Statistical insights on the decorrelation lengths of solar wind parameters at L1 point under varying conditions

Aakash Gupta; Aparupa Apsara Baruah; Dibyendu Chakrabarty; Gregory G. Howes; Kalyan Bhuyan; Yogesh

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Statistical insights on the decorrelation lengths of solar wind parameters at L1 point under varying conditions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two L1 spacecraft show a clear hierarchy in solar wind spatial coherence: bulk speed persists over thousands of Earth radii, helium abundance decorrelates fastest, and magnetic coherence is largest inside ICMEs and smallest in SIRs.

desk verdict A useful new survey of ACE/Wind spatial coherence across regimes, but the headline decorrelation lengths are extrapolations beyond the sampled separations — treat them as initial-slope estimates, not measured e-folding scales. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02374 v1 pith:GR72DMFK submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Yogesh , Aparupa Apsara Baruah , Dibyendu Chakrabarty , Kalyan Bhuyan , Aakash Gupta , Gregory G. Howes This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph

keywords solarwinddecorrelationlengthspatialcoherenceICMEstreaminteractionregionL1pointcorrelationfunctionspaceweather

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 aims to establish quantitative decorrelation lengths for six solar wind parameters—three magnetic field components, bulk speed, proton density, and helium abundance—using simultaneous two-spacecraft measurements as a function of separation. The central claim is that bulk flow speed is the most spatially coherent parameter in all three regimes (background wind, ICMEs, SIRs), while helium abundance is the weakest, and that magnetic field coherence depends strongly on the solar wind structure: ICMEs show near-unity correlations over large scales consistent with organized flux ropes, whereas SIRs decorrelate fastest, especially in the north-south field component. Establishing these scales matters because they dictate how far a single upstream measurement can be trusted as a proxy for conditions elsewhere, which is central to multi-spacecraft analyses and space weather forecasting.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exponential decay model r(d) = a exp(-d/b), fitted to the Pearson correlation coefficient computed in 10-Earth-radius separation bins from simultaneous measurements by two spacecraft at the L1 point. The parameter b is the characteristic decorrelation length and a is the extrapolated zero-separation correlation. This functional form converts scattered correlation data into a single number per parameter and regime, enabling the paper's cross-comparisons.

What would settle it

A direct check is to compute correlations for spacecraft pairs with separations from 300 to several thousand Earth radii (for example, using data from spacecraft in different heliocentric orbits) and compare the observed decay against the exponential extrapolated from short-range fits. If the correlation drops faster than the extrapolation, the fitted b values overestimate true coherence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a systematic ranking of e-folding decorrelation lengths b obtained from an exponential fit to separation-binned Pearson correlations. In background wind, b ranges from about 8,700 Earth radii for bulk speed down to about 360 Earth radii for the north-south magnetic field and 645 Earth radii for helium abundance. ICMEs push magnetic coherence up to roughly 1,600–2,100 Earth radii with zero-separation correlation essentially unity, while SIRs reduce the north-south component to about 270 Earth radii. The authors interpret this as evidence that ICMEs are magnetically organized structures, SIRs are compressed and turbulent, and composition is inherently patchy.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the correlation decay observed only up to about 300 Earth radii is faithfully described by a single exponential that can be extrapolated far beyond the sampled range; if the decay curve steepens or changes shape at larger separations, every reported decorrelation length is suspect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Bulk speed measurements from a single spacecraft remain representative over separations of thousands of Earth radii, so velocity is safe to share across monitors.
North-south magnetic field decorrelates within a few hundred Earth radii in background wind and SIRs, limiting the reach of upstream Bz forecasts for space weather.
ICMEs keep magnetic field coherent over roughly 2,000 Earth radii, so multi-spacecraft encounters with the same flux rope are plausible at those distances.
The coherence hierarchy gives a simple observational way to distinguish background wind, ICMEs, and SIRs by how correlations decay with separation.
Helium abundance coherence is short, so careful cross-calibration is needed when combining composition measurements from different spacecraft.

