Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Parker Solar Probe observations of solar energetic particle (SEP) events with inverse velocity arrival (IVA) features

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that 14 solar energetic particle events observed close to the Sun show a 'nose' pattern where medium-energy particles arrive before both lower- and higher-energy ones, and identifies these with a new contour-line method.

desk verdict A useful, honest candidate catalog of 14 IVA SEP events with a transparent contour-line method, but the statistics are weaker than the prose suggests and the instrument-sensitivity concern from the stress test is real, not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.12475 v1 pith:B6AIHZ2J submitted 2026-02-12 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Zigong Xu , C. M. S. Cohen , R. A. Leske , G. D. Muro , A. C. Cummings , O. M. Romeo , D. Lario , D. J. McComas
show 16 more authors
M. E. Cuesta S. Pak L. Y. Khoo H. A. Farooki M. M. Shen S. Kasapis E. R. Christian D. G. Mitchell R. L. McNutt A. Kouloumvakos J. Grant Mitchell G. D. Berland N. A. Schwadron M. E. Wiedenbeck M. L. Stevens R. C. Allen
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarenergeticparticlesinversevelocityarrivaldispersionCME-drivenshocksnoseenergyinnerheliospherespectrogramcontourmethodparticleacceleration
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 argues that a striking anomaly seen in one famous solar particle event—medium-energy protons arriving before both slower, lower-energy and faster, higher-energy protons—is not a one-off. Using a new contour-line method on combined measurements from two particle instruments on a spacecraft very close to the Sun, the authors identify 14 solar energetic particle events through 2024 that show this 'inverse velocity arrival' feature. Most of these events have their earliest-arriving ('nose') particles in the 0.5–5 MeV range, and most are associated with CME-driven shocks. The paper proposes that solar particle events form a continuum from normal velocity dispersion through nose-only and mixed types, reflecting two particle populations: a prompt velocity-dispersed population and a shock-accelerated population whose higher energies are delayed by acceleration time. If correct, this gives a practical way to recognize and catalog such events and supports time-dependent shock acceleration in the inner heliosphere.

What carries the argument

The contour-line method: in a combined intensity spectrogram spanning both instruments' energy ranges, contours are drawn at fixed fractions (usually 10^-3) of the peak intensity between the first arrival and shock arrival. The contour traces the arrival edge; a contour that rises in energy and then falls creates the nose, and the nose energy is read where the contour peaks. The method's role is to make identification of inverse-velocity-arrival events consistent across events and instruments, and to separate the normal velocity-dispersion edge from the inverse edge.

What would settle it

A concrete test: take one of the 14 events with good counting statistics and compute contour lines at several levels (10^-2 through 10^-4), with and without background subtraction, and with the analysis window shifted by modest amounts. If the nose energy or even the presence of a nose changes materially across these choices—or if a simulated pure velocity-dispersion event with the same instrument thresholds produces a nose—then the method's reliability is in question. The authors themselves flag such sensitivity concerns in their discussion of the two instruments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that inverse velocity arrival—where the onset of a solar energetic particle event has a 'nose' at medium energies, with later arrival both below and above that energy—is a recurring feature, not a single anomaly. By drawing constant-intensity contour lines on a combined spectrogram from a near-Sun spacecraft's two particle instruments, the authors found 14 such events through the end of 2024. They define three spectrogram types—normal velocity dispersion, nose-only, and mixed—and argue that the nose population is a distinct particle population accelerated by a CME-driven shock whose acceleration time to higher energies is not negligible compared with particle

