Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Near-Sun magnetic switchbacks keep forming and expanding as the solar wind travels outward, while their Alfvénic character weakens, and they are about 1.5 times more common and larger across the ambient field than along it.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 11:07 UTC pith:5IJVWPK5

load-bearing objection Solid multi-encounter PSP switchback catalog with clear radial, MA/VR, and ~1.5 anisotropy trends; the geometric claims lean on an Alfvén-frame path length that weakens as Alfvénicity falls. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10516 v1 pith:5IJVWPK5 submitted 2026-07-12 astro-ph.SR

Radial Evolution of Near-Sun Magnetic Switchbacks Alfvenicity, Occurrence Rate, and Size

Xiaolei Li , Chen Shi , Yuliang Ding This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solar windmagnetic switchbacksParker Solar ProbeAlfvénicityheliospheric turbulenceAlfvén Mach numberradial evolutionmagnetic anisotropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Parker Solar Probe has sampled the solar wind closer to the Sun than any earlier mission, revealing magnetic switchbacks—brief reversals of the magnetic field that keep their strength nearly constant and often ride with the electron strahl. This paper builds a catalog of nearly five thousand such events between roughly 10 and 55 solar radii from the first 24 encounters. It finds that the structures become less purely Alfvénic with distance, exactly as expected once the wind is super-Alfvénic, yet both the fraction of the wind that contains them and their typical spatial size keep rising. At fixed distance the patches prefer faster, higher-Mach-number streams, while their sizes themselves show little dependence on those background parameters. The same data also reveal a clear anisotropy: occurrence rate and intercept length are roughly 1.5 times larger when the spacecraft crosses the ambient field nearly perpendicularly than when it flies along it. The results therefore favor continued local generation and expansion of switchbacks during solar-wind propagation, and they constrain the three-dimensional topology of the patches that contain them.

Core claim

Using a catalog of 4982 magnetic switchbacks identified between 10 and 55 solar radii, the paper shows that switchback Alfvénicity declines with heliocentric distance while occurrence fraction, local spatial occurrence rate, and spatial size all increase (approximately as r^0.8, r^0.3 and r^1, respectively). At fixed r the filling factor correlates with both radial speed and Alfvén Mach number, local occurrence is controlled mainly by Mach number, sizes are independent of those parameters, and both occurrence and size are ~1.5 times larger perpendicular than parallel to the background field for r ≳ 25 R⊙.

What carries the argument

The switchback catalog itself, built by requiring magnetic deflections >90° (z > 0.5), low |B| compressibility, and stable strahl-electron polarity, then converted into physical scales and crossing angles via the relative velocity V_cross = V_PSP − V_SW − V_A in the outward-Alfvén frame.

Load-bearing premise

That the relative velocity constructed under the assumption that switchbacks are outward-propagating Alfvén waves (and often omitting the transverse velocity component) correctly turns observed durations into true physical sizes and angles into geometric anisotropy relative to the ambient field.

What would settle it

If an independent multi-spacecraft or imaging reconstruction of the same switchback patches showed isotropic occurrence and size, or if the radial trends in occurrence and size vanished once a different, non-Alfvénic frame for the crossing path length were used, the central geometric and evolutionary claims would fail.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript constructs a catalog of 4982 near-Sun magnetic switchbacks from Parker Solar Probe encounters E01–E24 (10 < r < 55 R⊙), using magnetic deflections with z > 0.5, low |B| compressibility, and stable strahl-electron polarity, with parameter choices sensitivity-tested against duration spectra (Fig. 2). From 4450 events with reliable density, the authors report that switchback Alfvénicity (σc, σr in parallel and perpendicular components) declines with heliocentric distance; that the spatial filling factor PSB and local occurrence rate νSB increase roughly as r^0.8 and r^0.3; and that characteristic duration and intercept length increase approximately linearly with r. At fixed r, PSB correlates with background VR and MA while νSB is mainly controlled by MA; solar-cycle differences are attributed largely to the MA distribution; and both local occurrence rate and spatial size are reported to be ~1.5 times larger perpendicular than parallel to the background field for 25–55 R⊙ (Fig. 10, Table 2). The catalog is released on Zenodo.

