Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Three-Dimensional Dust Distribution in the Jovian System from Juno/Waves Observations: Insights into the Halo Ring and Magnetospheric Dust

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Juno's Waves instrument maps Jupiter's dust in three dimensions and finds a central density cavity in the halo ring, a structure predicted by dust-dynamics simulations but never directly observed.

desk verdict The 155k-event Juno dust catalog is a real resource, but the halo-ring 'cavity' is, as presented, likely a sampling artifact: the key maps are unnormalized counts with no exposure correction, and Juno's polar orbit spends least time exactly where the hole appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19304 v1 pith:L65TWGJF submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.EP physics.space-ph

Yuqi Zhang (1) , Shengyi Ye (1) , Yuting Li (1) , Wenyue Li (1) , Guangzhou Wang (1) , Xinya Duanmu (1) ((1) Southern University of Science , Technology , Shenzhen
show 1 more author
China)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph
keywords dustphysicsJupiterringsystemhaloimpactdetectionJuno/Wavesmachinelearningmagnetosphericplanetarymagnetosphere
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a decade of Juno/Waves burst-mode waveform data can be turned into a high-resolution, three-dimensional map of Jupiter's dust environment, and that this map reveals an unexpected structure: a central dust-density cavity inside the jovian halo ring. The authors identify 155,043 dust impacts from more than two million snapshots using a machine-learning pipeline, then bin the impacts by position to build density cross-sections. In the halo ring, the measured density is depleted near the ring's center while enhanced on either side, matching the size-dependent dust distributions produced by their charged-grain ring model. A sympathetic reader would care because the result would confirm a long-standing dynamical prediction, extend the known ring's vertical extent, and demonstrate that an electric-field antenna can serve as a long-term dust detector.

What carries the argument

The central tool is a hybrid detection pipeline applied to 50 kHz burst waveforms: a one-dimensional convolutional neural network classifies each snapshot as containing dust or noise, and a first-difference (differential) peak analysis locates individual impact times and amplitudes. The result is a catalog of 155,043 events that is binned in radial distance and altitude and normalized to each map's maximum to expose relative morphology; a simplified charged-grain dust-dynamics model is then used to interpret the binned maps and explain the cavity as a size-dependent equilibrium of small grains.

What would settle it

Recompute the halo-ring maps by dividing each bin's impact count by the total time Waves operated in that bin, ideally also correcting for local effective area and detection threshold; if the central depletion disappears or falls below Poisson significance, the cavity is an artifact. A flyby of the ring center by a dedicated dust detector making direct density measurements would settle it definitively.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the first in situ vertical cross-section of the Jovian halo ring, constructed from Juno/Waves impact detections, contains a previously unresolved dust-density cavity: rather than a simple disk or torus with a density maximum at its center, the ring's cross-section shows a depletion about 10,000 km in radius, with dust concentrated on either side. The authors reproduce this morphology with a simplified dust-dynamics model in which small grains are preferentially located away from the ring center while larger grains are distributed more uniformly, implying the apparent ring structure is controlled by the abundant submicron population. The paper further claims repeatable d