Reading between the lines

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

The fitted b values likely overstate true coherence lengths because the data only span about 300 Earth radii while the fitted exponentials imply far larger scales; the paper itself concedes this in its discussion.
A natural extension would test whether a two-scale or non-exponential model fits the observed decay better at short separations, which would change the inferred hierarchy.
The geometric dependence hinted at by parallelogram-like scatter suggests decomposing separations into field-parallel and field-perpendicular components could reveal anisotropy in decorrelation scales.
If the exponential form is unreliable, the practical rule for space weather may be simpler: do not extrapolate Bz, whatever the fitted length.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things before reading this one. First, it does something genuinely new: it quantifies spatial coherence for alpha-to-proton abundance and separately for ICMEs and SIRs, not just background-wind magnetic field and velocity as in most prior work. Second, the quantitative claims in Table 1 are much weaker than the abstract implies. Most fitted e-folding lengths exceed the maximum sampled separation of ~300 RE by factors of 2–30. For background wind speed, b is ~8674 RE while the data end at 300 RE; the correlation only decays from 1.00 to about 0.966 across the whole range. The fit is essentially determining b from a 3–4% slope at the start of the decay curve. The paper's own §4 concedes this — "the results likely represent only the initial stage of decorrelation rather than the full decay to statistical independence" — but the abstract and conclusions present the b values as decorrelation lengths without that caveat.

What the paper does well: the analysis is careful and honest. Regime separation is thoughtful (magnetic obstacles only for ICMEs, full SIR intervals, buffered background), and the authors flag the Wind/ACE instrument mismatch for helium abundance. The qualitative findings are plausible and likely robust: bulk speed is the most coherent parameter, Bz and AHe the least, ICMEs more magnetically coherent than SIRs. Those differences show up in the initial slopes even if the absolute b values are unreliable.

The soft spots are the extrapolation issue and the ad hoc exponential model. The single-exponential form is assumed, not tested, and there is no comparison to a power law or two-scale model. So the reported b values should be reframed as initial-slope parameters, not decorrelation lengths. The AHe result is further compromised by the Faraday Cup vs. ESA measurement difference; the authors acknowledge this but cannot remove it with the present data. These are real limitations, but they do not kill the paper's qualitative contribution.

Who is this for? Space weather forecasters and anyone merging multi-spacecraft L1 data. It deserves a serious referee because the empirical comparison is new and the qualitative hierarchy is useful, but it needs revision before publication: present b as a lower-bound initial scale, test the exponential assumption, and discuss the extrapolation in the abstract. I'd send it to review and ask for those changes.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes simultaneous ACE and Wind measurements to estimate spatial correlation of six solar wind parameters (Bx, By, Bz, V, Np, AHe) versus spacecraft separation, in three regimes (background, ICME magnetic clouds, SIRs). For each parameter and regime, binned Pearson correlation coefficients are fitted to r(d)=a exp(-d/b) and the e-folding length b is reported (Table 1). The main claimed result is a coherence hierarchy with V most coherent and AHe least coherent, with ICMEs having the largest and SIRs the smallest magnetic coherence scales.

Significance. Empirical constraints on solar wind spatial coherence are important for multi-spacecraft interpretation and space weather forecasting. The paper's regime-specific separation into background, ICME, and SIR, and its inclusion of helium abundance, respond to a real gap in the literature. The central quantitative claims, however, are not established by the data as analyzed: most fitted b values exceed the maximum sampled separation by factors of 2-30, so the exponential fit can only measure an initial decay slope. The authors' own §4 caveat concedes this. If the paper is reframed around directly sampled initial decorrelation rates, the qualitative ordering may survive, but the specific b values in Table 1 cannot be treated as measured correlation lengths without additional data or model validation.

major comments (4)

[§3.2–3.4, Table 1] b is not identified by the data. The maximum sampled separation is ~300 RE (§3), yet most fitted b values exceed 300 RE; for background V, b=8674±1143 RE, so the predicted correlation drops only by a factor exp(-300/8674)≈0.97 over the whole sampled range. The fit therefore determines b from a ~3% change in the initial slope, not from a measured decay to statistical independence. The §4 statement that the results 'likely represent only the initial stage of decorrelation rather than the full decay' is an explicit acknowledgement of this. As written, the abstract's quantitative hierarchy of decorrelation lengths is unsupported. Reframe the claims as constraints on the initial slope over d≤300 RE, or demonstrate that the single-exponential form continues beyond the sampled range.
[Eq. (1) and §3.2] The exponential decay model is assumed with no empirical test. Because most fitted b exceed the sampled range, the data cannot distinguish r(d)=a exp(-d/b) from a power law or stretched-exponential decay, and the ranking of parameters by b is model-dependent. The fitted intercepts also exceed unity for some parameters (e.g., a=1.01 for ICME Bz and V, Table 1), which is unphysical for a correlation coefficient. The paper does not provide goodness-of-fit statistics, bin-count uncertainties, or comparison with alternative forms. Reporting the directly measured r at the largest bin and the initial slope over 0–300 RE, both model-independent, would be more informative than extrapolated b values.
[§3.2 and §4, AHe] The conclusion that AHe has weakest coherence is confounded by cross-instrument differences. AHe is measured by SWE Faraday cups on Wind and SWEPAM ESAs on ACE; the paper acknowledges this. The fitted zero-separation intercept a is 0.83±0.03 for background and 0.73–0.75 for SIR/ICME, substantially below unity, showing imperfect agreement at zero separation. This instrument offset directly sets the amplitude of the fitted decay, so the low b for AHe is not purely a spatial decorrelation scale. A cross-calibration or normalization prior to correlation, or an explicit limit on how much of the observed decorrelation can be attributed to instrument offsets, is required.
[§3.1, Eq. (1)] The use of total scalar spacecraft separation ignores the orientation of the separation vector relative to the mean magnetic field and solar wind flow. For anisotropic turbulence, correlation decay differs strongly between parallel and perpendicular separations, and the paper itself notes 'parallelogram-like structure' in the data that may reflect geometry. As a result, the fitted b values are averages over mixed geometries. This should be stated as a limitation, or the analysis should be stratified by separation orientation, especially for Bz in SIRs where compression enhances anisotropy.

