Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 105 references

De-Biasing Structure Function Estimates From Sparse Time Series of the Solar Wind: A Data-Driven Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 An empirical correction factor, learned from thousands of gapped Parker Solar Probe intervals, shifts linearly interpolated structure functions back toward their true values, cutting typical error by about half on Wind data and recovering…

desk verdict A practical, open-source correction for gap bias in structure functions, with one real caveat: the headline accuracy numbers come from model selection on the test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10053 v2 pith:TOLGYQ2C submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.SR physics.space-phstat.APstat.ME

Daniel Wrench , Tulasi N. Parashar This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-phstat.APstat.ME
keywords structurefunctionssolarwindturbulencedatagapslinearinterpolationempiricalcorrectionfactorParkerProbeVoyagermissingimputation
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

Spacecraft magnetic-field records of the solar wind are full of gaps, and gaps corrupt the structure functions that turbulence studies use to measure scaling and intermittency. The paper shows that ignoring gaps yields an unbiased but wildly variable estimate, whereas linear interpolation smooths the signal and systematically underestimates the structure function, especially at small lags. Using 10,731 complete Parker Solar Probe intervals artificially gapped up to 95%, the authors construct a simple multiplicative correction factor indexed by lag, local gap fraction, and the interpolated estimate itself. On a held-out Wind test set, the correction lowers the typical structure-function error to about half of the linear-interpolation error and 54 percent of the naive error, with the biggest gains above 20-25 percent missing data. Applied to two heavily gapped Voyager 1 intervals, it returns equivalent-spectrum slopes of $-1.64$ and $-1.42$, consistent with earlier studies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the empirical correction factor $\alpha(B)=100/(100+\mathrm{MPE}(B))$, built from a three-dimensional error cube that bins mean percentage errors by lag $\tau$, lag-specific gap percentage $GP(\tau)$, and the interpolated structure-function value $\hat S_2^{\mathrm{LINT}}(\tau)$. It multiplies the interpolated estimate cell by cell to produce the corrected structure function, after which cubic interpolation in log space removes bin-edge discontinuities. The portability of the factor rests on a standardization step that re-scales every interval to 10 correlation times across 10,000 points, with zero mean and unit variance, so that lags are measured in units of correlation time and fluctuation power is normalized away.

What would settle it

Take a long, complete turbulent time series with a known inertial-range exponent, impose Voyager-style periodic gaps at 60-90 percent sparsity, and compare the corrected, linearly interpolated, and naive structure functions against the true curve; if the corrected mean absolute percentage error is not the smallest, or if its recovered slope deviates from the known exponent by more than the naive estimate, the transferability claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the bias linear interpolation imparts to the second-order structure function is stable, lag-dependent, and learnable. The authors simulate two kinds of gaps -- isolated missing points and contiguous chunks -- in thousands of complete PSP intervals and find that the naive estimator satisfies $E[\hat S_2^{\mathrm{naive}}(\tau)] = S_2(\tau)$ while the interpolated estimator systematically lies below the true curve. They record the mean percentage error as a function of three variables, lag $\tau$, the fraction of data missing at that lag, and the value of the interpolated estimate itself, forming a $25\times25\times25$ error cube. Each cell becomes a multiplicative correction $\alpha(B)=100/(100+\mathrm{MPE}(B))$, applied as $\hat S_2^{\mathrm{corr}}(\tau,GP)=\alpha(B)\hat S_2^{\mathrm{LINT}}(\tau,GP)$, with cubic smoothing in log space. The correction transfers across spacecraft: it halves the mean absolute percentage error on Wind and removes the interpolation-induced power deficit in two Voyager intervals, yielding inertial-range slopes consistent with prior spectral studies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that after an interval is scaled to 10 correlation times with unit variance, the bias gaps create in a structure function depends only on lag, local gap fraction, and the interpolated value, so a correction learned near the Sun still holds at Wind and Voyager; if the gap-induced bias also changes with plasma compressibility, intermittency, or other regime-specific turbulence properties, the far-heliosphere corrections could be systematically wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For missing-data fractions above roughly 20-25 percent, the corrected estimator has the lowest average error of the three methods, and its errors remain below about 50 percent even near 95 percent missing.
  • Beyond solar wind magnetometer data, the correction is distribution-free and should apply to any standardized, gappy time series whose gap-induced bias follows the same dependence on lag, gap fraction, and estimated power.
  • The released open-source implementation lets users re-derive the error cube for intervals of different lengths rather than the default 10 correlation times.
  • Recovered Voyager equivalent-spectrum slopes of $-1.64$ (inner heliosheath) and $-1.42$ (local interstellar medium) match earlier estimates, supporting the use of corrected structure functions for scaling studies in the outer heliosphere.
  • Because the naive estimator is unbiased on average, linear interpolation remains competitive for very small missing fractions, while the corrected estimator becomes the preferred choice as sparsity grows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the same error-cube construction could be applied to higher-order structure functions and to normalized kurtosis; those statistics respond differently to interpolation smoothing, so the cube would need to be re-learned rather than reused.
  • One natural extension is to build separate correction factors for different gap geometries, for example the periodic daily gaps of Voyager versus random chunks, since the paper blends both types and the periodic gaps are the source of the strongest artifacts.
  • A practical validation for datasets such as MAVEN or OMNI would be to compare corrected structure functions against complete intervals from the same spacecraft, which would test the transferability assumption beyond Wind.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 paper investigates how data gaps corrupt estimates of the second-order structure function (SF) of solar wind magnetic field fluctuations and proposes an empirical correction. Using 10,731 complete PSP intervals, the authors create 25 gapped versions of each interval, with gaps combining random points and contiguous chunks up to 95% missing. They show that the naive estimator (ignoring gaps) is approximately unbiased but highly variable, while linear interpolation (LINT) systematically underestimates the SF, especially at small lags. They construct a 25-by-25-by-25 'error cube' giving the mean percentage error of the LINT estimate as a function of lag, local gap percentage, and LINT SF value, and convert this into a multiplicative correction factor alpha (Eqs. 7 and 8). On Wind data they report that the corrected estimator reduces mean MAPE to about half that of LINT and 54% that of naive (Fig. 5), with the largest gains at missing fractions above 20%. They apply the correction to two Voyager 1 intervals, obtaining equivalent-spectrum slopes of -1.64 and -1.42, consistent with earlier Voyager studies, and release the correction factor and code.

