Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 122 references

Constraining solar wind transport model parameters using Bayesian analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that, among the tested turbulence transport models, the 2D version with α=0.16±0.03 and β=0.10±0.02, with pickup-ion effects included in the lengthscale equation, is the best-supported fit to Parker Solar Probe and…

desk verdict First Bayesian calibration of a solar-wind TTM is a transparent, reproducible contribution, but the arbitrary σ=1 likelihood leaves the quantitative posteriors and 'decisive' Bayes factors uncalibrated; the qualitative rankings are likely robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07897 v1 pith:P6H537MB submitted 2024-12-10 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Mark Bishop , Sean Ougthon , Tulasi Parashar , Yvette Perrott This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solarwindturbulencetransportmodelBayesianinferencenestedsamplingcomparisonpickupionsvonKármán–HowarthparametersParkerProbe
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

This paper tries to replace guess-and-check parameter choices in solar wind turbulence transport models with a systematic Bayesian calibration. It computes posterior distributions for the model's adjustable parameters and uses the Bayesian evidence to compare model variants. The analysis singles out the two-dimensional version of the transport model, with cascade parameters α≈0.16 and β≈0.10, and says including pickup-ion effects in the evolution of the correlation length is decisively favored. If the result holds, future solar wind and space-weather models can be calibrated and compared on observational data rather than hand-picked values.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a four-equation, steady, one-dimensional radial transport model for fluctuation energy $Z^2$, correlation length $\lambda$, normalized cross helicity $\sigma_c$, and proton temperature $T$, with von Kármán–Howarth cascade terms carrying parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$, shear driving $C_{sh}$, pickup-ion injection $f_D$, and an energy-difference closure $\sigma_D$. Nested sampling computes the Bayesian evidence and posterior samples by repeatedly solving the ODE system and evaluating a Gaussian likelihood on log-transformed data. Model comparison uses log-evidence differences with the usual thresholds for strength of support. The distinction between 2D and 3D fluctuation symmetry enters through mixing operators that depend on the Parker-spiral angle, and the pickup-ion term in the $\lambda$ equation follows from imposing $Z^{2\beta/\alpha}\lambda = \mathrm{const}$ locally.

What would settle it

Recompute the analysis using real per-bin error bars from repeated spacecraft samples; if the log-evidence gap between the 2D and 3D models, or between models with and without pickup-ion driving of $\lambda$, drops below the paper's cited threshold for decisive support, or if the posterior means move outside 0.16±0.03 and 0.10±0.02, the central recommendation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for the steady, spherically symmetric turbulence transport model applied to radial data from Parker Solar Probe and Voyager 2, the best-supported configuration is the 2D isotropic fluctuation symmetry with α = 0.16 ± 0.03 and β = 0.10 ± 0.02, with the other adjustable parameters near their nominal literature values, and with the local conservation law $Z^{2\beta/\alpha}\lambda = \mathrm{const}$ used to include pickup-ion driving in the correlation-length equation. The log-evidence comparison is said to decisively rule out the 3D isotropic model and decisively favor including the pickup-ion term in the lengthscale equation over omitting it. Simpler analyses with fewer sampled parameters are favored over extended ones, indicating that the data cannot strongly constrain all extra parameters at once.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calibration rests on the assumption that every observed data point has the same error, set to one, because no measurement uncertainties are available; if the true errors vary from point to point, the quoted parameter ranges and the model ranking can change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The recommended calibration (2D TTM, α=0.16±0.03, β=0.10±0.02, with the Table 1 values and the pickup-ion term in the lengthscale equation) is the best-supported parameter set among the models tested on these datasets.
  • The 3D isotropic fluctuation assumption is strongly disfavored relative to the 2D assumption, consistent with the observed quasi-2D nature of MHD-scale solar wind turbulence.
  • Transport models that omit the pickup-ion term from the lengthscale equation fit worse, so the local-conservation form $Z^{2\beta/\alpha}\lambda = \mathrm{const}$ should be retained in this model class.
  • Split-dataset analyses show that inner and outer heliosphere data are consistent, with combined data tightening the constraints while inner data mainly control boundary conditions and shear strength and outer data mainly constrain pickup-ion injection.
  • The same Bayesian machinery can be applied to more sophisticated solar wind and space-weather transport models to calibrate their parameters and compare them objectively.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If per-bin error bars become available, rerunning the analysis with a proper likelihood could change the quoted uncertainties ($\pm0.03$, $\pm0.02$) and the model ranking, since these are conditional on the arbitrary uniform error scale.
  • The strong positive $\alpha$–$\beta$ correlation and the presence of $\alpha<2\beta$ posterior support suggest that a single constant-Reynolds-number constraint is too restrictive for a driven system; a testable extension is to let the shear and pickup-ion driving terms set the effective decay relations instead of imposing them a priori.
  • The inner-heliosphere preference for larger $C_{sh}$ points to the constant-shear model as the limiting assumption; replacing it with a radially decaying shear-drive model, as the paper notes as future work, would directly test whether the 2D-over-3D evidence gap persists.
  • Once reliable error estimates exist, posterior predictive distributions would turn the calibrated transport model into a genuine predictor for unobserved radial distances, which is the natural next step for space-weather forecasting.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies nested-sampling Bayesian inference to constrain parameters of a one-dimensional steady-state solar wind turbulence transport model (TTM) built on Breech et al. (2008), and to compare model variants: 2D versus 3D fluctuation symmetry, and inclusion versus exclusion of the pickup-ion driving term in the correlation-length evolution equation. Using PSP and Voyager 2 data, with a split-dataset consistency check, the authors obtain posterior distributions for the von Kármán–Howarth parameters α and β and for other adjustable parameters, and use Bayes factors for model selection. They recommend the 2D TTM with α = 0.16 ± 0.03, β = 0.10 ± 0.02 and with the pickup-ion term retained in the λ equation. The paper also corrects a derivation error in the λ mixing operator of the Breech et al. (2008) model.