Load-bearing premise

The whole identification rests on the assumption that the chosen contour line (usually 10^-3 of the peak intensity) in the combined spectrogram traces the true arrival edge of the particles; if instrument sensitivity differences, counting statistics, or manual time-window choices can create or erase the nose, the 14-event list may not be robust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 14-event list provides a benchmark for studying shock acceleration close to the Sun.
  • The three-type framework (velocity dispersion, nose-only, mixed) suggests a continuum and a two-population scenario for solar energetic particle events.
  • Most inverse-velocity-arrival events have nose energies between 0.5 and 5 MeV, indicating that the acceleration delay becomes visible in that energy range.
  • The association with CME-driven shocks and the similarity to energetic storm particle events point to a common time-dependent shock acceleration process.
  • Instrument sensitivity differences can mimic or modify inverse-velocity-arrival features, so cross-instrument comparisons are needed before firm conclusions are drawn.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the contour method is validated against more sensitive measurements, it could be applied to historical solar particle data from other spacecraft to see whether inverse-velocity-arrival features are common at 1 au.
  • The two-population interpretation implies that in mixed events, separating the two populations could help disentangle flare-related from shock-related acceleration in the same event.
  • A testable extension would be to check whether the nose energy correlates with spacecraft distance and shock speed, as the balance between acceleration time and travel time would predict.
  • The authors' finding of no strong longitudinal preference for the near-Sun spacecraft, contrasted with reports from other vantage points, suggests that observing geometry may control how often inverse-velocity-arrival features are detected.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a 'contour-line method' to identify inverse velocity arrival (IVA) features in combined EPI-Lo/EPI-Hi proton spectrograms from Parker Solar Probe. It applies the method to PSP observations through the end of 2024 and reports 14 SEP events with IVA, categorized as nose-only or mixed (with an earlier velocity-dispersed population). For these events the paper tabulates nose time, distance, shock and CME speeds, shock obliquity, and footpoint–flare longitude separation, and finds that 11/14 have medium (0.5–5 MeV) nose energies. The authors interpret IVA as evidence of time-dependent shock acceleration and discuss instrumental effects, ESP-like local acceleration, and comparisons with Solar Orbiter events.