Significance. If the performance figures are confirmed on a properly separated holdout, this would be a practically valuable and methodologically useful contribution: it gives the community a simple, interpretable, and open-source way to extract SF-based scaling information from severely gapped datasets such as Voyager, MAVEN, and OMNI, and it documents an important property (the unbiasedness but high variance of the naive estimator versus the smooth but biased LINT estimator) that is often overlooked. The study has genuine strengths: it uses a large set of real turbulence intervals rather than synthetic data, it simulates both random and contiguous gaps, it releases reproducible code and the learned correction factor, and its discussion of limitations is candid. The central numerical claim, however, is not yet established at the level claimed, because the Wind data were used for hyperparameter selection, and the Voyager application is a demonstration rather than a validation. The paper's conclusions would be substantially strengthened by a clean cross-validated selection procedure and a clearer separation between validated and illustrative results.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4, Fig. 5] The evaluation design inflates the reported improvement. The authors state that the number of bins (10, 15, 20, 25) and the choice to bin on the third 'power' dimension were chosen by evaluating models on the Wind test set, and the same Wind set is then used to produce the headline MAPE values in Fig. 5 (8.9 vs. 18.4 and 16.5). Selecting hyperparameters on the evaluation set makes this an optimistic, partly fitted estimate of out-of-sample performance rather than an independent test. The related worry that 25^3 bins contain only about 17 training samples per bin does not, on reading the paper, land: each of the roughly 268,000 training SFs contributes one sample per lag, so bin occupancy is orders of magnitude larger than that count. The substantive fix is to choose hyperparameters on the training set (e.g., by cross-validation over PSP intervals, or on a distinct Wind validation split) and then evaluate the selected model once on untouched Wind data; please report both the validation-selected and final test-set numbers so the reader can see the size of the selection effect.
  2. [§4.5 and §5] The Voyager application is not evidence of transferability, and the manuscript's own limitation statement makes this clear. There is no ground truth for the true SF in the inner heliosheath or LISM, only two intervals are used, and the standardization to 10 correlation times and unit variance does not remove differences in Reynolds number, Alfvenicity, and intermittency that the authors list as unaccounted for. Agreement of the corrected slopes (-1.64, -1.42) with prior studies is compatible with a correction whose amplitude is systematically wrong, because slopes are shape statistics and are insensitive to uniform amplitude errors. I recommend either adding a pseudo-transfer test with known ground truth (for example, removing large contiguous gaps from additional long intervals with deliberately different turbulence parameters, or from synthetic turbulence with a known spectral slope), or explicitly softening the advertised claim from 'shown to generalize' to 'demonstrated on Wind and illustrated on Voyager.'
  3. [§2 and §4.4] The reported sample sizes overstate the number of independent test cases. The Wind 'test set' contains 14,725 gapped versions of only 589 unique intervals (25 versions each), and the PSP training set is likewise 10,731 unique intervals times 25 versions. The 25 versions are gap realizations of the same underlying turbulence realization and are not independent. This affects the precision of the mean MAPE values and, in particular, the '99% confidence region' in Fig. 7, which is stated to be smaller than the regression lines; those intervals are almost certainly too narrow because they treat versions as independent. Please aggregate to the interval level (e.g., average the 25 versions per interval before computing error statistics) or use cluster-robust standard errors.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract vs. §6] The paper alternates between 'missing fractions >25%' (abstract) and '>20%' (Section 6 and the Fig. 7 discussion); please make the threshold statement consistent and tie it to the stated regression fits and their uncertainty.
  2. [§4.1 and §4.4] There are duplicated words ('both both low-frequency oscillations' and 'and and gapped'); these typos should be corrected.
  3. [§4.5] The two Voyager slopes are quoted without fit uncertainties, although the equivalent-spectrum fits are least-squares regressions; please report the standard errors or confidence intervals on those slopes so the reader can gauge consistency with -1.72 +/- 0.05.
  4. [§5] The sentence claiming that diversity of turbulence conditions in the training and test sets 'enhances the generality of our findings' overstates the case, since PSP and Wind both sample the inner heliosphere; the diversity relative to Voyager conditions is limited.
  5. [Data Product] The text says the correction is released as an open-source Python package, but the repository description mentions a notebook and code; please clarify the exact distribution mechanism and how to reproduce the correction factor from raw data.
  6. [Appendix] The standardization step discards sub-intervals with more than 1% missing data, but the paper later treats artificially gapped intervals as if they come from complete data; please state explicitly that the training and test intervals are physically complete before the gap simulation, to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Hyperparameter selection on the Wind test set contaminates the reported validation; the correction mechanism itself is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4, 'Validation of correction factor on Wind data' (Eqs. 7-8; Fig. 5)]
    "The key “hyperparameter” to tune in developing this correction factor was the number of bins, which represents a trade-off between sample size and specificity when it comes to the precise correction factor for each combination of variables. We trialed 10, 15, 20, and 25 bins. In a similar trade-off, we compared only binning on GP and τ , versus binning along a 3rd dimension of power. The model was evaluated on the test set using the mean MAPE of ˆS2(τ ) across all the intervals in the test set."

