Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 77 references

Pinching of ICME Flux Rope: Unprecedented Multipoint Observations of Internal Magnetic Reconnection during Gannon's Superstorm

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Multipoint spacecraft data show quasi-steady magnetic reconnection raging inside the ICME flux rope during the May 2024 superstorm.

desk verdict Solid multipoint detection of internal reconnection in an ICME flux rope, but the 203 RE extent claim leans on a magnetometer-only Aditya-L1 crossing with a poorly constrained normal; the core result survives, the headline number does not. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00577 v1 pith:4QTTZLZF submitted 2025-08-30 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Shibotosh Biswas , Ankush Bhaskar , Anil Raghav , Ajay Kumar , Kalpesh Ghag , Smitha V. Thampi , Vipin K Yadav This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords magneticreconnectionICMEcloudfluxropecurrentsheetgeomagneticstormsolarwindmultipointobservations
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 analyzes the extreme geomagnetic storm of May 10–11, 2024, using seven spacecraft spread along the dawn–dusk direction near Earth. It argues that, inside the ICME's magnetic cloud, a large current sheet formed and underwent quasi-steady magnetic reconnection, producing a sharp reversal of the magnetic field's By component, a dip in field magnitude, fast outflow jets, and energetic particles. The trigger was probably the compression of the leading flux rope by a trailing, interacting magnetic cloud, which deformed the rope away from a relaxed minimum-energy state. If correct, this shows that ICME magnetic structure can be reshaped from within by reconnection, not just eroded at the boundary, and that such internal restructuring can change how the storm couples to Earth's magnetosphere.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is an internal current sheet formed inside a compressed ICME flux rope. The authors invoke the relaxed minimum-energy magnetic state (Taylor state) as the rope's reference configuration; when compression by a trailing magnetic cloud deforms the rope, the departure from that state triggers reconnection between nested magnetic surfaces. To diagnose the geometry, they use Minimum Variance Analysis (MVA) to construct a boundary-normal (LMN) coordinate frame, and they identify reconnection by the exhaust jet, the |B| dip, particle flux enhancements, and suprathermal electron pitch-angle changes.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of high-cadence plasma and field data from two spacecraft separated along the dawn-dusk direction during such an event: if the By reversal and |B| dip are not ordered by a single boundary-normal frame and single X-line timing, or if a magnetospheric-scale mission crossing the sheet sees no Hall fields or electron agyrotropy, the single-quasi-steady-current-sheet model is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

During Gannon's superstorm (May 10–11, 2024), multiple spacecraft observed the same large-scale reconnection exhaust inside the ICME magnetic cloud. The signatures are a ~150 nT reversal of IMF By, a deep dip in |B|, outflow velocities reaching 200 km/s, order-of-magnitude density and temperature enhancements in the jet, and isotropic suprathermal electron pitch-angle distributions at the current sheet, indicating disconnected field lines. The authors locate the current sheet inside the flux rope, oriented nearly along GSE-y, with a dawn-dusk extent of approximately 203 Earth radii (1.3 million km). They propose that the interaction and merging of two magnetic clouds, E1 and E2, compressed t

