Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 58 references

The XMM-Newton Line Emission Analysis Program (X-LEAP) III: Earth's Magnetospheric X-ray Emission Revealed by 22-Year XMM-Newton Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Using 22 years of XMM-Newton observations, this paper isolates the magnetospheric solar wind charge exchange component of the soft X-ray background and turns its directional dependence into an empirical 3D model of the average magnetosheath

desk verdict 22-year XMM O VII decomposition yields a plausible dayside magnetospheric detection, but the 3D geometry and alpha calibration rest on a partially circular background subtraction and an uncertain neutral density. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18743 v1 pith:4VX4UKPL submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Zeyang Pan , Zhijie Qu , Yuqi Gong , Tianran Sun , Joel N. Bregman , Yingjie Zhang , Li Ji , Jifeng Liu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords solarwindchargeexchangemagnetosheathmagnetopauseOVIIemissionsoftX-raybackgroundXMM-Newtonmagnetospherecharge-exchangeefficiency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Twenty-two years of XMM-Newton soft X-ray observations contain a measurable component of magnetospheric solar wind charge exchange (SWCX), the process by which solar wind ions capture electrons from Earth's neutral hydrogen halo and emit O VII X-rays. This paper isolates that component by subtracting heliospheric and Milky Way contributions, then shows that the residual O VII intensity depends on how long the line of sight dwells inside the magnetosheath, the shocked solar wind region between the bow shock and magnetopause. Fitting that directional dependence yields the first empirical, 22-year-average model of the magnetosheath geometry—a magnetopause standoff of 9.7 Earth radii with flaring 0.5, a loosely constrained bow shock, and an emissivity peaking near the subsolar point. The same data give an empirical O VII charge-exchange efficiency of (2.1 ± 0.4) × 10^-16 eV cm^2, about one fifth of the total soft X-ray SWCX efficiency assumed in simulations. If correct, this turns a previously troublesome background into a probe of Earth's space weather environment and calibrates the absolute scale of SWCX models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the directional dependence of magnetospheric SWCX intensity. In the plane perpendicular to the Earth-Sun line, the path length through the magnetosheath shell depends on the angle θ between the line of sight and the radial direction to the shell center; this produces a characteristic rise-peak-fall pattern in I(θ) that encodes both the boundary radii (magnetopause and bow shock) and the local emissivity. The paper models this with I(θ) = ε · s(θ | R_MP, R_BS) under a constant-emissivity shell approximation, then extends it to a full axisymmetric 3D model with Shue-parameterized boundaries and piecewise-constant emissivity. A companion MHD simulation provides the co