    The Wind test set is used twice: first to select the binning configuration (including the 3D 'power' dimension) that minimizes MAPE, and then to report the resulting MAPE reduction (about half of LINT and 54% of Naive, Fig. 5) as evidence that the PSP-learned correction generalizes. Because the configuration is chosen on the same intervals that generate the headline error statistics, the reported reduction is a selected optimum rather than an unbiased out-of-sample measurement. The alpha values themselves are computed from PSP data via Eq. (7), so the correction mechanism is not defined by Wind; however, the validation magnitude is partly fitted to the test data, and with 25^3 bins the selection is likely tracking test-set noise.

full rationale

The paper's core object is an empirical 3D correction cube alpha computed from artificially gapped PSP intervals: MPE(B) is the mean LINT error in each (GP, lag, power) bin, and Eq. (7) sets alpha = 100/(100+MPE). Applying alpha to LINT estimates on Wind is a genuine transfer test: the alpha values are fixed by PSP before seeing Wind, so the central mechanism is not self-definitional. The Voyager demonstration is comparative, not circular, because the slopes -1.64 and -1.42 are compared with, not fitted to, previous spectral estimates. Self-citations (Wrench et al. 2022 for an earlier neural-network SF gap study; Wrench et al. 2024 for the integral-method correlation-time estimate) are descriptive or methodological and do not carry the argument. The one substantive circularity concern is Section 4.4: the bin count and 2D/3D choice were tuned by evaluating MAPE on the Wind test set, and the same test-set MAPE is then quoted as the method's performance. This does not make the correction factor equal to its input, but it means the headline ~50% error reduction is partly a product of data-dependent model selection on the evaluation set, so the independent-validation claim is weaker than presented. Overall score 4: central derivation has independent content, but the principal validation statistic is partially contaminated.

