pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.07566 · v1 · pith:VQVBA2V5new · submitted 2026-05-25 · ⚛️ physics.space-ph · astro-ph.SR· physics.plasm-ph

Evolution of Coronal Mass Ejection Properties through Superposed Epoch Analysis from 0.2 to 2.2 au

Yakub Olufadi , Nada Al-Haddad , Florian Regnault , No\'e Lugaz , Bin Zhuang , Charles J. Farrugia , Christian M\"ostl , Emma E. Davies
show 1 more author
Eva Weiler
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 19:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.space-ph astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph
keywords coronal mass ejectionssolar cycle phasesin-situ measurementsheliocentric distance evolutionmagnetic field componentssuperposed epoch analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

CMEs in the active solar cycle phase are faster with stronger magnetic fields than quiet-phase events, even after matching speeds.

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

The paper uses superposed epoch analysis on more than 1600 in-situ CME observations spanning 0.2 to 2.2 au. It separates events by solar cycle phase and finds that active-phase CMEs travel faster and carry stronger magnetic fields while quiet-phase CMEs are denser with weaker fields. These contrasts in field strength and density survive after events are matched on speed. The analysis also follows the radial decline of toroidal and poloidal field components inside the magnetic ejecta and the growth of front-to-rear asymmetry with distance.

Core claim

During the active phase of the solar cycle, occurring CMEs are faster and have stronger magnetic field strength than during the quiet phase, which has denser but weaker magnetic strength. These differences in magnetic field strength and density remain even when controlling for the speed. This may indicate that the enhanced profiles observed during the active phase are not only a consequence of the CME propagation speed but may also reflect intrinsic differences in the eruption mechanism during different solar cycle phases. The toroidal and poloidal magnetic ejecta components decrease with similar power laws in distance, and the front-to-rear ratio of the toroidal component rises with helioce

What carries the argument

Superposed epoch analysis performed on the HELIO4CAST catalog of over 1600 CME events, with separation by active versus quiet solar cycle phase and tracking of magnetic field component evolution versus heliocentric distance.

If this is right

  • CME magnetic field strength and density profiles differ between solar cycle phases beyond what propagation speed alone can explain.
  • Toroidal and poloidal components of the magnetic ejecta expand at comparable rates with distance.
  • Front-to-rear magnetic asymmetry inside CMEs grows systematically outward from the Sun.
  • Eruption models may need to include solar cycle phase as a controlling variable for initial CME properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Forecast models could gain accuracy by conditioning expected CME magnetic strength on the current phase of the solar cycle.
  • Multi-spacecraft data sets that sample the same CME at different distances could test whether the observed phase differences persist beyond 2 au.
  • Linking these in-situ trends to photospheric or coronal source-region properties could clarify how the solar dynamo modulates eruption mechanisms.

Load-bearing premise

The catalog events form an unbiased sample across heliocentric distances and solar cycle phases, and matching solely on speed is enough to separate intrinsic eruption differences from propagation effects.