minor comments (5)

[§2.2 / Abstract] The ICME results are restricted to magnetic cloud/magnetic obstacle intervals, but the abstract and conclusions use 'ICME' generically. Use consistent terminology to avoid overgeneralizing to all ICMEs.
[Table 1] The column labelled 'WIND' should be 'Background' for consistency with the text and figures.
[Figure 1 and §3.1] The text and figure use r^2 for a Pearson correlation coefficient; this is ambiguous with the coefficient of determination. Use r or R^2 consistently and state which is reported.
[§3.2 / Figure 2] The text says separations extend to more than 300 RE, but Figure 2 axes extend to 400 RE. Clarify the binning and whether the largest bins are sparsely populated.
[References] Several cited papers are future-dated or not yet publicly available (e.g., Mayank et al. 2026, Yogesh et al. 2026). If these are preprints, give stable identifiers; otherwise verify bibliographic status.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coherence-length estimates are direct exponential fits to ACE/Wind correlation data, and the self-citations are background context, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central results are obtained by computing Pearson correlation coefficients from simultaneous ACE and Wind measurements, binning them by spacecraft separation, and fitting the exponential model r(d)=a*exp(-d/b) (Eq. 1) separately for background, ICME, and SIR intervals. The reported b values are fitted parameters summarizing the observed decay; there is no step in which a prediction is derived from theory, so there is no self-definitional circularity and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to Yogesh et al. (2021-2024) appear only as background references for known helium-abundance behavior under different solar wind regimes, not as evidence for the coherence hierarchy in Table 1, which comes from the present fits. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The manuscript's own caveat in Section 4 - 'the results likely represent only the initial stage of decorrelation rather than the full decay to statistical independence' - is a limitation about extrapolation and model validity, not circularity, because the paper openly acknowledges that some inferred b values exceed the sampled separation range. Thus the derivation is self-contained with respect to circularity concerns.

Assumptions & free parameters 18 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are fitted exponential parameters (a, b) for each parameter and regime; these are free parameters fitted to binned ACE-Wind correlations. The key problematic assumption is the single-exponential form combined with the fact that most b values exceed the sampled separation range, making them extrapolations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (18)

