pith. sign in

arxiv: 2403.18990 · v1 · submitted 2024-03-27 · ⚛️ physics.space-ph · physics.plasm-ph

Turbulence properties and kinetic signatures of electron in Kelvin-Helmholtz waves during a geomagnetic storm

Harsha Gurram , Jason R. Shuster , Li-Jen Chen , Matthew R. Argall , Richard E. Denton , Rachel C. Rice , Brandon L. Burkholder , Daniel J. Gershman This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 03:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.space-ph physics.plasm-ph
keywords Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilityturbulence spectramagnetic reconnectionelectron agyrotropymagnetopausegeomagnetic stormMMS observationselectron jets
0
0 comments X

The pith

MMS observations during a geomagnetic storm show electric field spectra breaking at the lower hybrid frequency alongside current sheets with intense electron jets and factor-of-10 agyrotropy at Kelvin-Helmholtz vortex edges, interpreted as强

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

The paper examines MMS spacecraft measurements of Kelvin-Helmholtz instability during a geomagnetic storm. It reports that the electric field spectrum maintains a constant slope below the ion cyclotron frequency before breaking near the lower hybrid frequency. The data also capture a current sheet with electron jets and highly agyrotropic electron distributions at the KH vortex edges. These features are interpreted as signatures of strong guide-field asymmetric reconnection. The study provides a multi-scale perspective on turbulence in strongly driven KH waves extending to electron scales.

Core claim

MMS observes a current sheet accompanied by intense electron jets and features consistent with strong guide-field asymmetric reconnection across the magnetopause. Substantial agyrotropy in electron distribution functions is observed in the reconnecting current sheet and at the edges of KH. The spectral slope for electric field stays approximately constant for frequencies below the ion cyclotron frequency and exhibits a break around the lower hybrid frequency. Our observation presents a multi-scale view into KH turbulence under strongly driven conditions and into the dynamics occurring at electron dissipation scales.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the identification of reconnection signatures via intense electron jets and substantial agyrotropy in electron distributions within current sheets at the edges of KH vortices, together with the electric-field spectral break near the lower hybrid frequency.

If this is right

  • The electric field spectral slope remains constant below the ion cyclotron frequency with a break near the lower hybrid frequency indicating wave activity.
  • Electron distribution functions exhibit substantial agyrotropy by a factor of 10 both in the reconnecting current sheet and at the edges of KH vortices.
  • The observations capture dynamics occurring at electron dissipation scales under strongly driven geomagnetic storm conditions.
  • A multi-scale view emerges that links large-scale KH wave structure to kinetic processes at the magnetopause.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These signatures may indicate that storm-time driving increases the occurrence or intensity of reconnection embedded within KH waves compared with quiet-time conditions.
  • Similar electron-scale features could appear in other space plasma shear layers where velocity gradients drive both fluid instabilities and kinetic reconnection.
  • Models of magnetospheric energy transfer may need to incorporate the observed spectral break location to predict dissipation rates across ion-to-electron scales.

Load-bearing premise

The observed current sheet and intense electron jets represent strong guide-field asymmetric reconnection, which depends on correct identification of the spacecraft trajectory relative to the KH vortex and reconnection geometry without significant projection or timing ambiguities.

