Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 95 references

Observational Constraints on the Radial Evolution of O$^{6+}$ Temperature and Differential Flow in the Inner Heliosphere

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that O6+ ions in the solar wind cool adiabatically from 0.3 to 1 au, with no significant local heating, while their differential flow relative to protons and their temperature ratio to protons both decrease with distance.

desk verdict First inner-heliosphere survey of O6+ kinetics; the radial trends are real, but the 'no heating' headline overclaims what an untested r^-4/3 baseline can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09345 v1 pith:H5PHP6FZ submitted 2025-08-12 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Yeimy J. Rivera , Kristopher G. Klein , Joseph H. Wang , Lorenzo Matteini , Daniel Verscharen , Jesse T. Coburn , Samuel T. Badman , Susan T. Lepri
show 10 more authors
Ryan M. Dewey Jim M. Raines Benjamin L. Alterman Timothy J. Stubbs Kevin C. Delano Roberto Livi Stefano A. Livi Antoinette B. Galvin Christopher J. Owen Michael L. Stevens
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarwindheavyionheatingO6+differentialstreamingadiabaticcoolingOrbiterpreferentialAlfvénicfluctuations
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 Solar Orbiter's Heavy Ion Sensor to measure the speed and temperature of O6+ ions between 0.3 and 1 au, the first heavy-ion (Z>2) kinetics sampled that close to the Sun. It finds that O6+ differential flow relative to protons, normalized to the Alfvén speed, decreases with distance, and that the O6+ to proton temperature ratio drops but stays above mass proportionality (T_O6+/T_p > 16). The central claim is that O6+ cools adiabatically, following T ∝ r^(-4/3), across all wind speeds, so no significant energy is added to O6+ beyond 0.3 au. If right, the strong preferential oxygen heating seen in the low corona is completed inside Mercury's orbit, and models must place deposition there. The paper also documents negative differential streaming during 180° Alfvénic field rotations, which grows with distance.

What carries the argument

The analysis relies on a projection identity for the radial differential streaming, V_O6+,R/V_A = ±(ΔU/V_A) cos Θ, which connects the measured radial speed difference to the field-aligned drift ΔU and the angle Θ between the radial direction and the magnetic field, letting the authors fold the 2D 'moth plot' distribution into radial profiles. The inference of no heating rests on comparing measured O6+ temperatures with the adiabatic ideal-gas profile T ∝ r^(-4/3) (Schwartz & Marsch 1983), extrapolated from 0.3 au.

What would settle it

Measure O6+ temperature and anisotropy between 0.3 and 1 au and compare the temperature falloff with the double-adiabatic (CGL) prediction using the measured magnetic field: if the cooling exponent departs from -4/3 once anisotropies are included, local heating is present. Equivalently, a future in situ or remote measurement below 0.3 au showing the temperature was not on the 0.3-au adiabat would move the heating zone outward.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The study reports that from 0.3 to 1 au the O6+ scalar temperature is well described by a single adiabatic cooling law T ∝ r^(-4/3) for every proton speed bin, indicating that O6+ experiences no significant local heating in this range. At the same time, the field-aligned differential streaming (V_O6+ − V_p)/V_A decreases with heliocentric distance and the temperature ratio T_O6+/T_p decreases yet remains super-mass-proportional (>16). The largest differential flows, sometimes exceeding the local Alfvén speed, occur inside 0.57 au. Negative differential streaming, where O6+ falls behind protons, occurs during magnetic-field kinks associated with large-amplitude Alfvénic fluctuations and becom