a, b for Bx, background wind = a=0.91±0.02, b=1130.89±165.84 RE
Fitted exponential parameters to binned ACE-Wind correlations; b exceeds sampled range (max ~300 RE).
a, b for By, background wind = a=0.92±0.02, b=1103.72±137.23 RE
Fitted exponential parameters to binned ACE-Wind correlations; b exceeds sampled range.
a, b for Bz, background wind = a=0.87±0.05, b=357.83±43.43 RE
Fitted exponential parameters to binned ACE-Wind correlations; b slightly exceeds sampled range.
a, b for V, background wind = a=1.00±0.00, b=8673.87±1143.46 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b is an extrapolation far beyond the sampled range (up to ~300 RE).
a, b for Np, background wind = a=0.94±0.02, b=1711.04±236.85 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b exceeds sampled range.
a, b for AHe, background wind = a=0.83±0.03, b=644.67±93.40 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b exceeds sampled range.
a, b for Bx, ICME = a=1.00±0.02, b=1625.01±251.37 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b exceeds sampled range.
a, b for By, ICME = a=1.00±0.02, b=2143.88±500.95 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b exceeds sampled range.
a, b for Bz, ICME = a=1.01±0.03, b=1077.78±178.91 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b exceeds sampled range.
a, b for V, ICME = a=1.01±0.01, b=7762.17±2215.69 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b is an extrapolation far beyond the sampled range.
a, b for Np, ICME = a=0.92±0.04, b=1046.47±221.06 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b exceeds sampled range.
a, b for AHe, ICME = a=0.75±0.07, b=808.91±337.91 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b exceeds sampled range.
a, b for Bx, SIR = a=0.89±0.04, b=896.29±185.72 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b exceeds sampled range.
a, b for By, SIR = a=0.91±0.03, b=996.95±169.58 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b exceeds sampled range.
a, b for Bz, SIR = a=0.90±0.06, b=272.66±32.79 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b is within the sampled range.
a, b for V, SIR = a=1.00±0.01, b=6391.40±1372.37 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b is an extrapolation far beyond the sampled range.
a, b for Np, SIR = a=0.95±0.03, b=1203.06±190.47 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b exceeds sampled range.
a, b for AHe, SIR = a=0.73±0.07, b=346.04±65.63 RE
Fitted exponential parameters; b slightly exceeds sampled range.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Correlation decay is isotropic, depending only on scalar separation distance |Δr|, not on orientation relative to B or flow.
Used throughout §3.2-3.4; the authors note in §3.1 that the parallelogram structure in Fig. 1 may relate to parallel/perpendicular separation, but the binning uses only distance magnitude.
ad hoc to paper The correlation decay is described by a single exponential a exp(-d/b) over the sampled range.
Model chosen in Eq. (1); the paper's §4 admits it 'may not fully capture the underlying physics.'
domain assumption 2-min averaged ACE/Wind measurements represent the same solar wind structures, and time differences (advection between spacecraft) do not contribute to decorrelation.
Measurements are simultaneous in time but at different spatial locations; no time-delay correction is applied. This is standard for two-point correlation but assumes stationarity over the advection time.
domain assumption Event intervals from the Wind ICME catalog (Nieves-Chinchilla et al. 2019) and Chi et al. (2018) SIR catalog are correctly classified.
Used for regime separation in §2.2; errors in catalogs propagate to the fitted parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Statistical insights on the decorrelation lengths of solar wind parameters at L1 point under varying conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GR72DMFK

@misc{pith2026260802374,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Statistical insights on the decorrelation lengths of solar wind parameters at L1 point under varying conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GR72DMFK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02374}
}

read the original abstract

Understanding the spatial coherence of solar wind plasma and magnetic field properties is essential for interpreting multi-spacecraft observations and for characterizing the large-scale structure of heliospheric transients. In this study, we quantify the spatial correlation of six key solar wind parameters - interplanetary magnetic field components, bulk flow speed, proton number density, and the alpha-to-proton abundance ratio - using simultaneous measurements from the ACE and Wind spacecraft as a function of their instantaneous separation distance. The analysis is performed separately for intervals of background solar wind, Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections (ICMEs), and Stream Interaction Regions (SIRs). The decay of the Pearson correlation coefficient with distance is modeled using an exponential function to infer characteristic de-correlation length scales. We find that the bulk solar wind speed is the most spatially coherent parameter in all regimes, while plasma composition exhibits the weakest coherence. Magnetic field coherence shows strong dependence on solar wind structure: ICMEs display near-unity correlations and the largest magnetic coherence scales, consistent with organized, flux-rope-like configurations, whereas SIRs exhibit reduced coherence - particularly in the north - south magnetic field component - reflecting compressed and turbulent plasma. The background solar wind exhibits intermediate behavior, with large-scale coherence in bulk plasma properties but shorter coherence lengths in magnetic fluctuations. These results provide a quantitative framework for distinguishing solar wind structures based on their spatial coherence properties and have important implications for multi-point solar wind studies and space weather applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02374 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Correlation evolution of plasma and magnetic field parameters with distance during backgroun solar wind intervals. Correlation coe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Correlation evolution of plasma and magnetic field parameters with distance during ICME intervals. Each panel shows the correlation coe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Correlation evolution of plasma and magnetic field parameters with distance during SIR intervals. Panels show the variation of correlation coe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

L., & Kasper, J

Alterman, B. L., & Kasper, J. C. (2019). Helium Variation across Two Solar Cycles Reveals a Speed-dependent Phase Lag.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 879(1), L6. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2391.arXiv:1906.12273. Borovsky, J. E. (2008). Flux tube texture of the solar wind: Strands of the magnetic carpet at 1 AU?Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physic...