Significance. The paper's value is methodological and practical: it is, to the authors' knowledge, the first application of Bayesian model comparison and nested-sampling parameter estimation to solar wind turbulence transport models, replacing the field's common guess-and-check parameter choices with a systematic likelihood-based framework. It also identifies and corrects a real error in the published λ-evolution equation (Appendix A), offers posterior-based uncertainty estimates, and is transparent about its limitations, including the absence of observational error bars. The qualitative preference for 2D fluctuations and for inclusion of pickup-ion effects in the λ equation is consistent with earlier observational and theoretical work. However, the quantitative strength of the conclusions—the quoted parameter uncertainties and the 'decisive' Bayes-factor labels—is not supported by the analysis as presented, because the likelihood is calibrated by an arbitrary σ_i = 1 error scale. With this calibration addressed, the paper would be a useful contribution to the solar wind transport-modeling literature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (10)–(11)] The likelihood sets σ_i = k = 1 because no measurement errors are available, and the entire posterior-width and Bayes-factor analysis is conditioned on this choice. The statement in Section 3 that 'since the Bayes factor is the ratio of two evidences with the same error assumptions, the results should be defensible' is not correct: a common k does not cancel in the evidence ratio, because χ² scales as 1/k² while the prior-volume term in the evidence is independent of k. Consequently, Table 5's 'decisive' classifications and the Section 6 recommendation 'α = 0.16 ± 0.03, β = 0.10 ± 0.02' are calibrated to an error of one decade in the log-transformed variables. For example, if the true bin-to-bin scatter in log10 Z² were about 0.3 dex, the model-to-model likelihood differences in Table 5 would be roughly an order of magnitude larger; if the effective scatter were about 3 dex, they would fall below the |ln K| = 5 threshold. The authors' acknowledgment that the evidences are 'not a completely fair description' does not resolve this, because the same issue affects the parameter uncertainties and the relative model ranking. I recommend either supplying per-datapoint error estimates (e.g., from bin scatter, as in Cuesta et al. 2022b for λ), treating k as a hyperparameter and marginalizing over it, or explicitly reframing all quantitative claims as conditional on k = 1 and removing the Jeffreys-scale adjectives.
  2. [Section 3, footnote 3 and Eq. (11)] The error model is not coherent across variables. The footnote says the data and model estimates are base-10 log-transformed before χ² is computed, but σc and σD are signed and cannot be log-transformed; the paper does not specify which variables enter the χ² sum in which form. With k = 1 for all terms, Z², λ, and T are assigned an error of one decade, while σc and σD receive an absolute error of 1. This effectively downweights the σc and σD data by comparison. The σc mismatch visible in Figure 1 (observed values scattered between roughly ±0.5 beyond 1 AU while the model collapses to σc ≈ 0) is therefore not penalized as strongly as a comparable fractional mismatch in Z² or λ. Because the same σc data are used in every model comparison, this weighting can bias both parameter constraints and the Bayes factors; the authors should document the per-variable transformation and justify the relative weighting.
  3. [Section 4.4 and Table 5] The conclusion that pickup-ion effects in the λ equation are 'decisively favoured' is drawn from Δ ln K values that are close to the chosen threshold. For example, in the α-β-σD-fD-Csh case, the standard model has ln K = −4.35 and the no-λ-PI version has ln K = −9.70, giving Δ = 5.35. Because all of these values inherit the arbitrary k = 1 calibration, and because comparisons across models with different numbers of parameters include prior-volume terms that do not rescale with k in the same way as the likelihood term, the word 'decisive' is not supported. The qualitative direction of the comparison may survive with a more realistic error model—indeed it is physically plausible—but the strength of the claim needs to be recalibrated or rephrased as conditional on the assumed error model.
  4. [Section 6 and Table 1] The recommended parameter set 'α = 0.16 ± 0.03, β = 0.10 ± 0.02, the parameters stated in Table 1' does not correspond to a single analysis. Table 1 contains nominal values for σD, Csh, and fD (e.g., Csh = 1.5), while the full analyses in Section 4.2 report different posterior means (e.g., Csh ≈ 2 for the 2D α-β-BC-σD-fD-Csh case). Please specify which analysis the recommendation is drawn from and whether the other parameters should be fixed at their nominal values or at their posterior means; as written, the recommendation is internally inconsistent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3 and Table 2] Table 2 says the fixed inner boundary values are 'approximately those from PSP data presented in Adhikari et al. (2015)', but PSP was not operational in 2015; the intended reference is likely Adhikari et al. (2021). Please correct the citation.
  2. [Section 5.1.1 and Figure 7b] The method used to fit the linear relations α = mβ in the α–β plane is not described; please state the fitting procedure (e.g., weighted least squares on which variables) and report the uncertainties of the fitted slopes.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Figure 1] The paper notes the unphysical T(r) increase near the inner boundary and the systematic offset from PSP temperatures, but does not discuss whether removing the innermost radial bins would change the α–β posteriors; a brief sensitivity statement would be helpful.
  4. [Section 3] The sentence 'we therefore assume the error is constant and the same for all datapoints (i.e., σ_i = k is constant), and obtain an unnormalized likelihood function by setting k = 1' conflates two distinct choices: the shape of the error model (same for all points) and the numerical value k = 1. Readers would benefit from an explicit statement that the latter is a convention, not an estimate.
  5. [References] The reference 'Oughton & Bishop 2024' is listed as 'in Solar Wind 16, Vol. in preparation'; if it is now available or submitted, please update the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the Bayesian parameter estimates and model comparisons are standard fits to external PSP/Voyager data; the only self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing, and the arbitrary common error scale is an acknowledged limitation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central output is a Bayesian posterior estimate of TTM parameters (alpha, beta, sigma_D, f_D, C_sh, and boundary conditions) from PSP and Voyager 2 radial profiles, together with Bayes-factor model comparisons. This is ordinary parameter estimation and model selection, not a derivation that returns its own inputs. The quoted recommendation, 'use of the 2D TTM with alpha = 0.16 +/- 0.03, beta = 0.10 +/- 0.02,' is explicitly the mean of a posterior distribution conditioned on the data and priors, so it is a fitted value honestly reported as a fit, not a prediction derived from first principles. The model-comparison step uses the same likelihood for all models, which is standard practice. The PI-term inclusion test ('no lambda PI' versus the standard equation) compares two distinct model forms and is a genuine model-selection exercise, even though the PI lambda term is derived from the conservation law Z^{2 beta/alpha} lambda = const; testing that term against data is not circular because the alternative model simply omits it. The paper's acknowledged limitation, 'Currently, we do not have measurements (or estimates) for the error of the datapoints sigma_i. We therefore assume the error is constant and the same for all datapoints (i.e., sigma_i = k is constant), and obtain an unnormalized likelihood function by setting k = 1,' indeed means the posterior widths and Bayes-factor magnitudes are conditioned on an arbitrary error scale, and the statement that Bayes factors with the same error assumptions 'should be defensible' is statistically fragile because ln K generally rescales with 1/k^2. However, this is a correctness/robustness concern about an untested hyperparameter, not a circular equation: the model outputs are not defined in terms of the recommended parameters, and the data are external to the fitted values. The only self-citation to prior work by the same authors (Oughton & Bishop 2024) appears as an aside about analytic solutions and is not load-bearing. The TTM itself is taken from Breech et al. (2008), a published external model that the paper corrects and then tests; using it as an input is not circular. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with a minor self-citation and an arbitrary error-scale caveat.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on five sampled parameters and up to four boundary conditions, plus the listed domain assumptions. The most consequential is the uncalibrated error model, which makes the posterior widths and evidence differences scale-dependent. No new physical entities are introduced; the only model change is a corrected term in the λ equation derived from prior literature.