Load-bearing premise

The no-heating conclusion assumes that an adiabatically expanding ideal gas cools as T ∝ r^(-4/3) in the collisionless, anisotropic solar wind, so any deviation of O6+ from that curve would be read as heating; the paper itself cautions this law may not be strictly true for a turbulent plasma with strong temperature anisotropies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The zone of preferential oxygen heating must lie below 0.3 au (65 R_sun); models that deposit energy into O6+ between 0.3 and 1 au are not supported.
  • O6+ behaves differently from He2+: both show decreasing differential flow, but O6+ cools adiabatically while He2+ cools non-adiabatically, so heating mechanisms must be species-selective.
  • At 1 au the measured O6+ differential flow (~0.4–0.8 V_A across wind speeds) brackets the earlier ACE/SWICS average of 0.6 V_A, giving a consistent inner-heliosphere baseline.
  • O6+ can stream faster than the local Alfvén speed, mostly inside 0.57 au, which must be reproduced by any wave-acceleration theory.
  • Negative differential streaming during 180° field rotations matches the lever-arm behavior of ions that start faster than the wave speed, but the local wave speed can differ from V_A, complicating the comparison.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If no energy is added to O6+ beyond 0.3 au, its temperature anisotropy should evolve predictably under double-adiabatic (CGL) expansion; the authors note this is unmeasured, so a testable prediction is that T_perp/T_par of O6+ follows the magnetic-field profile.
  • The same analysis applied to carbon ions, also present in the HIS Level 3 dataset, would show whether the adiabatic no-heating behavior is shared by other heavy ions or unique to oxygen.
  • The inconsistency in one case study where O6+ slowed despite starting below V_A suggests the relevant wave speed is lower than the MHD Alfvén speed; comparing O6+ and He2+ speed changes in the same fluctuation could test this.
  • The adiabatic extrapolation back to the Sun places the O6+ temperature peak just beyond the UVCS field of view (3.5–5 R_sun); a next-generation coronal spectrometer could locate that peak and close the observational gap.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a statistical analysis of O^6+ velocity and temperature measurements from the Solar Orbiter Heavy Ion Sensor (HIS) between 0.3 and 1 au, using ~40,600 ten-minute intervals after CME removal. The authors report (1) a radial decrease of the O^6+–proton differential flow normalized to the Alfvén speed, (2) a radial decrease of the O^6+/proton temperature ratio that remains super-mass-proportional, (3) an adiabatic (T ∝ r^{-4/3}) cooling profile for O^6+ across all wind-speed bins, which they interpret as no significant heating beyond 0.3 au, (4) increasing occurrence of negative differential streaming during large-amplitude Alfvénic fluctuations, and (5) occasional O^6+ drifts exceeding the local Alfvén speed near perihelion. The paper uses a geometric projection model (Eq. 2) to interpret the angular dependence of the measured drift and compares the results with previous 1 au observations (Berger et al. 2011; Tracy et al. 2016) and with UVCS coronal measurements.

