Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 90 references

The Wave-Regulated Precursor of a Near-Parallel Interplanetary Shock Observed by Parker Solar Probe

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The upstream foreshock of a near-parallel shock at 0.24 AU is self-regulated: the beam from the shock drives the waves that scatter it, and the measured mean free path is about half the precursor scale.

desk verdict A genuinely new four-family decomposition of a fast PSP shock foreshock, with a credible resonant-scattering loop whose quantitative anchor (L_EP) rests on an untested stationarity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12606 v1 pith:56CK2IE5 submitted 2026-08-12 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Immanuel Christopher Jebaraj , Lucas Colomban , Oleksiy Agapitov , Michael Gedalin , Mikhail Malkov , Athanasios Kouloumvakos , Edin Husidic , Shiladittya Mondal
show 2 more authors
Sunil Yadav Nicolas Wijsen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords interplanetaryshockssolarwindspaceplasmasplasmaastrophysicsAlfvénwavesforeshockdiffusiveshockaccelerationParkerProbe
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

Parker Solar Probe's crossing of a fast (~2800 km/s), near-parallel interplanetary shock at 0.24 AU on 2023 March 13 provides an in situ look at the self-regulation that diffusive shock acceleration assumes. The paper separates the upstream wave field into four families — right-hand and left-hand circular, field-aligned linear, and oblique linear — and argues that the first three are excited by the backstreaming suprathermal-to-MeV proton beam through cyclotron resonance, while scattering that same beam. The measured parallel mean free path, roughly 0.7–2.9 solar radii against a precursor scale of about 5.5 solar radii, leaves the beam anisotropic enough to keep driving the waves. The weak oblique family is compressive and fast magnetosonic, and its field-magnitude modulation shifts the resonance energies of the scattering families by up to 13% along the precursor. If the interpretation is right, acceleration at shocks inside 0.3 AU is set in a foreshock the shock builds for itself.

What carries the argument

The central identity is the cyclotron-resonance condition ω − k∥v∥ = ±Ωci, which assigns each measured wavenumber to a proton energy E_res ≈ ½m_p(Ωci/k∥)² and, together with the quasi-linear mean-free-path estimate λ∥ ∼ r_g (B0/δB)², closes the loop between the beam and the scattering field. The family separation itself is carried by a Morlet-wavelet spectral-matrix analysis that returns signed ellipticity, propagation angle, wavenumber, and the density–field cross-phase for every time–frequency bin. The in-phase density–field cross-phase is the identifying test that places the compressive part of the oblique linear family on the fast magnetosonic branch.