What would settle it

Measure the exospheric neutral hydrogen density between 8 and 15 Earth radii (e.g., with a dedicated Lyman-alpha detector outside the contaminating geocorona) and compare the profile to the assumed 25 cm^-3 at 10 R_E; a value well outside this assumption would rescale α_OVII by that factor and contradict the reported efficiency. Alternatively, an independent atomic-physics determination of the O VII charge-exchange efficiency that disagrees with (2.1 ± 0.4) × 10^-16 eV cm^2 beyond quoted uncertainties would falsify the Q_sim normalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that magnetospheric SWCX is the dominant residual in the O VII line after removing heliospheric and Milky Way emission, and that its intensity traces the line-of-sight path length through the magnetosheath. Fitting this relation yields a 22-year-average magnetopause standoff of r0_MP = 9.7(+0.7/-0.6) R_E with flaring a_MP = 0.5 ± 0.3, a Gaussian emissivity peaking at X0 = 10.3(+2.9/-1.3) R_E with width 4.7(+2.0/-1.0) R_E, and an empirical O VII charge-exchange efficiency α_OVII = (2.1 ± 0.4) × 10^-16 eV cm^2 from the slope of observed versus simulated intensity. The magnetospheric contribution becomes negligible for solar angles φ ≳ 100°.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute calibration rests on the adopted exospheric neutral hydrogen density profile n_H = 25 cm^-3 (10 R_E/r)^3; if the true density at 10 Earth radii is the 4–18 cm^-3 range suggested by Lyman-alpha observations, the reported emissivities and α_OVII would change by the same factor, although the spatial and directional conclusions would survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fitted magnetopause (r0=9.7 R_E, a=0.5) agrees with the standard empirical model and MHD simulation under mean solar wind conditions, showing that soft X-ray data alone can recover average magnetospheric structure.
  • The empirical α_OVII ≈ 2.1 × 10^-16 eV cm^2 implies that the O VII triplet accounts for roughly one fifth of the total soft X-ray SWCX efficiency, calibrating the absolute intensity scale of future SWCX models.
  • Magnetospheric SWCX contamination becomes negligible for look directions with solar angle φ ≳ 100°, quantitatively validating night-side observing strategies that avoid magnetospheric contamination in diffuse X-ray surveys.
  • The 22-year averaged magnetosheath emissivity peaks near the subsolar point (X0 ≈ 10.3 R_E) and declines with width σX ≈ 4.7 R_E, providing a static reference for future studies of solar-wind-driven variations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same directional analysis could be applied to the O VIII and Fe-L line measurements in the same archive, yielding charge-exchange efficiencies for those lines and a more complete empirical budget of the soft X-ray SWCX emission.
  • Because the derived α_OVII scales inversely with the assumed exospheric neutral hydrogen density, and Lyman-alpha measurements at 10 R_E suggest densities 2–6 times lower than the adopted 25 cm^-3, the absolute efficiency may need substantial upward revision once a better neutral profile is available; the spatial and directional conclusions would not change.
  • The bow shock standoff distance is poorly constrained because the subsolar region is undersampled; a future wide-field soft X-ray imager observing the dayside magnetosheath could directly test the fitted boundaries and break the degeneracy between bow shock location and emissivity normalization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses 22 years of XMM-Newton/EPIC-MOS O VII line measurements from the X-LEAP survey to isolate magnetospheric solar wind charge exchange (SWCX) emission after removing heliospheric SWCX and Milky Way hot-gas contributions. It reports a dayside enhancement of about 2 LU peaking near X_GSE ≈ 10 R_E, a directional dependence of the residual intensity that follows the LOS path length through the magnetosheath, and a three-dimensional axisymmetric empirical model of the average magnetopause and bow-shock boundaries with a Gaussian emissivity profile. From the ratio of observed to simulated LOS-integrated collision rates, the paper derives an empirical O VII charge-exchange efficiency α_OVII = (2.1 ± 0.4) × 10^-16 eV cm^2. The central claims are that this residual is magnetospheric SWCX, that its direction dependence encodes the 3D magnetosheath structure, and that the data calibrate the O VII SWCX efficiency.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is the first empirical reconstruction of the average 3D magnetosheath structure from soft X-ray observations and the first direct XMM-Newton-based calibration of the O VII SWCX efficiency. The paper has clear strengths: the morphology comparison uses an external MHD simulation rather than a fitted model; the rise–peak–fall pattern in the I(θ) profiles is a genuine prediction of the path-length geometry; and the X-LEAP archive provides a large, well-characterized sample. The paper also explicitly acknowledges several limitations, including the dependence of α_OVII on the exospheric neutral density profile and the difficulty of constraining the bow shock. These strengths make the paper potentially important, but the isolation of the magnetospheric signal is fragile: the Milky Way template is constructed from the same observations that contain the signal, and the detection significance is computed against residual scatter that substantially exceeds the measurement noise.