Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 67 references

Effect of interplanetary shock waves on turbulence parameters

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Strong shocks rebalance solar wind turbulence, turning Alfvénic upstream fluctuations into balanced, magnetically dominated downstream ones.

desk verdict A large, careful statistical study whose core claim about shock-parameter control of sigma_c and sigma_r holds up; the AF/SFR structure counts are derivative of the same PDF shifts and need threshold validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04450 v1 pith:GZXNQZRU submitted 2025-05-07 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Emilia Kilpua , Simon Good , Juska Soljento , Domenico Trotta , Tia Bäcker , Julia Ruohotie , Jens Pomoell , Chaitanya Sishtla
show 1 more author
Rami Vainio
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords normalizedcross-helicityresidualenergymagnetichelicityinterplanetaryshockssolarwindturbulenceAlfvénicfluctuationssmall-scalefluxropesOrbiter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that interplanetary shock waves do not merely compress the solar wind but actively rewrite the turbulence that passes through them, and that the rewriting is controlled by the shock's strength and orientation. Using 371 shocks measured by Wind at 1 au and seven measured by Solar Orbiter closer to the Sun, it argues that strong shocks with large velocity jumps and density compressions turn imbalanced, Alfvénic upstream fluctuations into balanced, magnetically dominated downstream fluctuations, while weak shocks leave the turbulence essentially unchanged. It further claims that shock passage suppresses periods identified as Alfvénic fluctuations and increases periods identified as small-scale flux ropes. These changes matter because the balance between sunward and antisunward waves, and between magnetic and kinetic fluctuation energy, sets the scattering environment that governs how efficiently shocks accelerate charged particles.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by three normalized turbulence parameters computed from wavelet spectrograms in the 1.67–16.7 mHz inertial-range band: cross-helicity $\sigma_c$ (the normalized difference in power between fluctuations $z^\pm = v \pm b$ propagating along and against the mean magnetic field), residual energy $\sigma_r$ (normalized difference between kinetic and magnetic fluctuation energy), and magnetic helicity $\sigma_m$. These are compared upstream and downstream of each shock and binned by four shock parameters: gas compression ratio, upstream plasma $\beta$, velocity jump, and shock angle. The structural interpretation rests on threshold-based identification of Alfvénic fluctuations (requiring $|\sigma_m| > 0.7$ or $> 0.3$, $|\sigma_c| > 0.9$, $|\sigma_r| < 0.3$) and small-scale flux ropes (requiring $|\sigma_m| > 0.7$, $|\sigma_c| < 0.4$, $|\sigma_r| < -0.5$), applied to the same wavelet spectrograms.

What would settle it

Take the same 371 Wind shocks and label intervals of known content by an independent method, such as magnetic flux-rope reconstruction or particle-in-cell simulations of shock crossing with embedded coherent structures, and compare whether the $\sigma_c$, $\sigma_r$, $\sigma_m$ thresholds recover the known structures; alternatively, recalculate the AF and SFR occurrence trends with thresholds varied over a plausible range and see whether the upstream-to-downstream decrease and increase survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, drawn from wavelet-derived inertial-range values of the normalized cross-helicity $\sigma_c$, residual energy $\sigma_r$, and magnetic helicity $\sigma_m$ in 1-h windows around each shock, is that the shock transition systematically reprocesses solar wind turbulence, with the effect controlled by shock parameters. Shocks with large gas compression ratios and large velocity jumps produce downstream fluctuations that are considerably more balanced in cross-helicity ($\sigma_c$ near 0) and more magnetically dominated (more negative $\sigma_r$) than upstream, and the rectified cross-helicity shows this balance comes primarily from a strong reduction of antisunward-propagating fluctuation power. Across the shock, the occurrence of time periods meeting the adopted criteria for Alfvénic fluctuations decreases on average, while periods meeting the criteria for small-scale flux ropes increase, with the Alfvénic periods peaking for quasi-parallel shocks with large velocity jumps and small upstream $\beta$, and flux-rope periods increasing with gas compression ratio and upstream $\beta$. Magnetic helicity averages near zero and shows little change across the shock. The same upstream-to-downstream trends appear in the seven Solar Orbiter shocks below 0.5 au, indicating the effect is not confined to 1 au.