What would settle it

Recompute the density–field cross-phase in the LP-OB band using the quasi-thermal-noise density estimate from the same spacecraft where it is available at comparable resolution; if the near-zero phase difference between density and magnetic-field magnitude is not reproduced, the fast-magnetosonic identification fails. For the self-regulation loop, run a kinetic simulation of a θ_Bn ≈ 8°, M_A ≈ 7.5 shock with a self-consistently driven foreshock and check that the resonant-band transverse amplitude yields a quasi-linear mean free path within a factor of a few of the measured 0.7–2.9 R_sun and that the RH and LH power stays within a factor of two over the shared wavenumber band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the foreshock of the 2023 March 13 shock is a closed loop. The suprathermal-to-MeV protons streaming back from the ramp drive three cyclotron-resonant wave families — right-hand circular (R-mode, ~36% of power), left-hand circular (L-mode, ~37%), and field-aligned linear (~21%) — and those same families scatter the beam with a parallel mean free path λ∥ ≈ 0.7–1.7 R_sun from the quasi-linear estimate (up to 2.9 R_sun from the empirical effective diffusion coefficient), comparable to the measured precursor scale L_EP ≈ 5.48 R_sun. Because only two to three scattering lengths span the precursor, the beam isotropizes only partially and retains the field-aligned drift that feeds the instability. Outside this loop sits the remaining ~6%: an oblique, linearly polarized, compressive population that is fast magnetosonic by its in-phase density–field cross-phase, is not produced by any local beam-driven channel, and modulates the resonant energies of the kinetic families by 3–13% through its δB∥/B0 fluctuations.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's identification of the oblique compressive family as fast magnetosonic depends on the spacecraft-potential electron density being an in-phase, amplitude-faithful proxy for the true plasma density in the 0.003–0.03 Hz band; if that proxy has a frequency-dependent phase lag or contamination, the near-zero density–field cross-phase that pins the LP-OB family to the fast branch loses its identifying power.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The foreshock of a near-parallel shock inside 0.3 AU is self-regulating: the backstreaming proton beam supplies the scattering that controls its own diffusion, so no external wave-amplitude prescription is needed to model upstream transport.
  • The near-equal power of the two circularly polarized families over a common wavenumber band means both pitch-angle hemispheres of the beam are scattered, which is what allows the distribution to stay partly anisotropic while still feeding the instability.
  • The measured mean free path of roughly 0.7–2.9 R_sun against a precursor scale of 5.48 R_sun puts the beam in a diffusive but not fully trapped regime; two or three scattering lengths span the precursor, consistent with the observed exponential pressure profile.
  • The compressive fast-magnetosonic component, though only a few percent of the wave power, shifts the resonant energies of the scattering families by up to 13% along the precursor, so the energy that resonates with a given wave changes as the shock approaches.
  • At stronger or longer-driven shocks, where the precursor pressure ratio approaches order unity, the resonant-band amplitude should approach δB/B0 ~ 1 and the mean free path collapse toward the gyroradius, pushing the system toward the nonlinear, high-rigidity regime invoked for galactic cosmic rays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: apply the same four-family decomposition to other Parker Solar Probe shock crossings with different Mach numbers and check whether the ratio λ∥/L_EP stays near 0.1–0.5; if it does, the self-regulation condition is a universal attractor rather than a property of this event.
  • If the LP-OB family is indeed pre-existing fast-mode turbulence advected from the solar wind, its amplitude just upstream of a shock is a probe of the ambient seed-fluctuation level rather than a shock product; comparing LP-OB amplitude to quiet-time solar-wind fast-mode levels would separate the two.
  • The 3–13% resonance-energy modulation implies the injection energy for diffusive shock acceleration varies with distance upstream; using a fixed resonance energy in transport models would misplace the spectral cutoff.
  • The near-equal RH and LH power implies the backstreaming beam's backward pitch-angle hemisphere is substantially populated; measured pitch-angle distributions of 0.3–1 MeV protons should show a filled counter-streaming component rather than a narrow beam.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents Parker Solar Probe observations of the fast, near-parallel interplanetary shock of 2023 March 13 at 0.24 AU. Using a wavelet decomposition of the upstream magnetic field, the authors separate the foreshock wave field into four families: right-hand and left-hand circularly polarized waves, a field-aligned linear family, and an oblique linear family. They identify the first three as cyclotron-resonant with backstreaming suprathermal-to-MeV protons and the oblique family as a non-resonant, compressive fast-magnetosonic component. The central quantitative step is a comparison in Section 5 between a quasi-linear parallel mean free path lambda_par ~ r_g (B0/deltaB)^2 and an empirical lambda_par = 3 kappa_eff / v with kappa_eff = u1 L_EP from an exponential fit to the energetic-particle pressure precursor. The agreement (lambda_par ~ 0.7-1.7 R_sun versus 1.9-2.9 R_sun) is interpreted as evidence that the beam drives the waves that scatter it, leaving the beam anisotropic enough to sustain the drive.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this is the first in situ resolution of the self-regulated foreshock of a fast near-parallel shock close to the Sun, and it provides a concrete, quantitative test of the quasi-linear resonant-scattering loop that underlies diffusive shock acceleration. The paper's strengths include the use of independent measurements for the polarization/wavenumber classification, the hodogram and compressibility checks, the explicit derivation of the quasi-linear estimate from measured B0 and deltaB_res rather than from the precursor fit, and the detailed appendices documenting the single-spacecraft estimators. The qualitative picture of beam-driven RH and LH waves over a common band, with both helicities present, is credible and internally consistent. The quantitative self-regulation claim, however, rests on the time-to-space conversion x = u1(tshock - t), which requires the precursor to be stationary in the shock frame; this assumption is asserted but not independently tested. The compressive fast-mode identification also depends on the spacecraft-potential density proxy, for which a direct phase calibration at the LP-OB frequencies is not provided.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A.4 and Appendix C] The central comparison in Section 5, between the quasi-linear lambda_par ~ 0.7-1.7 R_sun from Eq. (6) and the empirical lambda_par = 3 kappa_eff / v ~ 1.9-2.9 R_sun, uses kappa_eff = u1 L_EP with L_EP obtained by fitting PEP(t) against x = u1(tshock - t) in Appendix B. This time-to-space conversion is valid only if the upstream precursor is stationary in the shock frame. The paper asserts stationarity in Section 2 ('Fully developed means stationary: the family statistics and the pressure gradient hold steady'), but the support offered is the constancy of the same time series that defines the exponential profile; a spatially uniform but temporally rising energetic-particle population at the shock would produce an exponential time profile with the same constant e-folding time. The single-spacecraft geometry cannot distinguish these cases, and the 'family statistics hold steady' statement does not break the degeneracy. Because the self-regulation claim is quantitatively anchored by this comparison, the manuscript should either provide an independent stationarity test (for example, energy-dependent e-folding scales from EPI-Lo channels, which should scale with kappa(E)/u for a spatial diffusion profile) or explicitly reframe the comparison as conditional on stationarity. Without such a test, the statement 'the measured mean free path, half the precursor scale' is not supported.
  2. [Appendix A.4 and Appendix C] The identification of the LP-OB family as fast magnetosonic rests on the density-field cross-phase Phi(delta_n, delta_|B|) ~ 0, where delta_n is derived from the spacecraft floating potential (Appendix A.4). The paper states that the potential method fails above tau_c^{-1} >~ 10 kHz, well above the 0.003-0.03 Hz LP-OB band, but no measured tau_c for this interval is reported and no direct cross-calibration of the potential-density fluctuations against quasi-thermal-noise density within the LP-OB band is shown. The measured amplitude ratio |delta_n/n| / |delta_B_par/B0| ~ 1.4 (Appendix C) is attributed to the 'multiplicative uncertainty' of the density calibration, which indicates that amplitude fidelity is not independently established. If the potential response has a frequency-dependent phase or contamination, the in-phase signature and the derived 3-13% resonance-energy shift would not be uniquely attributable to fast magnetosonic compression. Please provide a quantitative phase calibration of the spacecraft-potential density at these frequencies or an independent density fluctuation measurement over the LP-OB band.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 2 and 3] The multi-panel Figures 2 and 3 are extremely dense; the small panel labels and overlaid distributions make it difficult to verify the family separations visually. Consider publishing full-resolution versions or splitting the spectrograms and the occurrence/statistics panels into separate figures.
  2. [Section 3] The split of the linearly polarized class at theta_kB = 45 degrees is presented without a physical justification or a sensitivity test. Because the LP-OB family is defined by this threshold, it would strengthen the classification to show how the power fractions and the cross-phase separation vary when the threshold is moved within, say, 35-55 degrees.
  3. [Section 4] The paper acknowledges that the LP-FA family could be a coherent superposition of RH and LH packets rather than an independent linear mode, but the branch assignment that follows 'rests on the drive' and is not independently verified. Please state explicitly whether the physical conclusions require LP-FA to be an independent resonant family, or clarify how the drive argument distinguishes a directly excited shear-Alfven mode from a superposition artifact.
  4. [References] Several key references are to works that are submitted, in press, or arXiv-only (for example, Kouloumvakos et al. 2026, Capanema et al. 2026, Giacalone et al. 2026, Raptis et al. 2026). The claims that rely on these should be clearly marked as preliminary, and the companion paper should be cited with its current status.
  5. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract states that the measured mean free path is 'half the precursor scale,' while Section 5 gives ranges of 0.7-1.7 R_sun versus 1.9-2.9 R_sun, i.e., a factor between roughly 1.1 and 4. Please ensure the wording reflects the range and the associated uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quasi-linear scattering estimate is compared with an independently measured precursor scale, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The precursor scale L_EP = 5.48 R_sun is obtained by fitting the measured EPI-Lo pressure profile (Appendix B), and the empirical kappa_eff = u1 L_EP and lambda_parallel = 3 kappa_eff / v are standard diffusion-convection identities, not quantities fitted to the wave data. The quasi-linear estimate in Equation (6) uses independently measured B0 and the resonant-band amplitude delta_B_res / B0 (Appendix B), so the comparison between the two mean-free-path estimates is a genuine consistency test rather than a construction. The wave-family identifications are tested against hodograms, compressibility, and density-field cross-phase rather than assumed. Self-citations to the companion paper (Kouloumvakos et al. 2026) and to Malkov & Jebaraj (2026) support peripheral context such as maximum rigidity and magnetic pumping, and they are not load-bearing for the central self-regulation loop. The stationarity assumption underlying x = u1 (t_shock - t) and the spacecraft-potential density proxy are potential measurement or correctness risks, but they are not reductions of the claimed prediction to its inputs. No circular step is exhibited in the paper's reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the four wave families are classifications of known MHD/kinetic branches, not new particles, forces, or dimensions. Two hand-chosen or hand-fitted parameter sets enter the analysis: the precursor-scale fit L_EP and the family-definition thresholds. The central resonant-loop conclusion does not reduce to a fitted parameter, because L_EP enters as a measured comparison scale and the wave identification uses independently measured B, n, and V_phi.