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2.2 and §3.3] The Milky Way O VII template is constructed by Gaussian-smoothing the heliospheric-SWCX-subtracted I_OVII map with σ = 5° using the same XMM-Newton observations that are later interpreted as containing magnetospheric emission. Because XMM-Newton pointings and spacecraft positions are correlated with magnetospheric geometry (Figure 1), the template can absorb a direction-averaged component of the very signal being extracted. Subtracting this template may therefore bias I_mag_OVII low and distort its directional dependence, which directly affects the I(θ) profiles, the fitted r_MP, a_MP, and emissivities in §3.3, and the α_OVII calibration in §4. The HaloSat cross-check only tests directions where magnetospheric contamination is expected to be small; it does not demonstrate that the template is free of magnetospheric signal on dayside magnetosheath sightlines. I request a control test: con
  2. [§2.3 and §4] The absolute scale of Q_sim, and hence both the fitted emissivities and the headline α_OVII = (2.1 ± 0.4) × 10^-16 eV cm^2, is set by the adopted exospheric hydrogen density n_H = 25 cm^-3 (10 R_E/r)^3. The paper itself notes that Lyman-α measurements put the density at 10 R_E between roughly 4 and 18 cm^-3, a discrepancy of up to a factor of about 6. Since Eq. (10) divides the observed intensity by a quantity proportional to n_H, a lower true density would raise α_OVII and the emissivities by the same factor. The spatial and directional conclusions would survive, but the absolute α_OVII calibration is only as good as this profile. Please either propagate the n_H uncertainty into α_OVII and the emissivities, or explicitly reframe α_OVII as a model-dependent quantity tied to the assumed profile rather than as a standalone empirical measurement.
  3. [§3.1 and §3.3] The dayside enhancement is detected at only 2–6σ when measured against nightside residuals whose scatter (1.7 LU) exceeds the median measurement uncertainty (0.7 LU). The likelihood in Eq. (4), and presumably the 3D fit in §3.3, uses only the MCMC posterior measurement uncertainties and does not include this extra variance. This can lead to overconfident boundary and emissivity errors. The paper also notes that most Voronoi bins fall below the target S/N = 11 because negative values enter after background subtraction. I recommend adding a jitter/systematic-scatter term to the likelihood and reporting the fit quality with and without it.
  4. [§3.3] The 3D fit excludes 45 data points with I_mag_OVII > 2σ of the sample mean, justified as being near Galactic bubble edges that were incompletely excluded in §2.1. This filtering is performed after examining the data and could remove part of the magnetospheric signal, especially if the highest residual points are concentrated on the dayside. The claim that these 45 points are contamination needs a blind or clearly pre-defined criterion, and the paper should show that the fitted r_MP, a_MP, and emissivities are stable with and without these points.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 4] The top panels are described as 'enclosed by solid lines,' but the figure would benefit from a legend that marks the modeled magnetopause and bow-shock shells and gives the numerical ranges for each X_GSE slice. The angle θ definition is helpful but should be printed in the figure itself for clarity.
  2. [Table 1 and §3.3] For unconstrained parameters the table reports 95% credible upper limits, but the text does not define which parameters are considered constrained. Adding a column or a footnote to indicate constrained versus upper-limit parameters would improve reproducibility.
  3. [References] The reference 'Y. LIANG & G. LIANG 2025' is typeset with all capital letters; please standardize to the usual 'Liang, Y., & Liang, G.' format.
  4. [§4] The statement that magnetospheric emission becomes negligible at ϕ ≳ 100° is based on a drop from '~0.4 LU (2σ significance) to zero'; this is a weak constraint and should be phrased as an upper limit rather than a sharp cutoff, especially since the paper itself cautions about real-time magnetopause shifts.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The magnetospheric residual is extracted by subtracting a Gaussian-smoothed map of the same observations from themselves, so the MW template can absorb part of the target SWCX signal; the subsequent geometry and α_OVII results are therefore only partially independent of the extraction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.2.2 (Galactic emission removal), applied in §2.2, §3.1, §3.3]
    "Utilizing this characteristic, we isolate the MW emission by constructing an empirical all-sky map using both the clean sample and the observations within the large-scale structures mentioned in Section 2.1. Specifically, this map is generated by Gaussian-smoothing the heliospheric-SWCX–subtracted I OVII with a kernel of σ= 5◦ (Figure 2). The MW contribution to each observation is then estimated from the map based on the pointing direction and subtracted accordingly."

