Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Surface Waves at Switchback Boundaries in the Young Solar Wind from Parker Solar Probe Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the low-frequency wave bursts seen at switchback boundaries in the young solar wind are Kelvin-Helmholtz surface waves, generated locally by velocity shear, and that this instability-driven release helps align the…

desk verdict A credible first quantitative KH threshold test at switchback boundaries, but the zero-thickness model leaves the causal claim under-supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01252 v1 pith:5TSIYLPH submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Kyung-Eun Choi , Oleksiy V. Agapitov , Nina Bizien , Thierry Dudok De Wit , Lucas Colomban This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarwindswitchbacksKelvin-HelmholtzinstabilitysurfacewavesParkerProbevelocitysheartangentialdiscontinuitiesmagneticfielddeflections
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 uses Parker Solar Probe measurements to argue that the wave bursts seen at the edges of magnetic switchbacks—localized large-angle magnetic field deflections in the solar wind—are surface waves driven by the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, not merely passive fluctuations. The authors evaluate the classical MHD instability criterion using plasma parameters measured just inside and outside a switchback boundary and show that the observed wave vectors fall in the unstable region of the threshold diagram. They further argue that the same instability gradually erodes switchback boundaries, which would explain why boundaries at 35–55 solar radii display aligned magnetic-field and velocity perturbations. If correct, some switchback structure is shaped locally in the solar wind by shear-flow instabilities rather than inherited unchanged from the Sun.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability threshold of a thin, locally planar tangential discontinuity, evaluated with the incompressible MHD criterion of Equation (1) and its scalar form in Equation (2). The threshold is mapped over all wave-vector directions in spherical coordinates to produce a stable/unstable directional diagram, and observed surface-wave wave vectors are superposed on this map. Supporting machinery includes minimum variance analysis to define the boundary normal, power spectral density and propagation angle θkn to confirm surface-aligned propagation, and signed ellipticity to classify waves as linearly polarized surface waves versus circularly polarized modes.

What would settle it

Find a switchback boundary with clear surface-wave signatures whose measured wave vectors all fall in the stable region of the threshold map computed from local plasma parameters, while no other wave source is present; alternatively, show that the boundary thickness is comparable to the surface-wave wavelength, which would invalidate the thin-discontinuity criterion and require a different instability threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that switchback boundaries in the young solar wind can be locally unstable to the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, and that the enhanced 1–5 Hz wave activity observed at those boundaries consists of KHI-driven surface waves. Using PSP magnetic field, velocity, and density measurements, the authors treat each boundary as a thin tangential discontinuity and evaluate the classical MHD threshold (their Equation (1)); a positive value of their scalar threshold (Equation (2)) for some wave-vector direction indicates instability. For the main event studied, the surface waves identified at 1.5, 2.2, and 3 Hz propagate nearly parallel to the boundary with linear polarization, and their wave vectors fall inside the unstable region of the threshold diagram. Two of four additional boundary-wave events are also unstable, while two are stable. The paper further argues that when ΔB and ΔV are nearly aligned the boundary is stable because the observed velocity shear is only 40–90% of the magnetic shear, so the instability requires a departure from alignment; the subsequent release of the KHI is then hypothesized to produce the ΔB ~ ΔV alignment seen at 35–55 Rs.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes each switchback boundary is a thin, locally planar tangential discontinuity with constant density, magnetic field, and velocity on either side, so the classical incompressible MHD Kelvin-Helmholtz criterion applies; if a boundary is thick, compressible, or still evolving, the computed stability threshold may not describe the true instability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 1–5 Hz wave bursts at switchback boundaries would be generated locally by velocity shear, so they do not need a remote or external wave source.
  • KHI growth would progressively erode and broaden initially sharp switchback boundaries, providing a mechanism for the observed radial evolution of switchback morphology.
  • Boundaries where ΔB and ΔV are closely aligned should remain stable, so the instability acts as a relaxation process that enforces alignment at 35–55 Rs.
  • Unstable boundaries allow particle exchange between the switchback interior and the surrounding solar wind even when the magnetic structure is nominally closed.
  • The two stable events show that not all boundary wave activity is produced by the KHI; stable boundaries can host remnant surface waves from an earlier unstable phase.
  • The observed velocity shear typically being 40–90% of the magnetic shear means that alignment stabilizes the boundary, so instability requires a misalignment between ΔB and ΔV.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if KHI release enforces ΔB–ΔV alignment, the instability acts as a local relaxation mechanism that systematically removes misaligned configurations, predicting that boundary alignment should improve with increasing heliocentric distance.
  • Editorial inference: the same threshold calculation could be applied to other solar wind shear layers, such as stream interaction regions, to test whether their boundary waves are also KHI-driven.
  • Editorial inference: a statistical survey sorting boundaries by sharpness could test the erosion scenario by checking whether broad, degraded boundaries show more accumulated wave activity than sharp young boundaries.
  • Editorial inference: finite boundary thickness and compressibility could shift the instability threshold, so a local compressible MHD dispersion analysis with measured gradients would show whether the predicted unstable frequencies match the observed 1–5 Hz band.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes Parker Solar Probe observations of low-frequency (1–5 Hz) wave bursts at switchback boundaries in the young solar wind. The waves are identified as surface waves based on their linear polarization and propagation nearly perpendicular to the boundary normal. Using the classical incompressible MHD Kelvin–Helmholtz criterion (Eq. 1) with plasma parameters measured on both sides of the boundaries, the authors construct stability maps in wave-vector direction space. For the primary event and two of four additional events, the observed wave-vector directions fall in the unstable region; for the other two events they are stable and are interpreted as remnants of instabilities that developed closer to the Sun. The paper concludes that KH instability may drive the observed surface waves and contribute to switchback boundary erosion and radial evolution.