Significance. If the central conclusion holds, this is a substantial contribution: it provides the first in situ heavy-ion (Z>2) survey across 0.3–1 au, filling a critical observational gap between coronal remote sensing and 1 au composition measurements. The derived constraints on O^6+ differential flow and temperature would directly inform models of ion heating and acceleration in the solar wind. The strengths include a clearly documented data selection and CME removal, a well-motivated a priori projection model for the angular dependence, and a direct comparison with existing 1 au ion composition studies. The main result, however, rests on the assumed r^{-4/3} adiabatic baseline, which the authors themselves flag as not strictly valid for collisionless anisotropic plasmas; this weakens the no-heating conclusion as currently stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Figure 2 bottom right; §5, Conclusion 3] The central claim that O^6+ cools adiabatically with no significant heating beyond 0.3 au rests entirely on dashed T ∝ r^{-4/3} curves anchored at the 0.3 au bin and extrapolated to 1 au. No power-law exponent is fitted, no confidence interval is reported, and no goodness-of-fit statistic is given. Given the scatter in the bottom-right panel, a visual match to r^{-4/3} does not exclude a different cooling baseline plus local heating; for example, in the double-adiabatic (CGL) limit with a nearly radial field (B ∝ r^{-2}), one expects T_perp ∝ r^{-2} and roughly constant T_par, which would flatten the scalar temperature relative to r^{-4/3}. Since §4.1 itself states that the r^{-4/3} law 'may not be strictly true for a turbulent, collisionless plasma with strong temperature anisotropies,' the conclusion as stated is not quantitatively established. Please fit the exponent with uncertaintie
  2. [§3, Eq. (3); §4.1] The analysis uses a scalar temperature T = m v_th^2/(2 k_B) derived from the HIS thermal speed. If O^6+ is anisotropic, local heating can alter T_perp/T_par while leaving the scalar temperature approximately unchanged, or instabilities can redistribute energy between the parallel and perpendicular degrees of freedom. The paper does not present O^6+ anisotropy measurements and acknowledges this in §4.1 ('it is crucial to inspect O^6+ temperature anisotropy in more detail to account for anisotropic heating that is not directly observable in the present study'). As a result, the assertion of 'no significant heating' is stronger than the observable supports and should be qualified unless anisotropy information is included.
  3. [§4.3] The inference that the oxygen temperature peaks just beyond the UVCS field of view and that 'the majority of heating happens below 0.3 au' is obtained by extrapolating the assumed r^{-4/3} adiabat backward from 0.3 au to a few R_sun and comparing it to UVCS O^5+ temperatures. There are no observations between ~5 R_sun and 65 R_sun, and the paper itself notes 'it is unclear where a temperature peak occurs.' This portion of the discussion is therefore highly model-dependent and should be labeled as speculative rather than as a conclusion in §5.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, Figure 2] The text states '7 equally spaced bins' but lists six radial intervals (0.3–0.43, 0.44–0.57, 0.58–0.7, 0.71–0.83, 0.84–0.97, 0.98–1.1 au). Please correct either the number or the list.
  2. [§3, Figure 2 caption] The vertical bars are described as 'the standard deviation of the mean'; this quantity is more conventionally called the 'standard error of the mean' if it is computed as σ/√N, or 'standard deviation' if it represents the spread of the bin. Please clarify.
  3. [§2, Eq. (2)] After 'we choose the upper sign in Eq. (1)... and the lower sign...', it would help to state explicitly how the sign applies for the two ranges of Θ (0<Θ<π/2 and π/2<Θ<π). The current text describes the result but leaves the sign convention implicit.
  4. [§4.4, Figures 4 and 5] The lever-arm interpretation depends on the local Alfvén speed, and the paper argues that V_A may overestimate the true wave speed. This is reasonable, but the two case studies would benefit from a quantitative estimate of the uncertainty in V_A for those intervals, e.g., a range of V_A values derived from different averaging windows.
  5. [Appendix B] Figures 7 and 8 are referenced in the text but their key messages (e.g., field-aligned streaming maximum close to the Sun, decrease of negative streaming with distance) are not summarized in the main text. A brief sentence in Section 4 or in the figure captions would help the reader extract the main points without having to parse the multi-panel figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: O6+ temperatures and drifts are measured, Eq. (2) is an a priori geometric prediction, and the adiabatic baseline is an external standard; caveats affect robustness, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central results are direct observables, not outputs of the claimed conclusions. O6+ bulk and thermal speeds are measured by HIS, and proton/MAG quantities are independent measurements; the temperature and differential flow are then constructed from these observables (Eq. 3 and Section 2). The geometric model in Eq. (2), V_O6+,R/VA = ±(ΔU/VA)cosΘ, is an a priori prediction derived from the assumption that the O6+ drift is field-aligned and outward in the corona. It is used to interpret the sign of differential streaming and to predict negative streaming during local magnetic kinks; the paper then tests this against the data in Section 4.4. This is a hypothesis-testing step, not a fitted parameter recycled as a prediction. The no-heating conclusion (Conclusion 3: 'T_O6+ cools adiabatically with increasing heliocentric distance across all wind speeds, suggesting no significant heating is experienced by O6+ beyond 0.3au') is based on comparing the measured radial temperature profile to the external ideal-gas adiabat T ∝ r^-4/3 from Schwartz & Marsch (1983). The dashed curves in Figure 2 are anchored at the 0.3 au bin and extrapolated to 1 au, so the baseline slope is an external standard, not a free parameter fit to the data and then renamed as a prediction. The paper itself cautions in Section 4.1 that 'an adiabatic temperature profile, (1/r4/3), may not be strictly true for a turbulent, collisionless plasma with strong temperature anisotropies.' That caveat is a legitimate scientific limitation affecting the robustness of the no-heating inference, but it is not a circular step: the baseline is not defined by the conclusion, and the data are not claimed to be consistent with the conclusion merely by construction. The self-citations (e.g., Rivera et al. 2024, 2025; Holmes et al. 2024 with overlapping authors) are contextual or comparative, not load-bearing; the O6+ results are benchmarked against external datasets such as Berger et al. (2011), Tracy et al. (2016), and UVCS observations. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in solely by self-citation. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