Significance. If the catalog is robust, this is a valuable first systematic sample of inner-heliosphere IVA events and provides a quantitative, reproducible identification tool. The paper's strengths include clear documentation of the method, use of independent published simulations for physical interpretation, and explicit caveats about sample size and instrumental sensitivity. However, the central claim depends on the contour line tracing a physical arrival edge across an instrument splice, and the authors' own examples show instrument-dependent nose features. The current version does not yet demonstrate that the 14 events are not partly artifacts of sensitivity; hence the catalog, while plausible, needs validation before the statistical statements can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1–3.3, Table 1] The identification criterion is not applied at a uniform physical intensity: events 5 and 12 use 10^-2 and 10^-4 of the peak while the rest use 10^-3, and the time window is chosen manually between dashed lines. Because the combined spectrogram splices EPI-Lo (<1 MeV) and EPI-Hi (>1 MeV) with order-of-magnitude different geometry factors, a nose at ~1 MeV could be produced by the sensitivity drop even for otherwise normal velocity dispersion. The authors acknowledge this risk in §4.1 and §3.2.2, but the 14-event catalog is the central claim. Please add a validation: apply the method to simulated or shuffled normal-VD events passing through the instrument response, require the nose to be stable across multiple contour levels, and report how many candidates survive. Without this, the catalog's robustness is not established.
  2. [§4.1, Fig. 1] The Labor Day event shows EPI-Lo and EPI-Hi yielding different nose features (onset time, nose energy, slope), attributed to detection efficiency and deadtime. This undermines the assumption that the 10^-3 contour traces a physical particle front in the combined spectrogram. For each Table-1 event, please report whether the nose is independently present in EPI-Lo and EPI-Hi, and the difference in inferred nose energy between instruments. If, as Table 1's 'Inst' column suggests, most noses are seen only by EPI-Hi, then the catalog may be selecting instrument-sensitivity features rather than a single physical population.
  3. [Table 1 and §3.4] Derived parameters (θ_Bn, V_sh, V_CME, D_lon) are listed without uncertainties. The Mixed-mode 3 shock fit and the DONKI CME speeds carry substantial errors, and §3.4 later concedes 'unknown uncertainties of the CME speed and the shock speed.' Without error bars and formal significance tests, the mean θ_Bn ≈ 48°, the mean D_lon values, and the correlations in Fig. 5 (-0.51, -0.42) are not quantitatively interpretable. Please add uncertainties and p-values, or explicitly re-label these as illustrative only.
  4. [§3.2, §3.3] The three-way classification and the coarse nose-energy bins are subjective; the authors state that categorization 'can be somewhat subjective' and that determining nose energy is 'challenging.' Since the headline result (11/14 medium nose energy) depends on where the nose is placed on a single contour line, please provide an objective definition of nose energy (e.g., minimum of the contour energy) and a sensitivity scan over contour level for each event. A reproducibility check by independent classifiers would strengthen confidence in the catalog.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The symbol 'IV A' with a space is unusual; consider using 'IVA' consistently to match common usage. Also check spacing in expressions like 'of∼1 MeV'.
  2. [Figure 2 and Table 1] The dashed vertical lines in Figure 2 are used to define the contour calculation window but the caption does not explicitly say so; please state this. In Table 1, the 'x' symbol for events 7–9 is defined in the table notes, but a dash would be more consistent with events 2 and 13.
  3. [§3.4] The sentence 'the weights of those IVA events near the Sun should be larger' is vague; clarify how observational bias is being accounted for in the radial-distance histogram.
  4. [§4.4] Typo: 'partilce' should be 'particle.' Also, 'BepiColumbo' should be 'BepiColombo.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IVA catalog is produced by an explicit observational contour-line criterion, and the physical interpretation rests on external simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim is a catalog of 14 SEP events with IVA features, identified by a newly defined and explicitly stated contour-line method: 'In most of the cases that we analyze, we utilize the contour line of 0.1% (10^-3) of the peak intensity as a standard line for IVA determination.' The threshold is fixed a priori relative to the event peak, and the nose time and nose energy are read directly from that contour. This is an operational definition applied to data, not a fitted parameter later renamed as a prediction; the two exceptions (10^-2 and 10^-4 contours for events 5 and 12) are disclosed in the Table 1 notes. The physical interpretation—time-dependent shock acceleration, magnetic connectivity, non-uniform shock efficiency—is drawn from independently published simulations (Do et al. 2025; Kouloumvakos et al. 2025; Ding et al. 2025) rather than from the present authors' own fits. Self-citations are present (Cohen et al. 2024 for the prototype Labor Day event; Xu et al. 2024a for the IVA label), but they are descriptive: the Labor Day event is re-analyzed from PSP/ISOIS data in this paper, and the IVA nomenclature is a naming choice, not a load-bearing proof. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the subjectivity and instrument-sensitivity caveats of the method, which are validity and false-positive concerns rather than circularity. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central method depends on hand-chosen contour levels and binning thresholds rather than fitted physical constants; the Parker-spiral footpoint mapping relies on standard but approximate solar-wind assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • Contour intensity levels = 10^-3 (default), 10^-2 (event 5), 10^-4 (event 12)
    The contour threshold determines the onset edge and nose energy; different levels can shift the nose time and even change whether an IVA is classified. Chosen by hand per event.
  • Nose energy bin boundaries = 0.5 MeV and 5 MeV
    Classification into low/medium/high nose energy is qualitative; boundaries are arbitrary and no uncertainty is assigned.
  • Assumed solar wind speed for footpoint mapping = 400 km/s
    Table 1 note says Dlon is computed assuming a Parker spiral and a solar wind speed of 400 km/s, even though measured speeds are available for some intervals; this introduces systematic uncertainty.
  • Time windows for contour calculation = Manual per event (onset to shock/peak)
    The selected period affects the computed contours and the inferred nose timing; no objective rule is given.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Velocity dispersion: particles released at the same time travel scatter-free along the same magnetic field line (faster arrive earlier).
    Used as the baseline for defining normal VD and hence the inverted trend; invoked in the Introduction and Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Parker spiral approximation for magnetic footpoint mapping.
    Dlon values are derived assuming a nominal Parker spiral; the authors note this is a good approximation near the Sun but not exact.
  • ad hoc to paper The contour line at a given intensity fraction represents a physical particle front.
    The method assumes that the 10^-3 level traces the true onset edge across the combined EPI-Lo/EPI-Hi spectrogram, despite known inter-calibration and sensitivity differences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parker Solar Probe observations of solar energetic particle (SEP) events with inverse velocity arrival (IVA) features." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B6AIHZ2J