What would settle it

A larger or independent catalog in which magnetic field strength and density differences vanish after events are matched on both speed and distance would falsify the claim of phase-dependent intrinsic properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.07566 by Bin Zhuang, Charles J. Farrugia, Christian M\"ostl, Emma E. Davies, Eva Weiler, Florian Regnault, Nada Al-Haddad, No\'e Lugaz, Yakub Olufadi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The (monthly and 13-month smoothed) SSN plot describes the active (purple) and quiet (orange) phases of solar cycle in which the CMEs occurred, respectively. The numbers shown indicate the total number of CME events identified in each phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The combined SEA result of AP events (mean in solid red and median in solid blue) and QP events (mean in dashed red and median in dashed blue) profiles, respectively. The cyan area covers the sheath, and the pink area depicts the ME region. From top to bottom, the panels show the magnetic field (Bmean), the proton number density (Np), the proton bulk velocity (Vp), the proton temperature (Tp), the Alfv´en … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The combined SEA result of AP events (mean in solid red and median in solid blue) and QP events (mean in dashed red and median in dashed blue) profiles, respectively. Parameters are displayed in the same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sample SEA for magnetic field components (red for mean profiles and blue for median profile) in RTN vs. MVA coordinates for CMEs in Bin 17 (0.96 au to 1.02 au). On the left, panels 1-3 show the results in RTN components, and panel 4 shows the total field strength. The right plot is for MVA coordinate components (ijk), whose magnitude Btot is displayed in panel 4. with heliocentric distance (Lugaz et al. 20… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Radial evolution of the average CME magnetic field strength as a function of the natural logarithm of heliocentric distance, shown using both the binned mean (orange circles) and median (blue diamonds) values. The error bars correspond to the 1σ dispersion of the event distribution within each heliocentric distance bin, converted to logarithmic space using ∆ ln B ≈ σB/B. Solid lines (black for mean a… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Heliocentric distance dependence of (left) the maximum toroidal-to-poloidal field ratio max(Bj )/ max(Bk) with a Theil–Sen estimator (red dotted line) and (right) the front-to-rear ratio Bk,front/Bk,rear. In both panels, data points are plotted at the mid-bin heliocentric distance. Error bars represent the 1σ uncertainty propagated for a ratio, σR = R p (σ1/X1) 2 + (σ2/X2) 2, where R = X1/X2 and σ1, σ2 are… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are explosive and energetic events consisting of strong magnetic structures erupting from the solar corona. We use superposed epoch analysis to investigate the general properties of CMEs as measured {\it in situ} from 0.2 to 2.2 au based on over 1600 events obtained from the HELIO4CAST catalog. We examine the dependence of the CME global properties on solar cycle phase, and compare the CME parameters derived in the active phase (AP) with the quiet phase (QP). Our findings show that during the AP of the solar cycle, the occurring CMEs are faster and have stronger magnetic field strength than during the QP, which has denser but weaker magnetic strength. These differences in magnetic field strength and density remain even when controlling for the speed. This may indicate that the enhanced profiles observed during the AP are not only a consequence of the CME propagation speed but may also reflect intrinsic differences in the eruption mechanism during different solar cycle phases. We also study how the magnetic field strength and components of the CME magnetic ejecta (ME) structure evolve with heliocentric distance. We find that the toroidal and poloidal ME magnetic field components have a similar power law decrease with distance, indicating a comparable expansion behavior of CMEs in these dimensions. We further quantify the CME magnetic field asymmetry %(often associated with CME aging) using the front-to-rear ratio of the toroidal component across heliocentric distance and find evidence of an increase of this ratio with heliocentric distance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper applies superposed epoch analysis to over 1600 in-situ CME events from the HELIO4CAST catalog spanning 0.2–2.2 au. It reports that active-phase (AP) CMEs are faster and have stronger magnetic fields than quiet-phase (QP) CMEs, which are denser but weaker in |B|; these |B| and density differences persist after speed matching. The work also examines radial evolution of toroidal and poloidal magnetic field components in the magnetic ejecta, finding similar power-law declines with distance and an increasing front-to-rear toroidal asymmetry.

Significance. If robust, the results would indicate that solar-cycle phase affects CME eruption properties intrinsically rather than solely through propagation speed, with implications for heliospheric modeling and space-weather prediction. The large event sample and multi-spacecraft radial coverage are strengths; the finding of comparable toroidal/poloidal expansion is a useful observational constraint.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods: The speed-matching procedure between AP and QP events, including binning details, matching criteria, and any statistical significance tests on the residual |B| and density differences, is not described. This is load-bearing for the central claim that differences reflect intrinsic eruption variations rather than propagation effects.
  2. [Data] Data selection: No completeness estimates, distance-dependent detection thresholds, or phase-dependent weighting are provided for the HELIO4CAST catalog. Systematic variations in event detection probability with heliocentric distance or cycle phase would confound the speed-matched AP–QP comparison.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states clear findings but omits any mention of error bars or uncertainty quantification on the reported differences.
  2. Figure captions should explicitly state the number of events contributing to each superposed-epoch profile and the averaging window used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comments highlight important areas where additional methodological transparency and discussion of data limitations will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the requested details in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods: The speed-matching procedure between AP and QP events, including binning details, matching criteria, and any statistical significance tests on the residual |B| and density differences, is not described. This is load-bearing for the central claim that differences reflect intrinsic eruption variations rather than propagation effects.

