Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Particle-in-cell simulations of the whistler heat-flux instability in the solar wind conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Whistler heat-flux instability, long predicted and observed but never simulated, is shown in particle-in-cell runs to grow from a counter-beaming electron distribution and saturate at moderate amplitudes.

desk verdict First self-consistent PIC simulation of the whistler heat-flux instability, with real physics in the growth stage and plausible saturation; the open flank is numerical—one run, no energy-conservation diagnostics, and the authors' own caveat about broad spectra. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06666 v1 pith:PVRIZ534 submitted 2019-08-19 physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph

R. A. López , S. M. Shaaban , M. Lazar , S. Poedts , P. H. Yoon , A. Micera , G. Lapenta This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phastro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords whistlerheat-fluxinstabilityparticle-in-cellsimulationsolarwindelectronstrahlheatfluxregulationtemperatureanisotropypitch-anglescatteringplasmakinetic
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

The paper's aim is to show that the whistler heat-flux instability (WHFI) can be excited self-consistently in a particle-in-cell simulation starting from a purely counter-beaming, isotropic electron distribution with solar-wind-like parameters, with no imposed temperature gradient or anisotropy. If true, this closes a long-standing gap: WHFI had been predicted theoretically and inferred from spacecraft data but never reproduced numerically. The simulations find the instability grows from noise, saturates at moderate magnetic amplitudes, and relaxes the counter-streaming drifts by roughly 30% while reshaping the two electron populations—parallel-cooling the core, perpendicular-heating it, and pitch-angle/energy scattering the strahl into an energy-narrowing skew. The behavior agrees with quasilinear theory and supports the picture that self-generated whistlers limit solar-wind heat flux in the strahl.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the cyclotron-resonant exchange between the counter-beaming electron populations and self-generated right-hand whistler waves, with initial drifts fixed by the zero-net-current relation $n_c|U_c| = n_b U_b$ and the instability window $\theta_c < U_b < \theta_b$. The simulation uses an implicit particle-in-cell method that resolves the electron inertial length and electron gyromotion while taking time steps much larger than an explicit scheme would allow, so the weak WHFI branch can grow from noise at realistic solar-wind parameters. Saturation is driven by velocity-space diffusion: the waves pitch-angle and energy scatter the strahl, cool the core in the parallel direction and heat it perpendicularly, and the resulting anisotropies—core $T_\perp > T_\|$, beam $T_\| > T_\perp$—are exactly those that quench the instability.

What would settle it

Repeat the same initial conditions with a factor-of-two smaller time step and twice as many particles per cell, and also with a genuinely two- or three-dimensional domain; if the growth rate, the 30% drift relaxation, and the saturated magnetic energy change by more than a few percent, or if the broad wavenumber spectrum collapses to the narrow linearly unstable band, the reported saturation is numerical rather than physical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from an isotropic Maxwellian electron distribution—a 95% core drifting at $U_c = -2.1\,v_A$ and a 5% beam/strahl drifting at $U_b = 40\,v_A$, satisfying zero net current, with $\beta_{c,\|}=3$ and $\beta_{b,\|}=18$ and mass ratio $m_p/m_e=1836$—the implicit particle-in-cell run develops right-hand polarized whistler fluctuations with positive wave numbers whose growth and dispersion match linear theory. The magnetic energy grows from noise, rolls over near $\Omega_i t \approx 3$, then rises more slowly to the end of the run; by then the drift velocities have fallen to about 67% of their initial values and the heat flux is reduced by 25–30%. Saturation is not a simple flattening: the core is cooled parallel and heated perpendicular, while the beam develops an excess of parallel temperature, and the final strahl is pitch-angle skewed with width decreasing as electron energy increases. The authors present this as the first PIC confirmation that WHFI saturates at moderate amplitudes and partially regulates the strahl heat flux.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the implicit particle-in-cell run's violation of energy conservation is small enough not to alter the growth and saturation of the weak whistler fluctuations, and that the effectively one-dimensional spatial setup captures the relevant dynamics; the authors themselves attribute the broad wavenumber spectra to this numerical error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulated WHFI grows from a purely counter-beaming Maxwellian pair, so spacecraft whistler bursts near strahl edges can be read as self-generated rather than externally injected turbulence.
  • Saturation at moderate amplitudes with only ~30% drift relaxation means WHFI can partially regulate solar-wind heat flux but leaves a persistent residual drift, so additional mechanisms are needed to explain full heat-flux suppression.
  • The induced core-perpendicular and beam-parallel temperature anisotropies act as a natural feedback that quenches the instability, explaining the self-limiting character of WHFI.
  • The anti-sunward strahl's pitch-angle width decreasing with energy is a specific observable signature distinguishing self-generated whistlers from small-scale turbulence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A longer run than the reported 4 proton gyroperiods would test whether the continued slow rise in magnetic energy after $\Omega_i t \approx 3$ represents a second stage of saturation; if so, the final drift relaxation could exceed 30%.
  • The broad wavenumber spectra flagged by the authors as likely energy-conservation error suggest a convergence study in particle number and time step would either confirm the spectral shape or reveal that part of the saturated state is numerical; this is a natural immediate follow-up.
  • The small high-energy shoulder in the scattered beam hints that a sub-population of strahl electrons remains nearly unscattered; if this persists at longer times, single-mode quasilinear theory will under-predict the residual heat flux at high energies.
  • One can test the skewness signature observationally: high-resolution solar-wind electron measurements that resolve pitch-angle distributions by energy should show the strahl narrowing in width as energy rises in events that also show whistler-band fluctuations.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This Letter reports particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations of the whistler heat-flux instability (WHFI) in solar-wind-like conditions, using the implicit PIC code iPic3D with counter-beaming Maxwellian electron core and beam populations. The authors find growth of transverse magnetic fluctuations consistent with linear dispersion theory, followed by saturation accompanied by a partial (about 30%) relaxation of the electron drifts, induced temperature anisotropies in the core and beam, and a pitch-angle/energy-dependent skewness of the strahl. They compare these results qualitatively with a recent quasilinear theory and conclude that WHFI saturates at moderate amplitudes, supporting the view that self-generated whistlers regulate solar-wind electron heat flux.

