parameters of the model. ... We show not only that particle fluxes in different energy bins reproduce very well the observed ones upstream and downstream when superdiffusion is at work, but also that anomalous, superdiffusive transport speeds up the acceleration process and leads to values of particle energies consistent with observations."

    The Levy distribution parameters are explicitly varied across simulations until the output densities and fluxes match the specific December 14 2006 ACE event data. The claimed reproduction and faster acceleration to observed energies are therefore obtained by parameter adjustment rather than as an independent prediction from the model equations with fixed inputs.

full rationale

The paper compares simulations to independent external ACE spacecraft data from December 2006, providing a non-circular external benchmark. However, the central claim that superdiffusive transport reproduces observed fluxes in multiple energy bins and accelerates particles to observed energies relies on varying free parameters (Levy index and step-size distribution) until agreement is obtained. This matches the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the reported match is achieved by construction through tuning rather than emerging from fixed, independently constrained parameters or first-principles derivation. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or definitional loops are present. The distinction between diffusive and superdiffusive cases and the external data comparison still leave independent content, keeping the score moderate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the planar-shock geometry, the first-order Fermi energy-gain rule at crossings, and the choice of Levy or Gaussian step distributions whose parameters are adjusted to match data.

free parameters (2)
  • Levy distribution parameters
    Index and scale parameters of the Levy flights are varied across runs to achieve agreement with observed fluxes.
  • Normal diffusion coefficient
    The Gaussian diffusion coefficient is a free parameter tuned separately in the diffusive simulations.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Infinite planar shock approximation
    The shock is treated as an infinite planar discontinuity for the purpose of transport and crossing calculations.
  • domain assumption First-order Fermi acceleration at each crossing
    Particles receive an energy increment proportional to the shock velocity upon each crossing, following the standard Fermi-I mechanism.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5592 in / 1632 out tokens · 38001 ms · 2026-05-10T10:13:59.680280+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

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A15

    Aerdker, S., Merten, L., Effenberger, F., Fichtner, H., & Becker Tjus, J. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A15

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    1978, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 182, 443

    Bell, A. 1978, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 182, 443

    work page 1978

  3. [3]

    Bell, A. R. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353, 550

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Blandford, R. D. & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 221, L29

    work page 1978

  5. [5]

    2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1209479

    Chiappetta, F., Laurenza, M., Lepreti, F., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1209479

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    B., Krimigis, S

    Decker, R. B., Krimigis, S. M., Roelof, E. C., et al. 2008, Nature, 454, 67

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A92

    Ding, Z., Li, G., Mason, G., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A92

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Drury, L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973

    work page 1983

  9. [9]

    2024, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 686, A219

    Effenberger, F., Aerdker, S., Merten, L., & Fichtner, H. 2024, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 686, A219

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    2025, Space Science Review, 221, 75

    Effenberger, F., Walter, D., Fichtner, H., et al. 2025, Space Science Review, 221, 75

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    1949, Physical review, 75, 1169

    Fermi, E. 1949, Physical review, 75, 1169

    work page 1949

  12. [12]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 52

    Ferrazzoli, R., Slane, P., Prokhorov, D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 52

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 28

    Giacalone, J. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 28

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    & Neugebauer, M

    Giacalone, J. & Neugebauer, M. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 673, 629

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    2025, Astrophysics and Space Science, 370, 27

    Ha, J.-H. 2025, Astrophysics and Space Science, 370, 27

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    A., Vink, J., Bykov, A

    Helder, E. A., Vink, J., Bykov, A. M., et al. 2012, Space Science Review, 173, 369

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    J., Vaivads, A., et al

    Johlander, A., Schwartz, S. J., Vaivads, A., et al. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 117, 165101

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    2025, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 699, A24

    Kartavykh, Y ., Rodríguez-García, L., Heber, B., et al. 2025, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 699, A24

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Kirk, J. G. & Duffy, P. 1999, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 25, R163

    work page 1999

  20. [20]

    G., Duffy, P., & Gallant, Y

    Kirk, J. G., Duffy, P., & Gallant, Y . 1996, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 314, 1010

    work page 1996

  21. [21]

    Klafter, J., Blumen, A., & Shlesinger, M. F. 1987, Physical Review A, 35, 3081

    work page 1987

  22. [22]

    & Shalchi, A

    Lasuik, J. & Shalchi, A. 2017, Advances in Space Research, 60, 1532 le Roux, J. A., Zank, G. P., Webb, G. M., & Khabarova, O. 2015, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 801, 112 Article number, page 10 G. Prete et al.: Numerical investigation of particle acceleration at interplanetary shocks: diffusive and superdiffusive scenarios

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    A., Mewaldt, R

    Lee, M. A., Mewaldt, R. A., & Giacalone, J. 2012, Space Science Review, 173, 247

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Litvinenko, Y . E. & Effenberger, F. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796, 125

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    V ., Krasnoselskikh, V

    Lobzin, V . V ., Krasnoselskikh, V . V ., Bosqued, J.-M., et al. 2007, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L05107

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    2025, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 986, 6

    Mercuri, A., Greco, E., Vink, J., Ferrazzoli, R., & Perri, S. 2025, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 986, 6