    Authors: We agree that the speed-matching procedure must be described in full detail to support the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Methods section to specify the speed binning (width and centering), the exact matching algorithm (e.g., nearest-neighbor within bins or propensity-score matching), the number of matched pairs retained, and the statistical tests (including p-values or confidence intervals) applied to the residual |B| and density differences after matching. These additions will make the control for propagation speed explicit and reproducible. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Data] Data selection: No completeness estimates, distance-dependent detection thresholds, or phase-dependent weighting are provided for the HELIO4CAST catalog. Systematic variations in event detection probability with heliocentric distance or cycle phase would confound the speed-matched AP–QP comparison.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a quantitative treatment of catalog completeness is needed. In the revision we will add a dedicated paragraph on data selection that (i) reports any completeness estimates supplied with the HELIO4CAST catalog, (ii) discusses distance-dependent detection thresholds with reference to the underlying spacecraft instrumentation and prior studies, and (iii) examines whether phase-dependent weighting is required or feasible. Where quantitative estimates are unavailable we will state the limitation explicitly and describe any qualitative checks performed to assess robustness of the AP–QP comparison. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; purely empirical catalog analysis

full rationale

The paper conducts superposed epoch analysis on >1600 in-situ events drawn from the HELIO4CAST catalog, reporting direct statistical comparisons of CME speed, |B|, density, and magnetic-component power-law indices between active/quiet solar-cycle phases and across heliocentric distance. No equations, fitted functional forms, or self-citations are invoked to generate the reported differences; all quantities are measured observables summarized by averaging. The central claim that AP/QP distinctions persist after speed matching is therefore an empirical statement about the catalog sample, not a quantity forced by construction or by prior author work. This is the normal, non-circular outcome for an observational study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the assumption that the HELIO4CAST catalog is representative and that superposed epoch alignment isolates average radial evolution without major selection bias.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The HELIO4CAST catalog provides a representative sample of CME events across the heliocentric distances and solar cycle phases studied.
    All reported differences are derived from this catalog; no discussion of detection efficiency or distance-dependent biases appears in the abstract.
  • standard math Superposed epoch analysis can reveal intrinsic average properties when events are aligned at a common reference point and optionally matched on speed.
    Standard technique invoked to justify the AP/QP comparison and radial trends.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5858 in / 1425 out tokens · 26249 ms · 2026-06-29T19:24:49.002601+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, SSRv, 221, 12, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w

    Al-Haddad, N., & Lugaz, N. 2025, SSRv, 221, 12, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w 2025

  2. [2]

    G., & Zurbuchen, T

    Alexander, D., Richardson, I. G., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2006, in Coronal Mass Ejections, ed. H. Kunow, N. U. Crooker, J. A. Linker, R. Schwenn, & R. von Steiger, Vol. 21 (Springer), 3–21, doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-45088-9 1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-45088-9 2006

  3. [3]

    A., Winslow, R

    Banu, S. A., Winslow, R. M., Scolini, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad833e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad833e 2024

  4. [4]

    B., Lepping, R

    Berdichevsky, D. B., Lepping, R. P., & Farrugia, C. J. 2003, PhRvE, 67, 036405, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.036405

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.67.036405 2003

  5. [5]

    T., Bame, S

    Borrini, G., Gosling, J. T., Bame, S. J., & Feldman, W. C. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 7370, doi: 10.1029/JA087iA09p07370

    work page doi:10.1029/ja087ia09p07370 1982

  6. [6]

    1998, Annales Geophysicae, 16, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x

    Bothmer, V., & Schwenn, R. 1998, Annales Geophysicae, 16, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x 1998

  7. [7]

    Burlaga, L., Sittler, E., Mariani, F., & Schwenn, R. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 6673, doi: 10.1029/JA086iA08p06673

    work page doi:10.1029/ja086ia08p06673 1981

  8. [8]

    L., & Moldwin, M

    Cartwright, M. L., & Moldwin, M. B. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 115, A08102, doi: 10.1029/2009JA014271

    work page doi:10.1029/2009ja014271 2010

  9. [9]

    1913, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 212, 75, doi: 10.1098/rsta.1913.0003

    Chree, C. 1913, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 212, 75, doi: 10.1098/rsta.1913.0003

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.1913.0003 1913

  10. [10]

    Connerney, J. E. P., Benn, M., Bjarno, J. B., et al. 2017, SSRv, 213, 39, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0334-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0334-z 2017

  11. [11]

    Cremades, H., & St. Cyr, O. C. 2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1042, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.088

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.088 2007

  12. [12]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ccb

    Lugaz, N. 2021, ApJ, 923, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ccb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ccb 2021

  13. [13]