Significance. If substantiated, this is the first self-consistent kinetic simulation of the whistler heat-flux instability and a valuable confirmation of the quasilinear saturation paradigm for solar-wind electron heat-flux regulation. The paper is transparent about its numerical setup, reporting all simulation parameters, and it provides a useful cross-check between PIC results, linear dispersion theory, and quasilinear predictions that are methodologically independent of the simulation itself. The reported skewness of the strahl with energy is a concrete, falsifiable prediction that could be compared with Solar Orbiter or Parker Solar Probe observations. These strengths make the work potentially important; the main risk is that the numerical fidelity of the single implicit-PIC run is not quantitatively demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, after Fig. 3] The authors state that the broad wavenumber spectra 'may probably result from the small error in the energy conservation in this simulation' and later recommend 'new codes that conserve much better the energy.' However, the manuscript provides no energy-conservation diagnostic, no convergence scan in time step, grid spacing, or particle number, and no estimate of numerical dissipation relative to physical quasilinear diffusion. The saturation amplitudes in Fig. 1 and especially the low-level skewness visible only in the 2x10^-4 and 3x10^-4 contours of Fig. 4 could be contaminated by numerical velocity-space diffusion. Without a quantitative bound on this error, the central claim that the observed relaxation and skewness are caused by physical WHFI fluctuations is not fully supported.
  2. [Section 2, Table 1 and Fig. 1] Only a single simulation run is presented, with no parameter variation or reproducibility check. The quantitative claims of about 30% drift relaxation, induced anisotropies, and skewness all rest on this one realization. A minimal convergence study (e.g., varying the number of particles per cell or the time step) is needed to establish that these results are robust numerical outcomes rather than artifacts of the chosen resolution or noise level. This is especially important because the instability is weak and saturates at low amplitudes.
  3. [Section 2, first paragraph] The code is described as 'an implicit one-dimensional PIC code, i.e., iPic3D,' but iPic3D is a three-dimensional implicit PIC code. The actual dimensionality of the run (e.g., one spatial dimension with three velocity components, or a 2D/3D setup) is not stated. This matters because wave propagation directions, resonance conditions, and pitch-angle scattering depend on the dimensionality, and the paper's claim that the setup is 'realistic for the solar wind conditions' requires an unambiguous description of the simulated geometry. Please clarify the exact spatial and velocity-space dimensionality used.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1, Introduction] The symbols 'Tb,‖ /greaterorsimilar/Tb,⊥' and 'Tc,⊥ /greaterorsimilar/Tc,‖' appear corrupted; they should be typeset as proper inequalities such as T_b,∥ ≳ T_b,⊥ and T_c,⊥ ≳ T_c,∥.
  2. [Section 2, after Eq. (1)] The phrase 'the ions (subscript i) are assumed to be only protons' is grammatically awkward; it should read 'the ions are assumed to be protons only.'
  3. [Table 1] The zero-net-current condition is not exactly satisfied by the tabulated values: n_b U_b = 0.05 × 40 = 2.0, while n_c |U_c| = 0.95 × 2.1 = 1.995. Please either round the entries consistently or state that the condition is satisfied to the displayed precision.
  4. [Figure 3] The power spectrum is a cumulative average over a time interval during which the plasma parameters evolve, as the text acknowledges. To strengthen the linear-theory comparison, consider overlaying the instantaneous linear growth rate at two or three times within the interval, rather than only at t = 0.
  5. [Section 2, Fig. 4 and text] The 'shoulder' in the reduced distribution is described qualitatively but not quantified. A one-dimensional cut of the reduced distribution along v_x at v_y = 0, or a measure of the skewness as a function of energy, would make the claim more concrete and testable.