Load-bearing premise

All six upstream spacecraft crossed, and measured, the same single, quasi-steady current sheet that stayed contiguous across 203 Earth radii; if the magnetometer-only Aditya-L1 signature is a different structure, or the reconnection was intermittent, the reconstructed geometry collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ICME magnetic clouds can be structurally rewritten from the inside by reconnection, so single-spacecraft crossings with a sharp By jump may indicate internal current sheets rather than distinct structures.
  • Internal reconnection provides a new pathway for ICME-ICME interaction to alter the magnetic field that drives geomagnetic storms, beyond shock compression and erosion.
  • The roughly 203 Earth-radius dawn-dusk extent of the exhaust shows that reconnection can operate coherently on scales far larger than a typical spacecraft separation, making multipoint timing observations diagnostic of such sheets.
  • Particle energization up to about 10 keV inside the cloud indicates that internal reconnection is a local particle acceleration source in the solar wind.
  • Future flux-rope models of magnetic clouds will need to include internal current sheets and reconnection when predicting the IMF orientation that governs storm intensity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If internal reconnection is common in merged ICMEs, some previously 'disconnected' or fragmented magnetic clouds in archival data may be reinterpreted as products of internal reconnection rather than separate eruptions.
  • The same signature—a By reversal co-located with a |B| dip and a velocity jet—could be searched for systematically in other strong storms to estimate how often ICME-ICME compression triggers internal reconnection.
  • A dedicated in-situ pass through such a current sheet with Hall-field measurements would test the reconnection interpretation directly; the predicted X-line orientation, inclined roughly 12 degrees from the negative Z-axis, gives a target geometry.
  • If external compression is the trigger, similar internal current sheets should appear when high-speed streams or sheaths compress any large flux rope, broadening the setting beyond ICME pairs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-spacecraft case study of the May 10–11, 2024 extreme geomagnetic storm (Gannon's storm) and argues that the sharp IMF B_y reversal observed near L1 is due to quasi-steady magnetic reconnection inside the ICME flux rope. Using Wind, ACE, DSCOVR, ARTEMIS-P2, MMS, STEREO-A, and Aditya-L1, the authors identify a current sheet with signatures including |B| dips, B_L rotations, ion outflow jets, density/temperature jumps, particle energization, and suprathermal electron PAD isotropization. They attribute the reconnection to interaction and merging of two magnetic clouds (E1 and E2), and claim the exhaust extends ~203 R_E along GSE-y. The manuscript explicitly concedes that the geometry is not unique and depends on underlying assumptions.