    The MW template is built from the same I_OVII data that contain the magnetospheric SWCX signal, after only heliospheric subtraction. Subtracting this smoothed map from the same data yields I_mag = (I_OVII − helio) − S(I_OVII − helio), i.e., a high-pass-filtered version of the total. Any magnetospheric emission with angular scale ≳5° on the sky is partially removed along with the MW. Since XMM pointing and satellite position are correlated with magnetosheath geometry, the residual and all derived quantities (I(θ), r_MP, a_MP, emissivities, α_OVII) can be biased. The HaloSat cross-check does not resolve this: §4 states HaloSat restricts fields to ϕ>110°, where the paper itself says magnetospheric emission is negligible, so it cannot validate the template in the dayside magnetosheath sightlin

  2. fitted input called prediction [§2.2.1 (Heliospheric SWCX removal)]
    "we identify observation pairs with angular separations less than 4◦ and compute their intensity differences δI OVII. They are modeled as the differences of a step function with 22 free parameters, representing the heliospheric SWCX contribution in each year from 2000 to 2022."

    The pair differences are computed from the same total OVII data that include magnetospheric SWCX. Two observations of the same sky direction at different epochs have different XMM spacecraft GSE positions and therefore different magnetosheath path lengths, so δI contains magnetospheric variability. Fitting the 22-parameter 'heliospheric' step function to these differences and then subtracting it can absorb part of the magnetospheric signal before the residual I_mag is formed. The paper's assumption that pair differences primarily reflect heliospheric temporal variation is not tested against satellite position/pointing, so this background component is not independent of the target emission.

full rationale

The paper contains substantial independent content: the MHD simulation morphology, the path-length rise-peak-fall prediction, and the comparison with external Shue/Chao and HaloSat data are genuine external anchors, and the n_H density-profile normalization is explicitly acknowledged as a model-dependent scaling rather than a circular result. The self-citations to X-LEAP I/II are data/method papers, not uniqueness theorems, and are not load-bearing in a circular sense. However, the central extraction of I_mag_OVII is compromised by a self-subtraction loop: the empirical MW map is constructed by Gaussian-smoothing the very observations from which the magnetospheric signal is then derived, and the heliospheric close-pair fit is made to the same total data. These steps do not make the result definitionally equal to the input, but they do mean the 'magnetospheric residual' is not an independent measurement of the target signal, and the fitted 3D geometry and α_OVII inherit this non-independence. This warrants a partial-circularity score of 6 rather than a higher score, because the directional and spatial conclusions are still compared with external simulations and geometric predictions that provide independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on an 8-parameter 3D model plus a nonparametric MW template and 22 yearly heliospheric parameters, all fit to the same 3,723 observations. No new physical entities are introduced. The most load-bearing adopted inputs are the exospheric hydrogen density normalization (factor-of-several uncertainty admitted by the paper) and the mean-solar-wind steady state for the MHD simulation. The alpha_OVII and emissivity values are calibrated quantities, not measurements independent of these choices.