What would settle it

If the directions and speeds of the observed electron jets or the measured agyrotropy values fail to match the outflow and distribution features predicted by particle-in-cell simulations of strong-guide-field asymmetric reconnection at the observed magnetic shear and density asymmetry, the reconnection interpretation would not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2403.18990 by Brandon L. Burkholder, Daniel J. Gershman, Harsha Gurram, Jason R. Shuster, Li-Jen Chen, Matthew R. Argall, Rachel C. Rice, Richard E. Denton.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of Kelvin-Helmholtz vortices encountered by MMS1 during a geomagnetic storm on 14 April 2022. The panels show a) magnetic field components, b) electron density, c) ion velocity components, d) electron velocity components, e) ion and electron temperatures, f) omnidirectional electron energy spectrum and g) omnidirectional ion energy spectrum. The magenta box represents the reconnection current shee… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Fluctuations, Power spectra density (PSD) and local slope a for a) magnetic field, B and b) electric field, E for the full KHI interval. Vertical dotted lines in grey, red, black and blue indicate the frequencies fci, flh, fpi and fce respectively. interval respectively. The local spectral slope for the spectra was computed from power-law fit in the log–log plane. The trace magnetic fluctuation spectrum fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: MMS1 burst observations in local LMN at 12:28:40-12:29:00 UT on 14 April 2022. The panels show a) magnetic field components, b) electron density c), d), and e) electron velocity components vL, vM and vN , f) parallel and perpendicular temperatures of electrons. The bottom three rows of panels show the electron distribution functions at 5 different times corresponding to the dashed lines panels in (a-e) in … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: eVDFs exhibiting agyrotropy at the edges of KH vortices. a) Magnetic field, b) density, c) parallel and perpendicular electron temperatures, and d) electron agyrotropy. The dashed lines mark the times with enhanced agyrotropy A ∼ 0.1. e￾i) eVDF’s in the v⊥1 − v⊥2 plane at these marked times. We used the definition provided by Scudder & Daughton (2008) to measure the electron agyrotropy as given by Eqn. 1. … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive study of Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) spacecraft encounter with KHI during a geomagnetic storm, focusing on elucidating key turbulence properties and reconnection signatures observed at the edges of KH vortices. The spectral slope for electric field stays approximately constant for frequencies below the ion cyclotron frequency and exhibits a break around the lower hybrid frequency, indicating wave activity. Furthermore, MMS observes a current sheet accompanied by intense electron jets and features consistent with strong guide-field asymmetric reconnection across the magnetopause. Substantial agyrotropy (by a factor of 10) in electron distribution functions is observed in the reconnecting current sheet and at the edges of KH. Our observation presents a multi-scale view into KH turbulence under strongly driven conditions and into the dynamics occurring at electron dissipation scales.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports MMS spacecraft observations during a geomagnetic storm of Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (KHI) at the magnetopause, including electric-field turbulence spectra that remain roughly constant below the ion cyclotron frequency with a break near the lower hybrid frequency, plus a current sheet with intense electron jets and order-of-magnitude electron agyrotropy interpreted as strong guide-field asymmetric reconnection at KH vortex edges; the central claim is a multi-scale observational view of KH turbulence extending to electron dissipation scales.

Significance. If the geometric identification holds, the work supplies rare in-situ data on turbulence and reconnection under strongly driven KH conditions, which can constrain models of magnetopause energy transfer and electron-scale dissipation.

major comments (2)
  1. [event geometry and reconnection identification paragraphs] The reconnection interpretation (current sheet plus electron jets) is load-bearing for the headline multi-scale claim yet rests on an assumed MMS trajectory that intersects the diffusion region at the KH vortex edge. No quantitative bounds on projection effects, timing offsets, or alternative trajectories are supplied (see event geometry and reconnection identification paragraphs).
  2. [turbulence spectral analysis] The statement that the electric-field spectral slope 'stays approximately constant' below the ion cyclotron frequency and 'exhibits a break' near the lower hybrid frequency lacks reported uncertainties, fitting procedure, or comparison to background spectra, weakening the turbulence-properties conclusion.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses 'features consistent with' without enumerating the specific observational signatures that support the reconnection claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the robustness of our interpretations. We address each major point below and indicate planned revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [event geometry and reconnection identification paragraphs] The reconnection interpretation (current sheet plus electron jets) is load-bearing for the headline multi-scale claim yet rests on an assumed MMS trajectory that intersects the diffusion region at the KH vortex edge. No quantitative bounds on projection effects, timing offsets, or alternative trajectories are supplied (see event geometry and reconnection identification paragraphs).