@misc{pith2026260212475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parker Solar Probe observations of solar energetic particle (SEP) events with inverse velocity arrival (IVA) features},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B6AIHZ2J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.12475}
}
read the original abstract

In SEP events, velocity dispersion (VD) is characterized by the earlier arrival of faster, higher-energy particles relative to slower ones, assuming negligible acceleration time and transport effects. The "Labor Day event" at Parker Solar Probe (PSP) on 2022 September 5 provided a unique arrival profile, in which the medium energy (~ few MeV) particles arrive earlier than both lower and higher energy particles. This created a so-called "nose" structure in the intensity spectrogram formed by measurements from the two energetic particle instruments, EPI-Lo and EPI-Hi, of the Integrated Science Investigation of the Sun (ISOIS) suite. Unlike typical VD, the delayed arrival of higher energy particles compared to medium energy particles, i.e., the "inverse velocity arrival" (IVA), could be caused by various acceleration, transport, and instrumental effects, including shock acceleration. By applying a new method based on the contour-line of the intensity, we found 14 IVA events in the ISOIS observations up to the end of 2024. Several parameters that may modify velocity dispersion characteristics are further explored including the spacecraft radial distance, the speed of corresponding CMEs and shocks, the angle between the shock normal and the upstream magnetic field, and the spacecraft magnetic footpoint longitudinal separation from the flare location. The energy of the early arriving particles, i.e., the nose energy, can be grouped into low (L, <0.5 MeV), medium(M, 0.5 - 5 MeV), and high(H, >5 MeV) categories. Most (11/14) of the IVA events have medium nose energies. This SEP list provides ingredients for examination of shock acceleration in the inner heliosphere, and the existence of IVA events sheds new light on the acceleration and propagation of SEPs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12475 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a): PSP observations of the energetic particles from EPI-Lo, EPI-Hi/LET + HET, the magnetic field variation and the radio emission by FIELDS (Bale et al. 2016) before and during the Labor Day event on 2022 September 5. Three vertical lines, from left to right, mark the flare eruption time, SEP event onset time (Cohen et al. 2024), and the shock arrival time, respectively. (b): The relative positions of PSP and Sola… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Three types of SEP events (top to bottom): (a): VD event - Spiky event with normal velocity dispersion; (b): Nose-only event - SEP event with IVA features; (c): Mixed event - a mixture of the above two types with clear separation between the first arriving VD and the later inverse features. The intensity unit is count/(s · sr · MeV · cm2 ). These plots combine measurements from EPI-Hi/LET-A and HET-A, and the mean i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The dynamic spectrograms of the other 12 IVA events. The contour lines are drawn between two vertical dashed lines. center of the shock front (or the flare) when it is close to the Sun, which is typically expected to be an efficient acceleration region for quasi-parallel shocks, although dependent on the shock strength and geometry. It should be noted however, that the solar longitude where the PSP field line inters… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of the IVA events along the radial distance (A), versus the longitudinal separation from the flare (B), the θBn of the shock (C), and the speed of the shock when it passes PSP and the speed of CME (D). The left sub-panels display the distribution in th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relationship between the speed of the local shock (Vsh ) / CME (Vcme) and the longitudinal separation from the spacecraft’s magnetic footpoint to the flare, and the radial distance of the spacecraft, and form ’mixed’ events. Utilizing the contour line method, we ha…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Radial Dependency of ICME-associated Particle Acceleration Processes: Statistical Multipoint Observations from 2016-2023

    physics.space-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Statistical multipoint observations indicate ICME shock acceleration efficiency increases with heliocentric distance up to 0.7 AU before decreasing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abraham-Shrauner, B., & Yun, S. H. 1976, Journal of Geophysical Research, 81, 2097, doi: 10.1029/ja081i013p02097

    work page doi:10.1029/ja081i013p02097 1976

  2. [2]