Significance. The work is a substantial empirical contribution. Extending switchback statistics to perihelia near 10 R⊙ across the rise of the solar cycle, with an identification pipeline that combines deflection, compressibility, and strahl polarity and is explicitly tested for threshold robustness, fills a clear observational gap relative to earlier catalogs limited to larger r or fewer encounters. The public event list is a lasting community resource. The decomposition by MA, VR, and solar activity, and the quantitative anisotropy relative to the background field, are new and will constrain formation and expansion models. Core Alfvénicity and duration trends do not rely on the most model-dependent geometric conversions and are therefore especially robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 definitions of V_cross, θ_VB, D_SB; §3.1; §3.5 Eq. (4)/Table 2; §4 points (2),(4),(5)] Spatial rates, sizes, and the claimed anisotropy all convert spacecraft times into path lengths and angles via V_cross ≡ V_PSP − V_SW − V_A and D_SB = ∫|V_cross| dt, θ_VB = arccos(|V_cross·B0|/…), under the premise that switchbacks are outward-propagating Alfvénic fluctuations (Section 3 definitions; Fig. 10m). The same catalog shows σc falling from ~1 toward ~0.8 and σr from ~0 toward ~−0.3 over 10–55 R⊙ (Figs. 4d–g, 7), so that premise is least secure precisely where the power-law fits and the cos(2θ_VB) anisotropy model (Eq. 4, Table 2) are most constrained. A systematic bias in V_A (or residual VT) would couple into the reported radial exponents for PSB, νSB, and D_SB and into γ ≈ 1.5. Please add a quantitative robustness test (e.g., D_SB and θ_VB recomputed with V_A = 0 and/or with VT restored) and a clear caveat that the geometric interpretation of “continued generation/expansion”
  2. [Abstract; §3.1; §4 Discussion point (2)] The inference that rising PSB and νSB with r imply continued local generation or accumulation (Abstract; §3.1; §4 point 2) is not uniquely required by the data. Expansion of pre-existing patches, changing spacecraft sampling relative to patch geometry, and the radial evolution of the MA/VR populations that host switchbacks can all raise the observed filling factor without new in situ generation. The paper already shows strong MA and VR control (§3.2–3.3). Please separate (i) the empirical radial trends from (ii) the generation interpretation, and state what additional observable (e.g., source mapping, sub-Alfvénic vs super-Alfvénic birth rates, or patch-scale coherence) would distinguish generation from expansion/selection.
  3. [Abstract; §3.5; Table 2; Fig. 10] Near the Sun the distribution of θ_VB is strongly peaked at small angles because |VA| dominates V_cross (explicitly noted in §3.5), so the perpendicular bins that set X⊥ and thus γ are sparsely sampled, especially at 10–25 R⊙ where Table 2 reports γ(νSB) with uncertainties of order the value itself (e.g. 79±398, 6±12). The abstract’s global statement that occurrence rate and spatial size are “approximately 1.5 times as large in the perpendicular direction” is only well supported for 25–55 R⊙ and for D_SB/νSB, not for the full radial range or for τ_SB (where fitted γ is larger and more uncertain). Please restrict the abstract and conclusions to the radial range and quantities where the fit is statistically meaningful, and show the number of events (or hours) per θ_VB bin used in the fits.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3, text around Fig. 3] In the paragraph discussing Fig. 3, E21 is labeled “solar minimum” and E01 “solar maximum,” which contradicts both the Fig. 3 caption (E01 minimum, E21 maximum) and §3.4 (E01–E12 low activity, E13–E24 high activity). Swap the parenthetical labels.
  2. [§2.1; MA definition in §3] A_He is fixed at 4% for np and VA. A short statement on how ± few-percent variations in A_He shift MA and the high/low-MA split would help, even if only as a note.
  3. [§3.4] The sunspot-number threshold of 90 that splits E01–E12 vs E13–E24 is stated without justification. One sentence on why 90 (or a sensitivity check with a neighboring threshold) would strengthen §3.4.
  4. [§3.1; Fig. 4] Fig. 4 and related radial-bin panels require >30 hr or >30 events per bin; it would help to mark empty or excluded bins explicitly so the reader can see where the magenta power-law fits are unconstrained.
  5. [Title; Abstract; §3] Typographical/consistency items: “Alfvenicity” vs “Alfvénicity” in the title/abstract; “solar maximum/minimum” wording in the E01/E21 comparison; ensure PSB is consistently a percentage (×100%) in text and figures.
  6. [§1; §3] Prior catalogs (Mozer et al. 2021; Tenerani et al. 2021; Pecora et al. 2022; Huang et al. 2023a) are cited; a brief quantitative comparison of event counts or occurrence rates in the overlapping r range would help place the new catalog.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: core claims are empirical medians, occurrence counts, and descriptive power-law summaries of a new PSP switchback catalog, not predictions forced by fitted inputs or self-definitional reductions.