Load-bearing premise

The entire Alfvénic-fluctuation and flux-rope trend analysis depends on the hand-chosen numerical thresholds that decide whether a time interval counts as one structure or the other, so if those thresholds do not cleanly separate the intended physical structures in shock-modified turbulence, the reported occurrence trends would not reflect real structure populations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If strong shocks systematically balance cross-helicity and steepen magnetic dominance downstream, particle-acceleration models at shocks must use shock-dependent turbulence inputs rather than a universal upstream spectrum.
  • Because weak shocks leave the turbulence parameters nearly unchanged, their efficiency at accelerating particles should be governed by the pre-existing upstream turbulence rather than by shock-generated fluctuations.
  • The downstream increase in small-scale flux ropes implies that shock passage creates or amplifies coherent magnetic structures, which can act as scattering centres or reservoirs for energetic particles.
  • The similarity of trends at 0.3–0.5 au and at 1 au suggests these shock-processing effects are generic across the inner heliosphere, not an artefact of solar-wind evolution.
  • Quasi-parallel shocks with large velocity jumps and low upstream beta are the configuration that most enriches upstream turbulence with Alfvénic fluctuations, which is exactly the condition under which shock self-generated waves should be strongest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not perform: if the downstream flux-rope increase comes from shock-triggered reconnection of current sheets, the increase should correlate with the density of current sheets in the upstream plasma, which can be counted from the same Wind data.
  • The AF decrease downstream may be partly a selection effect of the threshold criteria, because the downstream shift in $\sigma_r$ toward more negative values automatically pushes intervals out of the AF box; a control analysis with scale-dependent or locally normalized thresholds could separate selection from a true structural change.
  • The rectified cross-helicity result—that the antisunward population is strongly reduced downstream of strong shocks—suggests either preferential damping of antisunward waves or generation of sunward waves; a direct examination of the sunward and antisunward fluctuation power spectra in the downstream would discriminate between these two mechanisms.
  • If the shock-angle dependence is confirmed with more quasi-parallel events, the observed trends imply that the foreshock region itself, not just the downstream, should show turbulence parameters organized by shock geometry, which could be tested with multi-spacecraft crossings of the same shock.
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. The manuscript analyzes normalized cross-helicity, residual energy, and magnetic helicity in 1-h intervals upstream and downstream of 371 fast forward interplanetary shocks detected by Wind over 1995-2023 and 7 shocks observed by Solar Orbiter below 0.5 au. For each shock it computes the change across the shock and compares PDFs and occurrence statistics in subsets defined by the 20th and 80th percentiles of gas compression ratio, upstream plasma beta, velocity jump, and shock angle. The headline results are that strong shocks (large velocity jump and gas compression ratio) produce more balanced cross-helicity and more magnetically dominated fluctuations downstream, that the occurrence of Alfvénic-fluctuation periods decreases while small-scale-flux-rope periods increase across the shock, and that these trends depend on the shock parameters; the near-Sun sample is reported to show similar behavior.

Significance. If the claimed trends hold, this would be the first large-sample demonstration that shock strength and obliquity systematically control the reprocessing of solar-wind turbulence at interplanetary shocks, with implications for turbulence-driven particle acceleration at collisionless shocks. The paper's strengths are its large, public-data-based sample spanning 2.5 solar cycles, its use of publicly catalogued shocks and the SerPyShocks package, and its transparent presentation of median trends and PDFs that can be reproduced and extended. The main claims are physically plausible and consistent with prior case and small-sample studies; however, the absence of significance testing and the dependence of the Alfvénic-fluctuation/flux-rope component on unvalidated fixed thresholds currently prevent the paper from fully supporting the stronger structural interpretation in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3.2, Figs. 5-7] The conclusions that PDF differences are 'significant' and that trends with r_g, beta_u, Delta V, and theta_Bn are 'clear' are based on visual inspection of PDFs and 40-event running medians; no significance tests are reported. With 371 events split into many subsets and with the large event-to-event scatter visible in Fig. 4, sampling fluctuations could produce apparent PDF differences of the size shown. I ask for a quantitative assessment, for example two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Anderson-Darling tests between the upstream and downstream PDFs, bootstrap confidence intervals for the running medians, or permutation tests for the PDF differences, together with a statement of how many events drive each trend.
  2. [§3.3.3, Figs. 8-9 and Table 1] The AF and SFR occurrence trends are presented as independent physical-structure evidence, but the fixed criteria (|sigma_m|>0.7 or >0.3, |sigma_c|>0.9, |sigma_r|<0.3 for AFs; |sigma_m|>0.7, |sigma_c|<0.4, |sigma_r|<-0.5 for SFRs) select exactly the parameter-space regions that shift between the upstream and downstream PDFs in Figs. 6-7. Consequently, a decrease in AF occurrence and an increase in SFR occurrence would be expected for almost any fixed thresholds once the reported sigma_c and sigma_r shifts are present, so the occurrence trends do not by themselves validate that the selected intervals correspond to real Alfvénic fluctuations and small-scale flux ropes. Because the thresholds are adopted from Zhao et al. (2021) and Ruohotie et al. (2022) without validation in shock-modified turbulence, I request either a threshold sweep showing that the trends are robust, or a comparison with an independent structure-identification method, to support the abstract's claim that AF populations decrease and SFR populations increase across the shock.
  3. [§3.2, Figs. 3, 6-7] The subset definitions are chosen post hoc as the 20th and 80th percentiles of each shock parameter, explicitly 'to give sufficiently distinct populations' (§3.2). All parameter-dependence claims in the abstract and in Figs. 6-9 are therefore conditioned on this arbitrary split. The paper should demonstrate that the conclusions are robust to the choice of percentile - for example by testing quartiles or terciles, or by performing a continuous regression of the upstream-to-downstream changes in sigma_c and sigma_r on the shock parameters - and should report the number of events in each extreme subset.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3.3] The sentence 'For AFs, we require that |sigma_m|>0.7 or |sigma_m|>0.3 for circular or linearly polarized waves' is internally ambiguous, since linearly polarized Alfvén waves have sigma_m approximately zero; please clarify which modes satisfy which threshold and whether the |sigma_m|>0.3 condition is really intended for linear polarization.
  2. [Table 2] The entry '1 .36±1.22' contains an errant space and should read '1.36±1.22'.
  3. [§3.3.1, Fig. 4] The x-axis ranges in the main figure are truncated to 'exclude a few outlier points'; please state explicitly how many events are excluded in each panel, since the running medians near the plot boundaries may depend on the truncation.
  4. [§3.4, Fig. 10] With only seven Solar Orbiter shocks, the statement that 'the results show an overall similar behaviour as at 1 au' should be explicitly framed as exploratory and accompanied by the individual event values listed in Table 2 rather than only by combined PDFs.
  5. [References] The citation 'Pitna et al. (2023)' appears with inconsistent diacritics ('Pitna' versus 'Pitˇna') in the text and reference list.
  6. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says '80th and 20th quartiles' but the text and figure markers refer to percentiles; please correct the wording.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Direct σc/σr/σm measurements are self-contained; one Discussion sentence re-labels the same PDF shifts as 'further evidence' via AF/SFR occurrence, a minor circularity.