Significance. If fully established, this would be a notable observation of large-scale internal magnetic reconnection inside an ICME, with implications for flux-rope evolution and space-weather forecasting. The paper's strengths are its use of seven spacecraft, the several independent reconnection signatures at plasma-bearing spacecraft (Wind, ACE, DSCOVR), and its candid discussion of caveats. The core reconnection detection is well supported at the L1 point; however, the headline quantitative claim of a 203 R_E exhaust is substantially less secure because it rests on a magnetometer-only crossing at Aditya-L1. The study is valuable as an observational report, but the spatial-extent claim needs strengthening or appropriate qualification.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 5c, Table 3] The 203 R_E GSE-y extent is anchored by Aditya-L1, which has only magnetometer data. Table 2 shows that the Aditya-L1 MVA was performed over the full E1&E2 interval (21:37–23:57), not over the current-sheet crossing, and gives <Bn>/<B>=0.76, indicating a poorly constrained normal; no uncertainties are provided. The paper must demonstrate, beyond the shared |B| dip and B_y/B_L reversal, that Aditya-L1 crossed the same quasi-steady current sheet as Wind/ACE/DSCOVR—e.g., via a multi-spacecraft timing fit with advection, comparison of crossing durations and field signatures, and avoidance of the alternative that Aditya-L1 observed a different boundary or a transient structure.
  2. [§4, quasi-steady claim] The statement that reconnection was 'quasi-steady for at least 35 minutes' is based on the temporal sequence of crossings (Aditya-L1, ACE, DSCOVR, Wind, ARTEMIS-P2) without a quantitative timing model. The spacecraft are separated in GSE-x as well as GSE-y, and the solar wind advection speed is ~700–800 km/s; a simple ordered list does not rule out spatially separated, intermittent reconnection episodes. Provide an explicit timing analysis—including uncertainties in structure orientation and spacecraft separation—or soften the claim to 'consistent with a single extended current sheet, within timing uncertainties.'
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 2] The widths of the reconnection outflow jets (26, 30, and 13 R_E for DSCOVR, ACE, and Wind) are used to infer the current-sheet geometry and the location of the diffusion region, but the calculation is not described. Which time intervals were used? What velocity was assumed for the spacecraft-frame crossing? How were errors propagated? Without this information, the geometry inferred from these widths cannot be independently evaluated.
  4. [Appendix B, Fig. 4] The trigger mechanism (compression of E1 by trailing MC E2) rests on identifying E1 and E2 as distinct magnetic clouds at STEREO-A using only magnetic field and MVA, with the text noting that plasma data are unavailable and classification is not definitive. The alternative—a single distorted flux rope—is acknowledged but not quantitatively tested. Since the causal narrative depends on E2 being a separate MC, please provide a more rigorous separation test (e.g., field-line twist signatures, boundary orientation, or comparison with numerical ICME-interaction simulations) or explicitly present the trigger as one possible scenario rather than a conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1 and §3.2] The value of 1 R_E is inconsistent: the introduction gives 6371 km, while §3.2 gives 6317 km. Please unify.
  2. [Table 3] The caption says 'on 10th May 2025', but the event is May 10, 2024. Please correct the typo.
  3. [Appendix A.2] The eigenvalue ratio for MVA quality is defined as R = λ2/λ1 in the text, but Table 2 reports λ2/λ3. Clarify which ratio is intended and use consistent notation.
  4. [Figure 2] The panel labels (e.g., subpanel 'k' in the caption) are not visible or explained in the figure; please match labels to panels for readability.
  5. [Appendix B] The duration comparison between STEREO-A and ACE E1/E2 (approximately 2:20 hours) is qualitative; please provide actual start/end times and a quantitative similarity metric.
  6. [References] The reference 'Burt & Smith 2012' is incomplete (no article title or DOI). Also, the citation to 'Weiler et al. 2025' appears without a year in the text (it is in the reference list); please check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 203 RE extent is a geometric multipoint measurement, not a fitted prediction; the self-citations are methodological and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is an observational multipoint case study, not a derivation whose output is encoded in its inputs. The headline spatial extent (~203 RE along GSE-y) is obtained by comparing the Y positions of Wind (Y≈+100.99 RE) and Aditya-L1 (Y≈−102.12 RE; Table 3) after identifying the same magnetic-field reversal/dip at both spacecraft. This is an operational measurement using known spacecraft separation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and it is explicitly conditional on the assumption that Aditya-L1 crossed the same current sheet ('the solution is not unique and depends on underlying assumptions', Sec. 4). The core reconnection evidence—outflow jets, density/temperature jumps, particle energization, and suprathermal electron PAD isotropization—comes from plasma-bearing spacecraft (DSCOVR, ACE, Wind) and is independent of the extent claim. The self-citations (Raghav et al. 2019, 2023; Shaikh et al. 2017, 2018) are used for MVA methodology and for the pancaking/flattening interpretation; they do not carry the load of the reconnection detection, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. No equation is defined in terms of its conclusion, and no fitted value is presented as a prediction. The underdetermination of the Aditya-L1 crossing (magnetometer-only, <Bn>/<B>=0.76, no MVA uncertainties) is a correctness/evidential weakness, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard space-physics diagnostic axioms (reconnection signatures, MVA, Taylor equilibrium) plus two paper-specific assumptions: that the extreme spacecraft crossed the same quasi-steady current sheet, and that two STEREO-A-identified magnetic clouds merged to compress E1. The only hand-fitted quantity is the choice of analysis intervals, which controls the derived geometry. No new physical entities are introduced; the current sheet and reconnection X-line are standard plasma structures inferred from data.

free parameters (1)
  • Hand-selected MVA and event time intervals = Table 2 intervals, e.g., ACE E1/E2 2024-05-10 21:39-23:59 UT, STEREO-A E1 18:15-19:40 UT, Wind 21:45-23:40 UT
    MVA eigenvectors, the LMN frame, the inferred reconnection geometry, and outflow widths depend on the chosen interval boundaries, which were selected by visual inspection. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Taylor minimum-energy (force-free) state with Nabla x B = lambda B is the reference equilibrium for ICME flux ropes, and deviation from it triggers reconnection
    Invoked in Section 4 to argue that compression of E1 by E2 pushed the flux rope out of Taylor equilibrium, causing internal reconnection. This is a model imported from prior literature (Taylor 1974, 1986), not validated for this event.
  • domain assumption MVA returns the correct boundary-normal (LMN) frame for the reconnection current sheet
    Appendix A applies MVA to each interval. Eigenvalue ratios vary widely (lambda2/lambda3 from 3.08 to 63.31), indicating non-uniform reliability, but the same LMN frame is used to interpret all crossings.
  • domain assumption The combination of |B| dip, BL rotation, VL decrease, density and temperature jumps, particle energization, and PAD isotropization uniquely implies magnetic reconnection
    These are standard solar-wind reconnection diagnostics used in Section 3. Individually none is definitive; the paper relies on their joint occurrence.
  • domain assumption Quasi-steadiness and spatial continuity of the reconnection site over 35 minutes and about 203 RE between Wind and Aditya-L1
    Temporal offsets between spacecraft are converted into a spatial extent in Section 3.2. This requires the same current sheet to remain active across the entire dawn-dusk span, an assumption not independently testable with the data shown.
  • ad hoc to paper E1 and E2 are two distinct magnetic clouds at STEREO-A, identified by magnetic field and MVA alone, and they merge at L1
    Appendix B identifies E1 and E2 without plasma data, which are unavailable at STEREO-A. The merging interpretation is the paper's chosen model and is acknowledged as non-unique in Section 4.
  • ad hoc to paper Compression of E1 by the trailing MC E2 caused the deviation from the Taylor state and triggered the internal reconnection
    This is the proposed causal chain in Section 4. No quantitative model or independent evidence is provided; the paper calls for future numerical modeling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pinching of ICME Flux Rope: Unprecedented Multipoint Observations of Internal Magnetic Reconnection during Gannon's Superstorm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4QTTZLZF