arXiv 2019
[4]

Tripathi, D., Chakrabarty, D., Nandi, A

doi:10.1007/ s41116-021-00030-3.arXiv:2104.04261. Tripathi, D., Chakrabarty, D., Nandi, A. et al. (2022). The aditya-l1 mission of isro.Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union,18(S372), 17–27. Viall, N. M., DeForest, C. E., & Kepko, L. (2021). Mesoscale Structure in the Solar Wind.Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences,8,

arXiv 2022
[10]

Richardson, J

doi:10.1007/ s41116-017-0011-z. Richardson, J. D., & Kasper, J. C. (2008). Solar cycle variations of solar wind dynamics and structures.Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 70(2-4), 219–225. doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2007.08.039. Richardson, J. D., Paularena, K. I., Lazarus, A. J. et al. (1995). Radial evolution of the solar wind from imp 8 to ...

doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2007.08.039 2008
[12]

Taylor, G

doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/aabb00. Taylor, G. I. (1938). The Spectrum of Turbulence.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A,164(919), 476–490. doi:10.1098/rspa.1938.0032. Temmer, M. (2021). Space weather: the solar perspective: An update to Schwenn (2006).Living Reviews in Solar Physics,18(1),

arXiv 1938
[16]

Yadav, V

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-45088-9_18. Yadav, V . K., Vijaya, Y ., Krishnam Prasad, B. et al. (2025). The Fluxgate Magnetometer (MAG) on Board Aditya-L1 Spacecraft.Solar Physics,300(3),

work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-45088-9_18 2025
[18]

Yogesh, Ofman, L., Klein, K

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad84d6.arXiv:2410.04713. Yogesh, Ofman, L., Klein, K. G. et al. (2026). Solar Wind Heating near the Sun: A Radial Evolution Approach.The Astrophysical Journal,999(2),

arXiv 2026
[21]

Seetha, S., & Megala, S

doi:10.1007/s12036-026-10134-7. Seetha, S., & Megala, S. (2017). Aditya-l1 mission.Current Science, (pp. 610–612). Smith, C. W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N. F. et al. (1998). The ACE Magnetic Fields Experiment.Space Science Reviews,86, 613–632. doi:10.1023/A: 1005092216668. Smith, C. W., Vasquez, B. J., Coburn, J. T. et al. (2018). Correlation Scales of the T...

work page doi:10.1007/s12036-026-10134-7 2017
[33]

Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N

doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02440-0.arXiv:2406.19757. Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N. (2021). Evidence for distinctive changes in the solar wind helium abundance in solar cycle 24.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,503(1), L17–L22. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab016.arXiv:2102.05395. Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N. (2022). A holistic...

arXiv 2021

Show all 19 references

[37]

Legrand, J.-P., & Simon, P

doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02443-x. Legrand, J.-P., & Simon, P. A. (1985). Some solar cycle phenomena related to the geomagnetic activity from 1868 to

1985 doi
[89]

Ofman, L., Yogesh, & Giordano, S

doi:10.1007/s11207-019-1477-8. Ofman, L., Yogesh, & Giordano, S. (2024). Understanding the variability of helium abundance in the solar corona using three-fluid modeling and ultraviolet obser- vations.The Astrophysical Journal Letters,970(1), L16. URL:https://dx.doi.org/10.384...

2024 doi
[92]

Hapgood, M

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a46. Hapgood, M. A. (1992). Space physics coordinate transformations: A user guide.Planetary and Space Science,40(5), 711–717. doi:10.1016/0032-0633(92) 90012-D. Hapgood, M. A., Lockwood, M., Bowe, G. A. et al. (1991). Variability of the interplanetary...

1992 arXiv
[97]

Fisk, L., & Gloeckler, G. (2012). Particle acceleration in the heliosphere: implications for astrophysics.Space science reviews,173, 433–458. Fisk, L., & Gloeckler, G. (2014). The case for a common spectrum of particles accelerated in the heliosphere: Observations and theory.J...