Load-bearing premise

The cavity result depends on raw impact-count maps, normalized to their maxima, accurately representing physical dust density instead of Juno's uneven time-in-bin and variable detection sensitivity along a single eccentric orbit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The halo ring must be modeled as a three-dimensional toroidal structure with a central density depletion, not as a radially confined flattened disk.
  • Electric-field antenna data can serve as a reliable long-term dust detector, so analogous machine-learning pipelines can extract dust populations from other spacecraft with waveform-recording instruments.
  • Dust persists beyond 20 Jovian radii near apojove and at magnetospheric boundary crossings, implying an extended outer dust population that steady-state ring models do not capture.
  • The absence of a dust-flux change across the magnetopause and bow shock indicates the detected grains are large enough to ignore boundary plasma structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cavity survives exposure-time correction, it offers a direct, in situ test of grain-charging and plasma-corotation models: the cavity's size and sharpness should track where small grains' dynamics shift from electromagnetic to gravitational control.
  • A re-analysis that weights each bin by the time Waves was actually operating and by the spacecraft's variable effective area would be the cleanest way to rule out the sampling-artifact alternative without new data.
  • The same classifier-plus-peak approach could be generalized to wave-instrument datasets from other magnetized planets to search for analogous ring cavities, though retraining on each instrument's waveform morphology would be required.
  • If the cavity is real, optical observations at high phase angles might be able to see its signature as a brightness dip in forward-scattered light, connecting remote imaging with in situ mapping.
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. This manuscript presents a hybrid dust-impact detection pipeline for Juno/Waves burst-mode electric-field waveform data (2016-2025), combining a 1D-CNN classifier adopted from Kvammen et al. with rule-based differential peak analysis. The pipeline identifies 155,043 dust impact events from 2,145,778 snapshots and uses them to construct spatial distribution maps of Jovian dust. The main new scientific claim is a previously unresolved central dust-density 'cavity' in the vertical cross-section of the Jovian halo ring, which the authors argue was predicted by Horanyi & Juhasz (2010) simulations. The paper also reports dust detections near the Galilean satellites and near magnetospheric boundary crossings, and it provides an amplitude/size distribution analysis. Data are from the NASA PDS and SPICE kernels; processing codes are described as available on request.

Significance. If the central cavity claim holds, this would be a significant result: the first in-situ, three-dimensional mapping of the Jovian halo ring with a central density depletion, confirming a dynamical prediction and providing a 155,043-event catalog for the community. The pipeline's reported 97.1% classification accuracy on an independent test set is a genuine strength, as is the use of public PDS data. The catalog itself, even without the cavity interpretation, would be useful for future comparative studies of Jovian dust. However, the cavity claim currently rests on raw count maps that have not been corrected for observing time or detection sensitivity, so the scientific novelty is not yet established to the standard required for a journal claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Figures 4-5] The halo-ring 'cavity' claim (abstract; Section 3.2) rests on Figs. 4-5, which show raw dust impact counts binned in r and z and normalized to their maxima. A bin count equals dust density times dwell time in the bin times effective area times detection efficiency; none of the latter three is accounted for. Juno's polar orbit crosses the halo center at high speed near perijove, so the low-|z| bins have the least snapshot dwell time; the claimed ~10,000-km depletion sits exactly where a sampling hole would appear. The blank/black distinction in Fig. 4 does not encode dwell time. Please provide exposure-corrected density maps (counts per snapshot dwell time per effective area) with Poisson or bootstrap errors and show that the central depletion persists.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Figure 5(c,d)] The simulation used to 'explain' the cavity is described as a 'simplified dust dynamics model proposed by Horanyi & Juhasz (2010)' implemented by the authors, but no model parameters, charging model, plasma conditions, grain sizes, or numerical details are given. Without these, the comparison is not independent validation of an unnormalized count map. Please fully document the simulation and, ideally, compare it to exposure-corrected Juno density profiles rather than normalized maps.
  3. [Section 3.1 versus Section 3.2] The paper rightly cautions for the north-south asymmetry that 'observational biases associated with spacecraft trajectory and viewing geometry cannot yet be fully excluded' (Section 3.1), but no such caveat is applied to the halo-ring cavity (Section 3.2). Since the trajectory-bias argument is at least as strong near the ring center, a quantitative coverage map (e.g., per-bin snapshot dwell time) is required to distinguish a physical depletion from an observing-hole artifact.
  4. [Sections 2.3 and 3.2] The detection pipeline uses several thresholds (CNN candidate threshold tau = 0.5, differential peak detection thresholds, bin sizes) whose effect on the final morphology is not reported. Because the cavity is defined by the shape of the binned map, the authors should show that it persists for reasonable variations in these thresholds and for alternative bin grids. A spatial nonuniformity in detection sensitivity (e.g., due to changes in burst-mode duty cycle or noise) could also create or mask the depletion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and Abstract] Typographical errors: 'W aves' in the title and 'previuosly' in Section 3.2; also 'Align with' in Section 5 should be 'Consistent with'.
  2. [Section 3.4 and Figure 8] The text quotes a power-law index alpha = 1.37, while Figure 8 labels the fit as alpha = -1.37. Please reconcile the sign convention and define whether the histogram is p(A) or cumulative.
  3. [Figure 3] The caption describes a 'colored scatter plot' but no color bar or legend is visible. Please clarify the color variable and add a color bar or legend.
  4. [Figure 4] The lower and right marginal profiles are described as 'averaged' over latitude/radius, but the exact averaging formula and handling of empty bins are not given. Please specify how the averages and the 'average dust number density' are computed.
  5. [Section 2.3] The manual annotation process is not fully described: how many snapshots were labeled, by whom, and with what inter-annotator agreement? This is important for the credibility of the 97.1% test-set accuracy.
  6. [Data Availability] The codes are only 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.' Given the machine-learning component and the central cavity claim, a public repository or DOI would greatly improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the halo-ring cavity claim is tested against an independently published 2010 dynamical simulation, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—a dust-density depletion in the halo ring cross-section—is an observed count-map feature (§3.2, Fig. 5a–b) compared with a simulation published by Horányi & Juhász (2010), a prior and independent model. The simulation is not fit to the Juno data; the paper explicitly says it 'implemented the simplified dust dynamics model proposed by M. Horányi & A. Juhász (2010)' to explain the observed low density. There is no equation in which the observed map defines the model output or vice versa. The dust-event catalog is produced by a CNN retrained on manually labeled Juno waveforms plus differential peak detection; classification performance is reported on an independent test set. Calibration constants (effective area 30 m², charge scaling c = 0.023, β = 3.42) come from earlier external laboratory and instrument work, not from the present cavity claim. Self-citations to Ye et al. (2019, 2020) supply detection-mechanism context and a consistency check for the halo size distribution; they are not load-bearing for the cavity. The main threat to the cavity is instead an exposure/coverage artifact: the count maps are not corrected for per-bin dwell time, and §3.1 itself cautions that 'observational biases associated with spacecraft trajectory and viewing geometry cannot yet be fully excluded' for the north–south asymmetry. That is a validity caveat, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar set by the reviewing rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free entities, but its central claims depend on several adopted phenomenological models and on the validity of treating binned impact counts along a single orbit as unbiased number density. The only quantity actually fit to this paper's data is the magnetosheath amplitude index, which is not central to the cavity claim; the main free parameters are thresholds, binning, and an assumed effective area.