Significance. If substantiated, this would be a valuable observational identification of KH-driven surface waves at switchback boundaries, linking local shear instabilities to switchback evolution. The analysis of the main event is clear and well illustrated, and the instability test is an independent comparison of measured wave-vector directions against a standard criterion computed from separately measured parameters, with no parameters fitted to make the waves unstable. The paper also reports the two stable events openly. However, the central claim rests on a zero-thickness tangential discontinuity model that ignores the finite boundary width, and the observed wavelengths are not quantified relative to that width. These gaps prevent the identification of the observed modes as KH-unstable from being definitive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 2.2–2.3, Eqs. (1)–(2), Figure 3] The KH criterion in Eq. (1) applies to an ideal tangential discontinuity of zero thickness, so the instability condition is independent of |k|. Real SB boundaries have finite width; the paper itself notes B-dropouts and current sheets at these boundaries (Section 2.1). For a finite-thickness shear layer, short-wavelength perturbations are stabilized and the unstable band is set by kΔ, where Δ is the boundary thickness. The paper does not measure Δ nor estimate the plasma-frame wavelength of the observed 1–5 Hz waves, which requires accounting for the solar wind flow and Doppler shift. Hence, a boundary found unstable by Eq. (1) may nevertheless be stable for the particular observed modes. To support the claim that the observed waves are KH-unstable, the authors should estimate Δ (e.g., from the magnetic field rotation profile) and the plasma-frame k of the waves, and verify that kΔ falls in the unstable range. Without this, the central assertion in the abstract and in Section 3 (item 2) is not fully established.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 4 (panels l and p)] The two events in stable regions are interpreted as 'remnants of surface instabilities that developed closer to the Sun' without independent evidence. The stability test alone cannot distinguish a wave that is not KH-generated from a remnant of a previously unstable wave; this is a post hoc interpretation. The authors should either support this scenario with additional diagnostics (e.g., correlations with boundary sharpness or age, radial trends, or comparison with the ULF activity reported by Farrell et al. 2021) or present these events as non-confirming cases rather than as supporting evidence for the remnant hypothesis.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eq. (1)] Eq. (1) is the incompressible MHD criterion, yet the solar wind is compressible and the boundaries show variations in density and |B|, including dropouts. The paper does not justify the incompressible approximation for these parameters. Moreover, no uncertainties are given for the measured ρ, v, and B used in the threshold computation. Since the classification of the observed k directions as unstable or stable depends on the exact contours, the authors should provide a sensitivity analysis with propagated uncertainties (or, at minimum, state the uncertainties and discuss their effect on the positions of the asterisks in Figures 3 and 4).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] The method used to derive the wave vector direction k is not described; please state the analysis technique (e.g., SVD or wave telescope), the coordinate system, and how the 180° ambiguity in k is handled (the asterisks in Figure 3 show both forward and backward propagation).
  2. [Sections 2.2 and 3] The surface wave selection criteria differ between the main event (ellipticity < 0.2 and θkn > 80°) and the four additional events (|ellipticity| < 0.5 and θkn > 60°); please justify the thresholds or adopt a consistent criterion.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The gray curve is described as outlining the plane defined by B1, B2, and ΔB, but its relation to the stability map is unclear; please clarify the geometry and purpose of this curve.
  4. [Section 2.2 and Section 3] The circularly polarized wave at 07:48:43 UT is initially described as possibly a different mode, but later discussed as potentially consistent with Hollweg (1982)'s circularly polarized surface waves; please clarify whether this event is classified as a surface wave.
  5. [Abstract and Section 3] The notation ΔB∼ΔV in the abstract and summary should use vector notation (as elsewhere in the text) to avoid ambiguity.
  6. [Section 2.1] The statement that 'the velocity profile shows a similar rotational behavior' is not quantified; please add the angular deflection of the velocity across the boundary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the KHI threshold test uses an external standard criterion (Miura 1984) and independently measured wave vectors, with no fitted parameters forcing the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central instability test is self-contained and non-circular. Equation (1) is the classical incompressible MHD Kelvin-Helmholtz criterion from Miura (1984), an external theoretical result, and Eq. (2) merely re-expresses it as a threshold using measured B1, B2, v1, v2, rho1, and rho2. The observed wave vectors plotted in Figure 3 are determined independently from MVA, wavelet power spectra, the condition theta_kn > 80 degrees, and ellipticity measurements (Section 2.2), not from the threshold calculation. No parameter is fitted to make the waves appear unstable, and the paper explicitly reports two events that fall in stable regions (Figures 4(l) and 4(p)). The post hoc 'remnant' explanation for stable events is an interpretive hypothesis rather than a circular reduction, since it does not feed back into the instability calculation. Self-citations such as Agapitov et al. (2023), Krasnoselskikh et al. (2020), and Bizien et al. (2023) are used for event selection and tangential-discontinuity context, but the instability evaluation rests on externally standard theory and independently measured quantities; none of these citations is an unverified premise containing the paper's conclusion. Concerns about finite boundary thickness and wavelength dependence of the true KHI growth rate are model-validity limitations, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on a standard MHD instability criterion applied to measured plasma parameters; no numerical constants are fitted. The main unstated burden is the reduction of real, finite-thickness boundary layers to ideal 1D tangential discontinuities and the assumption that single-spacecraft wave vector directions are reliable. The interpretation of stable events as remnants and the alignment hypothesis are additional explanatory assumptions, not derived results.