free parameters (6)
  • α (von Kármán–Howarth energy cascade coefficient) = 0.16 ± 0.03 (posterior mean, 2D recommended model)
    Sampled with U[0.01, 2] prior; posterior mean reported for the recommended 2D model.
  • β (von Kármán–Howarth length cascade coefficient) = 0.10 ± 0.02 (posterior mean, 2D recommended model)
    Sampled with U[0.01, 2] prior; reported with uncertainty from the posterior.
  • σD (normalized residual energy, assumed constant) = -0.36 to -0.38 (posterior means across extended analyses)
    Sampled with U[-1, 1] prior; posterior means are close to the nominal -1/3.
  • fD (pickup-ion injection strength) = ≈0.12-0.2 depending on analysis
    Sampled with U[0.01, 1] prior; posterior means vary by model and analysis.
  • Csh (stream shear driving coefficient) = ≈2-3 (posterior means in extended analyses)
    Sampled with U[0.01, 8] prior; posterior extends beyond the Breech et al. range of [0,2].
  • Z^2_0.17, λ_0.17, σc_0.17, T_0.17 (inner boundary conditions) = Posterior distributions shown in Figure 2; means include Z^2_0.17 slightly above 7,040 (km/s)^2, λ_0.17 varying with…
    Treated as free parameters in the α-β-BC and α-β-BC-σD-fD-Csh analyses, with priors in Table 4.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Bayes theorem and nested sampling provide valid posterior inference and evidence estimation.
    Used throughout Section 3; standard statistical results.
  • domain assumption The 1D steady-state TTM equations (1)-(4) adequately describe solar wind turbulence between 0.17 and 80 AU.
    Model from Breech et al. 2008 with updated λ equation (Appendix A); assumes uniform U=400 km/s, ρ ∝ 1/r^2, super-Alfvénic flow.
  • domain assumption Z^(2β/α) λ is locally conserved under pickup-ion driving.
    Used to derive the PI term in Eq (2) and Equation 13; adopted from Zank et al. 1996.
  • domain assumption σD is constant, with dσD/dr = 0.
    Closure replacing a dynamical equation for residual energy; introduced in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption All cascaded turbulence energy heats protons (α_T = 1) in the main results.
    Section 2.1 and Appendix B; relaxing this adds parameter α_T.
  • domain assumption PSP and Voyager 2 binned averages are direct measurements of Z^2, λ, σc, σD, and T, with no associated uncertainties.
    Data handling in Section 2.3 and likelihood in Section 3; no error bars used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining solar wind transport model parameters using Bayesian analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P6H537MB