    Authors: The identification of reconnection relies on the co-location of a thin current sheet, intense electron jets, and order-of-magnitude electron agyrotropy, which together are consistent with strong guide-field asymmetric reconnection at the KH vortex edge. We acknowledge, however, that the manuscript does not provide quantitative bounds on projection effects or alternative trajectories. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph that uses multi-spacecraft timing analysis to estimate possible timing offsets and discusses the range of trajectories consistent with the observed signatures, thereby placing explicit bounds on projection effects. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [turbulence spectral analysis] The statement that the electric-field spectral slope 'stays approximately constant' below the ion cyclotron frequency and 'exhibits a break' near the lower hybrid frequency lacks reported uncertainties, fitting procedure, or comparison to background spectra, weakening the turbulence-properties conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the spectral description is currently qualitative. The revised manuscript will report the fitting procedure (least-squares power-law fits over specified frequency bands), the derived spectral indices with uncertainties, and a direct comparison of the event spectra to background intervals measured outside the KH waves to confirm that the reported break and slope are not instrumental or ambient features. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational spacecraft data report

full rationale

The manuscript is an observational study of MMS measurements during a KH event. It reports spectral slopes, current sheets, electron jets, and agyrotropy directly from data without any derivation chain, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or self-referential definitions. No equations or theoretical steps exist that could reduce to inputs by construction. The central claims rest on instrument data and standard identification criteria, which are externally falsifiable and independent of the paper itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced; the work rests on standard interpretations of in-situ plasma measurements.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard assumptions of space plasma physics for interpreting electric and magnetic field measurements and particle velocity distributions from spacecraft.
    Implicit in all spectral and distribution-function analysis described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5698 in / 1185 out tokens · 30610 ms · 2026-05-24T03:30:52.397443+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

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

    work page

  3. [3]

    F 0j7 7-qERu P)JI(> ? q 0 K5>kx_0s 7KVO7R zU W9 93 9

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.831784 2021

  4. [4]

    The Fluxgate-Searchcoil Merged (FSM) Magnetic Field Data Product for MMS

    Argall, M. R., Fischer, D., Contel, O. L., et al. 2018, The Fluxgate-Searchcoil Merged (FSM) Magnetic Field Data Product for MMS. 1809.07388

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    A., Nakamura, T

    Blasl, K. A., Nakamura, T. K. M., Plaschke, F., et al. 2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29, 10.1063/5.0067370

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0067370 2022

  6. [6]

    Chen, C. H. K., Leung, L., Boldyrev, S., Maruca, B. A., & Bale, S. D. 2014, Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 8081, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062009

    work page doi:10.1002/2014gl062009 2014

  7. [7]

    A., Wilson, R

    Delamere, P. A., Wilson, R. J., Eriksson, S., & Bagenal, F. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 393, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JA018197

    work page doi:10.1029/2012ja018197 2013

  8. [8]

    E., Liu, Y.-H., Hasegawa, H., et al

    Denton, R. E., Liu, Y.-H., Hasegawa, H., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, e2022JA030512, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030512

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ja030512 2022

  9. [9]

    H., & Seenu, N

    Dmitruk, P., Matthaeus, W. H., & Seenu, N. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 617, 667, 10.1086/425301

    work page doi:10.1086/425301 2004

  10. [10]

    2016, Phys

    Egedal, J., Le, A., Daughton, W., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 185101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.185101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.185101 2016

  11. [11]

    E., Tucker , S., Westfall , J., et al

    Ergun , R. E., Tucker , S., Westfall , J., et al. 2016, , 199, 167, 10.1007/s11214-014-0115-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0115-x 2016

  12. [12]

    E., Ahmadi , N., Kromyda , L., et al

    Ergun , R. E., Ahmadi , N., Kromyda , L., et al. 2020, , 898, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ab6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ab6 2020

  13. [13]

    E., Pathak , N., Usanova , M

    Ergun , R. E., Pathak , N., Usanova , M. E., et al. 2022, , 935, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac81d4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac81d4 2022

  14. [14]

    2016 a , Physical Review Letters, 117, 015001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.015001

    Eriksson, S., Wilder, F., Ergun, R., et al. 2016 a , Physical Review Letters, 117, 015001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.015001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.015001 2016

  15. [15]

    D., et al

    Eriksson, S., Lavraud, B., Wilder, F. D., et al. 2016 b , Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 5606, 10.1002/2016GL068783

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gl068783 2016

  16. [16]

    H., Farrugia, C

    Fairfield, D. H., Farrugia, C. J., Mukai, T., Nagai, T., & Fedorov, A. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010134

    work page doi:10.1029/2003ja010134 2003

  17. [17]