  1. renaming known result [Section 4 (Discussion), paragraph beginning 'Theoretical work indicates...'; criteria in Sect. 3.3.3]
    "This is in agreement with our findings on how σc and σr depend on shock parameters, with further evidence of this phenomenon provided by our investigation of the presence of AFs using criteria imposed on σc, σr and σm."

    The AF/SFR occurrence counts are not independent of the σc/σr PDFs: in Sect. 3.3.3 AFs are defined by thresholding the same wavelet bins with |σc|>0.9 and |σr|<0.3, and SFRs with |σc|<0.4 and |σr|<−0.5 (plus |σm| conditions). The reported downstream shift of σc toward 0 and σr toward more negative values therefore mechanically lowers the AF count and raises the SFR count for any fixed thresholds. Invoking that occurrence as 'further evidence' for the σc/σr dependence is a re-labeling of the same measurement rather than an independent confirmation. The PDF-shift results themselves are direct observations and are not circular.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative results are direct measurements of normalized cross-helicity, residual energy, and magnetic helicity from Wind and Solar Orbiter data; no model parameters are fitted and no prediction is derived from fitted constants. The σc, σr, and σm PDFs and their upstream/downstream changes are self-contained descriptions of the data. Shock parameters are computed with the public SerPyShocks package from independent field/plasma measurements, not from the turbulence parameters. The AF/SFR thresholds are adopted openly from Zhao et al. (2021) and Ruohotie et al. (2022); Ruohotie is a coauthor, but the criteria are stated explicitly and are applied to this new dataset rather than fitted to it, so the self-citation does not force the central result. The only circular step is the Discussion's 'further evidence' sentence, which treats threshold-based AF/SFR occurrence as independent corroboration of the σc/σr changes even though those occurrence counts are constructed from the same σc/σr (and σm) bins. This is a minor interpretive overstatement that does not propagate into the PDF comparisons or the main parameter-dependence claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on hand-chosen analysis thresholds (AF/SFR criteria, percentile split, frequency band, window length) and on standard domain assumptions about the inertial range, shock-normal estimation, and IMF sector rectification. No new physical entities are postulated, and no model parameters are fitted to data.

free parameters (5)
  • AF identification thresholds = |σ_m|>0.7 or >0.3, |σ_c|>0.9, |σ_r|<0.3
    Hand-chosen thresholds from Zhao et al. (2021) and Ruohotie et al. (2022); directly determine AF occurrence percentages that are a headline result.
  • SFR identification thresholds = |σ_m|>0.7, |σ_c|<0.4, |σ_r|<-0.5
    Hand-chosen thresholds from prior group studies; directly determine SFR occurrence trends.
  • Subset percentile split = 20th and 80th percentiles
    Chosen to give 74-event subsets with 'sufficiently distinct populations' (Sect. 3.2); PDF comparisons depend on this split.
  • Frequency band = 1.67 to 16.7 mHz
    Selected as inertial range at 1 au; near-Sun Solar Orbiter shocks may have a shifted inertial range, affecting all turbulence parameters.
  • Averaging window = 1 h upstream/downstream, 1 min exclusion
    Choice of window length determines how much of the shock-affected region is sampled; a 1-min exclusion may not remove the transition layer for all shocks.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 1 to 10 minute timescale band lies within the inertial range of MHD turbulence at both 1 au and 0.3 to 0.5 au.
    Used in Sect. 2.3 and 3.3 to compute σ_c, σ_r and σ_m; if kinetic-scale fluctuations contaminate the band, the interpretation as inertial-range turbulence fails.
  • domain assumption The mixed-mode method yields an unbiased estimate of the shock normal, and shocks are approximately planar.
    Sect. 2.2; errors in θBn would misclassify quasi-parallel versus quasi-perpendicular shocks, which underlies a headline AF result.
  • domain assumption The IMF sector remains constant over the 2-hour interval, and the Parker spiral angle formula correctly rectifies propagation direction.
    Sect. 2.3; if the sector changes or the spiral angle is inaccurate, the sign of σ_c* and the antisunward-imbalance claim would be wrong.
  • domain assumption The AF and SFR threshold criteria correctly identify physically distinct structures in shock-modified turbulence.
    Sect. 3.3.3; the criteria are taken from the literature and not validated against independent structure identification in this paper.
  • domain assumption The shock catalogs used (IPShocks, CfA, SERPENTINE) provide a representative sample of fast forward shocks without selection bias correlated with turbulence properties.
    Sect. 2.1; the paper itself notes quasi-parallel shocks are harder to identify, so selection bias is plausible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of interplanetary shock waves on turbulence parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZXNQZRU

@misc{pith2026250504450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of interplanetary shock waves on turbulence parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZXNQZRU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04450}
}
abstract