@misc{pith2026241207897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining solar wind transport model parameters using Bayesian analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P6H537MB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07897}
}
abstract

We apply nested-sampling (NS) Bayesian analysis [AshtonEA22] to a model for the transport of MHD-scale solar wind fluctuations. The dual objectives are to obtain improved constraints on parameters present in the turbulence transport model (TTM) and to support comparisons of distinct versions of the TTM. The TTMs analysed are essentially 1D steady-state presented in [BreechEA08] that describe the radial evolution of the energy, correlation length, and normalized cross helicity of the fluctuations, together with the proton temperature, in prescribed background solar wind fields. Modelled effects present in the TTM include nonlinear turbulence interactions, shear driving, and energy injection associated with pickup-ions. These effects involve adjustable parameters that we seek to constrain. Bayesian analysis supports the efficient searching of a parameter space for the 'best' set of TTM parameter values. More advanced use provides the parameter's posterior distribution: its probability given the data, and the model. This can be used to understand the uncertainty in the provided 'best' values for the parameters and therefore the uncertainty in the suggested TTM solutions/predictions. By using NS, we can calculate the Bayesian evidence for each TTM and objectively determine which best fits the given observational data. Based on the analysis of the datasets and TTM employed, we recommend use of the 2D TTM with von Karman-Howarth parameters ${\alpha}\approx 0.16$ and $\beta \approx 0.10$ and parameter assumptions from existing literature. It is important to include the pickup ion effects in the lengthscale evolution equation by assuming $Z^{2\beta/\alpha}\lambda = const$ is locally conserved. This work is readily extended to more sophisticated solar wind models. Although more work is required to generate datasets with associated errors, which is necessary for accurate Bayesian modelling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07897 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Solutions of the α-β Bayesian analysis. The posterior sampled means for the 2D and 3D TTMs are plotted as dashed and dotted black lines respectively. Solid lines depict the 1, 2, and 3 σ confidence interval contours in the means of the 2D TTM solutions. The latter are determined using the sampled posterior distributions for the (2D TTM) α-β analysis. Green stars indicate PSP data points, and orange triangles Voyager… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 1D posterior distributions of the 2D (dashed) and 3D (dotted) models of the α-β-BC and α-β-BC-σD-fD-Csh analyses. Vertical lines with the same linestyle and colour represent the mean value of the sampled posterior distributions. For comparison the vertical gray line is the PSP inner most observation, used in the analyses that do not constrain these variables (α-β, and α-β-σD-fD-Csh); see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 1D posterior distributions of σD (left), fD (middle), and Csh (right) for the 2D and 3D TTMs (dashed and dotted) of the α-β-σD-fD-Csh and α-β-BC-σD-fD-Csh analyses. The vertical lines represent the mean value of the respective plotted sampled posterior distributions. For comparison, the vertical gray lines are the assumed values for the analyses that do not constrain these variables (α-β, and α-β-BC); see [PITH… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Solutions for the 2D α-β-BC-σD-fD-Csh analysis. The contours represent the confidence intervals of the means in the solutions obtained by the sampled posterior distributions. Green stars show the PSP data, and the orange triangles the Voyager 2 data. The 2D and 3D TTM …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 1D posterior distributions for the 2D model α-β-BC-σD-fD-Csh analyses using split datasets: < 5 AU (dotted blue), and > 5 AU (dotted orange), and the combined dataset (dashed black). Vertical lines represent the mean value of the sampled posterior distributions. For co…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 1D posterior distributions of σD (left), fD (middle), and Csh (right) for the 2D model α-β-BC-σD-fD-Csh analyses using the: < 5 AU dataset (dotted blue), the > 5 AU dataset (dotted orange), and the combined dataset (dashed black). For comparison, the vertical gray line…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) 68% and 95% intervals of the joint α–β pos￾terior distributions for the 2D TTM for several Bayesian analysis cases: α-β (blue contours), α-β-BC (orange con￾tours), α-β-σD-fD-Csh (green dashed), and α-β-BC-σD-fD￾Csh (red dashed). (b) The corresponding constrained li…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: As for Figure 7a except for the (a) 3D TTM model, (b) 2D TTM model with no PI term in the λ equation, and (c) 3D TTM model with no PI term in the λ equation. Four analysis cases are shown in each panel: α-β (blue contours), α-β-BC (orange contours), α-β-σD-fD-Csh (gree…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Joint posterior distributions for the parameters α, β, fD, and Csh for four different 2D model analysis cases (see legend). The two analyses labelled with “no λ PI” refer to those discussed in Section 4.4. Numerical values in the top right corners of each panel are the…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 2D α-β-αT (orange) and 2D α-β-BC-σD-fD-Csh-αT (blue) joint posterior distributions for the parameters αT with α, fD, and Csh (panels d, e, and f, respectively) as well as 1D posterior distributions for α, fD, Csh, and αT (panels a, b, c, and g, respectively). The soli…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Solutions for the 2D α-β-BC-σD-fD-Csh-αT analysis. The contours represent the confidence intervals of the means in the solutions obtained by the sampled posterior distributions. Green stars indicate PSP data and orange triangles Voyager 2 data. The 2D and 3D TTM poste…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  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 ...