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

No novel entities are introduced. The analysis relies on standard domain assumptions: field-aligned drift geometry, adiabatic expansion baseline, and representativeness of proton/PAS measurements and HIS L3 calibration. The paper's central conclusions are comparative, using external measurements (Berger et al. 2011, Tracy et al. 2016, Holmes et al. 2024) and standard plasma physics.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The relative drift of O6+ is aligned with the local magnetic field, and its sign follows the global magnetic sector (Eq. 1-2).
    Used in Section 2 to predict that negative differential streaming occurs when the local field is reversed relative to the global sector; this is the interpretive framework for the observed negative streaming events.
  • domain assumption The adiabatic ideal-gas cooling law, T ∝ r^(-4/3), applies to O6+ in the collisionless solar wind as a baseline for comparison.
    Invoked in Section 3 and Figure 2 to conclude that O6+ experiences no significant heating; the paper itself notes this may not hold for a turbulent, anisotropic plasma (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Proton speed and density measurements from PAS, averaged to 10 minutes, are representative of the proton core in the same plasma parcel as the O6+ measurements.
    Used to compute the Alfvén speed and differential flow in Section 2; systematic differences between proton core and bulk moments are not quantified.
  • domain assumption CME removal via the Helio4Cast catalog fully removes transient solar wind intervals.
    The analysis (Section 2) relies on this catalog to isolate quasi-stationary solar wind; any residual CME contamination could bias the radial profiles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observational Constraints on the Radial Evolution of O$^{6+}$ Temperature and Differential Flow in the Inner Heliosphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H5PHP6FZ

@misc{pith2026250809345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observational Constraints on the Radial Evolution of O$^6+$ Temperature and Differential Flow in the Inner Heliosphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H5PHP6FZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09345}
}
abstract

Over decades of solar wind observations, heavy ions have been observed to have a higher temperature and flow faster than protons in the solar corona and heliosphere. Remote observations have largely been limited to the low corona ($< 4R_{\odot}$), while in situ observations for heavy ions ($Z>2$) have only been sampled at 1 au and beyond. As a result, theories that address heavy ion heating and acceleration remain largely unconstrained. With the launch of Solar Orbiter, heavy ion kinetics can be probed closer to the Sun, as close as the orbit of Mercury ($65R_{\odot}$), to examine their radial behavior. Through a statistical analysis of O$^{6+}$, this work provides a comprehensive analysis of the velocity and temperature of O$^{6+}$ from 0.3 au to 1 au. The study finds that the O$^{6+}$ relative drift, normalized to the local Alfv\'en speed, and its temperature compared to protons, both decrease with distance from the Sun and show some speed dependence. The O$^{6+}$ temperature is well fit by a single temperature adiabatic profile across all wind speeds, suggesting there is no significant heating at these heliocentric distances. This is in contrast to what is observed for protons and He$^{2+}$. Alfv\'enic fluctuations, with full 180$^{\circ}$ field rotation, create momentary negative differential streaming where the speed of O$^{6+}$ trails the protons. The amount of negative differential streaming gradually increases at larger distances. These results provide critical constraints to the proposed mechanisms seeking to describe ion heating and acceleration in the solar wind.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

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

    2019

  2. [2]

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

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

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  4. [4]

    2010, Advances in Space Research, 46, 1400

    Abbo , L., Antonucci , E., Miki \'c , Z., et al. 2010, Advances in Space Research, 46, 1400

    2010

  5. [5]

    K., et al

    Abbo , L., Ofman , L., Antiochos , S. K., et al. 2016, , 201, 55

    2016

  6. [6]

    P., Zhao , L

    Adhikari , L., Zank , G. P., Zhao , L. L., Nakanotani , M., & Tasnim , S. 2021, , 650, A16

    2021

  7. [7]

    L., Kasper , J

    Alterman , B. L., Kasper , J. C., Stevens , M. L., & Koval , A. 2018, , 864, 112

    2018

  8. [8]

    L., Rivera , Y

    Alterman , B. L., Rivera , Y. J., Lepri , S. T., & Raines , J. M. 2025 a , , 694, A265

    2025

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    L., Rivera , Y

    Alterman , B. L., Rivera , Y. J., Lepri , S. T., Raines , J. M., & D'Amicis , R. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18092

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ayaz , S., Li , G., & Khan , I. A. 2024, , 970, 140

    2024

  3. [11]

    P., Khan , I

    Ayaz , S., Zank , G. P., Khan , I. A., Li , G., & Rivera , Y. J. 2025 a , , 694, A23

    2025

  4. [12]