    E., Winslow, R

    Davies, E. E., Winslow, R. M., & Lawrence, D. J. 2023, ApJ, 943, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaca1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaca1 2023

  14. [14]

    E., Winslow, R

    Davies, E. E., Winslow, R. M., Scolini, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac731a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac731a 2022

  15. [15]

    Lepping, R. P. 1992, in Solar Wind Seven Colloquium, ed. E. Marsch & R. Schwenn, 611–614, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-042049-3.50127-7

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-042049-3.50127-7 1992

  16. [16]

    J., Burlaga, L

    Farrugia, C. J., Burlaga, L. F., Osherovich, V. A., et al. 1993, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 7621, doi: 10.1029/92JA02349

    work page doi:10.1029/92ja02349 1993

  17. [17]

    J., Erkaev, N

    Farrugia, C. J., Erkaev, N. V., Biernat, H. K., & Burlaga, L. F. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 19245, doi: 10.1029/95JA01080

    work page doi:10.1029/95ja01080 1995

  18. [18]

    A., & Bolles, R

    Fischler, M. A., & Bolles, R. C. 1981, Communications of the ACM, 24, 381, doi: 10.1145/358669.358692

    work page doi:10.1145/358669.358692 1981

  19. [19]

    W., & Forsyth, R

    Good, S. W., & Forsyth, R. J. 2016, SoPh, 291, 239, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0828-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-015-0828-3 2016

  20. [20]

    2016, Geoscience Letters, 1

    Gopalswamy, N. 2016, Geoscience Letters, 1

    2016

  21. [21]

    Gosling, J. T. 1993, Journal of Geophysical Research, 98, 18937

    1993

  22. [22]

    T., Baker, D

    Gosling, J. T., Baker, D. N., Bame, S. J., & Zwickl, R. D. 1986, J. Geophys. Res., 91, 11352, doi: 10.1029/JA091iA10p11352

    work page doi:10.1029/ja091ia10p11352 1986

  23. [23]

    T., Bame, S

    Gosling, J. T., Bame, S. J., McComas, D. J., & Phillips, J. L. 1990, Geophys. Res. Lett., 17, 901, doi: 10.1029/GL017i007p00901

    work page doi:10.1029/gl017i007p00901 1990

  24. [24]

    T., Pizzo, V., & Bame, S

    Gosling, J. T., Pizzo, V., & Bame, S. J. 1973, J. Geophys. Res., 78, 2001, doi: 10.1029/JA078i013p02001

    work page doi:10.1029/ja078i013p02001 1973

  25. [25]

    2010, A&A, 509, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912375

    Marsch, E. 2010, A&A, 509, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912375

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912375 2010

  26. [26]

    L., Mittelholz, A., Al Asad, M

    Hanneson, C., Johnson, C. L., Mittelholz, A., Al Asad, M. M., & Goldblatt, C. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27139, doi: 10.1029/2019JA027139

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja027139 2020

  27. [27]

    Koomen, M. J. 1982, ApJL, 263, L101, doi: 10.1086/183932

    work page doi:10.1086/183932 1982

  28. [28]

    1999, in The many faces of the sun: a summary of the results from NASA’s Solar Maximum Mission., ed

    Hundhausen, A. 1999, in The many faces of the sun: a summary of the results from NASA’s Solar Maximum Mission., ed. K. T. Strong, J. L. R. Saba, B. M. Haisch, & J. T. Schmelz, 143

    1999

  29. [29]

    A., Wright, D

    Hutchinson, J. A., Wright, D. M., & Milan, S. E. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 116, A09211, doi: 10.1029/2011JA016463

    work page doi:10.1029/2011ja016463 2011

  30. [30]

    M., Good, S., et al

    Janvier, M., Winslow, R. M., Good, S., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 812, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025949

    work page doi:10.1029/2018ja025949 2019

  31. [31]

    T., Luhmann, J

    Jian, L., Russell, C. T., Luhmann, J. G., & Skoug, R. M. 2006, SoPh, 239, 393, doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0133-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0133-2 2006

  32. [32]

    R., Scott, C

    Jones, S. R., Scott, C. J., Barnard, L. A., et al. 2020, Space Weather, 18, e02556, doi: 10.1029/2020SW00255610.1002/essoar.10503318.1

    work page doi:10.1029/2020sw00255610.1002/essoar.10503318.1 2020

  33. [33]

    L., Kucera, T

    Kaiser, M. L., Kucera, T. A., Davila, J. M., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0 2008