full rationale

The paper constructs an event catalog via explicit observational criteria (magnetic deflection z > 0.5 with boundary z_bound = 0.05, |B| stability < 0.15, and strahl polarity stability P_σPAD > 0.8; Sec. 2.2 and Fig. 2 sensitivity tests), then reports direct statistics (medians, filling factors P_SB, local rates ν_SB, sizes D_SB/τ_SB, Alfvénicity σ_c/σ_r) binned in r, MA, VR, solar activity, and θ_VB. Power-law fits (e.g., ˜MA(r) = 0.04(r/R⊙)^1.19 used only to split high/low regimes; P_SB ∝ r^0.8, ν_SB ∝ r^0.3, D_SB ∝ r; anisotropy form X(θ_VB) = 10^{a0−a1 cos(2θ_VB)} yielding γ ≈ 1.5) are descriptive summaries of the same catalog data, not independent predictions or first-principles derivations. Definitions of V_cross, θ_VB, and D_SB explicitly assume outward Alfvénic propagation (Sec. 3), but this is a stated modeling choice whose validity is separately checked via measured σ_c/σ_r decline; it does not make the reported radial exponents or γ equal to the inputs by construction. Self-citations (e.g., Shi et al., Sioulas et al.) supply methodological context or related turbulence trends and are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatz sources for the central claims. No step reduces a claimed result to its own definition or a fitted parameter renamed as prediction. Score 1 reflects only routine non-load-bearing self-citation; the analysis is self-contained observational statistics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

Load-bearing content is observational: event selection thresholds, background-field and Alfvén-frame definitions, and descriptive power-law fits. No new physical entities are postulated. Domain assumptions about what constitutes a switchback and how to convert time to path length in an outward Alfvén frame carry the geometric and occurrence claims.