    P., Khan , I

    Ayaz , S., Zank , G. P., Khan , I. A., et al. 2025 b , , arXiv:2505.03267

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    M., Matthaeus , W

    Bandyopadhyay , R., Meyer , C. M., Matthaeus , W. H., et al. 2023, , 955, L28

    2023

  6. [14]

    F., & Gloeckler , G

    Berger , L., Wimmer-Schweingruber , R. F., & Gloeckler , G. 2011, , 106, 151103

    2011

  7. [15]

    A., Karrer , R., et al

    Bochsler , P., Lee , M. A., Karrer , R., et al. 2010 a , Annales Geophysicae, 28, 491

    2010

  8. [16]

    A., Karrer , R., et al

    Bochsler , P., Lee , M. A., Karrer , R., et al. 2010 b , in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1216, Twelfth International Solar Wind Conference, ed. M. Maksimovic , K. Issautier , N. Meyer-Vernet , M. Moncuquet , & F. Pantellini (AIP), 257--260

    2010

  9. [17]

    C., Chandran , B

    Bourouaine , S., Perez , J. C., Chandran , B. D. G., et al. 2024, , 967, L19

    2024

  10. [18]

    A., Vasko , I

    Bowen , T. A., Vasko , I. Y., Bale , S. D., et al. 2024 a , , 972, L8

    2024

  11. [19]

    A., Bale , S

    Bowen , T. A., Bale , S. D., Chandran , B. D. G., et al. 2024 b , Nature Astronomy, 8, 482

    2024

  12. [20]

    T., Lepri , S

    Carpenter , D. T., Lepri , S. T., Zhao , L., et al. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1472874

    2024

  13. [21]

    Chandran , B. D. G. 2010, , 720, 548

    2010

  14. [22]

    Chandran , B. D. G., Verscharen , D., Quataert , E., et al. 2013, , 776, 45

    2013

  15. [23]

    Cranmer , S. R. 2009, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 6, 3

    2009

  16. [24]

    2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 249

    ---. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 249

    2020

  17. [25]

    R., Panasyuk , A

    Cranmer , S. R., Panasyuk , A. V., & Kohl , J. L. 2008, , 678, 1480

    2008

  18. [26]

    R., & van Ballegooijen , A

    Cranmer , S. R., & van Ballegooijen , A. A. 2003, , 594, 573

    2003

  19. [27]

    R., & Winebarger , A

    Cranmer , S. R., & Winebarger , A. R. 2019, , 57, 157

    2019

  20. [28]

    2019, , 294, 97

    Durovcov \'a , T., S afr \'a nkov \'a , J., & N e me c ek , Z. 2019, , 294, 97

    2019

  21. [29]

    J., Velli , M

    Fox , N. J., Velli , M. C., Bale , S. D., et al. 2016, , 204, 7

    2016

  22. [30]

    P., Yin , L., Winske , D., & Reisenfeld , D

    Gary , S. P., Yin , L., Winske , D., & Reisenfeld , D. B. 2000, , 27, 1355

    2000

  23. [31]

    E., Neugebauer , M., & Smith , E

    Goldstein , B. E., Neugebauer , M., & Smith , E. J. 1995, , 22, 3389

    1995

  24. [32]

    A., Tenerani , A., Matteini , L., Hellinger , P., & Velli , M

    Gonz \'a lez , C. A., Tenerani , A., Matteini , L., Hellinger , P., & Velli , M. 2021, , 914, L36

    2021

  25. [33]

    S., Bale , S

    Halekas , J. S., Bale , S. D., Berthomier , M., et al. 2023, , 952, 26

    2023

  26. [34]

    M., et al

    Hefti , S., Gr \"u nwaldt , H., Ipavich , F. M., et al. 1998, , 103, 29697

    1998

  27. [35]

    2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A12109

    Hellinger , P., Velli , M., Tr \'a Vn \' c Ek , P., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A12109

    2005

  28. [36]

    V., & Isenberg , P

    Hollweg , J. V., & Isenberg , P. A. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1147

    2002

  29. [37]

    G., Lepri , S

    Holmes , J., Kasper , J., Klein , K. G., Lepri , S. T., & Raines , J. M. 2024, , 964, 19

    2024

  30. [38]

    S., Matteini , L., & Stansby , D

    Horbury , T. S., Matteini , L., & Stansby , D. 2018, , 478, 1980

    2018

  31. [39]