2012 arXiv
[128]

Parker, E

doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02533-w. Parker, E. N. (1958). Dynamics of the Interplanetary Gas and Magnetic Fields.The Astrophysical Journal,128,

1958 doi
[139]

Weimer, D

doi:10.3389/ fspas.2021.735034. Weimer, D. R., Ober, D. M., Maynard, N. C. et al. (2003). Predicting interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) propagation delay times using the minimum variance technique.Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics),108(A1),

2021
[182]

Richardson, I

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac281b. Richardson, I. G. (2018). Solar wind stream interaction regions throughout the heliosphere.Living Reviews in Solar Physics,15(1),

2018 doi
[225]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4582.arXiv:2602.10275
[664]

Parker, E

doi:10.1086/146579. Parker, E. N. (1965). The passage of energetic charged particles through interplanetary space.Planetary and Space Science,13(1), 9–49. doi:10.1016/ 0032-0633(65)90131-5. Perrone, D., Stansby, D., Horbury, T. et al. (2019). Radial evolution of the solar wind...

1965 doi
[1026]

Wicks, R

doi:10.1029/2002JA009405. Wicks, R. T., Chapman, S. C., & Dendy, R. O. (2009). Spatial Correlation of Solar Wind Fluctuations and Their Solar Cycle Dependence.The Astrophysical Journal,690(1), 734–742. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/734.arXiv:0711.4814. Wicks, R. T., Owens, M. J....

2009 arXiv
[1980]

Lepping, R

I - The shock events, or the interplanetary expansion of the toroidal field.Astronomy&Astrophysics,152(2), 199–204. Lepping, R. P., Ac ˜una, M. H., Burlaga, L. F. et al. (1995). The Wind Magnetic Field Investigation.Space Science Reviews,71(1-4), 207–229. doi:10.1007/ BF007513...

1995 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

L., & Kasper, J

Alterman, B. L., & Kasper, J. C. (2019). Helium Variation across Two Solar Cycles Reveals a Speed-dependent Phase Lag.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 879(1), L6. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2391.arXiv:1906.12273. Borovsky, J. E. (2008). Flux tube texture of the solar wind: Strands of the magnetic carpet at 1 AU?Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physic...

arXiv 2019

[2] [4]

Tripathi, D., Chakrabarty, D., Nandi, A

doi:10.1007/ s41116-021-00030-3.arXiv:2104.04261. Tripathi, D., Chakrabarty, D., Nandi, A. et al. (2022). The aditya-l1 mission of isro.Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union,18(S372), 17–27. Viall, N. M., DeForest, C. E., & Kepko, L. (2021). Mesoscale Structure in the Solar Wind.Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences,8,

arXiv 2022

[3] [10]

Richardson, J

doi:10.1007/ s41116-017-0011-z. Richardson, J. D., & Kasper, J. C. (2008). Solar cycle variations of solar wind dynamics and structures.Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 70(2-4), 219–225. doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2007.08.039. Richardson, J. D., Paularena, K. I., Lazarus, A. J. et al. (1995). Radial evolution of the solar wind from imp 8 to ...

doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2007.08.039 2008

[4] [12]

Taylor, G

doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/aabb00. Taylor, G. I. (1938). The Spectrum of Turbulence.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A,164(919), 476–490. doi:10.1098/rspa.1938.0032. Temmer, M. (2021). Space weather: the solar perspective: An update to Schwenn (2006).Living Reviews in Solar Physics,18(1),

arXiv 1938

[5] [16]

Yadav, V

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-45088-9_18. Yadav, V . K., Vijaya, Y ., Krishnam Prasad, B. et al. (2025). The Fluxgate Magnetometer (MAG) on Board Aditya-L1 Spacecraft.Solar Physics,300(3),

work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-45088-9_18 2025

[6] [18]

Yogesh, Ofman, L., Klein, K

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad84d6.arXiv:2410.04713. Yogesh, Ofman, L., Klein, K. G. et al. (2026). Solar Wind Heating near the Sun: A Radial Evolution Approach.The Astrophysical Journal,999(2),

arXiv 2026

[7] [21]

Seetha, S., & Megala, S

doi:10.1007/s12036-026-10134-7. Seetha, S., & Megala, S. (2017). Aditya-l1 mission.Current Science, (pp. 610–612). Smith, C. W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N. F. et al. (1998). The ACE Magnetic Fields Experiment.Space Science Reviews,86, 613–632. doi:10.1023/A: 1005092216668. Smith, C. W., Vasquez, B. J., Coburn, J. T. et al. (2018). Correlation Scales of the T...

work page doi:10.1007/s12036-026-10134-7 2017

[8] [33]

Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N

doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02440-0.arXiv:2406.19757. Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N. (2021). Evidence for distinctive changes in the solar wind helium abundance in solar cycle 24.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,503(1), L17–L22. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab016.arXiv:2102.05395. Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N. (2022). A holistic...

arXiv 2021