free parameters (2)
  • surface wave selection thresholds = ellipticity < 0.5; theta_kn > 60 degrees; 1-5 Hz
    Chosen by hand to identify linear or weakly elliptical surface waves; these thresholds determine which wave events enter the sample but are not fitted to the KH instability condition.
  • averaging intervals for inside/outside boundary plasma parameters = not specified
    The values B1, B2, V1, V2 and densities used in Eq. (2) depend on the time intervals chosen to represent the plasma on each side of the boundary; no uncertainties are provided, so the stability classification has unquantified sensitivity to this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Incompressible ideal MHD Kelvin-Helmholtz stability criterion (Eq. 1) applies to switchback boundaries treated as sharp tangential discontinuities.
    The boundary is modeled as a uniform two-region shear layer; finite thickness, compressibility, and kinetic effects are neglected. This enters at Eq. (1) in Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Wave vector directions derived from single-spacecraft minimum variance / singular value decomposition reliably represent the wave propagation direction.
    The comparison of observed waves to unstable regions of the threshold diagram depends on theta_kn and on k directions inferred from Figures 2-4.
  • domain assumption Observed 1-5 Hz spacecraft-frame fluctuations are surface waves at the boundary rather than other modes (e.g., whistlers or kinetic Alfven waves) Doppler shifted into the same band.
    The paper distinguishes the 1.75 Hz left-hand circular event as a different mode; the remaining linearly polarized events are assumed to be surface waves, but no mode identification beyond polarization and propagation angle is given.
  • domain assumption Background magnetic field and velocity values on each side of the boundary are representative of the equilibrium the KH instability acts on.
    The threshold calculation uses B1, B2, V1, V2 derived from intervals that may themselves be perturbed by the wave activity being studied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surface Waves at Switchback Boundaries in the Young Solar Wind from Parker Solar Probe Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TSIYLPH

@misc{pith2026250701252,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surface Waves at Switchback Boundaries in the Young Solar Wind from Parker Solar Probe Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TSIYLPH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01252}
}
read the original abstract