  34. [34]

    Kilpua, E., Koskinen, H. E. J., & Pulkkinen, T. I. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41116-017-0009-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s41116-017-0009-6 2017

  35. [35]

    W., & Burlaga, L

    Klein, L. W., & Burlaga, L. F. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 613, doi: 10.1029/JA087iA02p00613

    work page doi:10.1029/ja087ia02p00613 1982

  36. [36]

    2022, A&A, 668, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245062

    Lanabere, V., D´ emoulin, P., & Dasso, S. 2022, A&A, 668, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245062

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245062 2022

  37. [37]

    Lavraud, B., & Borovsky, J. E. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A00B08, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013192 18

    work page doi:10.1029/2008ja013192 2008

  38. [38]

    J., M¨ ostl, C., et al

    Leitner, M., Farrugia, C. J., M¨ ostl, C., et al. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A06113, doi: 10.1029/2006JA011940

    work page doi:10.1029/2006ja011940 2007

  39. [39]

    D., & Belcher, J

    Liu, Y., Richardson, J. D., & Belcher, J. W. 2005, Planet. Space Sci., 53, 3, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2004.09.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2004.09.023 2005

  40. [40]

    M., Winslow, R

    Lugaz, N., Salman, T. M., Winslow, R. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba26b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba26b 2020

  41. [41]

    Mariani, F., & Neubauer, F. M. 1990, in Physics of the Inner Heliosphere I, ed. R. Schwenn & E. Marsch (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), 183–322 Mas´ ıas-Meza, J. J., Dasso, S., D´ emoulin, P., Rodriguez, L., & Janvier, M. 2016, A&A, 592, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628571

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628571 1990

  42. [42]

    D., et al

    Moestl, C., Isavnin, A., Boakes, P. D., et al. 2017, Space Weather, 15, 955, doi: 10.1002/2017SW001614

    work page doi:10.1002/2017sw001614 2017

  43. [43]

    J., Bailey, R

    Moestl, C., Weiss, A. J., Bailey, R. L., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 44, 1 M¨ ostl, C., Bailey, R. L., Amerstorfer, U. V., et al. 2020, in EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, 5202, doi: 10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-5202 M¨ ostl, C., Amla, K., Hall, J. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 119, doi: 10.1088/0...

    work page doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-5202 2020

  44. [44]

    C., et al

    Nieves-Chinchilla, T., Vourlidas, A., Raymond, J. C., et al. 2018, SoPh, 293, 25, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1247-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-018-1247-z 2018

  45. [45]

    A., Farrugia, C

    Osherovich, V. A., Farrugia, C. J., & Burlaga, L. F. 1993, Advances in Space Research, 13, 57, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(93)90391-N

    work page doi:10.1016/0273-1177(93)90391-n 1993

  46. [46]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-023-00952-4 2023

  47. [47]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef16 —

    Regnault, F., Al-Haddad, N., Lugaz, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef16 —. 2024a, ApJ, 962, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1883 —. 2024b, ApJL, 966, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3806

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acef16 2023

  48. [48]

    2021, in 43rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly

    Regnault, F., Dasso, S., Auchere, F., et al. 2021, in 43rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 28 January - 4

    2021

  49. [49]

    2021, in 43rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly

    Reiss, M., Pevtsov, A., Linker, J., et al. 2021, in 43rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 28 January - 4

    2021

  50. [50]

    G., & Cane, H

    Richardson, I. G., & Cane, H. V. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 23397, doi: 10.1029/95JA02684

    work page doi:10.1029/95ja02684 1995

  51. [51]

    J., Dasso, S., et al

    Rodriguez, L., Mas´ ıas-Meza, J. J., Dasso, S., et al. 2016, SoPh, 291, 2145, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0955-5 R¨ udisser, H. T., Nguyen, G., Le Lou¨ edec, J., Davies, E. E., & M¨ ostl, C. 2026, Space Weather, 24, e2025SW004537, doi: 10.1029/2025SW004537

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-016-0955-5 2016

  52. [52]

    M., Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C

    Salman, T. M., Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., et al. 2020a, ApJ, 904, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbdf5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbdf5

  53. [53]

    M., Winslow, R

    Salman, T. M., Winslow, R. M., & Lugaz, N. 2020b, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27084, doi: 10.1029/2019JA027084

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja027084

  54. [54]