  6. [Section 3, Summary] The sentence 'In time this population is naturally reduced leading to a lower pitch-angular width that becomes however prominent due to a concomitant decrease of the drift' is unclear. Please rephrase to specify what becomes prominent and how the drift decrease relates to the pitch-angle width.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PIC simulation is a self-contained numerical experiment, with self-cited linear and quasilinear theories used only as independent cross-checks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an implicit PIC simulation excites the whistler heat-flux instability (WHFI) from a counter-beaming electron distribution and reproduces its saturation. The initial plasma parameters (densities, temperatures, beta, drifts) are taken from solar-wind observations and linear-theory unstable regimes; they are not fitted to the simulation output. The magnetic-energy growth in Fig. 1 and the FFT spectra in Figs. 2 and 3 are direct simulation diagnostics, and the comparison with the linear dispersion relation is an external cross-check, not an input to the run. The quasilinear comparison (Shaaban et al. 2019) is a same-group theory, but it is a parameter-free prediction from kinetic theory and is used after the fact to interpret the observed drift relaxation and induced anisotropies; the simulation's own evolution does not rely on that theory being true. The authors' caveat that broad wavenumber spectra 'may probably result from the small error in the energy conservation in this simulation' is a numerical accuracy limitation, not circularity: it does not define or fit the reported quantities. The mislabeling of iPic3D as a 'one-dimensional PIC code' is a setup-documentation issue, not a circularity. No equation or fitted parameter in the paper reduces to another by construction. Self-citations are present, but none is load-bearing: the cited linear and quasilinear results are independently checkable and are not assumed as premises in the PIC run. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters in the sense of fitting; the listed initial conditions are physically motivated but not varied or fitted. The main axiomatic burden is the numerical method's fidelity and the 1D approximation, both of which are domain assumptions rather than ad hoc constructs.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial drift velocities U_b and U_c = U_b = 40 v_A, U_c = -2.1 v_A
    Chosen from solar wind observations to represent counter-beaming populations and satisfy zero net current; not fitted to the simulation output, but the saturation level is measured only for this single configuration.
  • Plasma beta values = βb,‖ = 18, βc,‖ = 3
    Selected from the observed range of solar wind parameters; the instability growth depends on these and no parameter scan is performed.
  • Beam density ratio n_b/n_0 = 0.05
    Representative observed value; not varied in the study.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Counter-beaming bi-Maxwellian electron distributions with zero net current are adequate initial conditions
    Equation (1) and Table 1; the real strahl may have non-Maxwellian tails and gradients not captured.
  • domain assumption The one-dimensional spatial domain along the background magnetic field captures the dominant parallel-propagating WHFI modes
    Section 2 setup; oblique modes and perpendicular dynamics are suppressed, yet the conclusions contrast with 'small-scale turbulence'.
  • domain assumption The implicit PIC scheme resolves electron inertial length and gyromotion with sufficient accuracy
    Section 2 gives Δx = 0.7 d_e and Δt = 0.016/Ω_ce, but no energy-conservation metrics are shown and the authors flag a small energy error.
  • domain assumption Linear Vlasov dispersion theory of WHFI provides the correct baseline for spectral interpretation
    Section 2, Fig. 3 uses Gary (1985) and Shaaban et al. (2018), which are cited, not derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle-in-cell simulations of the whistler heat-flux instability in the solar wind conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVRIZ534