  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...

  3. [3]

    ?pI5Jh .- /@H4&Tf:y r|Hh# N b#V ^U+

    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...

    2021

  4. [4]

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

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence...

  5. [5]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or or or or FUNCTION n.separate 't := "" #0 'numnames := t empty not t #-1 #1 subs...

  6. [6]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Allam, S., Andersen, P., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab04fa

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab04fa 2019

  7. [7]

    P., Bruno, R., et al

    Adhikari, L., Zank, G. P., Bruno, R., et al. 2015, Astrophys.\ J., 805, 63, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/63

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/63 2015

  8. [8]

    P., Hunana, P., et al

    Adhikari, L., Zank, G. P., Hunana, P., et al. 2017 a , Astrophys.\ J., 841, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5d 2017

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    P., Telloni, D., et al

    Adhikari, L., Zank, G. P., Telloni, D., et al. 2017 b , Astrophys.\ J., 851, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9ce4

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    P., & Zhao, L

    Adhikari, L., Zank, G. P., & Zhao, L. 2021, Fluids, 6, 10.3390/fluids6100368

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Wang, B., et al

    Adhikari, L., Zank, G. P., Wang, B., et al. 2023, Astrophys.\ J., 953, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/acde57

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2022, Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 2, 39, 10.1038/s43586-022-00121-x

    Ashton, G., Bernstein, N., Buchner, J., et al. 2022, Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 2, 39, 10.1038/s43586-022-00121-x

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Oughton, S., & Wan, M

    Bandyopadhyay, R., Matthaeus, W. H., Oughton, S., & Wan, M. 2019, J.\ Fluid Mech., 876, 5, 10.1017/jfm.2019.513

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    2018, Phys.\ Rev.\ X, 8, 041052, 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.041052

    Bandyopadhyay, R., Oughton, S., Wan, M., et al. 2018, Phys.\ Rev.\ X, 8, 041052, 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.041052

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Matthaeus, W

    Bandyopadhyay, R., Meyer, C. M., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2023, Astrophys.\ J. Lett., 955, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf85e

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:2103.022

    Barbary, K. 2021, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:2103.022

    2021

  9. [17]

    W., & Davis Jr., L

    Belcher, J. W., & Davis Jr., L. 1971, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 76, 3534, 10.1029/JA076i016p03534

    1971 doi

  10. [18]

    W., Wanner, W., & Matthaeus, W

    Bieber, J. W., Wanner, W., & Matthaeus, W. H. 1996, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 101, 2511, 10.1029/95JA02588

    1996 doi

  11. [19]

    H., Cranmer, S

    Breech, B., Matthaeus, W. H., Cranmer, S. R., Kasper, J. C., & Oughton, S. 2009, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 114, 10.1029/2009JA014354

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    H., Minnie, J., et al

    Breech, B., Matthaeus, W. H., Minnie, J., et al. 2008, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 113, 10.1029/2007JA012711

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    2005, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 32, L06103, doi:10.1029/2004GL022321, 10.1029/2004GL022321

    ---. 2005, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 32, L06103, doi:10.1029/2004GL022321, 10.1029/2004GL022321

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    J., P \'a rtay, L

    Brewer, B. J., P \'a rtay, L. B., & Cs \'a nyi, G. 2010, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1010.029

    2010

  15. [23]

    2013, Living Rev.\ Solar Phys., 10, 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2

    Bruno, R., & Carbone, V. 2013, Living Rev.\ Solar Phys., 10, 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1606.005

    Buchner, J. 2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1606.005

    2016

  17. [25]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, 10.21105/joss.03001

    ---. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, 10.21105/joss.03001

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Burlaga, L. F. 1974, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 79, 3717, 10.1029/JA079i025p03717

    1974 doi

  19. [27]

    1990, Geophys.\ Astrophys.\ Fluid Dyn., 52, 153, 10.1080/03091929008219845

    Carbone, V., & Veltri, P. 1990, Geophys.\ Astrophys.\ Fluid Dyn., 52, 153, 10.1080/03091929008219845

    1990 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 571, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424181

    Corsaro, E., & De Ridder, J. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 571, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424181

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Cranmer, S. R. 2009, Living Rev.\ Solar Phys., 6. http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2009-3

    2009

  22. [30]

    R., Matthaeus, W

    Cranmer, S. R., Matthaeus, W. H., Breech, B. A., & Kasper, J. C. 2009, Astrophys.\ J., 702, 1604, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1604

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    E., Parashar, T

    Cuesta, M. E., Parashar, T. N., Chhiber, R., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2022 a , Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl. Ser, 259, 23, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac45fa

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    E., Chhiber, R., Roy, S., et al

    Cuesta, M. E., Chhiber, R., Roy, S., et al. 2022 b , Astrophys.\ J. Lett., 932, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac73fd

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Dryden, H. L. 1943, Quart.\ Appl.\ Math., 1, 7, 10.1090/qam/8209

    1943 doi

  26. [34]

    A., McComas, D

    Elliott, H. A., McComas, D. J., Zirnstein, E. J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 156, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e49

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Ellison, A. M. 2004, Ecology Letters, 7, 509, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00603.x

    2004

  28. [36]