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

The central claim depends on the empirical correction table, which is characterized by several fitted or hand-chosen parameters: 25x25x25 bins, the gap simulation with TGP up to 95 percent and at least 70 percent contiguous chunks, standardization to 10 correlation times, and the smoothing. The statistical assumptions are missing-at-random gaps, ergodicity and stationarity of increments, and the assumption that standardization makes the gap-bias relation transferable. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of bins (25) and use of 3-variable error cube = 25x25x25
    Chosen by comparing 10, 15, 20, 25 bins and 2 vs 3 variables on the Wind test set, Section 4.4. This is a hyperparameter fit to the test data.
  • Gap simulation parameters = TGP up to 95%; at least 70% of missing data in contiguous chunks
    Chosen by hand to mimic spacecraft gap patterns (Section 3). The correction factor inherits any bias from this choice.
  • Standardization scale = 10 correlation times across 10,000 points
    Chosen so intervals are comparable; the correction factor is only validated for this standardized length (Section 5).
  • Correction factor table entries = Up to 25*25*25 empirical alpha values
    Each alpha(B) is estimated from the average percentage error in a bin of PSP training data (Eq. 7). These are fitted to data and smoothed with cubic interpolation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gaps are missing at random
    Section 1.1 footnote 1 states gaps are treated as missing at random. This is necessary for the simulated gap analysis to represent real datasets.
  • domain assumption Ergodicity, stationarity of increments, and Taylor's hypothesis
    Section 1.3: the SF calculation assumes ergodicity, stationarity of increments, and Taylor's hypothesis. These are standard but not always valid.
  • ad hoc to paper Standardization makes regimes comparable for gap bias
    Section 2: normalizing to 10 correlation times and unit variance is assumed to make the gap-bias relation system-agnostic. The paper itself notes Reynolds number, Alfvenicity, and intermittency are not included.
  • domain assumption The empirical MPE over training intervals is a valid estimator of bias for new intervals
    Used in Eq. (6)-(7). This is the statistical assumption that the training distribution of errors is representative of new intervals from different spacecraft.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of De-Biasing Structure Function Estimates From Sparse Time Series of the Solar Wind: A Data-Driven Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TOLGYQ2C

@misc{pith2026241210053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: De-Biasing Structure Function Estimates From Sparse Time Series of the Solar Wind: A Data-Driven Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TOLGYQ2C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10053}
}
read the original abstract