    M., Nykyri, K., & Farrugia, C

    Foullon, C., Verwichte, E., Nakariakov, V. M., Nykyri, K., & Farrugia, C. J. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 729, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L8

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/l8 2011

  18. [18]

    1998, The Low-Latitude Boundary Layer in the Tail-Flanks (American Geophysical Union (AGU)), 33--44, https://doi.org/10.1029/GM105p0033

    Fujimoto, M., Terasawa, T., & Mukai, T. 1998, The Low-Latitude Boundary Layer in the Tail-Flanks (American Geophysical Union (AGU)), 33--44, https://doi.org/10.1029/GM105p0033

    work page doi:10.1029/gm105p0033 1998

  19. [19]

    J., Avanov, L

    Gershman, D. J., Avanov, L. A., Boardsen, S. A., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 11,548, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024518

    work page doi:10.1002/2017ja024518 2017

  20. [20]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027623, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027623

    Haaland, S., Paschmann, G., Øieroset, M., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027623, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027623

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja027623 2020

  21. [21]

    2004, Nature, 430, 755, 10.1038/nature02799

    Hasegawa, H., Fujimoto, M., Phan, T.-D., et al. 2004, Nature, 430, 755, 10.1038/nature02799

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02799 2004

  22. [22]

    2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114, 10.1029/2009JA014042

    Hasegawa, H., Retin \`o , A., Vaivads, A., et al. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114, 10.1029/2009JA014042

    work page doi:10.1029/2009ja014042 2009

  23. [23]

    Hasegawa, H., Nakamura, T. K. M., Gershman, D. J., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027595, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027595

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja027595 2020

  24. [24]

    2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7019, 10.1038/ncomms8019

    Kavosi, S., & Raeder, J. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7019, 10.1038/ncomms8019

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms8019 2015

  25. [25]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027527, 10.1029/2019JA027527

    Kieokaew, R., Lavraud, B., Foullon, C., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027527, 10.1029/2019JA027527

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja027527 2020

  26. [26]

    G., & Chen, S.-H

    Kivelson, M. G., & Chen, S.-H. 1995, The Magnetopause: Surface Waves and Instabilities and their Possible Dynamical Consequences (American Geophysical Union (AGU)), 257--268, https://doi.org/10.1029/GM090p0257

    work page doi:10.1029/gm090p0257 1995

  27. [27]

    2013, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Koval , A., & Szabo , A. 2013, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1539, Solar Wind 13, ed. G. P. Zank , J. Borovsky , R. Bruno , J. Cirtain , S. Cranmer , H. Elliott , J. Giacalone , W. Gonzalez , G. Li , E. Marsch , E. Moebius , N. Pogorelov , J. Spann , & O. Verkhoglyadova , 211--214, 10.1063/1.4811025

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4811025 2013

  28. [28]

    2016, , 199, 257, 10.1007/s11214-014-0096-9

    Le Contel , O., Leroy , P., Roux , A., et al. 2016, , 199, 257, 10.1007/s11214-014-0096-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0096-9 2016

  29. [29]

    J., Matthaeus, W

    Leamon, R. J., Matthaeus, W. H., Smith, C. W., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 537, 1054, 10.1086/309059

    work page doi:10.1086/309059 2000

  30. [30]

    V., et al

    Li, W., Andr \'e , M., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., et al. 2016, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 5635, 10.1002/2016GL069192

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gl069192 2016

  31. [31]

    A., Olsson , G., Torbert , R

    Lindqvist , P. A., Olsson , G., Torbert , R. B., et al. 2016, , 199, 137, 10.1007/s11214-014-0116-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0116-9 2016

  32. [32]

    2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 10,382, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024394

    Ma, X., Delamere, P., Otto, A., & Burkholder, B. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 10,382, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024394

    work page doi:10.1002/2017ja024394 2017

  33. [33]

    Nakamura, T. K. M. 2021, The Earth's Low-Latitude Boundary Layer (American Geophysical Union (AGU)), 177--191, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119815624.ch12

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119815624.ch12 2021

  34. [34]

    Nakamura, T. K. M., Plaschke, F., Hasegawa, H., et al. 2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2020GL087574, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087574

    work page doi:10.1029/2020gl087574 2020

  35. [35]