free parameters (9)
  • z_SB deflection threshold = 0.5
    Local z > 0.5 required for candidate switchbacks (90° deflection); sensitivity explored but value is a discrete selection choice that sets the sample.
  • z_bound boundary threshold = 0.05
    z_bound = 0.05 defines switchback edges versus background; changes alter duration spectrum shape.
  • magnetic compressibility cutoff = 0.15
    ⟨δ|B|⟩/⟨|B|⟩ < 0.15 retains candidates; threshold placed near a distribution minimum but is still a free cut.
  • strahl polarity fraction P_σPAD = 0.8
    Requires same σ_PAD polarity over >80% of interval ±5 min; separates switchbacks from current sheets.
  • background window T0 and cadence Δt = T0=6 hr, Δt=1 s
    Median B0 window T0 = 6 hr and magnetic downsampling Δt = 1 s chosen after sensitivity tests; still analysis hyperparameters.
  • alpha-to-proton ratio A_He = 4%
    Fixed A_He = 4% used to convert ne to np and Alfvén speed; not fitted per event.
  • median MA(r) and VR(r) power-law separators = MA∝r^1.19; VR∝r^0.22
    High/low MA and fast/slow splits use fitted medians MÃ(r)=0.04(r/R⊙)^1.19 and VR̃=140(r/R⊙)^0.22 km/s; classification boundaries are data-fit.
  • anisotropy fit form X(θ_VB)=10^{a0−a1 cos(2θ_VB)} = a0, a1 per radial/MA bin (Table 2)
    Angular dependence of ν_SB, τ_SB, D_SB is summarized by a two-parameter log-cosine fit used to quote γ≈1.5.
  • solar-activity sunspot threshold = 90
    Encounters split at monthly mean sunspot number 90 into low (E01–E12) vs high (E13–E24) activity.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption A genuine switchback is a >90° magnetic deflection with nearly constant |B| and stable strahl polarity (not a current sheet or flux rope).
    Section 2.2 identification criteria; standard in the PSP switchback literature but operationalized with specific cuts.
  • domain assumption Switchbacks behave as outward-propagating Alfvénic fluctuations so V_cross = V_PSP − V_SW − V_A defines the relevant path length and θ_VB.
    Section 3 definitions of MA, θ_VB, D_SB; required for spatial rates and anisotropy geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper Iterated median B0 outside low-z intervals represents the ambient background field for deflection angle z.
    Section 2.2 iterative B0 procedure (6 hr median then three updates); method choice affects which intervals count as reversals.
  • domain assumption Neglecting SPAN-I V_T bias does not change the main statistical conclusions.
    Section 2.1 states results were checked with V_T included; still an instrumental modeling assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Rising occurrence with r implies continued local generation or accumulation during expansion, not only selection or expansion of pre-existing structures.
    Interpretive step in abstract and Section 4 point (2); data show occurrence increase but do not uniquely prove generation mechanism.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 23390 in / 3902 out tokens · 41166 ms · 2026-07-14T11:07:32.681856+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Magnetic switchbacks, characterized by reversals of magnetic field direction, are widely observed in the inner heliosphere by Parker Solar Probe (PSP). With PSP reaching perihelia near 10Rs, observations from the first 24 encounters enable studies of near-Sun switchback evolution at r > 10Rs. We construct a switchback catalog within 10 < r < 55Rs by identifying magnetic field reversals with stable field magnitude and strahl-electron polarity. Statistical analysis shows that switchback Alfvenicity decreases with increasing radial distance, consistent with solar wind evolution beyond the Alfven critical point. Meanwhile, switchback occurrence rate and spatial size increase with distance, suggesting continued generation and expansion during solar wind propagation. At a given radial distance, the fraction of solar wind containing switchbacks is positively correlated with background solar wind radial velocity (VR) and Alfven Mach number (MA), while the local occurrence rate is mainly controlled by MA. These results suggest that switchback patches preferentially form in faster and higher-MA solar wind. The spatial size of switchbacks shows no clear dependence on MA or VR, implying that their size evolution is probably not determined by source conditions. Solar activity influences switchback evolution through changes in background solar wind properties, with a larger fraction of higher-MA switchbacks during solar minimum. We further identify anisotropy relative to the background magnetic field direction: the local occurrence rate and spatial size are approximately 1.5 times as large in the perpendicular direction as in the parallel direction, indicating distinct magnetic topology of switchback patches