We have performed an extensive statistical investigation of how interplanetary fast forward shocks affect certain turbulence parameters, namely, the cross-helicity, $\sigma_c$, residual energy, $\sigma_r$, and magnetic helicity, $\sigma_m$. A total of 371 shocks detected by Wind at 1 au and seven shocks by Solar Orbiter at 0.3-0.5 au have been analysed. We explore how the aforementioned turbulence parameters and their variation across the shock depend on shock characteristics including the gas compression ratio, upstream plasma beta, velocity jump and shock angle. In the shock vicinity, fluctuations tend on average to show antisunward imbalance (measured as $\sigma_c>0$ when rectified to the Parker spiral direction), a dominance of magnetic energy ($\sigma_r<0$) and zero $\sigma_m$, all being typical solar wind properties . Antisunward imbalance and equipartition ($\sigma_r \sim0$) in the upstream is increasingly prevalent with increasing shock velocity jump and decreasing upstream beta and shock angle. Shocks with large velocity jumps and gas compression ratios have considerably more balanced ($\sigma_c\sim0$) and more magnetically dominated fluctuations downstream than upstream. From upstream to downstream, we also find that the occurrence of time periods fulfilling strict criteria for Alfv\'enic fluctuations (AFs) usually decreases, while those meeting the criteria for small-scale flux ropes (SFRs) increases. The occurrence of AF periods peaks for quasi-parallel shocks with large velocity jumps and small upstream beta. The occurrence of SFRs increases with increasing gas compression ratio and upstream beta. The shocks observed by Solar Orbiter below 0.5 au display similar distributions of turbulence parameters and upstream-to-downstream changes to those detected at 1 au. These results are relevant for understanding turbulence and charged-particle acceleration at collisionless shocks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04450 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A shock observed by Wind on 8 July 2019. From top to bottom, the first five panels show: the magnetic field magnitude and the GSE components; solar wind speed; density; temperature; and IMF clock angle. The bottom three panels show wavelet spectro￾grams of normalised cross-helicity, residual energy and magnetic helicity. Dashed white lines show the frequencies limiting the high frequencies / small scales (16.7 mHz /… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A shock observed by Wind on 31 October 2001. The panel layout is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histograms of parameters for interplanetary shocks detected by the Wind spacecraft during 1995–2023. The dashed grey lines show the 20th and 80th percentiles. The top row shows the distribution for all Wind shocks and the bottom row shows the distribution for those used in the 𝜎 ∗ 𝑐 analysis. From left to right, the panels show the distributions for the shock gas compression ratio, upstream plasma beta, velocity jum… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Turbulence parameters as a function of shock properties. From top to bottom, the rows show the absolute value of the 1-h average of cross-helicity, 1-h average of the rectified cross-helicity, 1-h average of residual energy and 1-h average of magnetic helicity. The val…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Heatmaps of relative occurrence organised by the shock parameters, and change from upstream to downstream in (from top to bottom) the absolute value of 1-h averaged cross-helicity, 1-h averaged absolute values of residual energy and 1-h averaged absolute values of magn…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PDFs for shocks separated into two subsets using the 80th and 20th quartiles of the shock gas compression ratio and upstream plasma beta for cross-helicity, rectified cross-helicity, residual energy and magnetic helicity. we discuss only variation in the PDFs for the c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PDFs for shocks separated into two subsets using the 80th and 20th quartiles of the shock speed jump and shock angle for cross￾helicity, rectified cross-helicity, residual energy and magnetic helicity. tribution. In addition, the residual energy PDFs for low β𝑢 shocks …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The 30-event (grey) and 60-event (black) running medians of the occurrence percentage of periods that fulfil the AF and FR criteria in the shock upstream and downstream as functions of the selected shock parameters. Shading shows the interquartile range for the 30-even…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Heatmaps of the relative occurrence rates as a function of the shock parameters and change across the shock in the percentage of AF and FR periods. The white curves give the 40-event running medians and upper and lower quartiles of the change. that the shock upstream h…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: PDFs of cross-helicity, residual energy and magnetic helicity for seven Solar Orbiter shocks observed below 0.5 au [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A shock observed by Solar Orbiter on 10 October 2023. The panel layout is the same as in Figs. 1 and 2. stream to downstream. This shock had a similar speed jump but was almost perpendicular. 3.4 Near–Sun observations Finally, we investigate whether similar changes in…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Yun, S

    Abraham-Shrauner, B. and Yun, S. H.: Interplanetary shocks seen by Ames Plasma Probe on Pioneer 6 and 7, J. Geophys. Res., 81, 2097, https://doi.org/10.1029/JA081i013p02097,

    doi:10.1029/ja081i013p02097

  2. [10]

    Chen, C. H. K., Bale, S. D., Salem, C. S., and Maruca, B. A.: Resid- ual Energy Spectrum of Solar Wind Turbulence, Astrophys. J., 770, 125, https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/125,

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/125

  3. [11]

    Chen, C. H. K., Bale, S. D., Bonnell, J. W., Borovikov, D., Bowen, T. A., Burgess, D., Case, A. W., Chandran, B. D. G., de Wit, T. D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P. R., Kasper, J. C., Klein, K. G., Ko- rreck, K. E., Larson, D., Livi, R., MacDowall, R. J., Malaspina, D. M., Mallet, A., McManus, M. D., Moncuquet, M., Pulupa, M., Stevens, M. L., and Whittlesey, P.: ...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab60a3

  4. [12]

    D’Amicis, R., Bruno, R., and Bavassano, B.: Is geomagnetic ac- tivity driven by solar wind turbulence?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L05108, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028896,

    doi:10.1029/2006gl028896

  5. [17]