free parameters (2)
  • Precursor scale L_EP = about 5.48 R_sun, without quoted uncertainty
    Exponential fit to the EPI-Lo energetic-particle pressure over the inner foreshock; sets kappa_eff = u_1 L_EP, used to compare with the quasi-linear mean free path in Section 5.
  • Family-definition thresholds = ellipticity partition |epsilon|=0.2; LP split at theta_kB=45 degrees; LP-OB band 0.003-0.03 Hz; 900 s and 300 s…
    Hand-chosen analysis cutoffs define the four families and the compressive amplitude in Appendix C, so they control which fluctuations are counted as LP-OB and how much power each family receives.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-spacecraft spectral-matrix analysis reconstructs wave-normal direction k_hat and phase velocity V_phi from magnetic and electric fields at one point (SVD of S_ij plus Faraday relation).
    The entire wavenumber and propagation-angle identification, and therefore the resonant-energy assignment, depends on this plane-wave single-spacecraft inversion, with unresolved E_R acknowledged in Appendix B.
  • domain assumption The upstream fluctuations are stationary in the shock frame and are convected past the spacecraft at steady u_1, so time-to-distance x = u_1(t_shock - t) holds.
    Converts the 06:15-07:13 UT interval into the spatial precursor and yields L_EP; a time-dependent foreshock would change all derived spatial scales. Section 2 states that u_1 is steady and the interval is fully developed.
  • domain assumption The spacecraft-potential electron density is an in-phase proxy for plasma density over the analyzed band, via n proportional to exp(-V_sc/V_pe)+C_b calibrated against quasi-thermal-noise density.
    The fast-mode identification of LP-OB and the cross-phase Phi(delta_n, delta_|B|) use this proxy at 0.003-0.03 Hz; any frequency-dependent phase lag would invalidate the in-phase/antiphase criterion. Appendix A.4 and C.
  • domain assumption Linear cyclotron-resonance and quasi-linear diffusion theories describe the excitation and scattering (Eqs. 1, 5, 6; Gary 1985; Lee 1983), with a hot, partially isotropized beam supplying both hemispheres for L-mode growth.
    The self-regulation loop and the lambda_par estimate rely on these theories; no nonlinear simulation is used to check saturation or mode coupling. Sections 4 and 5.
  • domain assumption Representative upstream parameters (B_0 about 80 nT, n about 30 cm^-3, v_A about 320 km/s, c_s about 140 km/s) are used for dispersion curves and resonance energies.
    These are representative values rather than per-bin fitted quantities. The resulting E_res and lambda_par values inherit their uncertainty, and the paper quotes no propagated errors. Section 2 and Appendix B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Wave-Regulated Precursor of a Near-Parallel Interplanetary Shock Observed by Parker Solar Probe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/56CK2IE5