@misc{pith2026250900577,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pinching of ICME Flux Rope: Unprecedented Multipoint Observations of Internal Magnetic Reconnection during Gannon's Superstorm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4QTTZLZF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00577}
}
read the original abstract

The extreme solar storm of May 10, 2024, during the 25th solar cycle, which recorded a symmetric H component index (Sym-H) reaching -500 nT, was the strongest since the 2003 Halloween storm. This event offered a unique opportunity for unprecedented multipoint observation of the complex interaction of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections (ICME) from different vantage points. Utilizing NASA's Wind, ACE, DSCOVR, THEMIS-C, STEREO-A, MMS, and ISRO's recently launched Aditya-L1 spacecraft, we comprehensively investigated the spatio-temporal variations in interplanetary plasma and magnetic field parameters. Our study reveals large-scale quasi-steady magnetic reconnection within the interior of the ICME flux rope, possibly triggered by interactions between multiple ICMEs. A current sheet (CS) forms within the flux rope, enabling internal magnetic reconnection between concentric magnetic surfaces, which leads to a sharp reversal of the IMF By component, as observed at the L1 point. Concurrently, reconnection exhaust and enhanced electron and ion fluxes were detected with the CS, extending over 200 RE (1.3 million km) along the GSE-y direction. This finding sheds new light on the role of internal reconnection in ICME evolution, highlighting its pivotal role in modifying the morphology of the ICME magnetic structure and exerting severe space weather effects on Earth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00577 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panel(I) displays the observations recorded by the ACE spacecraft from May 10, 12:00 to 23:59:59 UT. Subplanels a to i represent IMF intensity, IMF components, IMF azimuth, elevation, solar wind bulk velocity, proton density, temperature, plasma beta (proton), and Sym-H. The yellow-shaded region marks the region of interest. Panel(II) shows MMS1 and OMNI data of the highlighted region of panel(I) with additional inf… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of DSCOVR, ACE, and Wind data during the ICME flux rope interval. Panels display the IMF magnitude, its components, solar wind velocity components, density, and temperature in a boundary normal coordinate system (LMN). The gaps in ACE observations are due to the unavailability of observations. To quantify the reconnection outflow spatial scales and construct its geometry, plasma parameters were derived fr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This figure shows from the top timeseries data of: IMF magnitude (B-field) and components, solar wind ion energy spectrogram (Eion), electron energy spectrogram (Ee, normalized by 21:00 UT flux, outside the MC), and solar wind suprathermal electron pitch angle distribution (634 & 432 eV) respectively from 21:50 UT to 22:30 UT on May 10 from Wind spacecraft data. The other suprathermal electron channels (> 60 eV) sho… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The timeshifted magnetic field observation from STEREO-A to match the MC initiation at 21:39:22 UT with ACE in panel (a) in RTN coordinates, followed by ADITYA-L1 and THEMIS-C/ARTEMIS P2 observation of the reconnection, respectively. The areas marked in antique white a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Artistic illustration of the ICME-ICME interaction and embedded magnetic reconnection site. Panel (a) describes the interaction of two ICME MCs on May 10, 2024. Two prominent MCs (E1 & E2) are marked with green and yellow, respectively, in the GSE coordinate system, wi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Wind spacecraft observation of the complex magnetic cloud structure. Panels display the magnetic field, ion, and electron omnidirectional energy flux, as well as the suprathermal electron pitch angle distribution, in two separate channels. The yellow and pink shaded re…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spacecraft positions in Geocentric Solar Ecliptic (GSE) Coordinate System on 10th May 2025 at 22:00 UT Carcaboso, F., Gómez-Herrero, R., Lara, F. E., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936601 Chakrabarty, D., Hui, D., Rout, D., e…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    2008, Space Science Reviews, 136, 203, 10.1007/978-0-387-09649-0_8