    J., Eastwood, J

    Gingell, I., Schwartz, S. J., Eastwood, J. P., Stawarz, J. E., Burch, J. L., Ergun, R. E., Fuselier, S. A., Gershman, D. J., Giles, B. L., Khotyaintsev, Y . V ., Lavraud, B., Lindqvist, P. A., Pa- terson, W. R., Phan, T. D., Russell, C. T., Strangeway, R. J., Torbert, R. B., and Wilder, F.: Statistics of Reconnecting Cur- rent Sheets in the Transition Reg...

    doi:10.1029/2019ja027119

  6. [18]

    J., Kucharek, H., Farrugia, C

    18 Kilpua et al.: Shock effect on turbulence parameters Gingell, I., Schwartz, S. J., Kucharek, H., Farrugia, C. J., Fryer, L. J., Plank, J., and Trattner, K. J.: Hybrid sim- ulations of the decay of reconnected structures down- stream of the bow shock, Physics of Plasmas, 30, 012902, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0129084,

    doi:10.1063/5.0129084

  7. [23]

    S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., Bendyk, M., Brown, P., Hudson, R., Evans, V ., Oddy, T

    Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., Bendyk, M., Brown, P., Hudson, R., Evans, V ., Oddy, T. M., Carr, C. M., Beek, T. J., Cupido, E., Bhattacharya, S., Dominguez, J. A., Matthews, L., Myklebust, V . R., Whiteside, B., Bale, S. D., Baumjohann, W., Burgess, D., Carbone, V ., Cargill, P., Eastwood, J., Erdös, G., Fletcher, L., Forsyth, R., Gi...

  8. [24]

    Y ., Hadid, L

    Huang, S. Y ., Hadid, L. Z., Sahraoui, F., Yuan, Z. G., and Deng, X. H.: On the Existence of the Kolmogorov Inertial Range in the Terrestrial Magnetosheath Turbulence, Astrophys. J. Lett., 836, L10, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/836/1/L10,

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/836/1/l10

Show all 67 references
  1. [26]

    T., Luhmann, J

    Jian, L., Russell, C. T., Luhmann, J. G., and Skoug, R. M.: Prop- erties of Stream Interactions at One AU During 1995 2004, SoPh, 239, 337–392, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-006-0132- 3,

    1995 doi

  2. [28]

    D., Christian, E., Hill, M., McComas, D

    Kilpua, E., Vainio, R., Cohen, C., Dresing, N., Good, S., Ruohotie, J., Trotta, D., Bale, S. D., Christian, E., Hill, M., McComas, D. J., McNutt, R., and Schwadron, N.: Energetic ion enhancements in sheaths driven by interplanetary coronal mass ejections, Astro- phys. Space Sc...

    doi

  3. [29]

    Kilpua, E. K. J., Lumme, E., Andreeova, K., Isavnin, A., and Kosk- inen, H. E. J.: Properties and drivers of fast interplanetary shocks near the orbit of the Earth (1995-2013), J. Geophys. Res., 120, 4112–4125, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021138,

    1995 doi

  4. [30]

    Kilpua, E. K. J., Good, S. W., Ala-Lahti, M., Osmane, A., Fontaine, D., Hadid, L., Janvier, M., and Yordanova, E.: Statistical anal- ysis of magnetic field fluctuations in CME-driven sheath re- gions, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 109, https://doi.org/10.3389/f...

  5. [31]

    A.: Coupled hydromagnetic wave excitation and ion accel- eration upstream of the earth’s bow shock, J

    Lee, M. A.: Coupled hydromagnetic wave excitation and ion accel- eration upstream of the earth’s bow shock, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 5063–5080, https://doi.org/10.1029/JA087iA07p05063,

    doi

  6. [34]

    Matthaeus, W. H. and Goldstein, M. L.: Measurement of the rugged invariants of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in the solar wind, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 6011–6028, https://doi.org/10.1029/JA087iA08p06011,

    doi

  7. [35]

    Mullan, D. J. and Smith, C. W.: Solar Wind Statistics at 1 AU: Alfven Speed and Plasma Beta, Sol. Phys., 234, 325–338, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-006-2077-y,

    doi

  8. [36]

    Müller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., Gilbert, H. R., Mars- den, R., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., Antonucci, E., Auchère, F., Berghmans, D., Horbury, T. S., Howard, R. A., Krucker, S., Maksimovic, M., Owen, C. J., Rochus, P., Rodriguez- Pacheco, J., Romoli, M., Solanki, S. K.,...

  9. [37]

    P., and Zhao, L

    Nakanotani, M., Zank, G. P., and Zhao, L. L.: Interac- tion between Multiple Current Sheets and a Shock Wave: 2D Hybrid Kinetic Simulations, Astrophys. J., 922, 219, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e06,

    doi

  10. [39]

    Owen, C. J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., Louarn, P., Al Janabi, K., Allegrini, F., Amoros, C., Baruah, R., Barthe, A., Berthomier, M., Bor- Kilpua et al.: Shock effect on turbulence parameters 19 don, S., Brockley-Blatt, C., Brysbaert, C., Capuano, G., Collier, M., DeMarco, R., Fedor...