    S., O'Brien , H., Carrasco Blazquez , I., et al

    Horbury , T. S., O'Brien , H., Carrasco Blazquez , I., et al. 2020, , 642, A9

    2020

  32. [40]

    Howes , G. G. 2024, Journal of Plasma Physics, 90, 905900504

    2024

  33. [41]

    Q., & Habbal, S

    Hu, Y. Q., & Habbal, S. R. 1999, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 104, 17045

    1999

  34. [42]

    A., & Vasquez , B

    Isenberg , P. A., & Vasquez , B. J. 2007, , 668, 546

    2007

  35. [43]

    2009, , 696, 591

    ---. 2009, , 696, 591

    2009

  36. [44]

    P., Taut , A., Berger , L., et al

    Janitzek , N. P., Taut , A., Berger , L., et al. 2016, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1720, Solar Wind 14 (AIP), 040006

    2016

  37. [45]

    C., & Klein , K

    Kasper , J. C., & Klein , K. G. 2019, , 877, L35

    2019

  38. [46]

    C., Lazarus , A

    Kasper , J. C., Lazarus , A. J., & Gary , S. P. 2008, , 101, 261103

    2008

  39. [47]

    C., Maruca , B

    Kasper , J. C., Maruca , B. A., Stevens , M. L., & Zaslavsky , A. 2013, , 110, 091102

    2013

  40. [48]

    C., Klein , K

    Kasper , J. C., Klein , K. G., Weber , T., et al. 2017, , 849, 126

    2017

  41. [49]

    L., Esser , R., Gardner , L

    Kohl , J. L., Esser , R., Gardner , L. D., et al. 1995, , 162, 313

    1995

  42. [50]

    M., & Vourlidas , A

    Laming , J. M., & Vourlidas , A. 2019, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2019, SH31B--15

    2019

  43. [51]

    2023, , 951, 69

    Liu , W., Zhao , J., Wang , T., et al. 2023, , 951, 69

    2023

  44. [52]

    T., Raines , J

    Livi , S., Lepri , S. T., Raines , J. M., et al. 2023, , 676, A36

    2023

  45. [53]

    2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 1

    Marsch , E. 2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 1

    2006

  46. [54]

    H., & Neubauer , F

    Marsch , E., Rosenbauer , H., Schwenn , R., Muehlhaeuser , K. H., & Neubauer , F. M. 1982 a , , 87, 35

    1982

  47. [55]

    1982 b , , 87, 52

    Marsch , E., Schwenn , R., Rosenbauer , H., et al. 1982 b , , 87, 52

    1982

  48. [56]

    Marsch , E., & Tu , C. Y. 2001, , 106, 227

    2001

  49. [57]

    M., Klein , K

    Martinovi \'c , M. M., Klein , K. G., De Marco , R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04885

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    M., Klein , K

    Martinovi \'c , M. M., Klein , K. G., D urovcov \'a , T., & Alterman , B. L. 2021, , 923, 116

    2021

  51. [59]

    A., Bale , S

    Maruca , B. A., Bale , S. D., Sorriso-Valvo , L., Kasper , J. C., & Stevens , M. L. 2013, , 111, 241101

    2013

  52. [60]

    A., Kasper , J

    Maruca , B. A., Kasper , J. C., & Gary , S. P. 2012, , 748, 137

    2012

  53. [61]

    M., & Velli , M

    Matteini , L., Hellinger , P., Landi , S., Tr \'a vn \' c ek , P. M., & Velli , M. 2012, , 172, 373

    2012

  54. [62]

    S., Neugebauer , M., & Goldstein , B

    Matteini , L., Horbury , T. S., Neugebauer , M., & Goldstein , B. E. 2014, , 41, 259

    2014

  55. [63]

    S., Pantellini , F., Velli , M., & Schwartz , S

    Matteini , L., Horbury , T. S., Pantellini , F., Velli , M., & Schwartz , S. J. 2015, , 802, 11

    2015

  56. [64]

    2007, , 34, L20105

    Matteini , L., Landi , S., Hellinger , P., et al. 2007, , 34, L20105

    2007

  57. [65]

    D., Verniero , J., Bale , S

    McManus , M. D., Verniero , J., Bale , S. D., et al. 2022, , 933, 43

    2022

  58. [66]

    D., Klein , K

    McManus , M. D., Klein , K. G., Bale , S. D., et al. 2024, , 961, 142

    2024

  59. [67]