free parameters (5)
  • CNN candidate threshold τ = 0.5
    Chosen as default probability cut for flagging dust-like snapshots; affects which snapshots advance to peak detection and therefore the catalog size and spatial distribution.
  • Differential peak detection threshold
    Peak detection on first-difference waveform uses an unspecified threshold/sensitivity; no value or algorithm details are given, so its effect on event counts and the cavity structure cannot be assessed.
  • Spatial bin sizes (halo maps) = Δr=0.01 RJ, Δθ=0.2° (Fig. 4); Δr=0.012 RJ, Δz=0.020 RJ (Fig. 5)
    Bin choice controls whether the central depletion appears as a smooth minimum or a cavity; no bin-size sensitivity test is provided.
  • Effective detection area = 30 m²
    A representative value assumed for flux/density conversion; varies in reality with attitude by 20–40 m², so absolute densities carry systematic uncertainty.
  • Magnetosheath amplitude power-law index = α=1.37
    Best fit to 512 amplitude events near boundaries; used as a characterization, not a fitted 'prediction' for a physical constant.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hypervelocity dust impacts produce voltage transients detectable by Waves antennas and distinguishable from magnetospheric noise by the CNN/differential pipeline.
    The entire catalog rests on this; if many dust events are confused with plasma waves (or vice versa), the spatial maps are wrong. Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Manual labels used to train the CNN are correct and representative of all dust-impact waveforms across the mission.
    Training labels are made by the authors on a subset; no inter-annotator agreement or adversarial noise test is shown. Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Binned impact counts along Juno's trajectory can be interpreted as relative spatial number density without deconvolving spacecraft sampling or variable detector response.
    This is central to the cavity claim; Figures 4–5 show raw count maps normalized to maxima, not density corrected for exposure. Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption The Horányi–Juhász (2010) simplified model is adequate for explaining the observed halo morphology, despite neglecting atmospheric drag and plasma sub-corotation.
    Authors note discrepancies within 1.3 RJ and attribute them to these neglected effects. Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption Empirical charge scaling Q≈c m v^β with β=3.42 and c=0.023 (Collette et al.) applies to Juno impact conditions.
    Used for mass/size estimation in Appendix A; any error propagates to inferred grain sizes.
  • domain assumption Boundary crossings identified via MAG/LFR following Louis et al. are correct.
    782 crossings manually identified; no error/ambiguity analysis. Section 3.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three-Dimensional Dust Distribution in the Jovian System from Juno/Waves Observations: Insights into the Halo Ring and Magnetospheric Dust." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L65TWGJF