    E., Effenberger, F., Florinski, V., et al

    Engelbrecht, N. E., Effenberger, F., Florinski, V., et al. 2022, Space Sci Rev, 218, 33, 10.1007/s11214-022-00896-1

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Feroz, F., & Hobson, M. P. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 384, 449, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x

    2008

  30. [38]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1601, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  31. [39]

    2022, Space Sci.\ Rev., 218, 50, 10.1007/s11214-022-00914-2

    Fraternale, F., Adhikari, L., Fichtner, H., et al. 2022, Space Sci.\ Rev., 218, 50, 10.1007/s11214-022-00914-2

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    1997, Astrophys.\ J., 485, 680, 10.1086/304442

    Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 1997, Astrophys.\ J., 485, 680, 10.1086/304442

    1997 doi

  33. [41]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 849, 10.21105/joss.00849

    Handley, W. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 849, 10.21105/joss.00849

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Hobson, M

    Handley, W. J., Hobson, M. P., & Lasenby, A. N. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 4384, 10.1093/mnras/stv1911

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    M., S tver \'a k , v., Matteini, L., & Velli, M

    Hellinger, P., Tr \'a vn\' c ek , P. M., S tver \'a k , v., Matteini, L., & Velli, M. 2013, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 118, 1351, 10.1002/jgra.50107

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    2011, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011, 005, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/08/005

    Hojjati, A., Pogosian, L., & Zhao, G.-B. 2011, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011, 005, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/08/005

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    C., Pontius Jr., D

    Hossain, M., Gray, P. C., Pontius Jr., D. H., Matthaeus, W. H., & Oughton, S. 1995, Phys.\ Fluids, 7, 2886, 10.1063/1.868665

    1995 doi

  38. [46]

    Howes, G. G. 2011, Astrophys.\ J., 738, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/40

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    L., & Li, H

    Huang, Y., Shao, C., Wu, B., Beck, J. L., & Li, H. 2019, Advances in Structural Engineering, 22, 1329, 10.1177/1369433218811540

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Isenberg, P. A. 2005, Astrophys.\ J., 623, 502, 10.1086/428609

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Smith, C

    Isenberg, P. A., Smith, C. W., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2003, Astrophys.\ J., 592, 564, 10.1086/375584

    2003 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Smith, C

    Isenberg, P. A., Smith, C. W., Matthaeus, W. H., & Richardson, J. D. 2010, Astrophys.\ J., 719, 716, 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/716

    2010 doi

  43. [51]

    C., Rumsey, C., & Saunders, R

    Javid, K., Perrott, Y. C., Rumsey, C., & Saunders, R. D. E. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 3135, 10.1093/mnras/stz2341

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    H., & Jeffreys, S

    Jeffreys, S. H., & Jeffreys, S. H. 1998, The Theory of Probability , third edition, third edition edn., Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences ( Oxford, New York : Oxford University Press )

    1998

  45. [53]

    Jungman, G., Kamionkowski, M., Kosowsky, A., & Spergel, D. N. 1996, Physical Review D, 54, 1332, 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.1332

    1996 doi

  46. [54]

    2021, BayesicFitting , a PYTHON Toolbox for Bayesian Fitting and Evidence Calculation , 10.48550/arXiv.2109.11976

    Kester, D., & Mueller, M. 2021, BayesicFitting , a PYTHON Toolbox for Bayesian Fitting and Evidence Calculation , 10.48550/arXiv.2109.11976

    2021 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    2023, Astrophys.\ J., 953, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd84e

    Kleimann, J., Oughton, S., Fichtner, H., & Scherer, K. 2023, Astrophys.\ J., 953, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd84e

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Kolmogorov, A. N. 1941, C.R. Acad. Sci. U.R.S.S., 31, 538

    1941

  49. [57]

    1987, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 92, 11041, 10.1029/JA092iA10p11041

    Lee, M., & Ip, W.-H. 1987, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 92, 11041, 10.1029/JA092iA10p11041

    1987 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, GetDist : A Python Package for Analysing Monte Carlo Samples, 10.48550/arXiv.1910.13970

    Lewis, A. 2019, GetDist : A Python Package for Analysing Monte Carlo Samples, 10.48550/arXiv.1910.13970

    2019 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    Linkmann, M., Berera, A., & Goldstraw, E. E. 2017, Phys.\ Rev.\ E, 95, 013102, 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.013102

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    H., Ghosh, S., Oughton, S., & Roberts, D

    Matthaeus, W. H., Ghosh, S., Oughton, S., & Roberts, D. A. 1996 a , J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 101, 7619, 10.1029/95JA03830

    1996 doi

  53. [61]

    H., Goldstein, M

    Matthaeus, W. H., Goldstein, M. L., & Roberts, D. A. 1990, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 95, 20\,673, 10.1029/JA095iA12p20673

    1990 doi

  54. [62]

    H., Oughton, S., Pontius, D., & Zhou, Y

    Matthaeus, W. H., Oughton, S., Pontius, D., & Zhou, Y. 1994, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 99, 19\,267, 10.1029/94JA01233

    1994 doi

  55. [63]

    H., Zank, G

    Matthaeus, W. H., Zank, G. P., & Oughton, S. 1996 b , J.\ Plasma Phys., 56, 659, 10.1017/S0022377800019516

    1996 doi

  56. [64]

    H., Zank, G

    Matthaeus, W. H., Zank, G. P., Smith, C. W., & Oughton, S. 1999, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett., 82, 3444, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.3444