    Acu \ n a, M., Curtis, D., Scheifele, J., et al. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 136, 203, 10.1007/978-0-387-09649-0_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09649-0_8 2008

  2. [3]

    I., M \"o stl, C., et al

    Al-Haddad, N., Roussev, I. I., M \"o stl, C., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 738, L18, 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L18

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/l18 2011

  3. [4]

    2008, Space Science Reviews, 141, 5, 10.1007/978-0-387-89820-9_2

    Angelopoulos, V. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 141, 5, 10.1007/978-0-387-89820-9_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-89820-9_2 2008

  4. [5]

    2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129, e2023JA031687, 10.1029/2023ja031687

    Ashna, V., Bhaskar, A., Manju, G., & Sini, R. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129, e2023JA031687, 10.1029/2023ja031687

    work page doi:10.1029/2023ja031687 2024

  5. [6]

    2008, Space science reviews, 141, 235, 10.1007/978-0-387-89820-9_11

    Auster, H., Glassmeier, K., Magnes, W., et al. 2008, Space science reviews, 141, 235, 10.1007/978-0-387-89820-9_11

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-89820-9_11 2008

  6. [7]

    Burlaga, L., Sittler, E., Mariani, F., & Schwenn, a. R. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 86, 6673, 10.1029/ja086ia08p06673

    doi:10.1029/ja086ia08p06673 1981

  7. [8]

    2012, IEEE, 1

    Burt, J., & Smith, B. 2012, IEEE, 1

    work page 2012

  8. [9]

    E., et al

    Carcaboso, F., G \'o mez-Herrero, R., Lara, F. E., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936601

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936601 2020

Show all 77 references
  1. [10]

    2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 2574, 10.1002/2016ja022781

    Chakrabarty, D., Hui, D., Rout, D., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 2574, 10.1002/2016ja022781

    2017 doi

  2. [11]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf7

    Farrugia, C., Vasquez, B., Lugaz, N., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf7

    2023 doi

  3. [12]

    L., Opher, M., & Drake, J

    Fermo, R. L., Opher, M., & Drake, J. F. 2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 031101, 10.1103/physrevlett.113.031101

    2014 doi

  4. [13]

    2025, Geophysical Research Letters, 52, e2024GL114040, 10.1029/2024gl114040

    Fu, W., Fu, H., Zhang, W., Yu, Y., & Cao, J. 2025, Geophysical Research Letters, 52, e2024GL114040, 10.1029/2024gl114040

    2025 doi

  5. [14]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c5c

    G \'o mez-Herrero, R., Dresing, N., Klassen, A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c5c

    2017 doi

  6. [15]

    1994, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 99, 5771, 10.1029/93ja02867

    Gonzalez, W., Joselyn, J.-A., Kamide, Y., et al. 1994, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 99, 5771, 10.1029/93ja02867

    1994 doi

  7. [16]

    2016, Astrophysics and space science library, 427, 10, 10.1007/978-3-319-26432-5

    Gonzalez, W., & Parker, E. 2016, Astrophysics and space science library, 427, 10, 10.1007/978-3-319-26432-5

    2016 doi

  8. [17]

    D., Echer, E., Tsurutani, B

    Gonzalez, W. D., Echer, E., Tsurutani, B. T., Cl \'u a de Gonzalez, A. L., & Dal Lago, A. 2011, Space science reviews, 158, 69, 10.1007/s11214-010-9715-2