Structure functions, which represent the moments of the increments of a stochastic process, are essential complementary statistics to power spectra for analysing the self-similar behaviour of a time series. However, many real-world environmental datasets, such as those collected by spacecraft monitoring the solar wind, contain gaps, which inevitably corrupt the statistics. The nature of this corruption for structure functions remains poorly understood - indeed, often overlooked. Here we simulate gaps in a large set of magnetic field intervals from Parker Solar Probe in order to characterize the behaviour of the structure function of a sparse time series of solar wind turbulence. We quantify the resultant error with regards to the overall shape of the structure function, and its slope in the inertial range. Noting the consistent underestimation of the true curve when using linear interpolation, we demonstrate the ability of an empirical correction factor to de-bias these estimates. This correction, "learnt" from the data from a single spacecraft, is shown to generalize well to data from a solar wind regime elsewhere in the heliosphere, producing smaller errors, on average, for missing fractions >25%. Given this success, we apply the correction to gap-affected Voyager intervals from the inner heliosheath and local interstellar medium, obtaining spectral indices similar to those from previous studies. This work provides a tool for future studies of fragmented solar wind time series, such as those from Voyager, MAVEN, and OMNI, as well as sparsely-sampled astrophysical and geophysical processes more generally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart demonstrating the method of the study. Prior to computing the SFs, the complete interval of each spacecraft, or gapped interval in the case of Voyager when the complete data is not available, is first standardized according the procedure outlined in the Appendix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of the effect of increasing amounts of missing data on the SF of three gapped versions of a single Wind interval. The left-hand column shows the original complete interval (grey), and the interpolated gapped interval (purple). Only one of the three vector components used in the calculation is shown, for visualization purposes. The middle column shows the SF from the complete interval (“true”, thick grey), a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two representations of relative error as a function of lag and missing fraction, as calculated from the PSP training set. Results for the Sˆnaive 2 (τ ) are given in (a) and (c) and SˆLINT 2 (τ ) in (b) and (d). Percentage error (PE) trendlines are given in (a) and (b) for a subset of 775 intervals, as in the third column of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three slices of the 3D “error cube” used for calculation of the final correction factor α using Eq. (7). The 2D error heatmaps of the SˆLINT 2 (τ ) estimator, as given in Fig. 3d, are now additionally computed across 25 bins of the estimated SF value by said estimator.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of each method on the Wind test set. SF MAPE is the overall SF estimation error, quantified by the mean MAPE over all SFs. Slope APE is the overall error in the estimated slope of the SF, quantified using the absolute percentage error (APE), averaged over a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of applying the correction factor to SˆLINT 2 (τ ) to three gapped versions of a single Wind interval (the same interval studied in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Error as a function of TGP for each of the three SF estimators for the Wind test set. On the right axis of each scatterplot is a boxplot showing the univariate distribution of errors: note some of the points are outside the plotted area in order to show the bulk of the…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: normalized interval of Voyager magnetic field data from the inner heliosheath. Only one of the three vector components used in the calculation is shown, for visualization purposes. Bottom left: Sˆnaive 2 (τ ), SˆLINT 2 (τ ), and Sˆcorr 2 (τ ) for the given interva…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: normalized interval of Voyager magnetic field data from the local interstellar medium. Only one of the three vector components used in the calculation is shown, for visualization purposes. Bottom left: Sˆnaive 2 (τ ), SˆLINT 2 (τ ), and Sˆcorr 2 (τ ) for the given…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of the standardization process for an interval of Wind magnetic field data from 2016. The corre￾lation scale for the entire 24-hour interval was calculated as 22min, using the integral method. The interval was then re￾sampled to 1.3s, to correspond to 10 corre…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 1793

    Ar´ evalo, P., Churazov, E., Zhuravleva, I., Hern´ andez-Monteagudo, C., & Revnivtsev, M. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 1793

    2012

  2. [2]

    2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Machine Learning and Computation, 1, e2024JH000155

    Azari, A., Abrahams, E., Sapienza, F., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Machine Learning and Computation, 1, e2024JH000155

    2024

  3. [3]

    2010, Digital Signal Processing, 20, 359, doi: 10.1016/j.dsp.2009.06.019

    Babu, P., & Stoica, P. 2010, Digital Signal Processing, 20, 359, doi: 10.1016/j.dsp.2009.06.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dsp.2009.06.019 2010

  4. [4]

    2016, Space science reviews, 204, 49

    Bale, S., Goetz, K., Harvey, P., et al. 2016, Space science reviews, 204, 49

    2016

  5. [5]

    D., MacDowall, R

    Bale, S. D., MacDowall, R. J., Koval, A., et al. 2020, PSP FIELDS Fluxgate Magnetometer (MAG) Magnetic Field

    2020

  6. [6]

    Vectors, Radial-Tangential-Normal, RTN, Coordinates, Full Resolution, Level 2 (L2), 3.413 ms Data, NASA Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/0YY0-BA92

    doi:10.48322/0yy0-ba92

  7. [7]

    1977, Space Science Reviews, 21, 235

    Behannon, K., Acuna, M., Burlaga, L., et al. 1977, Space Science Reviews, 21, 235

    1977

  8. [8]

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

    Bieber, J. W., Wanner, W., & Matthaeus, W. H. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 2511, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/95JA02588

    doi:10.1029/95ja02588 1996

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    Bigazzi, A., Biferale, L., Gama, S. M. A., & Velli, M. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 638, 499, doi: 10.1086/498665

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    2003, Magnetohydrodynamic turbulence (Cambridge University Press)

    Biskamp, D. 2003, Magnetohydrodynamic turbulence (Cambridge University Press)

    2003

  3. [11]

    B., & Tukey, J

    Blackman, R. B., & Tukey, J. W. 1958, Bell System Technical Journal, 37, 185

    1958

  4. [12]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 678, doi: 10.1086/340758

    Boldyrev, S., ˚Ake Nordlund, & Padoan, P. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 678, doi: 10.1086/340758

    2002 doi

  5. [13]

    Broersen, P. M. 2006, Digital Signal Processing: A Review Journal, 16, 754, doi: 10.1016/j.dsp.2006.01.001