    C., Ho, G

    Allen, R. C., Ho, G. C., Mason, G. M., et al. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2020GL091376, doi: 10.1029/2020GL091376 —. 2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 705, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557079

    doi:10.1029/2020gl091376 2021

  3. [3]

    C., Sarris, E

    Anagnostopoulos, G. C., Sarris, E. T., & Krimigis, S. M. 1986, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 91, 3020, doi: 10.1029/ja091ia03p03020

    work page doi:10.1029/ja091ia03p03020 1986

  4. [4]

    Anderson, K. A. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 86, 4445, doi: 10.1029/JA086iA06p04445

    work page doi:10.1029/ja086ia06p04445 1981

  5. [5]

    D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P

    Bale, S. D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P. R., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 49, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5 22

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

  6. [6]

    2021, Space Science Reviews, 217, 90, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00861-4

    Benkhoff, J., Murakami, G., Baumjohann, W., et al. 2021, Space Science Reviews, 217, 90, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00861-4

    doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00861-4 2021

  7. [7]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab5a7b 2020

  8. [8]

    2025, Evidence of Time-Dependent Diffusive Shock Acceleration in the 2022 September 5 Solar Energetic Particle Event, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20322

    Chen, X., Zhao, L., Giacalone, J., et al. 2025, Evidence of Time-Dependent Diffusive Shock Acceleration in the 2022 September 5 Solar Energetic Particle Event, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20322

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.20322 2025

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Cohen, C. M. S., Christian, E. R., Cummings, A. C., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140967

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Cohen, C. M. S., Leske, R. A., Christian, E. R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad37f8

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    A., & Pak, S

    Cucinotta, F. A., & Pak, S. 2024, Life Sciences in Space Research, 40, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.lssr.2023.10.003

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2016, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 13, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-016-0002-5

    Desai, M., & Giacalone, J. 2016, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 13, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-016-0002-5

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Kollhoff, A., et al

    Ding, Z., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Kollhoff, A., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 696, A199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553806

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Fraschetti, F., Kota, J., et al

    Do, T. M., Fraschetti, F., Kota, J., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93b2

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    C., et al

    Dresing, N., Rodr ´ ıguez-Garc ´ ıa, L., Jebaraj, I. C., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345938

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Wijsen, N., et al

    Dresing, N., Jebaraj, I. C., Wijsen, N., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 695, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453596

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Velli, M

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

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    G., et al

    Giacalone, J., Trotta, D., Mitchell, D. G., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 996, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1ef5

    2026 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 384, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1058810

    Gieseler, J., Dresing, N., Palmroos, C., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 384, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1058810

    2023

  12. [20]

    F., et al

    Guo, J., Zeitlin, C., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., et al. 2021, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 29, 8, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00136-5

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, Advances in Space Research, S0273117724003053, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2024.03.070

    Guo, J., Wang, B., Whitman, K., et al. 2024, Advances in Space Research, S0273117724003053, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2024.03.070

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Mitchell, D

    Hill, M. E., Mitchell, D. G., Andrews, G. B., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 1513, doi: 10.1002/2016JA022614

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    2005, A&A, 442, 673, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042620

    Laitinen, T. 2005, A&A, 442, 673, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042620

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Agapitov, O., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al

    Jebaraj, I. C., Agapitov, O., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 968, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4daa

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    J., McComas, D

    Joyce, C. J., McComas, D. J., Christian, E. R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5948

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Y., S´ anchez-Cano, B., Lee, C

    Khoo, L. Y., S´ anchez-Cano, B., Lee, C. O., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167f