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10516 by Chen Shi, Xiaolei Li, Yuliang Ding.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of an identified switchback shown as the gray-shaded region. (a) Magnetic field magnitude |B| (black) and the three magnetic field components BR (blue), BT (red), and BN (orange). (b) The deflection parameter z (purple), and the heliocentric distance r (red). zbound = 0.05 (cyan) and zSB = 0.5 (lime) are identification threshold and boundary threshold. (c) The 314 eV electron differential energy fl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Influence of identification parameters on the resulting switchback duration distribution. (a)–(d) The switchback duration distributions τSB for different values of ∆t, T0, zbound, and zSB, respectively. The thick curves correspond to the adopted parameter set used in this study. (e) The joint distribution of ⟨δ|B|⟩/⟨|B|⟩ and PσP AD for potential switchbacks identified using only criterion (1) in Section 2.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Identified switchbacks (gray-shaded regions) in PSP encounter E01 during solar minimum (a1–g1) and E21 during solar maximum (a2–g2). (a)–(c) The same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial evolution of switchback properties and the associated background solar wind over 10 < r < 55R⊙. Panels (a)–(c) show θV B (a), VR (b), and MA (c) for the background solar wind, comparing intervals containing switchbacks only (black) with all PSP observations in E01–E24 (orange). Panels (d)–(g) present switchback Alfv´enicity parameters, including σ ⊥ c (d), σ ∥ c (e), σ ⊥ r (f), and σ ∥ r (g). Panels… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial evolution of switchback properties and the associated background solar wind, separated by low- and high-MA regimes over 10 < r < 55R⊙. (a) Joint distribution of PSP observation time (T) with valid level-3 electron density measurements from RFS, shown as a function of heliocentric distance r (horizontal axis) and background solar wind Alfv´en Mach number MA (vertical axis). The median MA values in ea… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of switchback occurrence rate and size as a function of heliocentric distance and background solar wind Alfv´en Mach number. Panels (a) and (b) show the spatial filling factor of switchbacks in 1-hour cadence, PSB, and the switchback spatial occurrence rate, νSB, respectively, plotted in r–MA space, where r is the heliocentric distance and MA is the Alfv´en Mach number. White contours indicate… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of switchback Alfv´enicity properties as a function of heliocentric distance and background solar wind Alfv´en Mach number. (a) The switchback count distribution in the σ ∥ c –σ ∥ r plane. Marginal one-dimensional distributions of counts versus σ ∥ c and σ ∥ r are shown in the upper and right panels, respectively. (c) and (e) The distributions of σ ∥ c and σ ∥ r , respectively, using the same … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial evolution of switchback properties and the associated background solar wind, separated into slow- and fast-wind regimes over 10 < r < 55R⊙. (a) Joint distribution of PSP observation time (T) with valid level-3 electron density measurements from RFS, shown as a function of heliocentric distance r (horizontal axis) and background solar wind radial velocity VR (vertical axis). The median VR values in e… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial evolution of switchback properties and the associated background solar wind under low- and high-solar-ac￾tivity conditions over 10 < r < 55R⊙. (a) Joint distribution of PSP observation time (T) with valid level-3 electron density measurements from RFS, shown as a function of heliocentric distance r (lower horizontal axis) and PSP encounter number (left vertical axis). The corresponding sunspot numbe… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Switchback occurrence rate and size anisotropy relative to the background magnetic field direction. (a)–(l) Polar distributions of switchbacks as a function of θV B and either hourly occurrence rate νSB, temporal size τSB, or spatial size DSB for low-MA wind (a–c), high-MA wind (d–f), and three heliocentric distance ranges: (10–25)R⊙ (a,d,g,j), (25–40)R⊙ (b,e,h,k), and (40–55)R⊙ (c,f,i,l). Black curves sh… view at source ↗

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

40 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 959, L21

    Raouafi, N. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 959, L21

    2023

  2. [2]

    T., Fargette, N., Matteini, L., et al

    Badman, S. T., Fargette, N., Matteini, L., et al. 2026, Space Science Reviews, 222, 14

    2026

  3. [3]

    2019, Nature, 576, 237

    Bale, S., Badman, S., Bonnell, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 237

    2019

  4. [4]

    D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P

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

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

  5. [5]

    D., Horbury, T

    Bale, S. D., Horbury, T. S., Velli, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d8c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d8c 2021

  6. [6]

    J., Forsyth, R., et al

    Balogh, A., Beek, T. J., Forsyth, R., et al. 1992, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series (ISSN 0365-0138), vol. 92, no. 2, Jan. 1992, p. 221-236. Research supported by SERC., 92, 221 de Wit, T. D., Krasnoselskikh, V. V., Bale, S. D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 39