@misc{pith2026260812606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Wave-Regulated Precursor of a Near-Parallel Interplanetary Shock Observed by Parker Solar Probe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/56CK2IE5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12606}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusive shock acceleration, at shocks from coronal mass ejections to supernova-remnant blast waves, presupposes a scattering wave field that the accelerated particles themselves maintain. This self-regulation has not been resolved in situ. We report Parker Solar Probe observations of a fast (~2800 km/s), near-parallel interplanetary shock at 0.24 AU on 2023 March 13 and separate its upstream wave field into four families, a classification not made before at a fast shock near the Sun. Right-hand and left-hand circularly polarized families over a common wavenumber band, with a field-aligned linearly polarized family, are cyclotron-resonant with the suprathermal-to-MeV protons streaming from the shock: the beam drives the field that scatters it, and the measured mean free path, half the precursor scale, leaves the beam anisotropic enough to sustain the drive. Outside this loop lies a weak, oblique, linearly polarized component, a few per cent of the wave power, resolved here for the first time at an in situ foreshock. Its in-phase density and field-magnitude fluctuations identify the compressive part as fast magnetosonic and shift the cyclotron-resonance energies of the resonant families by up to 13 % along the precursor. Acceleration at shocks inside 0.3 AU is governed upstream, in a foreshock the shock builds for itself.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12606 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upstream plasma overview over 06:00–07:13 UT on 2023 March 13; the interval ends at the shock crossing at 07:13:13 UT. (a1) Radial-Tangential-Normal (RTN) magnetic￾field components BR, BT , BN (blue, orange, green) and total |B| (black). (a2) RTN solar-wind velocity VR, VT , VN and total |V | (colors as in a1). (a3) Electron density n (blue, left axis) and ion temperature Ti (orange, right axis). (a4) Alfv´en speed … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Wave diagnostics for the upstream interval 05:45–07:13 UT on 2023 March 13. Panels a1–a4 (left column) and b1–b4 (right column) are time–frequency spectrograms over the full interval; panels c1–c3 (bottom row) are B 2 w-weighted occurrence maps in (θkB, f) integrated over the inner foreshock (06:15–07:13 UT). (a1) Wavelet magnetic wave amplitude Bw (nT). (a2) Signed ellipticity ϵ (positive for right-hand, negative f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Statistics of the four upstream wave families, integrated over 06:15–07:13 UT. Columns 1 and 2 show the circularly polarized families, RH (orange) and LH (blue), overlaid in the histogram rows (a, b) and separated in the hodogram rows (c, d), RH in column 1 and LH in column 2. Columns 3 and 4 show the linearly polarized class, split at θkB = 45◦ into LP-OB (maroon) and LP-FA (green), with the combined distribution i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The energetic-particle precursor and the com￾pressive amplitude over 06:00–07:13 UT on 2023 March 13; the time axis corresponds to shock-normal distance through x = u1(tshock − t), and the dashed line marks the shock. (a) Energetic-particle pressure PEP (green) with it…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Wavenumber content of the four upstream wave families, RH, LH, LP-OB, and LP-FA (columns 1–4). Each panel is a B 2 w-weighted two-dimensional histogram of spacecraft-frame frequency f against the wavenumber k = 2πf /Vφ. White curves are the plasma-frame branches (R-mod…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Coherence and cross-phase of density and field magnitude. (a) Density–field-magnitude coherence γ 2 (δn, δ|B|) against spacecraft-frame frequency f, formed from gradient-removed fluctuations; the LP-OB band (0.003–0.03 Hz) is shaded, the dotted line is the noise floor …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1972, Journal of Geophysical Research, 77, 736, doi: 10.1029/JA077i004p00736