@misc{pith2026190806666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle-in-cell simulations of the whistler heat-flux instability in the solar wind conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVRIZ534}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06666}
}
read the original abstract

In collision-poor plasmas from space, e.g., solar wind or stellar outflows, the heat-flux carried by the strahl or beaming electrons is expected to be regulated by the self-generated instabilities. Recently, simultaneous field and particle observations have indeed revealed enhanced whistler-like fluctuations in the presence of counter-beaming populations of electrons, connecting these fluctuations to the whistler heat-flux instability (WHFI). This instability is predicted only for limited conditions of electron beam-plasmas, and was not captured in numerical simulations yet. In this letter we report the first simulations of WHFI in particle-in-cell (PIC) setups, realistic for the solar wind conditions, and without temperature gradients or anisotropies to trigger the instability in the initiation phase. The velocity distributions have a complex reaction to the enhanced whistler fluctuations conditioning the instability saturation by a decrease of the relative drifts combined with induced (effective) temperature anisotropies (heating the core electrons and pitch-angle and energy scattering the strahl). These results are in good agreement with a recent quasilinear approach, and support therefore a largely accepted belief that WHFI saturates at moderate amplitudes. In anti-sunward direction the strahl becomes skewed with a pitch-angle distribution decreasing in width as electron energy increases, that seems to be characteristic to self-generated whistlers and not to small-scale turbulence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06666 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Temporal evolution for the fluctuating magnetic energy density WB, parallel and perpendicular components of plasma beta parameters βc,b, normalized (parallel) electron heat-flux, and parallel drifts Uc,b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal evolution of the wave number trans￾verse magnetic power. Our initial setup in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of linear dispersion re￾lation (upper panel), real frequency (black, dashed line rep￾resenting the unstable region) and growth rate (red), with normalized power spectra of whistler fluctuations for the in￾terval 0 < ωit < 2.0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The eVDF fe(vx, vy) at different stages in the simulation, Ωit = 0.0 3.3 and 10.1. Upper panels are showing the total eVDF and lower panels only the beam distributions. Initial (Ωit = 0.0; black) and final (Ωit = 10.1; blue) snapshots of the reduced eVDF fe(vx) (right …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fluctuating distribution function δfj (t) = fj (t)− fj (0): core distribution δfc (top) and beam distribution δfb (bottom). relaxation is less significant under the effect of a sin￾gle mode in QL theory), and support therefore a largely accepted belief that WHFI satura…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2013, ApJL, 769, 2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/769/2/L22 Berˇ ciˇ c, L., Maksimovi´ c, , M., Land i, S., & Matteini, L

    Quataert, E. 2013, ApJL, 769, 2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/769/2/L22 Berˇ ciˇ c, L., Maksimovi´ c, , M., Land i, S., & Matteini, L. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1007

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/769/2/l22 2013

  2. [2]

    Breneman, A., Cattell, C., Schreiner, S., et al. 2010, J. Geophys. Res., 115, A08104, doi: 10.1029/2009JA014920

    work page doi:10.1029/2009ja014920 2010

  3. [3]

    U., Larson, D

    Crooker, N. U., Larson, D. E., Kahler, S. W., Lamassa, S. M., & Spence, H. E. 2003, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1619, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017036

    work page doi:10.1029/2003gl017036 2003

  4. [4]

    Gary, S. P. 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 10815, doi: 10.1029/JA090iA11p10815

    work page doi:10.1029/ja090ia11p10815 1985

  5. [5]

    P., & Feldman, W

    Gary, S. P., & Feldman, W. C. 1977, J. Geophys. Res., 82, 1087, doi: 10.1029/JA082i007p01087

    work page doi:10.1029/ja082i007p01087 1977

  6. [6]

    P., Neagu, E., Skoug, R

    Gary, S. P., Neagu, E., Skoug, R. M., & Goldstein, B. E. 1999b, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 19843, doi: 10.1029/1999JA900244

    work page doi:10.1029/1999ja900244

  7. [7]

    P., & Saito, S

    Gary, S. P., & Saito, S. 2007, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L14111, doi: 10.1029/2007GL030039

    work page doi:10.1029/2007gl030039 2007

  8. [8]

    P., Skoug, R

    Gary, S. P., Skoug, R. M., & Daughton, W. 1999a, PhPl, 6, 2607, doi: 10.1063/1.873532

    doi:10.1063/1.873532

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    L., Vi˜ nas, A

    Gurgiolo, C., Goldstein, M. L., Vi˜ nas, A. F., & Fazakerley, A. N. 2012, AnGeo, 30, 163, doi: 10.5194/angeo-30-163-2012

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 1499, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1808

    Horaites, K., Astfalk, P., Boldyrev, S., & Jenko, F. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1499, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1808

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/5

    Lacombe, C., Alexandrova, O., Matteini, L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/5