free parameters (7)
  • Heliospheric SWCX yearly step values (22 parameters) = one per year, 2000-2022 (Figure 2)
    Fitted to close-pair intensity differences to remove temporally varying heliospheric SWCX; residuals are carried into the signal.
  • Empirical MW all-sky O VII map (nonparametric, Gaussian sigma = 5 deg) = smoothed map of the data itself
    Constructed from the same observations after heliospheric subtraction; each pointing's MW contribution is read off this map and subtracted.
  • 2D slice parameters R_MP, R_BS, epsilon (per slice) = Table 1, e.g. epsilon = 6.1e-2 LU/R_E in [7,10] R_E
    Fitted to I_mag(theta) profiles in each of three dayside slices; R_MP in slice D is unconstrained at <4.1 R_E.
  • 3D model geometry and emissivity (r0_MP, a_MP, r0_BS, a_BS, epsilon_1-4) = r0_MP = 9.7 R_E, a_MP = 0.5, r0_BS = 17.5 R_E, epsilon_1-4 = 1.5-7.4e-2 LU/R_E
    Eight free parameters fitting Shue-form boundary geometry and piecewise emissivity to the same dayside residuals that define the signal.
  • Gaussian emissivity profile (epsilon_0, X_0, sigma_X) = 7.6e-2 LU/R_E, 10.3 R_E, 4.7 R_E
    Bootstrap least-squares fit to the slice emissivities; used to claim a subsolar-peaked emissivity distribution.
  • Linear fit parameters alpha, b, sigma_p = alpha = 2.1e-16 eV cm^2, b = -0.15 LU, sigma_p = 0.08 LU
    Regression of observed versus simulated intensity; alpha is the headline result, b absorbs zero-point offset, sigma_p captures intrinsic scatter.
  • Voronoi binning S/N target = S/N = 11
    Chosen adaptive-binning threshold; the paper concedes actual binned S/N is mostly below target, so this choice affects the displayed morphology.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption SWCX line intensity is proportional to n_H * n_SW * v_col
    Standard charge-exchange scaling used in Eq. 1; underpins the entire simulation comparison and alpha derivation.
  • domain assumption Magnetospheric SWCX is negligible on nightside sightlines (X_GSE < 0)
    Used as the clean baseline for anchoring heliospheric and MW background removal (section 2.2); if nightside emission is non-negligible, the baselines are biased.
  • domain assumption MW hot gas is spatially correlated on scales of about 5 deg while heliospheric SWCX varies with time
    The close-pair method (section 2.2.1) separates temporal from spatial variation on this basis, adopted from X-LEAP I.
  • domain assumption The magnetosphere is axisymmetric about the Sun-Earth line
    Reduces the 3D structure to two radial functions R_MP(X) and R_BS(X) (section 3.2); dipole-tilt and dawn-dusk asymmetries are argued negligible.
  • ad hoc to paper Constant emissivity within each X_GSE slice or shell
    Zero-order approximation stated in section 3.2; the resulting rise-peak-fall pattern is what the data are tested against.
  • domain assumption Boundaries follow the Shue et al. (1997) functional form r = r_0 [2/(1+cos phi)]^a
    Empirical parametrization imported from prior literature (section 3.3); the fit constrains r_0 and a, not the functional family.
  • domain assumption Mean solar wind conditions (n = 5 cm^-3, v = 400 km/s, Bz = -5 nT) represent the 22-year average
    Steady-state MHD simulation replaces time-dependent solar wind; the paper estimates only about 6% standoff variation from density variability.
  • domain assumption Exospheric hydrogen density n_H = 25 cm^-3 (10 R_E / r)^3
    Sets the absolute normalization of the collision-rate integral; the paper concedes 4-18 cm^-3 at 10 R_E from Lyman-alpha measurements, up to about 6x uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Emission beyond 80 R_E is negligible
    Integration cutoff used in Eq. 1 (section 2.3), cited to Sun et al. 2019.
  • domain assumption Total soft X-ray SWCX efficiency alpha_sim = 1e-15 eV cm^2 for scaling
    Converts simulation to intensity units for morphology comparison; explicitly stated to rescale only and later replaced by the fitted alpha.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The XMM-Newton Line Emission Analysis Program (X-LEAP) III: Earth's Magnetospheric X-ray Emission Revealed by 22-Year XMM-Newton Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4VX4UKPL

@misc{pith2026260718743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The XMM-Newton Line Emission Analysis Program (X-LEAP) III: Earth's Magnetospheric X-ray Emission Revealed by 22-Year XMM-Newton Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4VX4UKPL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18743}
}
abstract