@misc{pith2026260719304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three-Dimensional Dust Distribution in the Jovian System from Juno/Waves Observations: Insights into the Halo Ring and Magnetospheric Dust},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L65TWGJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19304}
}
read the original abstract

Discoveries regarding the dusty rings of Jupiter and the Galilean satellites' dust environment have been continuously refined by orbiters and flybys. Leveraging Juno Waves instrument electric field data, we developed a hybrid recognition framework, coupling Kvammen et al.'s Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with rule-based differential peak analysis, to systematically map the Jovian dust environment. This automated pipeline successfully identified over 150,000 dust impacts, effectively isolating dust signals from intense magnetospheric noise, providing a high-resolution catalog of Jovian microdust distribution and offering a robust technical foundation for future missions. Analysis reveals a previously unresolved dust density "cavity" within the vertical cross-section of the Jovian halo ring, which was predicted by previous dust dynamic simulations. Moreover, we report the continued evidence of dust populations near or in the Jovian magnetosheath through identification of background magnetic and plasma data instant variations during magnetospheric boundary crossings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19304 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. illustrates the workflow of our new pipeline, which combines machine learning with traditional methods to establish a dust database. Manual Annotation Dust Non-Dust 1D-CNN Training Dust Non-dust Training details · Input: waveform snapshot · Network: 1D-CNN and SVM · Loss: Binary cross-entropy · Optimizer: ADAM · Validation: 10 random splits · Output: Trained model Model Inference All Signals CNN Score 0.02 0.87 0.17… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Confusion matrix for the dust event classifier on the independent test dataset. The rows denote the true labels and the columns denote the predicted labels. Most samples are correctly classified (diagonal elements), demonstrating balanced performance for both dust and non-dust classes. approach, a total of 155,043 dust impact events were identified. Among them, 34,238 clipped signals exhibit saturated signal amplitu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overall distribution of dust impact events detected by Juno is shown as a colored scatter plot in Jupiter Equatorial Inertial frame (JEIJ2000)(Y. Wang et al. 2023). The spacecraft trajectories are shown in gray, and the gray ellipsoid represents the Jupiter itself. Spacecraft and planetary ephemerides were computed using the NAIF SPICE toolkit through the Python wrapper SpiceyPy (A. Annex et al. 2020), together … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The cumulative dust number density distribution of the halo ring is displayed in r–θ polar coordinates. Each bin with a size of 0.01 RJ and 0.2 degree represents the average dust number density derived from all available dust impact observations and calculations. Black…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , the simulations clearly reproduce the characteristic morphology of the halo ring, in which submicron grains exhibit enhanced densities away from the ring center and a relative depletion near the midplane. In contrast, the micro grains are slightly more uniformly dist…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Three-dimensional schematic of the Jovian magnetosphere and the Juno trajectory in the Jupiter-centered and Sun-fixed equatorial frame. Based on geometric of Jovian magnetosphere from M. J. Rutala et al. (2025), the red and blue surfaces with transparency denote the mo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dust flux variation across the Jovian magnetopause (top panel) and bow shock (bottom panel). The horizontal axis is centered on the boundary crossing time (t = 0), with the left and right sides representing the upstream (Outside) and downstream (Inside) regions, respec…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Power-law distribution of peak amplitudes for dust impact events detected near the Jovian magnetospheric bound￾aries. The log–log probability density distribution is constructed from 512 dust impact events with peak amplitudes ranging from 5 × 10−4 to 0.66 V, after exc…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of background noise or non dust signal snapshot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2050, doi: 10.21105/joss.02050