    Abraham-Shrauner, B. 1972, Journal of Geophysical Research, 77, 736, doi: 10.1029/JA077i004p00736

    doi:10.1029/ja077i004p00736 1972

  2. [2]

    I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G

    Axford, W. I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G. 1977, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 11, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 132

    1977

  3. [3]

    D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P

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

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

  4. [4]

    F., et al

    Bamert, K., Kallenbach, R., Ness, N. F., et al. 2004, ApJL, 601, L99, doi: 10.1086/381962

    work page doi:10.1086/381962 2004

  5. [5]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 182, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 —. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353, 550, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x

    arXiv 1978

  6. [6]

    D., & Ostriker, J

    Blandford, R. D., & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 221, L29, doi: 10.1086/182658 18

    doi:10.1086/182658 1978

  7. [7]

    Borovsky, J. E. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e2019JA027518, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027518

    doi:10.1029/2019ja027518 2020

  8. [8]

    A., Scholer, M., et al

    Burgess, D., Lucek, E. A., Scholer, M., et al. 2005, SSRv, 118, 205, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-3832-3

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-3832-3 2005

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    M., Ellison, D

    Bykov, A. M., Ellison, D. C., Marcowith, A., & Osipov, S. M. 2019, in Supernovae. Series: Space Sciences Series of ISSI, ed. A. Bykov, C. Roger, J. Raymond, F.-K