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Price, D. J. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244363

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    C., et al

    Kouloumvakos, A., Wijsen, N., Jebaraj, I. C., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada0be

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    Thompson, B. J. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 519, 864

    1999

  23. [31]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal

    Laitinen, T. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal

    2015

  24. [32]

    B., et al

    Lario, D., Berger, L., Decker, R. B., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1e49

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    G., Aran, A., & Wijsen, N

    Lario, D., Richardson, I. G., Aran, A., & Wijsen, N. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc9c5

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    H., Sibeck, D

    Lee, S. H., Sibeck, D. G., Hwang, K., et al. 2016, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 7338, doi: 10.1002/2016gl069840 —. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 3232, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023694

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    P., & Rice, W

    Li, G., Zank, G. P., & Rice, W. K. M. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108, 2002JA009666, doi: 10.1029/2002JA009666

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    2025, National Science Review, nwaf348, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaf348 23

    Li, Y., Guo, J., Pacheco, D., et al. 2025, National Science Review, nwaf348, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaf348 23

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    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

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Alexander, N., Angold, N., et al

    McComas, D. J., Alexander, N., Angold, N., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 187, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0059-1

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    G., De Nolfo, G

    Mitchell, J. G., De Nolfo, G. A., Hill, M. E., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac110e M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    D., Cohen, C

    Muro, G. D., Cohen, C. M. S., Xu, Z., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adadf7

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    E., Farooki, H

    Pak, S., Cuesta, M. E., Farooki, H. A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 281, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae07d5

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    Y., et al

    Palmerio, E., Carcaboso, F., Khoo, L. Y., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ab4

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf30f

    Paouris, E., Vourlidas, A., Kouloumvakos, A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf30f

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Bonnell, J

    Pulupa, M., Bale, S. D., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 2836, doi: 10.1002/2016ja023345

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    Reames, D. V. 1998, SSRv, 85, 327, doi: 10.1023/A:1005123121972

    1998 doi

  38. [46]

    Reames, D. V. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 175, 53, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-9958-9 Rodr ´ ıguez-Pacheco, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Mason, G. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935287

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Braga, C

    Romeo, O. M., Braga, C. R., Badman, S. T., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace62e

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Saiz, A., Evenson, P., Ruffolo, D., & Bieber, J. W. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, 1131, doi: 10.1086/430293

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    T., Anagnostopoulos, G

    Sarris, E. T., Anagnostopoulos, G. C., & Krimigis, S. M. 1987, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 92, 12083, doi: 10.1029/ja092ia11p12083

    1987 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad187d

    Trotta, D., Larosa, A., Nicolaou, G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad187d

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    T., Vourlidas, A., & Krucker, S

    Vievering, J. T., Vourlidas, A., & Krucker, S. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad57b7 Vrˇ snak, B.,ˇZic, T., Vrbanec, D., et al. 2013, Solar Physics, 285, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-0035-4

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/111

    Wang, Y., & Qin, G. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/111

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    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

  46. [54]

    E., Angold, N

    Wiedenbeck, M. E., Angold, N. G., Birdwell, B., et al. 2017, in Proceedings of 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2017) (Bexco, Busan, Korea: Sissa Medialab), 016, doi: 10.22323/1.301.0016

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    B., Mitchell, J

    Wilson, L. B., Mitchell, J. G., Szabo, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add6a8

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346319

    Kollhoff, A., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346319

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    F., et al

    Xu, Z., Guo, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., et al. 2020, ApJL, 902, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbccc

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    C., et al

    Xu, Z., Cohen, C., Cummings, A. C., et al. 2024a, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2024, SH33C–2743

    2024

  51. [59]

    G., Cohen, C

    Xu, Z. G., Cohen, C. M. S., Leske, R. A., et al. 2024b, ApJL, 976, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8b18

    doi

  52. [60]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 878, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2041

    Zhao, L., Li, G., Zhang, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 878, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2041

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.