    Annex, A., Pearson, B., Seignovert, B., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2050, doi: 10.21105/joss.02050

    doi:10.21105/joss.02050 2020

  2. [2]

    G., Meyer-Vernet, N., & Pedersen, B

    Aubier, M. G., Meyer-Vernet, N., & Pedersen, B. M. 1983, Geophys. Res. Lett., 10, 5, doi: 10.1029/GL010i001p00005

    work page doi:10.1029/gl010i001p00005 1983

  3. [3]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27485, doi: 10.1029/2019JA027485

    Bagenal, F., & Dols, V. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27485, doi: 10.1029/2019JA027485

    doi:10.1029/2019ja027485 2020

  4. [4]

    L., Denver, T., et al

    Benn, M., Jorgensen, J. L., Denver, T., et al. 2017, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 4701, doi: 10.1002/2017GL073186

    work page doi:10.1002/2017gl073186 2017

  5. [5]

    A., Showalter, M

    Burns, J. A., Showalter, M. R., Hamilton, D. P., et al. 1999, Science, 284, 1146, doi: 10.1126/science.284.5417.1146

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 11327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3829

    Chen, Z., Yang, K., & Liu, X. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3829

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3829 2024

  7. [7]

    2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 119, 6019, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020042 de Pater, I., Showalter, M

    Collette, A., Gr¨ un, E., Malaspina, D., & Sternovsky, Z. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 119, 6019, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020042 de Pater, I., Showalter, M. R., & Macintosh, B. 2008, Icarus, 195, 348, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.11.029

    work page doi:10.1002/2014ja020042 2014

  8. [8]

    L., Gr¨ un, E., Svedhem, H., et al

    Graps, A. L., Gr¨ un, E., Svedhem, H., et al. 2000, Nature, 405, 48, doi: 10.1038/35011008

    doi:10.1038/35011008 2000

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    A., Fechtig, H., & Giese, R

    Grun, E., Zook, H. A., Fechtig, H., & Giese, R. H. 1985, Icarus, 62, 244, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(85)90121-6 Gr¨ un, E., Zook, H. A., Baguhl, M., et al. 1993, Nature, 362, 428, doi: 10.1038/362428a0 Gr¨ un, E., Hamilton, D. P., Riemann, R., et al. 1996a, Science, 274, 399, doi:...

    1985 doi

  2. [10]

    Scarf, F. L. 1983, Icarus, 53, 236, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(83)90145-8 Hor´ anyi, M., & Juh´ asz, A. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 115, A09202, doi: 10.1029/2010JA015472

    1983 doi

  3. [11]

    V., Wardinski, I., Spahn, F., Kr¨ uger, H., & Gr¨ un, E

    Krivov, A. V., Wardinski, I., Spahn, F., Kr¨ uger, H., & Gr¨ un, E. 2002, Icarus, 157, 436, doi: 10.1006/icar.2002.6848 Kr¨ uger, H., Krivov, A. V., Sremˇ cevi´ c, M., & Gr¨ un, E. 2003, Icarus, 164, 170, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00127-1

    2002

  4. [12]

    S., Hospodarsky, G

    Kurth, W. S., Hospodarsky, G. B., Kirchner, D. L., et al. 2017, SSRv, 213, 347, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0396-y

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Sulaiman, A

    Kurth, W. S., Sulaiman, A. H., Hospodarsky, G. B., et al. 2022, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL098591, doi: 10.1029/2022GL098591

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Wilkinson, D

    Kurth, W. S., Wilkinson, D. R., Hospodarsky, G. B., et al. 2023, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL105775, doi: 10.1029/2023GL105775

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, in EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, EGU–6180, doi: 10.5194/egusphere-egu23-6180

    Kvammen, A., Wickstrøm, K., Kociscak, S., et al. 2023, in EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, EGU–6180, doi: 10.5194/egusphere-egu23-6180

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, Astrodynamics, 3, 17, doi: 10.1007/s42064-018-0031-z