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    M., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J

    Brown, T. M., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 349, 667

    1990

  7. [15]

    2019, Earth and Space Science, 6, 656

    Bruno, R. 2019, Earth and Space Science, 6, 656

    2019

  8. [16]

    2013, Living Rev

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

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    2007, Planetary and Space Science, 55, 2233, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2007.05.005

    Sorriso-Valvo, L. 2007, Planetary and Space Science, 55, 2233, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2007.05.005

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, Advances in Space Research, 71, 4916, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.01.033

    Burger, R., & McKee, S. 2023, Advances in Space Research, 71, 4916, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.01.033

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 128

    Burger, R., Nel, A., & Engelbrecht, N. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 128

    2022

  12. [20]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 20

    Burlaga, L., Florinski, V., & Ness, N. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 20

    2018

  13. [21]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 40

    Burlaga, L., Ness, N., Berdichevsky, D., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 40

    2020

  14. [22]

    F., & Richardson, J

    Burlaga, L., Ness, N. F., & Richardson, J. D. 1991, Journal of Geophysical Research, 96, 5847

    1991

  15. [23]

    Burlaga, L. F. 2023, Voyager 1 48-s Triaxial Fluxgate Magnetometer (MAG) Magnetic Field Data Near and Beyond Termination Shock in CDF Format, NASA Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/ENVB-3W78

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 27

    Carbone, F., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Alberti, T., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 27

    2018

  17. [25]

    V., et al

    Carbone, F., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A16

    2021

  18. [26]

    1996, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 3, 247

    Carbone, V., Veltri, P., & Bruno, R. 1996, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 3, 247

    1996

  19. [27]

    H., Parashar, T

    Chasapis, A., Matthaeus, W. H., Parashar, T. N., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 844, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7ddd

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 53

    Chen, C., Bale, S., Bonnell, J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 53

    2020

  21. [29]

    Chen, C. H. K., Mallet, A., Schekochihin, A. A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/120

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 2018JA025768, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025768

    Chhiber, R., Chasapis, A., Bandyopadhyay, R., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 2018JA025768, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025768

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Y., & Lindborg, E

    Cho, J. Y., & Lindborg, E. 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 106, 10223

    2001

  24. [32]

    Cressie, N., & Hawkins, D. M. 1980, Journal of the international Association for Mathematical Geology, 12, 115

    1980

  25. [33]

    E., Parashar, T

    Cuesta, M. E., Parashar, T. N., Chhiber, R., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac45fa De Cicco, D., Bauer, F. E., Paolillo, M., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 664, A117

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    2021, Physical Review D, 104, 044035 18

    Dey, K., Karnesis, N., Toubiana, A., et al. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, 044035 18

    2021

  27. [35]

    Raouafi, N. E. 2024, A&A, 689, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449869

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    1984, in Geostatistics for Natural Resources Characterization: Part 1 (Springer), 91–106 Dudok de Wit, T., Alexandrova, O., Furno, I.,

    Dowd, P. 1984, in Geostatistics for Natural Resources Characterization: Part 1 (Springer), 91–106 Dudok de Wit, T., Alexandrova, O., Furno, I.,

    1984

  29. [37]

    2013, Space Science Reviews, 178, 665

    Sorriso-Valvo, L., & Zimbardo, G. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 178, 665

    2013

  30. [38]

    M., & Uttley, P

    Emmanoulopoulos, D., McHardy, I. M., & Uttley, P. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 404, 931, doi: 10.1111/J.1365-2966.2010.16328.X

    2010

  31. [39]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 46

    Engelbrecht, N., & Burger, R. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 46

    2013

  32. [40]

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

    Engelbrecht, N. E., Effenberger, F., Florinski, V., et al. 2022, Space Science Reviews, 218, 33

    2022

  33. [41]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    2017, PhD thesis, Politecnico di Torino, doi: 10.6092/polito/porto/2687873

    Fraternale, F. 2017, PhD thesis, Politecnico di Torino, doi: 10.6092/polito/porto/2687873

    2017

  35. [43]

    Fraternale, F., & Pogorelov, N. V. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 906, 75

    2021

  36. [44]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd30

    Tordella, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd30

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    2020, Physical Review Letters, 125, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.170602

    Friedrich, J., Gallon, S., Pumir, A., & Grauer, R. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 125, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.170602

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    1995, Turbulence: The Legacy of A