  11. [40]

    J.l, 954, L51, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acf4ff,

    Park, B., Pit ˇna, A., Šafránková, J., N ˇemeˇcek, Z., Krupa ˇrová, O., Krupa ˇr, V ., Zhao, L., and Silwal, A.: Change of Spec- tral Properties of Magnetic Field Fluctuations across Differ- ent Types of Interplanetary Shocks, Astrophys. J.l, 954, L51, https://doi.org/10.3847/...

    doi

  12. [41]

    N.: Dynamics of the Interplanetary Gas and Magnetic Fields., Astrophys

    Parker, E. N.: Dynamics of the Interplanetary Gas and Magnetic Fields., Astrophys. J., 128, 664, https://doi.org/10.1086/146579,

    doi

  13. [44]

    Pitˇna, A., Šafránková, J., N ˇemeˇcek, Z., Goncharov, O., N ˇemec, F., P ˇrech, L., Chen, C. H. K., and Zastenker, G. N.: Den- sity Fluctuations Upstream and Downstream of Interplanetary Shocks, Astrophys. J., 819, 41, https://doi.org/10.3847/0004- 637X/819/1/41,

    doi

  14. [45]

    Pitˇna, A., Šafránková, J., N ˇemeˇcek, Z., ˇDurovcová, T., and Kis, A.: Turbulence Upstream and Downstream of Interplanetary Shocks, Frontiers in Physics, 8, 654, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.626768,

    2020

  15. [46]

    G.: Solar wind stream interaction regions through- out the heliosphere, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 15, 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41116-017-0011-z,

    Richardson, I. G.: Solar wind stream interaction regions through- out the heliosphere, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 15, 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41116-017-0011-z,

    doi

  16. [49]

    D., Kasper, J., Korreck, K., Bonnell, J

    Shi, C., Velli, M., Panasenco, O., Tenerani, A., Réville, V ., Bale, S. D., Kasper, J., Korreck, K., Bonnell, J. W., Dudok de Wit, T., Malaspina, D. M., Goetz, K., Harvey, P. R., MacDowall, R. J., Pulupa, M., Case, A. W., Larson, D., Verniero, J. L., Livi, R., Stevens, M., Whi...

    doi

  17. [50]

    A., Bale, S

    Sioulas, N., Huang, Z., Shi, C., Velli, M., Tenerani, A., Bowen, T. A., Bale, S. D., Huang, J., Vlahos, L., Woodham, L. D., Hor- bury, T. S., de Wit, T. D., Larson, D., Kasper, J., Owen, C. J., Stevens, M. L., Case, A., Pulupa, M., Malaspina, D. M., Bon- nell, J. W., Livi, R.,...

    doi

  18. [51]

    P., Pomoell, J., Kilpua, E., Good, S., Daei, F., and Palmroth, M.: Flux-tube-dependent propagation of Alfvén waves in the solar corona, Astron

    Sishtla, C. P., Pomoell, J., Kilpua, E., Good, S., Daei, F., and Palmroth, M.: Flux-tube-dependent propagation of Alfvén waves in the solar corona, Astron. Astrophys., 661, A58, https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202142999,

    doi

  19. [52]

    P., Pomoell, J., Vainio, R., Kilpua, E., and Good, S.: Modelling the interaction of Alfvénic fluctuations with coronal mass ejections in the low solar corona, Astron

    Sishtla, C. P., Pomoell, J., Vainio, R., Kilpua, E., and Good, S.: Modelling the interaction of Alfvénic fluctuations with coronal mass ejections in the low solar corona, Astron. Astrophys., 679, A54, https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202347250,

    doi

  20. [53]

    W.: Magnetic helicity in the solar wind, Advances in Space Research, 32, 1971–1980, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273- 1177(03)90635-1,

    Smith, C. W.: Magnetic helicity in the solar wind, Advances in Space Research, 32, 1971–1980, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273- 1177(03)90635-1,

    1971 doi

  21. [55]

    E., Good, S

    Soljento, J. E., Good, S. W., Osmane, A., and Kilpua, E. K. J.: Imbalanced Turbulence Modified by Large-scale Ve- locity Shears in the Solar Wind, Astrophys. J.l, 946, L19, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acc071,

    doi

  22. [56]

    Squire, J., Schekochihin, A. A., and Quataert, E.: Amplitude lim- its and nonlinear damping of shear-Alfvén waves in high-beta low-collisionality plasmas, New Journal of Physics, 19, 055005, https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aa6bb1,

    doi

  23. [57]

    and McIntosh, S

    Tomczyk, S. and McIntosh, S. W.: Time-Distance Seismology of the Solar Corona with CoMP, Astrophys. J., 697, 1384–1391, https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1384,

    doi

  24. [59]

    Trotta, D., Vuorinen, L., Hietala, H., Horbury, T., Dresing, N., Gieseler, J., Kouloumvakos, A., Price, D., Valentini, F., Kilpua, E., and Vainio, R.: Single-spacecraft techniques for shock parameters estimation: A systematic approach, 20 Kilpua et al.: Shock effect on turbule...

  25. [60]

    S., Vainio, R., Dresing, N., Retinò, A., Marcucci, M

    Trotta, D., Pezzi, O., Burgess, D., Preisser, L., Blanco-Cano, X., Kajdic, P., Hietala, H., Horbury, T. S., Vainio, R., Dresing, N., Retinò, A., Marcucci, M. F., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Servidio, S., and Valentini, F.: Three-dimensional mod- elling of the shock–turbulence interacti...

    doi

  26. [61]

    Trotta, D., Larosa, A., Nicolaou, G., Horbury, T

    Trotta, D., Hietala, H., Dresing, N., Horbury, T., Kartavykh, Y ., Gieseler, J., Jebaraj, I., Gómez-Herrero, R., Espinosa Lara, L., and Vainio, R.: Solar Orbiter Cycle 25 Interplanetary Shock List (Dataset), Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12518015, 2024a. Trotta, D., L...

    doi

  27. [63]