    Liu, X., & Schmidt, J. 2019, Astrodynamics, 3, 17, doi: 10.1007/s42064-018-0031-z

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    K., Jackman, C

    Louis, C. K., Jackman, C. M., Hospodarsky, G., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 128, e2022JA031155, doi: 10.1029/2022JA031155

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    M., & Wilson, L

    Malaspina, D. M., & Wilson, L. B. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 9369, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023209 Nouz´ ak, L., Hsu, S., Malaspina, D., et al. 2018, Planet. Space Sci., 156, 85, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2017.11.014

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Burns, J

    Ockert-Bell, M. E., Burns, J. A., Daubar, I. J., et al. 1999, Icarus, 138, 188, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.6072

    1999

  12. [20]

    2006, Icarus, 183, 122, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.02.001

    Postberg, F., Kempf, S., Srama, R., et al. 2006, Icarus, 183, 122, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.02.001

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    D., et al

    Roth, L., Saur, J., Retherford, K. D., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 171, doi: 10.1126/science.1247051

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Saur, J., et al

    Roth, L., Retherford, K. D., Saur, J., et al. 2026, A&A, 709, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202659406

    2026 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Jackman, C

    Rutala, M. J., Jackman, C. M., Louis, C. K., et al. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 130, e2025JA033842, doi: 10.1029/2025JA033842

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    D., Spohn, T., & McKinnon, W

    Schubert, G., Anderson, J. D., Spohn, T., & McKinnon, W. B. 2004, in Jupiter. The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere, ed. F. Bagenal, T. E. Dowling, & W. B

    2004

  17. [25]

    M., Sternovsky, Z., Garzelli, A., & Malaspina, D

    Shen, M. M., Sternovsky, Z., Garzelli, A., & Malaspina, D. M. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 126, e29645, doi: 10.1029/2021JA02964510.1002/essoar.10507271.1

    2021

  18. [26]

    M., Sternovsky, Z., & Malaspina, D

    Shen, M. M., Sternovsky, Z., & Malaspina, D. M. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 128, e2022JA030981, doi: 10.1029/2022JA030981

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Cheng, A

    Showalter, M. R., Cheng, A. F., Weaver, H. A., et al. 2007, Science, 318, 232, doi: 10.1126/science.1147647

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    F., & Stanley, J

    Singer, S. F., & Stanley, J. E. 1976, Icarus, 27, 197, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(76)90003-8

    1976 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Soderblom, L

    Smith, B. A., Soderblom, L. A., Johnson, T. V., et al. 1979, Science, 204, 951, doi: 10.1126/science.204.4396.951

    1979 doi

  22. [30]

    2026, PSJ, 7, 141, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ae69cd

    Solomonidou, A., Ntinos, C., Stephan, K., et al. 2026, PSJ, 7, 141, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ae69cd

    2026 doi

  23. [31]

    B., Hand, K

    Sparks, W. B., Hand, K. P., McGrath, M. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 121, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/121 15

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Pokorn´ y, P., & Malaspina, D

    Szalay, J. R., Pokorn´ y, P., & Malaspina, D. M. 2024, PSJ, 5, 266, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad8b27

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Kurth, W

    Tsintikidis, D., Gurnett, D. A., Kurth, W. S., & Granroth, L. J. 1996, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 997, doi: 10.1029/96GL00961

    1996 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, Earth and Space Science, 10, e2023EA003147, doi: 10.1029/2023EA003147

    Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Tang, K., & Kong, D. 2023, Earth and Space Science, 10, e2023EA003147, doi: 10.1029/2023EA003147

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    F., Kurth, W

    Ye, S.-Y., Averkamp, T. F., Kurth, W. S., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 125, e06367, doi: 10.1029/2019JE006367

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, Geophys

    Ye, S.-Y., Vaverka, J., Nouzak, L., et al. 2019, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 10,941, doi: 10.1029/2019GL084150

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 855, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020635

    Zaslavsky, A. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 855, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020635

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    A., & Su, S.-Y

    Zook, H. A., & Su, S.-Y. 1982, in Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 893–894

    1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.