    Nakamura, T. K. M., Blasl, K. A., Hasegawa, H., et al. 2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29, 012901, 10.1063/5.0067391

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0067391 2022

  36. [36]

    2013, Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 4154, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50807

    Nykyri, K., & Foullon, C. 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 4154, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50807

    work page doi:10.1002/grl.50807 2013

  37. [37]

    2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 9489, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024374

    Nykyri, K., Ma, X., Dimmock, A., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 9489, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024374

    work page doi:10.1002/2017ja024374 2017

  38. [38]

    2001, Geophysical Research Letters, 28, 3565, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013239

    Nykyri, K., & Otto, A. 2001, Geophysical Research Letters, 28, 3565, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013239

    work page doi:10.1029/2001gl013239 2001

  39. [39]

    2004, Annales Geophysicae , 22, 935

    ---. 2004, Annales Geophysicae , 22, 935. https://hal.science/hal-00317273

    work page 2004

  40. [40]

    Otto , A., & Fairfield , D. H. 2000, , 105, 21,175, 10.1029/1999JA000312

    work page doi:10.1029/1999ja000312 2000

  41. [41]

    D., Eastwood, J

    Phan, T. D., Eastwood, J. P., Shay, M. A., et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 202, 10.1038/s41586-018-0091-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0091-5 2018

  42. [42]

    C., Dorelli, J

    Rager, A. C., Dorelli, J. C., Gershman, D. J., et al. 2018, Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 578, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076260

    work page doi:10.1002/2017gl076260 2018

  43. [43]

    C., Nykyri, K., Ma, X., & Burkholder, B

    Rice, R. C., Nykyri, K., Ma, X., & Burkholder, B. L. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, e2021JA029685, 10.1029/2021JA029685

    work page doi:10.1029/2021ja029685 2022

  44. [44]

    C., Chen, L.-J., Gershman, D., et al

    Rice, R. C., Chen, L.-J., Gershman, D., et al. 2024, Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2023GL106600, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106600

    work page doi:10.1029/2023gl106600 2024

  45. [45]

    T., Anderson , B

    Russell , C. T., Anderson , B. J., Baumjohann , W., et al. 2016, , 199, 189, 10.1007/s11214-014-0057-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0057-3 2016

  46. [46]

    2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113, 10.1029/2008JA013035

    Scudder, J., & Daughton, W. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113, 10.1029/2008JA013035

    work page doi:10.1029/2008ja013035 2008

  47. [47]

    D., Holdaway, R

    Scudder, J. D., Holdaway, R. D., Daughton, W. S., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 225005, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.225005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.225005 2012

  48. [48]

    D., Karimabadi, H., Daughton, W., & Roytershteyn, V

    Scudder, J. D., Karimabadi, H., Daughton, W., & Roytershteyn, V. 2015, Physics of Plasmas, 22, 101204, 10.1063/1.4932332

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4932332 2015

  49. [49]

    R., Gershman, D

    Shuster, J. R., Gershman, D. J., Chen, L.-J., et al. 2019, Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 7862, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083549

    work page doi:10.1029/2019gl083549 2019

  50. [50]

    R., Gershman, D

    Shuster, J. R., Gershman, D. J., Dorelli, J. C., et al. 2021, Nature Physics, 17, 1056, 10.1038/s41567-021-01280-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01280-6 2021

  51. [51]

    R., Gershman, D

    Shuster, J. R., Gershman, D. J., Giles, B. L., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 128, e2022JA030949, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030949

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ja030949 2023

  52. [52]

    E., Eriksson, S., Wilder, F

    Stawarz, J. E., Eriksson, S., Wilder, F. D., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 11,021, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023458

    work page doi:10.1002/2016ja023458 2016

  53. [53]

    Taylor, M. G. G. T., Hasegawa, H., Lavraud, B., et al. 2012, Annales Geophysicae, 30, 1025, 10.5194/angeo-30-1025-2012

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-30-1025-2012 2012

  54. [54]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 9926, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023051

    Vernisse, Y., Lavraud, B., Eriksson, S., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 9926, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023051

    work page doi:10.1002/2016ja023051 2016