    2011 doi

  9. [18]

    2016, Geoscience Letters, 3, 1, 10.1186/s40562-016-0039-2

    Gopalswamy, N. 2016, Geoscience Letters, 3, 1, 10.1186/s40562-016-0039-2

    2016 doi

  10. [19]

    M., McComas, D., & Forsyth, R

    Gosling, J., Eriksson, S., Skoug, R. M., McComas, D., & Forsyth, R. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 644, 613, 10.1086/503544

    2006 doi

  11. [20]

    1974, Journal of Geophysical Research, 79, 4581, 10.1029/ja079i031p04581

    Gosling, J., Hildner, E., MacQueen, R., et al. 1974, Journal of Geophysical Research, 79, 4581, 10.1029/ja079i031p04581

    1974 doi

  12. [21]

    Gosling, J., Pizzo, V., & Bame, S. J. 1973, Journal of Geophysical Research, 78, 2001, 10.1029/ja078i013p02001

    1973 doi

  13. [22]

    M., McComas, D., & Smith, C

    Gosling, J., Skoug, R. M., McComas, D., & Smith, C. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110, 10.1029/2004ja010809

    2005 doi

  14. [23]

    2017, Space weather (IOP Publishing), 10.1088/978-0-7503-1372-8ch1

    Hapgood, M. 2017, Space weather (IOP Publishing), 10.1088/978-0-7503-1372-8ch1

    2017 doi

  15. [24]

    M., et al

    Hayakawa, H., Ribeiro, P., Vaquero, J. M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 897, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6a18

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9335

    Hayakawa, H., Ebihara, Y., Mishev, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9335

    2025 doi

  17. [26]

    1970, Journal of Geophysical Research, 75, 1, 10.1029/ja075i001p00001

    Hirshberg, J., Alksne, A., Colburn, D., Bame, S., & Hundhausen, A. 1970, Journal of Geophysical Research, 75, 1, 10.1029/ja075i001p00001

    1970 doi

  18. [27]

    2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2019GL086676, 10.1029/2019gl086676

    Holappa, L., Asikainen, T., & Mursula, K. 2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2019GL086676, 10.1029/2019gl086676

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2021JA029202, 10.1029/2021ja029202

    Holappa, L., Robinson, R., Pulkkinen, A., Asikainen, T., & Mursula, K. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2021JA029202, 10.1029/2021ja029202

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    L., & Adams, W

    Kaiser, M. L., & Adams, W. J. 2007, IEEE, 1, 10.1109/aero.2007.352745

    2007

  21. [30]

    L., Kucera, T., Davila, J., et al

    Kaiser, M. L., Kucera, T., Davila, J., et al. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 136, 5, 10.1007/978-0-387-09649-0_2

    2008 doi

  22. [31]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 181, 10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/181

    Khabarova, O., Zank, G., Li, G., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 181, 10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/181

    2015 doi

  23. [32]

    2021, Space Science Reviews, 217, 38, 10.1007/s11214-021-00814-x

    Khabarova, O., Malandraki, O., Malova, H., et al. 2021, Space Science Reviews, 217, 38, 10.1007/s11214-021-00814-x

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    V., Zank, G

    Khabarova, O. V., Zank, G. P., Li, G., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 122, 10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/122

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    E., & Pulkkinen, T

    Kilpua, E., Koskinen, H. E., & Pulkkinen, T. I. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 1, 10.1007/s41116-017-0009-6

    2017 doi

  26. [35]

    1982, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 87, 613, 10.1029/ja087ia02p00613

    Klein, L., & Burlaga, L. 1982, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 87, 613, 10.1029/ja087ia02p00613

    1982 doi

  27. [36]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5da6

    Kruparova, O., Krupar, V., Szabo, A., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5da6

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    2024, Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences, 41, 171, 10.5140/jass.2024.41.3.171

    Kwak, Y.-S., Kim, J.-H., Kim, S., et al. 2024, Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences, 41, 171, 10.5140/jass.2024.41.3.171

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    1990, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 95, 11957, 10.1029/ja095ia08p11957