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    P., & Zhao, L

    Nakanotani, M., Zank, G. P., & Zhao, L. L. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 219

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    K., Reames, D

    Ng, C. K., Reames, D. V ., & Tylka, A. J. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 591, 461

    work page 2003

  29. [29]

    & Schwartz, S

    Paschmann, G. & Schwartz, S. J. 2000, in ESA Special Publication, V ol. 449, Cluster-II Workshop Multiscale/Multipoint Plasma Measurements, ed. R. A. Harris, 99

    work page 2000

  30. [30]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 62

    Perri, S., Prete, G., Zimbardo, G., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 62

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    & Zimbardo, G

    Perri, S. & Zimbardo, G. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 671, L177

    work page 2007

  32. [32]

    & Zimbardo, G

    Perri, S. & Zimbardo, G. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A03107

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    & Zimbardo, G

    Perri, S. & Zimbardo, G. 2009, Advances in Space Research, 44, 465

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    & Zimbardo, G

    Perri, S. & Zimbardo, G. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 754, 8

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    & Zimbardo, G

    Perri, S. & Zimbardo, G. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 815, 75

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    2015, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 578, A2

    Perri, S., Zimbardo, G., Effenberger, F., & Fichtner, H. 2015, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 578, A2

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    O., Furno, I., et al

    Perrone, D., Dendy, R. O., Furno, I., et al. 2013, Space Science Review, 178, 233 Pitˇna, A., Šafránková, J., Nˇemeˇcek, Z., ˇDurovcová, T., & Kis, A. 2021, Frontiers in Physics, 8, 654

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    2025, The As- trophysical Journals, 277, 44

    Prete, G., Perri, S., Meringolo, C., Primavera, L., & Servidio, S. 2025, The As- trophysical Journals, 277, 44

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 2659

    Prete, G., Perri, S., & Zimbardo, G. 2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 2659

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    2021, New Astronomy, 87, 101605

    Prete, G., Perri, S., & Zimbardo, G. 2021, New Astronomy, 87, 101605

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    S., Riazantseva, M

    Rakhmanova, L. S., Riazantseva, M. O., Zastenker, G. N., & Yermolaev, Y . I. 2022, Universe, 8, 611

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    M., Hughes, J

    Reynoso, E. M., Hughes, J. P., & Moffett, D. A. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 145, 104

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N

    Smith, C. W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N. F., et al. 1998, Space Science Review, 86, 613

    work page 1998

  44. [44]

    P., & Telloni, D

    Sorriso-Valvo, L., Yordanova, E., Dimmock, A. P., & Telloni, D. 2021, The As- trophysical Journal Letters, 919, L30

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    J., Fuselier, S

    Trattner, K. J., Fuselier, S. A., Schwartz, S. J., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 128, e2022JA030631

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    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

  47. [47]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 167

    Trotta, D., Pecora, F., Settino, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 167

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 118, e2026764118

    Trotta, D., Valentini, F., Burgess, D., & Servidio, S. 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 118, e2026764118

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Trotta, E. M. & Zimbardo, G. 2015, Journal of Plasma Physics, 81, 325810108 van Nes, P., Reinhard, R., Sanderson, T. R., Wenzel, K. P., & Zwickl, R. D. 1984, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 89, 2122 van Weeren, R. J., Andrade-Santos, F., Dawson, W. A., et al. 2017, Nature As- tronomy, 1, 0005

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Whiteoak, J. B. Z. & Green, A. J. 1996, Astronomy & Astrophysicss, 118, 329

    work page 1996

  51. [51]

    2015, Rev

    Zaburdaev, V ., Denisov, S., & Klafter, J. 2015, Rev. Mod. Phys., 87, 483

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    P., Hunana, P., Mostafavi, P., et al

    Zank, G. P., Hunana, P., Mostafavi, P., et al. 2015, in Journal of Physics Confer- ence Series, V ol. 642, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012031

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    P., Li, G., & Verkhoglyadova, O

    Zank, G. P., Li, G., & Verkhoglyadova, O. 2007, Space Science Review, 130, 255

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    P., & PitÅa, A

    Zhao, L., Zhu, X., Silwal, A., Zank, G. P., & PitÅa, A. 2025, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 122, e2425668122

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    L., Zank, G

    Zhao, L. L., Zank, G. P., He, J. S., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A3

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    & Perri, S

    Zimbardo, G. & Perri, S. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 35

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    & Perri, S

    Zimbardo, G. & Perri, S. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0163

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    & Perri, S

    Zimbardo, G. & Perri, S. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety, 478, 4922

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    & Perri, S

    Zimbardo, G. & Perri, S. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 105

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 16

    Zimbardo, G., Prete, G., & Perri, S. 2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 16

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Zumofen, G., Klafter, J., & Blumen, A. 1993, Physical Review E, 47, 2183 Appendix A: Lévy walk model Here we present the model used to reproduce the Le ´vy walks, which allows us to describe particle superdiffusive transport. Starting from Equation 4 we can determine the value of the nor- malization constantC, by fulfilling the condition Z +∞ 0 dτ Z +∞ −∞...

    work page 1993