Switchbacks (SBs) are localized magnetic field deflections in the solar wind, marked by abrupt changes in the magnetic field direction relative to the ambient solar wind. Observations onboard Parker Solar Probe (PSP) at heliocentric distances below 50 Solar Radii (Rs) showed that within SBs, perturbations in the magnetic field ({\Delta}B) and the bulk solar wind velocity ({\Delta}V) align, i.e., {\Delta}B~{\Delta}V, producing enhanced radial velocity spikes. In this study, we examine the characteristics of SB boundaries, with particular attention to the role of boundary shear flow instabilities (Kelvin-Helmholtz instability - KHI) for surface wave phenomena based on the in situ magnetic field, plasma speed, and plasma density measurements from PSP. The results indicate that SB boundaries can be unstable for generating KHI-driven surface waves, suggesting that the wave activity observed at SB boundaries is caused by shear flow instabilities. In addition, the continued development of KHI may lead to boundary erosion, contributing to the radial evolution of SBs via structural weakening or broadening. However, when {\Delta}B and {\Delta}V are closely aligned, the boundary remains stable unless the velocity shear significantly exceeds the magnetic shear. Since the observed velocity shear typically ranges from 40% to 90% of magnetic shear, the instability condition is generally not satisfied. Thus, the configuration leading to the instability arises from deviations from precise alignment of {\Delta}B and {\Delta}V in the young solar wind, and the release of the KHI presumably leads to the formation of the {\Delta}B and {\Delta}V alignment observed at SB boundaries located at 35-55 Rs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01252 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of an SB recorded by PSP on November 1, 2018. Panels (a)–(f) show the overall structure of the SB, including its boundaries (the blue-shaded regions) and the main spike (the yellow-shaded region); (a) - pitch angle distribution of suprathermal electrons (314.5 eV); (b) - magnetic field magnitude from MAG data; (c) - magnetic field components in the RT N coordinate system; (d) - velocity components in RT N… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Wave activity at the trailing boundary of the SB in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kelvin-Helmholtz instability growth rate and directional distribution of plasma parameters. The ’+’ symbols mark the magnetic fields (B1 and B2, black), their difference (∆B⃗ = B1 − B2, blue), and the velocity difference (∆V⃗ = V1 − V2, green). The gray curve outlines the plane defined by B1, B2, and ∆B⃗ . The background color map shows the KHI threshold (see Equation (2)) as a function of wave vector direction in s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Summary of four additional surface wave events at SB boundaries. The first two events (panels a–h), observed at 15:10 UT on 2018 October 31 (Agapitov et al. 2023) and 02:22 UT on 2018 November 8 (Farrell et al. 2020), are located in unstable regions of the KH threshold…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013553

    Agapitov, O., Glassmeier, K.-H., Plaschke, F., et al. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013553

    work page doi:10.1029/2008ja013553 2009

  2. [2]

    V ., Drake, J

    Agapitov, O. V ., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., Choi, K.-E., & Raouafi, N. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 959, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad12a5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad12a5 2023

  3. [3]

    V ., Dudok de Wit, T., Mozer, F

    Agapitov, O. V ., Dudok de Wit, T., Mozer, F. S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab799c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab799c 2020

  4. [4]

    V ., Drake, J

    Agapitov, O. V ., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 213, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4016

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4016 2022

  5. [5]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 49, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5

    Bale, S., Goetz, K., Harvey, P., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 49, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5 2016

  6. [6]

    2019, Nature, 576, 237, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1818-7

    Bale, S., Badman, S., Bonnell, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 237, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1818-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1818-7 2019

  7. [7]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A181, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452140

    Velli, M. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A181, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452140

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452140 2025

  8. [8]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf99a

    Bizien, N., Dudok de Wit, T., Froment, C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf99a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf99a 2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    W., Kasper, J

    Case, A. W., Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M. L., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5a7b

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad54c4

    Choi, K.-E., Agapitov, O., Colomban, L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad54c4

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347489

    Colomban, L., Kretzschmar, M., Krasnoselkikh, V ., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347489

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109, doi: 10.1029/2003JA010278

    Crooker, N., Kahler, S., Larson, D., & Lin, R. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109, doi: 10.1029/2003JA010278

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Agapitov, O., Swisdak, M., et al

    Drake, J. F., Agapitov, O., Swisdak, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039432 Dudok de Wit, T., Krasnoselskikh, V . V ., Bale, S. D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5853

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    P., et al

    Fargette, N., Lavraud, B., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 663, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243537

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac005b SURFACE WAVES AT SWITCHBACK BOUNDARIES 9