    1992

  7. [7]

    P., et al

    Fargette, N., Lavraud, B., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 96

    2021

  8. [8]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 7

    Fox, N., Velli, M., Bale, S., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 7

    2016

  9. [9]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 26 Hern´ andez, C

    Halekas, J., Bale, S., Berthomier, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 26 Hern´ andez, C. S., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Bandyopadhyay, R., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 922, L11

    2023

  10. [10]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A9

    Horbury, T., O’brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A9

    2020

  11. [11]

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

    Jagarlamudi, V. K., Raouafi, N., Bourouaine, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 950, L7

    2023

  12. [12]

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

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

    doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0206-3 2016

  13. [13]

    C., Bale, S

    Kasper, J. C., Bale, S. D., Belcher, J. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 228

    2019

  14. [14]

    Kruparova, O., Krupar, V., Szabo, A., Pulupa, M., & Bale, S. D. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf572

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf572 2023

  15. [15]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A3

    Larosa, A., Krasnoselskikh, V., Dudok de Wit, T., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A3

    2021

  16. [16]

    1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 207

    Lepping, R., Ac˜ una, M., Burlaga, L., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 207

    1995

  17. [17]

    E., Kasper, J

    Livi, R., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 138

    2022

  18. [18]

    2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02709

    Mallet, A., Shi, C., Tenerani, A., et al. 2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02709

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    D., Chen, C., & Wang, R

    Meng, M.-M., Liu, Y. D., Chen, C., & Wang, R. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 035018

    2022

  20. [20]

    Meyrand, R., Squire, J., Mallet, A., & Chandran, B. D. 2025, Journal of plasma physics, 91, E29

    2025

  21. [21]

    S., Bale, S., Bonnell, J., et al

    Mozer, F. S., Bale, S., Bonnell, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 60

    2021

  22. [22]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1001, L29

    Payne, D., Akhavan-Tafti, M., Goodwill, J., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1001, L29

    2026

  23. [23]

    H., Primavera, L., et al

    Pecora, F., Matthaeus, W. H., Primavera, L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 929, L10

    2022

  24. [24]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 34

    Phan, T., Bale, S., Eastwood, J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 34

    2020

  25. [25]

    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

    work page doi:10.1002/2016ja023345 2017

  26. [26]

    J., Badman, S

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

    2024

  27. [27]

    H., Chhiber, R., et al

    Ruffolo, D., Matthaeus, W. H., Chhiber, R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 94

    2020

  28. [28]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 95

    Schwadron, N., & McComas, D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 95

    2021

  29. [29]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A21 21

    Shi, C., Velli, M., Panasenco, O., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A21 21

    2021

  30. [30]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c11

    Shi, C., Panasenco, O., Velli, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c11 2022

  31. [31]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10106

    Sioulas, N., Velli, M., Shi, C., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10106

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03724

    Sioulas, N., Velli, M., Shi, C., et al. 2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03724

    arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N

    Smith, C. W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N. F., et al. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 86, 613

    1998

  34. [34]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, L31

    Tenerani, A., Sioulas, N., Matteini, L., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, L31

    2021

  35. [35]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 95

    Toth, G., Velli, M., & van der Holst, B. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 95

    2023

  36. [36]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 692, A71

    Touresse, J., Pariat, E., Froment, C., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 692, A71

    2024

  37. [37]

    2023, Space Science Reviews, 219, 1

    Tziotziou, K., Scullion, E., Shelyag, S., et al. 2023, Space Science Reviews, 219, 1

    2023

  38. [38]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 73

    Wu, H., Tu, C., Wang, X., & Yang, L. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 73

    2021

  39. [39]

    F., Squire, J., Pariat, E., et al

    Wyper, P. F., Squire, J., Pariat, E., et al. 2026, Space Science Reviews, 222, 43

    2026

  40. [40]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 1

    Kasper, J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 1

    2020