    A., & Dorland , W

    Meyrand , R., Squire , J., Schekochihin , A. A., & Dorland , W. 2021, Journal of Plasma Physics, 87, 535870301

    2021

  60. [68]

    C., McManus , M

    Mostafavi , P., Allen , R. C., McManus , M. D., et al. 2022, , 926, L38

    2022

  61. [69]

    D., et al

    M \"o stl , C., Isavnin , A., Boakes , P. D., et al. 2017, Space Weather, 15, 955

    2017

  62. [70]

    J., Bailey , R

    M \"o stl , C., Weiss , A. J., Bailey , R. L., et al. 2020, , 903, 92

    2020

  63. [71]

    M \"u ller , D., St. Cyr , O. C., Zouganelis , I., et al. 2020, , 642, A1

    2020

  64. [72]

    E., Smith , E

    Neugebauer , M., Goldstein , B. E., Smith , E. J., & Feldman , W. C. 1996 a , , 101, 17047

    1996

  65. [73]

    1996 b , , 101, 17047

    ---. 1996 b , , 101, 17047

    1996

  66. [74]

    J., Bruno , R., Livi , S., et al

    Owen , C. J., Bruno , R., Livi , S., et al. 2020, , 642, A16

    2020

  67. [75]

    T., & Stawarz , J

    Panchal , U., Wicks , R. T., & Stawarz , J. E. 2025, , 983, 160

    2025

  68. [76]

    2024, , 977, 27

    Peng , J., He , J., Duan , D., & Verscharen , D. 2024, , 977, 27

    2024

  69. [77]

    C., Kohl , J

    Raymond , J. C., Kohl , J. L., Noci , G., et al. 1997, , 175, 645

    1997

  70. [78]

    B., Gary , S

    Reisenfeld , D. B., Gary , S. P., Gosling , J. T., et al. 2001, , 106, 5693

    2001

  71. [79]

    J., & Badman , S

    Rivera , Y. J., & Badman , S. T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06036

    2025 arXiv

  72. [80]

    J., Higginson , A., Lepri , S

    Rivera , Y. J., Higginson , A., Lepri , S. T., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 417

    2022

  73. [81]

    J., Badman , S

    Rivera , Y. J., Badman , S. T., Stevens , M. L., et al. 2024, Science, 385, 962

    2024

  74. [82]

    J., Badman , S

    Rivera , Y. J., Badman , S. T., Verniero , J. L., et al. 2025, , 980, 70

    2025

  75. [83]

    J., & Marsch , E

    Schwartz , S. J., & Marsch , E. 1983, , 88, 9919

    1983

  76. [84]

    G., Martinovi \'c , M

    Shankarappa , N., Klein , K. G., Martinovi \'c , M. M., & Bowen , T. A. 2024, 973, 20

    2024

  77. [85]

    2025, , 278, 40

    Silwal , A., Zhao , L., Zhu , X., et al. 2025, , 278, 40

    2025

  78. [86]

    2022, , 935, L29

    Sioulas , N., Shi , C., Huang , Z., & Velli , M. 2022, , 935, L29

    2022

  79. [87]

    W., et al

    Squire , J., Meyrand , R., Kunz , M. W., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 715

    2022

  80. [88]

    J., Kasper, J

    Tracy, P. J., Kasper, J. C., Raines, J. M., et al. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 116, 255101

    2016

  81. [89]

    J., Kasper, J

    Tracy, P. J., Kasper, J. C., Zurbuchen, T. H., et al. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, 812, 170

    2015

  82. [90]

    Y., & Marsch , E

    Tu , C. Y., & Marsch , E. 1995, , 73, 1

    1995

  83. [91]

    L., Larson , D

    Verniero , J. L., Larson , D. E., Livi , R., et al. 2020, , 248, 5

    2020

  84. [92]

    Verscharen , D., Bourouaine , S., & Chandran , B. D. G. 2013, , 773, 163

    2013

  85. [93]

    G., & Maruca , B

    Verscharen , D., Klein , K. G., & Maruca , B. A. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 5

    2019

  86. [94]

    H., Horbury , T

    Wang , J. H., Horbury , T. S., Matteini , L., & Trotta , D. 2025, , 978, L17

    2025

  87. [95]

    F., Kunz , M

    Zhang , M. F., Kunz , M. W., Squire , J., & Klein , K. G. 2025, , 979, 121

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.