    1999 doi

  57. [65]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 145

    McComas, D., Rankin, J., Schwadron, N., & Swaczyna, P. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 145

    2019

  58. [66]

    E., Mc Comas , D

    Neugebauer, M., Goldstein, B. E., Mc Comas , D. J., Suess, S. T., & Balogh, A. 1995, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 100, 23\,389, 10.1029/95JA02723

    1995 doi

  59. [67]

    Oughton, S., & Bishop, M. A. 2024, in Solar Wind 16, Vol. in preparation

    2024

  60. [68]

    Oughton, S., & Engelbrecht, N. E. 2021, New Astron., 83, 10.1016/j.newast.2020.101507

    2021

  61. [69]

    Oughton, S., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2020, Astrophys.\ J., 897, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f2a

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    H., Smith, C

    Oughton, S., Matthaeus, W. H., Smith, C. W., Breech, B., & Isenberg, P. A. 2011, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 116, 10.1029/2010JA016365

    2011 doi

  63. [71]

    H., Wan, M., & Osman, K

    Oughton, S., Matthaeus, W. H., Wan, M., & Osman, K. T. 2015, Phil.\ Trans.\ R.\ Soc.\ A, 373, 10.1098/rsta.2014.0152

    2015

  64. [72]

    R., & Matthaeus, W

    Oughton, S., Priest, E. R., & Matthaeus, W. H. 1994, J.\ Fluid Mech., 280, 95, 10.1017/S0022112094002867

    1994 doi

  65. [73]

    N., Cuesta, M., & Matthaeus, W

    Parashar, T. N., Cuesta, M., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2019, Astrophys.\ J., 884, L57, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4a82

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, Astrophys.\ J., 128, 664, 10.1086/146579

    1958 doi

  67. [75]

    1965, Space Sci.\ Rev., 4, 666, 10.1007/BF00216273

    ---. 1965, Space Sci.\ Rev., 4, 666, 10.1007/BF00216273

    1965 doi

  68. [76]

    Parkinson, D., & Liddle, A. R. 2013, Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, 9, 3, 10.1002/sam.11179

    2013 doi

  69. [77]

    2011, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1110.019

    Parkinson, D., Mukherjee, P., & Liddle, A. 2011, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1110.019

    2011

  70. [78]

    W., Breech, B., et al

    Pei, C., Bieber, J. W., Breech, B., et al. 2010, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 115, 10.1029/2009JA014705

    2010 doi

  71. [79]

    R., Goldhaber, G., et al

    Perlmutter, S., Pennypacker, C. R., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 440, L41, 10.1086/187756

    1995 doi

  72. [80]

    2010, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 37, 10.1029/2010GL044570

    Perri, S., & Balogh, A. 2010, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 37, 10.1029/2010GL044570

    2010 doi

  73. [81]

    C., Javid, K., Carvalho, P., et al

    Perrott, Y. C., Javid, K., Carvalho, P., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2116, 10.1093/mnras/stz826

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    1983, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 4, 136, 10.1137/0904010

    Petzold, L. 1983, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 4, 136, 10.1137/0904010

    1983 doi

  75. [83]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    V., Arge, C

    Pogorelov, N. V., Arge, C. N., Caplan, R. M., et al. 2024, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2742, 012013, 10.1088/1742-6596/2742/1/012013

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    D., & Smith, C

    Richardson, J. D., & Smith, C. W. 2003, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 30, 1206, doi:10.1029/2002GL016551, 10.1029/2002GL016551

    2003 doi

  78. [87]

    Schekochihin, A. A. 2022, J.\ Plasma Phys., 88, 155880501, 10.1017/S0022377822000721

    2022 doi

  79. [88]

    2006, Living Rev

    Schwenn, R. 2006, Living Rev. Sol. Phys., 3, 2, 10.12942/lrsp-2006-2

    2006 doi

  80. [89]

    2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55, 213, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122339

    Sharma, S. 2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55, 213, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122339

    2017 doi

  81. [90]

    V., Matthaeus, W

    Shebalin, J. V., Matthaeus, W. H., & Montgomery, D. 1983, J.\ Plasma Phys., 29, 525, 10.1017/S0022377800000933

    1983 doi

  82. [91]

    P., Adhikari, L., et al

    Shiota, D., Zank, G. P., Adhikari, L., et al. 2017, Astrophys.\ J., 837, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa60bc

    2017 doi

  83. [92]

    Skilling, J. 2004, in BAYESIAN INFERENCE AND MAXIMUM ENTROPY METHODS IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, Vol. 735 (AIP), 395--405, 10.1063/1.1835238

    2004 doi

  84. [94]

    W., Matthaeus, W

    Smith, C. W., Matthaeus, W. H., Zank, G. P., et al. 2001, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 106, 8253, 10.1029/2000JA000366

    2001 doi

  85. [95]

    W., & Vasquez, B

    Smith, C. W., & Vasquez, B. J. 2024, Front. Astron. Space Sci., 11, 10.3389/fspas.2024.1371058

    2024

  86. [96]

    W., Vasquez, B

    Smith, C. W., Vasquez, B. J., & Hamilton, K. 2006 b , J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 111, A09111, doi:10.1029/2006JA011651, 10.1029/2006JA011651

    2006 doi

  87. [97]

    J., & Wolfe, J

    Smith, E. J., & Wolfe, J. H. 1976, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 3, 137, 10.1029/GL003i003p00137