The magnetosphere, protecting the Earth from intense solar activity, is also shaped by the solar wind, while its structure is still uncertain in observation. In this study, we map the X-ray emission in the magnetosphere, which is induced by the charge exchange between the highly-ionized solar wind and the neutral gas around the Earth, known as the magnetospheric solar wind charge exchange (SWCX). In particular, we extract the magnetospheric SWCX in the O VII line emission data adopted from the XMM Line Emission Analysis Program (X-LEAP). The observed magnetospheric SWCX shows an enhanced emission of approximately $I_{\rm OVII}^{\rm mag}\approx 2$ photons $\rm cm^{-2}~ s^{-1}~sr^{-1}$ toward the Sun, showing a consistent shape predicted by numerical simulations. Furthermore, this magnetospheric SWCX exhibits a dependence on the XMM pointing direction, which traces the path length of SWCX emission in the Earth's magnetosphere. Building on this directional dependence, we model the 3D magnetosheath structure using soft X-ray observations for the first time, constraining the averaged boundary geometry and SWCX emissivity distribution over 22 years. Finally, utilizing the XMM data, we derive an empirical O VII emission efficiency of $\alpha_{\rm OVII}=(2.1\pm0.4) \times 10^{-16}\ {\rm eV\,cm^{2}}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18743 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of XMM-Newton observation positions (points) used in this study. These observations are distributed across the magnetosphere, well-suited for probing magnetospheric SWCX. The magnetosheath region, where strong SWCX emission is expected, is bounded by the modeled magnetopause (dotted line; J. H. Shue et al. 1997) and bow shock (dashed line; J. K. Chao et al. 2002). The dash-dotted curve indicates XMM… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Removing heliospheric and MW hot gas contributions while retaining magnetospheric signals by using nightside observations (XGSE < 0). Left: Long-term variation in the observed IOVII, attributed to heliospheric SWCX. This variation is characterized by a nonparametric model (smoothed line) using the “close-pair” method described in Section 2.2.1. Right: All-sky map of the heliospheric-SWCX-subtracted IOVII, primarily … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of corrected O VII intensity (I mag OVII), compared with the predicted magnetospheric SWCX intensity (I sim OVII) from an MHD simulation (Section 2.3). The I mag OVII-enhanced region lies primarily within the modeled magnetosheath (between the dotted and dashed lines) and closely matches the simulated morphology, together confirming a magnetospheric SWCX origin. Both maps are adaptively binned t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Directional dependence of I mag OVII demonstrating that longer magnetosheath path lengths correspond to stronger signals. Top: Distribution of XMM-Newton positions (enclosed by solid lines) in the YGSE–ZGSE plane across XGSE slices. These positions sample the predicted…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Magnetopause and bow shock boundaries (RMP and RBS) derived from XGSE slices, overlaid on the spatial distribu￾tion from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The corrected O VII intensity correlates strongly with simulated total SWCX intensity, indicating that the simulation accurately reproduces the LOS integral of nHnSWvSW. This correlation suggests that the O VII line contributes approximately 20% of total SWCX emission.…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 116, A09302, doi: 10.1029/2011JA016531

    Bailey, J., & Gruntman, M. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 116, A09302, doi: 10.1029/2011JA016531

    work page doi:10.1029/2011ja016531 2011

  3. [3]

    I., Bertaux, J.-L., Qu´ emerais, E., Izmodenov, V

    Baliukin, I. I., Bertaux, J.-L., Qu´ emerais, E., Izmodenov, V. V., & Schmidt, W. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 861, doi: 10.1029/2018JA026136

    doi:10.1029/2018ja026136 2019

  4. [4]

    D., et al

    Bluem, J., Kaaret, P., Kuntz, K. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8662

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8662 2022

  5. [5]

    E., & Valdivia, J

    Borovsky, J. E., & Valdivia, J. A. 2018, Surveys in Geophysics, 39, 817, doi: 10.1007/s10712-018-9487-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10712-018-9487-x 2018

  6. [6]

    2003, MNRAS, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    Cappellari, M., & Copin, Y. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    A., Sembay, S., & Read, A