    G., and Maruca, B

    Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., and Maruca, B. A.: The multi- scale nature of the solar wind, Living Rev. Sol. Phys., 16, 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0,

    doi

  28. [65]

    P., Nakanotani, M., Zhao, L

    Zank, G. P., Nakanotani, M., Zhao, L. L., Du, S., Adhikari, L., Che, H., and le Roux, J. A.: Flux Ropes, Turbulence, and Collisionless Perpendicular Shock Waves: High Plasma Beta Case, Astrophys. J., 913, 127, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abf7c8,

    doi

  29. [66]

    L., Zank, G

    Zhao, L. L., Zank, G. P., He, J. S., Telloni, D., Hu, Q., Li, G., Nakanotani, M., Adhikari, L., Kilpua, E. K. J., Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., Evans, V ., and Angelini, V .: Turbulence and wave transmission at an ICME-driven shock observed by the Solar Orbiter and Wind, Astron...

    doi

  30. [67]

    and Hu, Q.: Observational Evidence for Self- generation of Small-scale Magnetic Flux Ropes from Inter- mittent Solar Wind Turbulence, Astrophys

    Zheng, J. and Hu, Q.: Observational Evidence for Self- generation of Small-scale Magnetic Flux Ropes from Inter- mittent Solar Wind Turbulence, Astrophys. J. Lett., 852, L23, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa3d7,

    doi

  31. [1958]

    and Balogh, A.: Differences in solar wind cross-helicity and residual energy during the last two solar minima, Geophys

    Perri, S. and Balogh, A.: Differences in solar wind cross-helicity and residual energy during the last two solar minima, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L17102, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044570,

    doi

  32. [1971]

    E.: A Statistical Analysis of the Fluctuations in the Upstream and Downstream Plasmas of 109 Strong-Compression Interplanetary Shocks at 1 AU, J

    Borovsky, J. E.: A Statistical Analysis of the Fluctuations in the Upstream and Downstream Plasmas of 109 Strong-Compression Interplanetary Shocks at 1 AU, J. Geophys. Res., 125, e27518, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027518,

    doi

  33. [1976]

    P., Hunana, P., and Hu, Q.: The Inter- action of Turbulence with Parallel and Perpendicular Shocks: Theory and Observations at 1 au, Astrophys

    Adhikari, L., Zank, G. P., Hunana, P., and Hu, Q.: The Inter- action of Turbulence with Parallel and Perpendicular Shocks: Theory and Observations at 1 au, Astrophys. J., 833, 218, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/218,

    doi

  34. [1978]

    W., Hatakka, L

    Good, S. W., Hatakka, L. M., Ala-Lahti, M., Soljento, J. E., Os- mane, A., and Kilpua, E. K. J.: Cross helicity of interplanetary coronal mass ejections at 1 au, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 514, 2425–2433, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1388,

    doi

  35. [1982]

    P., Ac ˜una, M

    Lepping, R. P., Ac ˜una, M. H., Burlaga, L. F., Farrell, W. M., Slavin, J. A., Schatten, K. H., Mariani, F., Ness, N. F., Neubauer, F. M., Whang, Y . C., Byrnes, J. B., Kennon, R. S., Panetta, P. V ., Scheifele, J., and Worley, E. M.: The Wind Magnetic Field Investigation, Spa...

    doi

  36. [1987]

    Ruohotie, J., Kilpua, E. K. J., Good, S. W., and Ala- Lahti, M.: Small-scale flux ropes in ICME sheaths, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 943247, https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2022.943247,

    2022

  37. [1995]

    P., Anderson, K

    Lin, R. P., Anderson, K. A., Ashford, S., Carlson, C., Curtis, D., Er- gun, R., Larson, D., McFadden, J., McCarthy, M., Parks, G. K., Rème, H., Bosqued, J. M., Coutelier, J., Cotin, F., D’Uston, C., Wenzel, K. P., Sanderson, T. R., Henrion, J., Ronnet, J. C., and Paschmann, G....

    doi

  38. [1997]

    Ogilvie, K. W. and Desch, M. D.: The wind spacecraft and its early scientific results, Adv. Space Res., 20, 559–568, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1177(97)00439-0,

    doi

  39. [1998]

    Bavassano, B., Pietropaolo, E., and Bruno, R.: Alfvénic turbulence in the polar wind: A statistical study on cross helicity and resid- ual energy variations, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 12 697–12 704, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JA900004,

    doi

  40. [1999]

    and Spanier, F.: Evolution of Alfvén waves by three-wave interactions in super-Alfvénic shocks, Astron

    Vainio, R. and Spanier, F.: Evolution of Alfvén waves by three-wave interactions in super-Alfvénic shocks, Astron. Astrophys., 437, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20042433,

    doi

  41. [2000]

    Belcher, J. W. and Davis, Leverett, J.: Large-amplitude Alfvén waves in the interplanetary medium, 2, JGR, 76, 3534, https://doi.org/10.1029/JA076i016p03534,

    doi

  42. [2001]

    M.: The Hydromagnetic Equations, Physical Review, 79, 183–183, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.79.183,

    Elsasser, W. M.: The Hydromagnetic Equations, Physical Review, 79, 183–183, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.79.183,

    doi

  43. [2003]

    I., and Kilpua, E

    Snekvik, K., Tanskanen, E. I., and Kilpua, E. K. J.: An automated identification method for Alfvénic streams and their geoeffectiveness, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 5986–5998, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50588,

    doi

  44. [2005]