    1976 doi

  88. [98]

    M., Kucharek, H., Baliukin, I

    Sok \'o , J. M., Kucharek, H., Baliukin, I. I., et al. 2022, Space Sci Rev, 218, 18, 10.1007/s11214-022-00883-6

    2022 doi

  89. [99]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3132, 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  90. [101]

    2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, 10.1080/00107510802066753

    Trotta, R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, 10.1080/00107510802066753

    2008 doi

  91. [102]

    1987, Solar Phys., 109, 149, 10.1086/498671

    Tu, C. 1987, Solar Phys., 109, 149, 10.1086/498671

    1987 doi

  92. [103]

    1995, Space Sci.\ Rev., 73, 1, 10.1007/BF00748891

    Tu, C.-Y., & Marsch, E. 1995, Space Sci.\ Rev., 73, 1, 10.1007/BF00748891

    1995 doi

  93. [104]

    1984, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 89, 9695, 10.1029/JA089iA11p09695

    Tu, C.-Y., Pu, Z.-Y., & Wei, F.-S. 1984, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 89, 9695, 10.1029/JA089iA11p09695

    1984 doi

  94. [105]

    H., Breech, B

    Usmanov, A., Matthaeus, W. H., Breech, B. A., & Goldstein, M. L. 2011, Astrophys.\ J., 727, 84, 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/84

    2011 doi

  95. [106]

    V., Goldstein, M

    Usmanov, A. V., Goldstein, M. L., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2014, Astrophys.\ J., 788, 43, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/43

    2014 doi

  96. [107]

    2016, Astrophys.\ J., 820, 17, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/17

    ---. 2016, Astrophys.\ J., 820, 17, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/17

    2016 doi

  97. [108]

    V., Matthaeus, W

    Usmanov, A. V., Matthaeus, W. H., Goldstein, M. L., & Chhiber, R. 2018, Astrophys.\ J., 865, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad687

    2018 doi

  98. [109]

    2021, Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 1, 1

    van de Schoot, R., Depaoli, S., King, R., et al. 2021, Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 1, 1

    2021

  99. [110]

    V., Meng, X., et al

    van der Holst , B., Sokolov, I. V., Meng, X., et al. 2014, Astrophys.\ J., 782, 81, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/81

    2014 doi

  100. [111]

    1989, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett., 63, 1807, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.1807

    Velli, M., Grappin, R., & Mangeney, A. 1989, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett., 63, 1807, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.1807

    1989 doi

  101. [112]

    2011, Rev

    von Toussaint, U. 2011, Rev. Mod. Phys., 83, 943, 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.943

    2011 doi

  102. [113]

    Wan, M., Oughton, S., Servidio, S., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2012, J.\ Fluid Mech., 697, 296, 10.1017/jfm.2012.61

    2012 doi

  103. [114]

    2003, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009322

    Wang, C., & Richardson, J. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009322

    2003 doi

  104. [115]

    2015, Astrophys.\ J., 805, 155, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/155

    Wiengarten, T., Fichtner, H., Kleimann, J., & Kissmann, R. 2015, Astrophys.\ J., 805, 155, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/155

    2015 doi

  105. [116]

    E., et al

    Wiengarten, T., Oughton, S., Engelbrecht, N. E., et al. 2016, Astrophys.\ J., 833, 17, 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/17

    2016 doi

  106. [117]

    L., & Zank, G

    Williams, L. L., & Zank, G. P. 1994, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 99, 19\,229, 10.1029/94JA01657

    1994 doi

  107. [118]

    N., Oughton, S., de Lange, K., & Frean, M

    Wrench, D., Parashar, T. N., Oughton, S., de Lange, K., & Frean, M. 2024, Astrophys.\ J., 961, 182, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad118e

    2024 doi

  108. [119]

    2008, J.\ Turb., 9, 1, 10.1080/14685240802433057

    Yokoi, N., Rubinstein, R., Hamba, F., & Yoshizawa, A. 2008, J.\ Turb., 9, 1, 10.1080/14685240802433057

    2008 doi

  109. [120]

    P., Adhikari, L., Hunana, P., et al

    Zank, G. P., Adhikari, L., Hunana, P., et al. 2017, Astrophys.\ J., 835, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/147

    2017 doi

  110. [121]

    P., Adhikari, L., Zhao, L.-L., et al

    Zank, G. P., Adhikari, L., Zhao, L.-L., et al. 2018, Astrophys.\ J., 869, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaebfe

    2018 doi

  111. [122]

    P., Dosch, A., Hunana, P., et al

    Zank, G. P., Dosch, A., Hunana, P., et al. 2012, Astrophys.\ J., 745, 35, 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/35

    2012 doi

  112. [123]

    P., Matthaeus, W

    Zank, G. P., Matthaeus, W. H., & Smith, C. W. 1996, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 101, 17\,093, 10.1029/96JA01275

    1996 doi

  113. [124]

    Zhou, Y., & Matthaeus, W. H. 1990, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 95, 10\,291, 10.1029/JA095iA07p10291

    1990 doi

  114. [125]

    J., M \"o bius, E., Zhang, M., et al

    Zirnstein, E. J., M \"o bius, E., Zhang, M., et al. 2022, Space Sci Rev, 218, 28, 10.1007/s11214-022-00895-2

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.