    2019

  2. [10]

    Falanga, & R

    Thielemann, M. Falanga, & R. von Steiger, Vol. 68 (Springer), 419–452, doi: 10.1007/978-94-024-1581-0 15

    doi

  3. [11]

    2026, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 710, A14

    Capanema, A., Blasi, P., & Sobacchi, E. 2026, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 710, A14. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12514

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C., & Blasi, P

    Caprioli, D., Haggerty, C. C., & Blasi, P. 2020, ApJ, 905, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe05

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2014a, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91 —

    Caprioli, D., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014a, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91 —. 2014b, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/47

    doi

  6. [14]

    Chen, C. H. K., Howes, G. G., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2013, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1539, 143, doi: 10.1063/1.4811008

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Chen, C. H. K., Salem, C. S., Bonnell, J. W., Mozer, F. S., & Bale, S. D. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 035001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.035001

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    B., et al

    Chust, T., Kretzschmar, M., Graham, D. B., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140932

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    S., & Sonett, C

    Colburn, D. S., & Sonett, C. P. 1966, Space Science Reviews, 5, 439, doi: 10.1007/BF00240575

    1966 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, A&A, 684, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347489

    Colomban, L., Kretzschmar, M., Krasnoselkikh, V., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347489

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    V., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al

    Colomban, L., Agapitov, O. V., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al. 2025, Geophys. Res. Lett., 52, e2025GL114622, doi: 10.1029/2025GL114622

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    A., & Drury, L

    Dorfi, E. A., & Drury, L. O. 1985, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 3, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 121

    1985

  13. [21]

    C., Wijsen, N., et al

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

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    Drury, L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002

    1983 doi

  15. [23]

    O., & Falle, S

    Drury, L. O., & Falle, S. A. E. G. 1986, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 223, 353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/223.2.353

    1986 doi

  16. [24]

    O., & Voelk, H

    Drury, L. O., & Voelk, H. J. 1981, The Astrophysical Journal, 248, 344, doi: 10.1086/159159

    1981 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Lucek, E

    Eastwood, J. P., Lucek, E. A., Mazelle, C., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 118, 41, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-3824-3

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Velli, M

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

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Gary, S. P. 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 288, 342, doi: 10.1086/162797 —. 1991, Space Science Reviews, 56, 373, doi: 10.1007/BF00196632

    1985 doi

  20. [28]

    P., & Smith, C

    Gary, S. P., & Smith, C. W. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, A12105, doi: 10.1029/2009JA014525

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    1998, Physics of Plasmas, 5, 127, doi: 10.1063/1.872681

    Gedalin, M. 1998, Physics of Plasmas, 5, 127, doi: 10.1063/1.872681

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    2026, Reviews of Geophysics, 64, e2025RG000893, doi: 10.1029/2025RG000893

    Gedalin, M., Balikhin, M., & Krasnoselskikh, V. 2026, Reviews of Geophysics, 64, e2025RG000893, doi: 10.1029/2025RG000893

    2026 doi

  23. [31]

    G., et al

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

    2026 doi

  24. [32]

    F., & Terasawa, T

    Hada, T., Kennel, C. F., & Terasawa, T. 1987, Journal of Geophysical Research, 92, 4423, doi: 10.1029/JA092iA05p04423

    1987 doi

  25. [33]

    C., & Caprioli, D

    Haggerty, C. C., & Caprioli, D. 2020, ApJ, 905, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe06

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Mitchell, D

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

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Hollweg, J. V. 1971, Journal of Geophysical Research, 76, 5155, doi: 10.1029/JA076i022p05155

    1971 doi

  28. [36]

    M., & Russell, C

    Hoppe, M. M., & Russell, C. T. 1983, Journal of Geophysical Research, 88, 2021, doi: 10.1029/JA088iA03p02021

    1983 doi

  29. [37]

    G., Bale, S

    Howes, G. G., Bale, S. D., Klein, K. G., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 753, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/753/1/L19

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

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

    Jebaraj, I. C., Agapitov, O., Krasnoselskikh, V., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 968, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4daa

    doi

  31. [39]

    C., Agapitov, O

    Jebaraj, I. C., Agapitov, O. V., Gedalin, M., et al. 2024b, ApJL, 976, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8eb8

    doi

  32. [40]