    Frisch, U. 1995, Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov (Cambridge University Press). https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=-JcjT4wYgfgC

    1995

  39. [47]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research A: Space Physics, 121, 3905, doi: 10.1002/2015JA021830

    Gallana, L., Fraternale, F., Iovieno, M., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research A: Space Physics, 121, 3905, doi: 10.1002/2015JA021830

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 2945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2039

    Gatuzz, E., Mohapatra, R., Federrath, C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 2945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2039

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Filwett, R

    Henderson, S. A., Filwett, R. J., Allen, R. C., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 87

    2025

  42. [50]

    S., & Balogh, A

    Horbury, T. S., & Balogh, A. 1997, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 4, 185, doi: 10.5194/NPG-4-185-1997

    1997 doi

  43. [51]

    G., Hermand, J.-P., et al

    Huang, Y., Schmitt, F. G., Hermand, J.-P., et al. 2011, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 84, 016208

    2011

  44. [52]

    J., Tessein, J

    Isaacs, J. J., Tessein, J. A., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 868, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020661

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 68

    Maksimovic, M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 68

    2019

  46. [54]

    2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL096275

    Kataoka, R., & Nakano, S. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL096275

    2021

  47. [55]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 790, L20

    Klein, K., Howes, G., & TenBarge, J. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 790, L20

    2014

  48. [56]

    Kolmogorov, A. N. 1941, Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 301

    1941

  49. [57]

    2021, Wind Magnetic Field Investigation (MFI) Data at full resolution, NASA Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/0V0H-DF27 Koz lowski, S

    Koval, A., & Szabo, A. 2021, Wind Magnetic Field Investigation (MFI) Data at full resolution, NASA Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/0V0H-DF27 Koz lowski, S. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, 118

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    H., & Lee, L

    Lee, K. H., & Lee, L. C. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba20

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    P., Slavin, J

    Lepping, R. P., Slavin, J. A., Ness, N. E., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 207

    1995

  52. [60]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 889, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab65c7

    Li, Y., Gendron-Marsolais, M.-L., Zhuravleva, I., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 889, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab65c7

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    J., & Rubin, D

    Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. 2019, Statistical analysis with missing data, Vol. 793 (John Wiley & Sons)

    2019

  54. [62]

    N., Owens, M

    Lockwood, M., Bentley, S. N., Owens, M. J., et al. 2019, Space Weather, 17, 133, doi: 10.1029/2018SW001856

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and space science, 39, 447 L¨ ubke, J., Friedrich, J., & Grauer, R. 2023, Journal of Physics: Complexity, 4, 015005

    1976

  56. [64]

    A., Domingues, M

    Magrini, L. A., Domingues, M. O., & Mendes, O. 2017, Brazilian Journal of Physics, 47, 167, doi: 10.1007/s13538-017-0486-z

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    E., & Edwards, M

    Mao, R., Lee, J. E., & Edwards, M. C. 2025, Physical Review D, 111, 024067

    2025

  58. [66]

    A., Qudsi, R

    Maruca, B. A., Qudsi, R. A., Alterman, B., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A196

    2023

  59. [67]

    1963, Economic geology, 58, 1246

    Matheron, G. 1963, Economic geology, 58, 1246

    1963

  60. [68]

    Matsumoto, S. K. 2016, in 14th International Conference on Space Operations, 2415

    2016

  61. [69]

    2021, Physics of Plasmas, 28

    Matthaeus, W. 2021, Physics of Plasmas, 28

    2021

  62. [70]

    H., & Goldstein, M

    Matthaeus, W. H., & Goldstein, M. L. 1982, Journal of Geophysical Research, 87, 10347, doi: 10.1029/JA087iA12p10347

    1982 doi

  63. [71]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A

    Matthaeus, W. H., Wan, M., Servidio, S., et al. 2015, “Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A”, 373, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0154

    2015

  64. [72]

    2020, Master’s thesis, North-West University

    McKee, S. 2020, Master’s thesis, North-West University

    2020

  65. [73]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 12

    Mckinven, R., Gaensler, B., Michilli, D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 12

    2023

  66. [74]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adba54

    Mondal, S., Banerjee, S., & Sorriso-Valvo, L. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adba54

    2025 doi

  67. [75]

    2024, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 17, 783

    Mossad, M., Strelnikova, I., Wing, R., & Baumgarten, G. 2024, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 17, 783

    2024

  68. [76]