    Carter, J. A., Sembay, S., & Read, A. M. 2011, A&A, 527, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015817

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015817 2011

  8. [8]

    1980, ApJL, 238, L71

    Cash, W., Charles, P., Bowyer, S., et al. 1980, ApJL, 238, L71

    1980

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    K., Wu, D

    Chao, J. K., Wu, D. J., Lin, C.-H., et al. 2002, Cospar, 12, 127, doi: 10.1016/S0964-2749(02)80212-8

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    R., & Connor, H

    Collier, M. R., & Connor, H. K. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 123, 10,189, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025763

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    K., Sun, T., Samsonov, A., et al

    Connor, H. K., Sun, T., Samsonov, A., et al. 2025, SSRv, 221, 46, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01172-8

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    Cravens, T. E. 1997, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 105, doi: 10.1029/96GL03780

    1997 doi

  5. [13]

    Cravens, T. E. 2000, ApJL, 532, L153, doi: 10.1086/312574

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    E., Robertson, I

    Cravens, T. E., Robertson, I. P., & Snowden, S. L. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 24883, doi: 10.1029/2000JA000461

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Kurt, V

    Dalaudier, F., Bertaux, J. L., Kurt, V. G., & Mironova, E. N. 1984, A&A, 134, 171

    1984

  8. [16]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  9. [17]

    2007, PASJ, 59, S133

    Fujimoto, R., Mitsuda, K., McCammon, D., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, S133

    2007

  10. [18]

    A., Funsten, H

    Fuselier, S. A., Funsten, H. O., Heirtzler, D., et al. 2010, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L13101, doi: 10.1029/2010GL044140

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    M., et al

    Gloeckler, G., Cain, J., Ipavich, F. M., et al. 1998, SSRv, 86, 497, doi: 10.1023/A:1005036131689

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 12, 1563653, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2025.1563653

    Gong, Y., Sun, T., Tang, B., et al. 2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 12, 1563653, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2025.1563653

    2025

  13. [21]

    Hapgood, M. A. 1992, Planet. Space Sci., 40, 711, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(92)90012-D

    1992 doi

  14. [22]

    2001, ApJ, 556, 380

    Helfand, D., Gotthelf, E., & Halpern, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 380

    2001

  15. [23]

    Q., Guo, X

    Hu, Y. Q., Guo, X. C., & Wang, C. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A07215, doi: 10.1029/2006JA012145

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    2001, A&A, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 14

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 14

    2001 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Sun, T., Wang, C., et al

    Jorgensen, A. M., Sun, T., Wang, C., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 4365, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025919

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    M., et al

    Kaaret, P., Zajczyk, A., LaRocca, D. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4193

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    D., et al

    Kaaret, P., Koutroumpa, D., Kuntz, K. D., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1072

    2020

  20. [28]

    Kourkchi, E., & Tully, R. B. 2017, ApJ, 843, 16

    2017

  21. [29]

    2024, Earth and Planetary Physics, 8, 105, doi: 10.26464/epp2023056

    Koutroumpa, D. 2024, Earth and Planetary Physics, 8, 105, doi: 10.26464/epp2023056

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2009, Space science reviews, 143, 217

    Dalgarno, A. 2009, Space science reviews, 143, 217

    2009

  23. [31]

    2008, A&A, 478, 575

    Kuntz, K., & Snowden, S. 2008, A&A, 478, 575

    2008

  24. [32]

    Kuntz, K. D. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 1

    2019

  25. [33]

    D., Collado-Vega, Y

    Kuntz, K. D., Collado-Vega, Y. M., Collier, M. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/143

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    L., Kurt, V

    Lallement, R., Bertaux, J. L., Kurt, V. G., & Mironova, E. N. 1984, A&A, 140, 243

    1984

  27. [35]

    2025, Acta Physica Sinica, 74, 103201, doi: 10.7498/aps.74.20241603

    LIANG, Y., & LIANG, G. 2025, Acta Physica Sinica, 74, 103201, doi: 10.7498/aps.74.20241603