    Lepping, R., Jones, J., & Burlaga, L. 1990, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 95, 11957, 10.1029/ja095ia08p11957

    1990 doi

  30. [39]

    1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 207

    Lepping, R., Ac \ u na, M., Burlaga, L., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 207

    1995

  31. [40]

    1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 125, 10.1007/bf00751328

    Lin, R., Anderson, K., Ashford, S., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 125, 10.1007/bf00751328

    1995 doi

  32. [41]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 1225, 10.1086/427768

    Manchester IV, W., Gombosi, T., De Zeeuw, D., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 1225, 10.1086/427768

    2005 doi

  33. [42]

    B., Gombosi, T

    Manchester IV, W. B., Gombosi, T. I., Roussev, I., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109, 10.1029/2002JA009672

    2004 doi

  34. [43]

    1998, The advanced composition explorer mission, 563, 10.1007/978-94-011-4762-0_20

    McComas, D., Bame, S., Barker, P., et al. 1998, The advanced composition explorer mission, 563, 10.1007/978-94-011-4762-0_20

    1998 doi

  35. [44]

    1993, Solar physics, 147, 169, 10.1007/bf00675493

    Nakagawa, T. 1993, Solar physics, 147, 169, 10.1007/bf00675493

    1993 doi

  36. [45]

    1989, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 94, 11761, 10.1029/ja094ia09p11761

    Nakagawa, T., Nishida, A., & Saito, T. 1989, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 94, 11761, 10.1029/ja094ia09p11761

    1989 doi

  37. [46]

    1993, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 98, 9383, 10.1029/93ja00216

    Neugebauer, M., Clay, D., & Gosling, J. 1993, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 98, 9383, 10.1029/93ja00216

    1993 doi

  38. [47]

    F., & Cant \'o , J

    Niembro, T., Lara, A., Gonz \'a lez, R. F., & Cant \'o , J. 2019, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 9, A4, 10.1051/swsc/2018049

    2019

  39. [48]

    2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 130, e2024JA033691, 10.1029/2024ja033691

    Ohtani, S., Zou, Y., Merkin, V., et al. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 130, e2024JA033691, 10.1029/2024ja033691

    2025 doi

  40. [49]

    2009, Solar Physics, 260, 207, 10.1007/s11207-009-9442-6

    Owens, M. 2009, Solar Physics, 260, 207, 10.1007/s11207-009-9442-6

    2009 doi

  41. [50]

    2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 4152, 10.1038/s41598-017-04546-3

    Owens, M., Lockwood, M., & Barnard, L. 2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 4152, 10.1038/s41598-017-04546-3

    2017 doi

  42. [51]

    J., Cargill, P., Pagel, C., Siscoe, G., & Crooker, N

    Owens, M. J., Cargill, P., Pagel, C., Siscoe, G., & Crooker, N. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110, 10.1029/2004ja010814

    2005 doi

  43. [52]

    2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2019GL086372, 10.1029/2019GL086372

    Pal, S., Dash, S., & Nandy, D. 2020, Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2019GL086372, 10.1029/2019GL086372

    2020 doi

  44. [53]

    1978, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 83, 75, 10.1029/ja083ia01p00075

    Palmer, I., Allum, F., & Singer, S. 1978, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 83, 75, 10.1029/ja083ia01p00075

    1978 doi

  45. [54]

    K., & Savani, N

    Palmerio, E., Kilpua, E. K., & Savani, N. P. 2016, Annales Geophysicae, 10.5194/angeo-34-313-2016

    2016 doi

  46. [55]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 331, 10.1007/s11214-016-0245-4

    Pollock, C., Moore, T., Jacques, A., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 331, 10.1007/s11214-016-0245-4

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    2023, Solar Physics, 298, 64, 10.1007/s11207-023-02157-y

    Raghav, A., Shaikh, Z., Vemareddy, P., et al. 2023, Solar Physics, 298, 64, 10.1007/s11207-023-02157-y

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    N., Choraghe, K., & Shaikh, Z

    Raghav, A. N., Choraghe, K., & Shaikh, Z. I. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 910, 10.1093/mnras/stz1608

    2019 doi

  49. [58]