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    2014, ApJ, 790, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/790/1/L12

    Landi, S., Matteini, L., & Pantellini, F. 2014, ApJ, 790, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/790/1/L12

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Lee, S.-Y., Lee, E., & Yoon, P. H. 2019, ApJ, 876, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12db L´ opez, R. A., & Yoon, P. H. 2018, J. Geophys. Res., 123, 8924, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025934

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Y., et al

    Maksimovic, M., Zouganelis, I., Chaufray, J. Y., et al. 2005 , J. Geophys. Res., 110, 1, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011119

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    2010, Math

    Markidis, S., Lapenta, G., & Rizwan-uddin. 2010, Math. Comput. Simul., 80, 1509, doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2009.08.038

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Steinberg, J. T. 2007, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A04103, doi: 10.1029/2006JA011967

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, ApJ, 769, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/769/2/L30

    Gaelzer, R. 2013, ApJ, 769, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/769/2/L30

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    G., Miggenrieder, H., Mhlhuser, K

    Pilipp, W. G., Miggenrieder, H., Mhlhuser, K. H., et al. 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 1103, doi: 10.1029/JA092iA02p01103

    1987 doi

  11. [19]

    H., Lazar, M., & Qureshi, M

    Saeed, S., Sarfraz, M., Yoon, P. H., Lazar, M., & Qureshi, M. N. S. 2017a, MNRAS, 465, 1672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2900

    doi

  12. [20]

    H., Sarfraz, M., & Qureshi, M

    Saeed, S., Yoon, P. H., Sarfraz, M., & Qureshi, M. N. S. 2017b, MNRAS, 466, 4928, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx049

    doi

  13. [21]

    Saito, S., & Gary, S. P. 2007a, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L01102, doi: 10.1029/2006GL028173 —. 2007b, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A06116, doi: 10.1029/2006JA012216

    doi

  14. [22]

    E., Littleton, J

    Scime, E. E., Littleton, J. E., Gary, S. P., Skoug, R., & Lin, N. 2001, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2169, doi: 10.1029/2001GL012925

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    H., & Saito, S

    Seough, J., Nariyuki, Y., Yoon, P. H., & Saito, S. 2015, ApJL, 811, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L7

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Lazar, M., & Poedts, S

    Shaaban, S. M., Lazar, M., & Poedts, S. 2018a, MNRAS, 480, 310, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1567

    doi

  17. [25]

    M., Lazar, M., Yoon, P

    Shaaban, S. M., Lazar, M., Yoon, P. H., & Poedts, S. 2018b, PhPl, 25, 082105, doi: 10.1063/1.5042481

    doi

  18. [26]

    M., Lazar, M., Yoon, P

    Shaaban, S. M., Lazar, M., Yoon, P. H., Poedts, S., & L´ opez, R. A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz830

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    1953, Phys

    Spitzer, L., & H¨ arm, R. 1953, Phys. Rev., 89, 977, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.89.977

    1953 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Chen, C

    Stansby, D., Horbury, T. S., Chen, C. H. K., & Matteini, L. 2016, ApJL, 829, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L16

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Salem, C., & Pulupa, M

    Tong, Y., Bale, S. D., Salem, C., & Pulupa, M. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.07694. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.07694

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mozer, F. S. 2019a, ApJ, 878, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f05

    doi

  23. [31]

    Y., Pulupa, M., et al

    Tong, Y., Vasko, I. Y., Pulupa, M., et al. 2019b, ApJL, 870, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf734

    doi

  24. [32]

    Y., Krasnoselskikh, V., Tong, Y., et al

    Vasko, I. Y., Krasnoselskikh, V., Tong, Y., et al. 2019, ApJL, 871, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab01bd

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Verscharen, D., Chandran, B. D. G., Jeong, S.-Y., et al. 2019a, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02832 8 L´opez et al

    1906 arXiv

  26. [34]

    G., & Maruca, B

    Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., & Maruca, B. A. 2019b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.03448. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.03448

    1902 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2003, ApJ, 593, 1134, doi: 10.1086/376682

    Vocks, C., & Mann, G. 2003, ApJ, 593, 1134, doi: 10.1086/376682

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    P., & Mann, G

    Vocks, C., Salem, C., Lin, R. P., & Mann, G. 2005, ApJ, 627, 540, doi: 10.1086/430119

    2005 doi

  29. [37]

    B., Koval, A., Szabo, A., et al

    Wilson, L. B., Koval, A., Szabo, A., et al. 2013, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 5, doi: 10.1029/2012JA018167

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.