    Bavassano, B., Pietropaolo, E., and Bruno, R.: Cross-helicity and residual energy in solar wind turbulence: Radial evolution and latitudinal dependence in the region from 1 to 5 AU, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 6521–6530, https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA03029,

    doi

  45. [2006]

    Kilpua, E., Koskinen, H. E. J., and Pulkkinen, T. I.: Coronal mass ejections and their sheath regions in interplanetary space, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41116- 017-0009-6,

    doi

  46. [2007]

    D’Amicis, R., Bruno, R., and Bavassano, B.: Response of the geo- magnetic activity to solar wind turbulence during solar cycle 23, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 73, 653– 657, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.012,

    doi

  47. [2009]

    Trotta, D., Pecora, F., Settino, A., Perrone, D., Hietala, H., Hor- bury, T., Matthaeus, W., Burgess, D., Servidio, S., and Valen- tini, F.: On the Transmission of Turbulent Structures across the Earth’s Bow Shock, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 167, https://doi.org/10.3847/1...

    doi

  48. [2010]

    P., Nakanotani, M., Zhao, L

    Pitna, A., Zank, G. P., Nakanotani, M., Zhao, L. L., Adhikari, L., Safrankova, J., and Nemecek, Z.: Transmission of magnetic is- land modes across interplanetary shocks: comparison of theory and observations, in: Journal of Physics Conference Series, vol. 2544 of Journal of Ph...

    doi

  49. [2011]

    D’Amicis, R., Bruno, R., Panasenco, O., Telloni, D., Perrone, D., Marcucci, M. F., Woodham, L., Velli, M., De Marco, R., Jagar- lamudi, V ., Coco, I., Owen, C., Louarn, P., Livi, S., Horbury, T., André, N., Angelini, V ., Evans, V ., Fedorov, A., Genot, V ., Lavraud, B., Matte...

  50. [2013]

    A., Scholer, M., Bale, S

    Burgess, D., Lucek, E. A., Scholer, M., Bale, S. D., Balikhin, M. A., Balogh, A., Horbury, T. S., Krasnoselskikh, V . V ., Kucharek, H., Lembège, B., Möbius, E., Schwartz, S. J., Thomsen, M. F., and Walker, S. N.: Quasi-parallel Shock Structure and Processes, Space Sci. Rev., ...

    doi

  51. [2015]

    V .: Nonlinear Landau Damping of Alfvén Waves, PRL, 27, 1349–1352, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.27.1349,

    Hollweg, J. V .: Nonlinear Landau Damping of Alfvén Waves, PRL, 27, 1349–1352, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.27.1349,

    doi

  52. [2016]

    D., Balikhin, M

    Bale, S. D., Balikhin, M. A., Horbury, T. S., Krasnoselskikh, V . V ., Kucharek, H., Möbius, E., Walker, S. N., Balogh, A., Burgess, D., Lembège, B., Lucek, E. A., Scholer, M., Schwartz7 10, S. J., and Thomsen, M. F.: Quasi-perpendicular Shock Structure and Processes, Space Sc...

    doi

  53. [2017]

    Y ., Wang, Q

    Huang, S. Y ., Wang, Q. Y ., Sahraoui, F., Yuan, Z. G., Liu, Y . J., Deng, X. H., Sun, W. J., Jiang, K., Xu, S. B., Yu, X. D., Wei, Y . Y ., and Zhang, J.: Analysis of Turbulence Properties in the Mercury Plasma Environment Using MESSENGER Obser- vations, Astrophys. J., 891, 1...

    doi

  54. [2018]

    A., Klein, L

    Roberts, D. A., Klein, L. W., Goldstein, M. L., and Matthaeus, W. H.: The nature and evolution of mag- netohydrodynamic fluctuations in the solar wind: V oy- ager observations, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 11 021–11 040, https://doi.org/10.1029/JA092iA10p11021,

    doi

  55. [2019]

    Völk, H. J. and Cesarsky, C. J.: Nonlinear Landau damping of Alfvén waves in a high beta plasma., Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A, 37, 809–815, https://doi.org/10.1515/zna-1982-0814,

    1982 doi

  56. [2020]

    and Carbone, V .: The Solar Wind as a Turbulence Labora- tory, Living Rev

    Bruno, R. and Carbone, V .: The Solar Wind as a Turbulence Labora- tory, Living Rev. Sol. Phys., 10, 2, https://doi.org/10.12942/lrsp- 2013-2,

    2013 doi

  57. [2021]

    Rev., 97, 201–204, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011827623142,

    De Keyser, J., Roth, M., De Sterck, H., and Poedts, S.: A Survey of Field-Aligned Mach Number and Plasma Beta in the Solar Wind, Space Sci. Rev., 97, 201–204, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011827623142,

    doi

  58. [2022]

    W., Rantala, O

    Good, S. W., Rantala, O. K., Jylhä, A. S. M., Chen, C. H. K., Möstl, C., and Kilpua, E. K. J.: Turbulence Properties of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections in the Inner Heliosphere: Dependence on Proton Beta and Flux Rope Structure, Astrophys. J. Lett., 956, L30, https://doi...

    doi

  59. [2023]

    Z., Sahraoui, F., Kiyani, K

    Hadid, L. Z., Sahraoui, F., Kiyani, K. H., Retinò, A., Mod- olo, R., Canu, P., Masters, A., and Dougherty, M. K.: Na- ture of the MHD and Kinetic Scale Turbulence in the Magne- tosheath of Saturn: Cassini Observations, Astrophys. J.l, 813, L29, https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-820...

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.