    D., et al

    Riley, P., Baker, D., Liu, Y. D., et al. 2018, Space Science Reviews, 214, 1, 10.1007/s11214-017-0456-3

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    2005, Solar Physics, 229, 323, 10.1007/s11207-005-8777-x

    Russell, C., & Shinde, A. 2005, Solar Physics, 229, 323, 10.1007/s11207-005-8777-x

    2005 doi

  51. [60]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 189, 10.1007/s11214-014-0057-3

    Russell, C., Anderson, B., Baumjohann, W., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 189, 10.1007/s11214-014-0057-3

    2016 doi

  52. [61]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa729f

    Shaikh, Z., Raghav, A., & Bhaskar, A. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa729f

    2017 doi

  53. [62]

    I., Raghav, A

    Shaikh, Z. I., Raghav, A. N., Vichare, G., Bhaskar, A., & Mishra, W. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae1b1

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N

    Smith, C. W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N. F., et al. 1998, The advanced composition explorer mission, 613, 10.1007/978-94-011-4762-0_21

    1998 doi

  55. [64]

    Sonnerup, B. U. ., & Cahill, L. J. 1967, Journal of Geophysical Research, 72, 171, 10.1029/jz072i001p00171

    1967 doi

  56. [65]

    Cyr, O., Howard, R., Sheeley Jr, N., et al

    St. Cyr, O., Howard, R., Sheeley Jr, N., et al. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 105, 18169, 10.1029/1999ja000381

    2000 doi

  57. [66]

    Taylor, J. B. 1974, Physical Review Letters, 33, 1139, 10.1103/physrevlett.33.1139

    1974 doi

  58. [67]

    1986, Reviews of Modern Physics, 58, 741, 10.1103/revmodphys.58.741

    ---. 1986, Reviews of Modern Physics, 58, 741, 10.1103/revmodphys.58.741

    1986 doi

  59. [68]

    2024, Nature Communications, 15, 9198, 10.1038/s41467-024-53538-1

    Teng, W., Su, Y., Ji, H., & Zhang, Q. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 9198, 10.1038/s41467-024-53538-1

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    V., Bhaskar, A., Mayank, P., Vaidya, B., & Venugopal, I

    Thampi, S. V., Bhaskar, A., Mayank, P., Vaidya, B., & Venugopal, I. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada93c

    2025 doi

  61. [70]

    2022, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 18, 17–27, 10.1017/S1743921323001230

    Tripathi, D., Chakrabarty, D., Nandi, A., et al. 2022, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 18, 17–27, 10.1017/S1743921323001230

    2022 doi

  62. [71]

    V., & Bhaskar, A

    Venugopal, I., Thampi, S. V., & Bhaskar, A. 2025, Scientific Reports, 15, 26551, 10.1038/s41598-025-08843-0

    2025 doi

  63. [72]

    Vichare, G., & Bagiya, M. S. 2024, Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2024GL112569, 10.1029/2024gl112569

    2024 doi

  64. [73]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 7423, 10.1002/2016ja022924

    Wang, Y., Zhang, Q., Liu, J., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 7423, 10.1002/2016ja022924

    2016 doi

  65. [74]

    F., & Howard, T

    Webb, D. F., & Howard, T. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 1

    2012

  66. [75]

    E., et al

    Weiler, E., M \"o stl, C., Davies, E. E., et al. 2025, Space Weather, 23, e2024SW004260, 10.1029/2024sw004260

    2025 doi

  67. [76]

    2023, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 252, 106154

    Xie, H., Gopalswamy, N., Akiyama, S., Yashiro, S., & Makela, P. 2023, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 252, 106154

    2023

  68. [77]

    K., Vijaya, Y., Krishnam Prasad, B., et al

    Yadav, V. K., Vijaya, Y., Krishnam Prasad, B., et al. 2025, Solar Physics, 300, 10.1007/s11207-025-02440-0

    2025 doi

  69. [78]

    2025, AGU Advances, 6, e2025AV001688, 10.1029/2025AV001688

    Zhang, Y., Motoba, T., Paxton, L., & Schaefer, R. 2025, AGU Advances, 6, e2025AV001688, 10.1029/2025AV001688

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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