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    J., & Bregman, J

    Miller, M. J., & Bregman, J. N. 2015, ApJ, 800, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/14

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    B., Brown, A

    Ochsendorf, B. B., Brown, A. G., Bally, J., & Tielens, A. G. 2015, ApJ, 808, 111

    2015

  30. [38]

    N., & Liu, J

    Pan, Z., Qu, Z., Bregman, J. N., & Liu, J. 2024, ApJS, X-LEAP I, 271, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2ea0

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2011, A&A, 534, A109

    Melin, J.-B. 2011, A&A, 534, A109

    2011

  32. [40]

    2020, Nature, 588, 227

    Predehl, P., Sunyaev, R., Becker, W., et al. 2020, Nature, 588, 227

    2020

  33. [41]

    N., & Liu, J

    Qu, Z., Pan, Z., Bregman, J. N., & Liu, J. 2024, ApJ, X-LEAP II, 965, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad31a0

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    P., & Cravens, T

    Robertson, I. P., & Cravens, T. E. 2003, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1439, doi: 10.1029/2002GL016740

    2003 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Schartel, N., Gonz´ alez-Riestra, R., Kretschmar, P., et al. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 114, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 41-1

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2017, ARA&A, 55, 213, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122339

    Sharma, S. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 213, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122339

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    H., Chao, J

    Shue, J. H., Chao, J. K., Fu, H. C., et al. 1997, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 9497, doi: 10.1029/97JA00196

    1997 doi

  38. [46]

    G., Allen, R., Aryan, H., et al

    Sibeck, D. G., Allen, R., Aryan, H., et al. 2018, SSRv, 214, 79, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0504-7

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    L., Collier, M

    Snowden, S. L., Collier, M. R., & Kuntz, K. D. 2004, ApJ, 610, 1182, doi: 10.1086/421841

    2004 doi

  40. [48]

    2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 126, e28314, doi: 10.1029/2020JA028314

    Sun, T., Wang, X., & Wang, C. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 126, e28314, doi: 10.1029/2020JA028314

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Wang, C., Wei, F., & Sembay, S

    Sun, T. R., Wang, C., Wei, F., & Sembay, S. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 266, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020497

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Wang, C., Sembay, S

    Sun, T. R., Wang, C., Sembay, S. F., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 2435, doi: 10.1029/2018JA026093

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    2003, ApJ, 592, L71 von Steiger, R., & Zurbuchen, T

    Goss, W. 2003, ApJ, 592, L71 von Steiger, R., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2016, ApJ, 816, 13, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/13

    2003 doi

  44. [52]

    2025, SSRv, 221, 9, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01126-6

    Forsyth, C. 2025, SSRv, 221, 9, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01126-6

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 129, e2024JA032687, doi: 10.1029/2024JA032687

    Xu, Q., Koutroumpa, D., Modolo, R., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 129, e2024JA032687, doi: 10.1029/2024JA032687

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, Earth and Planetary Physics, 8, 59, doi: 10.26464/epp2023059

    Yang, Z., Jarvinen, R., Guo, X., et al. 2024, Earth and Planetary Physics, 8, 59, doi: 10.26464/epp2023059

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    A., et al

    Zhang, Y., Sun, T., Carter, J. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc326

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, ApJL, 932, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7521

    Zhang, Y., Sun, T., Wang, C., et al. 2022, ApJL, 932, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7521

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    H., Bailey, J

    Zoennchen, J. H., Bailey, J. J., Nass, U., et al. 2011, Annales Geophysicae, 29, 2211, doi: 10.5194/angeo-29-2211-2011

    2011 doi

  50. [58]

    H., Nass, U., & Fahr, H

    Zoennchen, J. H., Nass, U., & Fahr, H. J. 2013, Annales Geophysicae, 31, 513, doi: 10.5194/angeo-31-513-2013

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.