    2021, A&A, 649, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040226

    Poedts, S. 2021, A&A, 649, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040226

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040226 2021

  55. [55]

    2002, Earth, Planets and Space, 54, 783, doi: 10.1186/BF03351731

    Shimazu, H., & Vandas, M. 2002, Earth, Planets and Space, 54, 783, doi: 10.1186/BF03351731

    work page doi:10.1186/bf03351731 2002

  56. [56]

    2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A00B07, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013142

    Siscoe, G., & Odstrcil, D. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A00B07, doi: 10.1029/2008JA013142

    work page doi:10.1029/2008ja013142 2008

  57. [57]

    C., McNutt, R

    Solomon, S. C., McNutt, R. L., Gold, R. E., et al. 2001, Planet. Space Sci., 49, 1445, doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(01)00085-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(01)00085-x 2001

  58. [58]

    2021, SoPh, 296, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01852-y

    Song, H., Li, L., Sun, Y., et al. 2021, SoPh, 296, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01852-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01852-y 2021

  59. [59]

    Sonnerup, B. U. O., & Cahill, Jr., L. J. 1967, J. Geophys. Res., 72, 171, doi: 10.1029/JZ072i001p00171

    work page doi:10.1029/jz072i001p00171 1967

  60. [60]

    C., Frandsen, A

    Stone, E. C., Frandsen, A. M., Mewaldt, R. A., et al. 1998, SSRv, 86, 1, doi: 10.1023/A:1005082526237

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005082526237 1998

  61. [61]

    L., Freeman, J

    Totten, T. L., Freeman, J. W., & Arya, S. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 13, doi: 10.1029/94JA02420

    work page doi:10.1029/94ja02420 1995

  62. [62]

    1973, in Space Research Conference, ed

    Tousey, R. 1973, in Space Research Conference, ed. M. J. Rycroft & S. K. Runcorn, Vol. 2, 713–730

    1973

  63. [63]

    A., Esfandiari, E., et al

    Vourlidas, A., Howard, R. A., Esfandiari, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1522, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1522

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/2/1522 2010

  64. [64]

    Wang, C., Du, D., & Richardson, J. D. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A10107, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011198

    work page doi:10.1029/2005ja011198 2005

  65. [65]

    E., et al

    Weiler, E., M¨ ostl, C., Davies, E. E., et al. 2025, Space Weather, 23, 2024SW004260, doi: 10.1029/2024SW004260

    work page doi:10.1029/2024sw004260 2025

  66. [66]

    J., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., & M¨ ostl, C

    Weiss, A. J., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., & M¨ ostl, C. 2024, ApJ, 975, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7940

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7940 2024

  67. [67]

    J., Moestl, C., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., et al

    Weiss, A. J., Moestl, C., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., et al. 2021, in 43rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 28 January - 4 February, Vol. 43, 1050

    2021

  68. [68]

    Wilson, R. M. 1987, Planetary and Space Science, 35

    1987

  69. [69]

    F., Crooker, N

    Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Crooker, N. U., Balogh, A., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 177, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9017-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-9017-x 2006

  70. [70]

    M., Anderson, B

    Winslow, R. M., Anderson, B. J., Johnson, C. L., et al. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 118, 2213, doi: 10.1002/jgra.50237 19

    work page doi:10.1002/jgra.50237 2013

  71. [71]

    M., Lugaz, N., Philpott, L

    Winslow, R. M., Lugaz, N., Philpott, L. C., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 6101

    2015

  72. [72]

    I., Lodkina, I

    Yermolaev, Y. I., Lodkina, I. G., Yermolaev, M. Y., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27878, doi: 10.1029/2020JA027878

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ja027878 2020

  73. [73]

    J., et al

    Yu, W., Al-Haddad, N., Farrugia, C. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 289, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71cc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad71cc 2024

  74. [74]

    L., Baumjohann, W., Delva, M., et al

    Zhang, T. L., Baumjohann, W., Delva, M., et al. 2006, Planet. Space Sci., 54, 1336, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2006.04.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2006.04.018 2006

  75. [75]

    2024, A&A, 682, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347561

    Zhuang, B., Lugaz, N., Al-Haddad, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347561

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347561 2024

  76. [76]

    H., & Richardson, I

    Zurbuchen, T. H., & Richardson, I. G. 2006, SSRv, 123, 31, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9010-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-9010-4 2006