    2016, Annales Geophysicae, 34, 437 19

    Munteanu, C., Negrea, C., Echim, M., & Mursula, K. 2016, Annales Geophysicae, 34, 437 19

    2016

  69. [77]

    1959, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 85, 81

    Obukhov, A., & Yaglom, A. 1959, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 85, 81

    1959

  70. [78]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 583, 308, doi: 10.1086/345351

    Padoan, P., Boldyrev, S., Langer, W., & ˚Ake Nordlund. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 583, 308, doi: 10.1086/345351

    2003 doi

  71. [79]

    E., & King, J

    Papitashvili, N. E., & King, J. H. 2020, OMNI 1-min Data, NASA Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/45bb-8792

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

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

    Parashar, T. N., Cuesta, M., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, L57, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4a82

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    N., Goldstein, M

    Parashar, T. N., Goldstein, M. L., Maruca, B. A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab64e6

    2020 doi

  74. [82]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 128, p. 664, 128, 664

    1958

  75. [83]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 911

    Pei, Z., He, J., Wang, X., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 911

    2016

  76. [84]

    Pope, S. B. 2000, Turbulent Flows (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840531

    2000 doi

  77. [85]

    W., Alexandrova, O., Sorriso-Valvo, L., et al

    Roberts, O. W., Alexandrova, O., Sorriso-Valvo, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, doi: 10.1029/2021JA029483

    2022 doi

  78. [86]

    1995, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 100, 3395

    Balogh, A. 1995, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 100, 3395

    1995

  79. [87]

    1981, Applied Physics A, 24, 323

    Schulz-DuBois, E., & Rehberg, I. 1981, Applied Physics A, 24, 323

    1981

  80. [88]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 919

    McClure-Griffiths, N. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 919

    2023

  81. [89]

    1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 296, 46

    Simonetti, J., Cordes, J., & Heeschen, D. 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 296, 46

    1985

  82. [90]

    2022, Space Weather, 20, e2022SW003098, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003098

    Smith, A., Forsyth, C., Rae, I., et al. 2022, Space Weather, 20, e2022SW003098, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003098

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, L105

    Takahashi, T., Kataoka, J., Madejski, G., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, L105

    2000

  84. [92]

    Taylor, G. I. 1938, Proceedings of the Royal Society A:

    1938

  85. [93]

    M., & Howes, G

    TenBarge, J. M., & Howes, G. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 771, L27

    2013

  86. [94]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 37

    Thepthong, P., Pongkitiwanichakul, P., Ruffolo, D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 37

    2024

  87. [95]

    Y., & Marsch, E

    Tu, C. Y., & Marsch, E. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 73, 1

    1995

  88. [96]

    Uribe, A. d. J. A. 2021, Master’s thesis, Centro de Investigaci´ on y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN

    2021

  89. [97]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 611, A36

    Venzmer, M., & Bothmer, V. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 611, A36

    2018

  90. [98]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa433 Vrˇ snak, B., Temmer, M., & Veronig, A

    Verdini, A., Grappin, R., Alexandrova, O., & Lion, S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa433 Vrˇ snak, B., Temmer, M., & Veronig, A. M. 2007, Solar Physics, 240, 315

    2018 doi

  91. [99]

    Webster, R., & Oliver, M. A. 2007, Geostatistics for environmental scientists (John Wiley & Sons) Wilson III, L. B., Brosius, A. L., Gopalswamy, N., et al. 2021, Reviews of Geophysics, 59, e2020RG000714, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020RG000714

    2007 doi

  92. [100]

    D., Wicks, R

    Woodham, L. D., Wicks, R. T., Verscharen, D., & Owen, C. J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03d

    2018 doi

  93. [101]

    2024, sf gap analysis, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14431555

    Wrench, D. 2024, sf gap analysis, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14431555

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad118e

    Frean, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad118e

    2024 doi

  95. [103]

    2022, Space Weather, 20, doi: 10.1029/2022SW003200

    Rayudu, R. 2022, Space Weather, 20, doi: 10.1029/2022SW003200

    2022 doi

  96. [104]

    Yaglom, A. M. 1957, Theory of Probability and its Applications, 2, 273 —. 2004, An introduction to the theory of stationary random functions (Courier Corporation)

    1957

  97. [105]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, 762

    Zhang, Y., Treves, A., Celotti, A., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, 762

    2002

Pith tools

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