    Farrell, W., Rasca, A., MacDowall, R., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac005b SURFACE WAVES AT SWITCHBACK BOUNDARIES 9

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Kasper, J. C. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9eba

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245140

    Froment, C., Agapitov, O., Krasnoselskikh, V ., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245140

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Hollweg, J. V . 1982, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 87, 8065, doi: 10.1029/JA087iA10p08065

    1982 doi

  11. [19]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1980, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty953

    Horbury, T., Matteini, L., & Stansby, D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1980, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty953

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Woolley, T., Laker, R., et al

    Horbury, T. S., Woolley, T., Laker, R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5b15

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    C.-M., Peng, J., et al

    Huang, J., Liu, Y . C.-M., Peng, J., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 6927, doi: 10.1002/2017JA023906

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Fisk, L

    Huang, J., Kasper, J. C., Fisk, L. A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd17e

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    1970, Planetary and Space Science, 18, 1611, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(70)90036-X

    Hudson, P. 1970, Planetary and Space Science, 18, 1611, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(70)90036-X

    1970 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039808

    Jagarlamudi, V ., Dudok de Wit, T., Froment, C., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039808

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    K., Raouafi, N., Bourouaine, S., et al

    Jagarlamudi, V . K., Raouafi, N., Bourouaine, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 950, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd778

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 24373, doi: 10.1029/96JA02232

    Kahler, S., Crocker, N., & Gosling, J. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 24373, doi: 10.1029/96JA02232

    1996 doi

  19. [27]

    1994, Geophysical Research Letters, 21, 1575, doi: 10.1029/94GL01362

    Kahler, S., & Lin, R. 1994, Geophysical Research Letters, 21, 1575, doi: 10.1029/94GL01362

    1994 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc527

    Karbashewski, S., Agapitov, O., Kim, H., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc527

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    C., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al

    Kasper, J. C., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 131, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0206-3

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Bale, S

    Kasper, J. C., Bale, S. D., Belcher, J. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 228, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1813-z

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7f2d

    Krasnoselskikh, V ., Larosa, A., Agapitov, O., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7f2d

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039442

    Larosa, A., Krasnoselskikh, V ., Dudok de Wit, T., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039442

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad23e0

    Lee, J., Wang, H., Wang, J., & Wang, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad23e0

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Kasper, J

    Livi, R., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93f5 Martinovi´c, M. M., Klein, K. G., Huang, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abebe5

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    1984, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 89, 801, doi: 10.1029/JA089iA02p00801

    Miura, A. 1984, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 89, 801, doi: 10.1029/JA089iA02p00801

    1984 doi

  28. [36]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7196

    Mozer, F., Agapitov, O., Bale, S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7196

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    1995, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 100, 23389, doi: 10.1029/95JA02723

    Balogh, A. 1995, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 100, 23389, doi: 10.1029/95JA02723

    1995 doi

  30. [38]

    Neugebauer, M., & Sterling, A. C. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2945

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 1868, doi: 10.1002/jgra.50259

    Owens, M., Crooker, N., & Lockwood, M. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 1868, doi: 10.1002/jgra.50259

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Matteini, L., Squire, J., et al

    Raouafi, N. E., Matteini, L., Squire, J., et al. 2023, Space Science Reviews, 219, 8, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00952-4

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Kasper, J. C. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac079f

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Farrell, W

    Rasca, A. P., Farrell, W. M., Whittlesey, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac80c3

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    H., Chhiber, R., et al

    Ruffolo, D., Matthaeus, W. H., Chhiber, R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb594 Santol´ık, O., Parrot, M., & Lefeuvre, F. 2003, Radio Science, 38, 10, doi: 10.1029/2000RS002523

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    A., & McComas, D

    Schwadron, N. A., & McComas, D. J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4e6

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    D., & Meyrand, R

    Squire, J., Chandran, B. D., & Meyrand, R. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 891, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab74e1

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    P., Stangalini, M., et al

    Telloni, D., Zank, G. P., Stangalini, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical journal letters, 936, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8104

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfd91

    Toth, G., Velli, M., & Van Der Holst, B. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfd91

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    L., Larson, D

    Whittlesey, P. L., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7370

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    D., et al

    Woolley, T., Matteini, L., McManus, M. D., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2281

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb828

    Zank, G., Nakanotani, M., Zhao, L.-L., Adhikari, L., & Kasper, J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb828

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b28

    Zhao, J., Wang, S., Sun, W., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b28

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.