    V., Kim, H

    Karbashewski, S., Agapitov, O. V., Kim, H. Y., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc527

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

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

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

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Kennel, C. F. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research, 86, 4325, doi: 10.1029/JA086iA06p04325

    1981 doi

  35. [43]

    F., Coroniti, F

    Kennel, C. F., Coroniti, F. V., Scarf, F. L., et al. 1986, Journal of Geophysical Research, 91, 11917, doi: 10.1029/JA091iA11p11917

    1986 doi

  36. [44]

    F., Edmiston, J

    Kennel, C. F., Edmiston, J. P., & Hada, T. 1985, Geophysical Monograph Series, 34, 1, doi: 10.1029/GM034p0001

    1985 doi

  37. [45]

    F., Scarf, F

    Kennel, C. F., Scarf, F. L., Coroniti, F. V., et al. 1984, Journal of Geophysical Research, 89, 5419, doi: 10.1029/JA089iA07p05419

    1984 doi

  38. [46]

    C., Malkov, M

    Kouloumvakos, A., Jebaraj, I. C., Malkov, M. A., et al. 2026, ApJ Letters, submitted 19

    2026

  39. [47]

    N., et al

    Krasnoselskikh, V., Balikhin, M., Walker, S. N., et al. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 178, 535, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-9972-y

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    K., et al

    Kruparova, O., Szabo, A., Jian, L. K., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada558

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    Krymskii, G. F. 1977, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 234, 1306

    1977

  42. [50]

    M., & Pearce, W

    Kulsrud, R. M., & Pearce, W. P. 1969, The Astrophysical Journal, 156, 445, doi: 10.1086/149981

    1969 doi

  43. [51]

    O., & Cesarsky, C

    Lagage, P. O., & Cesarsky, C. J. 1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 118, 223

    1983

  44. [52]

    B., Roelof, E

    Lario, D., Decker, R. B., Roelof, E. C., & Vi˜ nas, A. F. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/85

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    Lee, M. A. 1983, Journal of Geophysical Research, 88, 6109, doi: 10.1029/JA088iA08p06109

    1983 doi

  46. [54]

    2004, Space Science Reviews, 110, 161, doi: 10.1023/B:SPAC.0000023372.12232.b7

    Lembege, B., Giacalone, J., Scholer, M., et al. 2004, Space Science Reviews, 110, 161, doi: 10.1023/B:SPAC.0000023372.12232.b7

    2004

  47. [55]

    E., Kasper, J

    Livi, R., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93f5

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    Luttrell, A., & Richter, A. K. 1987, Journal of Geophysical Research, 92, 2243, doi: 10.1029/JA092iA03p02243

    1987 doi

  49. [57]

    Malkov, M. A. 1998, Physical Review E, 58, 4911, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.58.4911

    1998 doi

  50. [58]

    A., & Diamond, P

    Malkov, M. A., & Diamond, P. H. 2006, ApJ, 642, 244, doi: 10.1086/500445

    2006 doi

  51. [59]

    A., & Drury, L

    Malkov, M. A., & Drury, L. O. 2001, Reports on Progress in Physics, 64, 429, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/64/4/201

    2001 doi

  52. [60]

    A., & Jebaraj, I

    Malkov, M. A., & Jebaraj, I. C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.09807

    2026 doi

  53. [61]

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

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

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    F., & V¨ olk, H

    McKenzie, J. F., & V¨ olk, H. J. 1982, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 116, 191

    1982

  55. [63]

    L., Russell, C

    McPherron, R. L., Russell, C. T., & Coleman, P. J. 1972, Space Science Reviews, 13, 411, doi: 10.1007/BF00219165

    1972 doi

  56. [64]

    Means, J. D. 1972, Journal of Geophysical Research, 77, 5551, doi: 10.1029/JA077i028p05551

    1972 doi

  57. [65]

    Mondal, S., Chen, C. H. K., & Manzini, D. 2026, The Nature of Turbulence at Sub-Electron Scales in the Solar Wind. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17061

    2026

  58. [66]

    S., Agapitov, O

    Mozer, F. S., Agapitov, O. V., Bale, S. D., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27980, doi: 10.1029/2020JA027980

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    S., Bale, S

    Mozer, F. S., Bale, S. D., Kellogg, P. J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f42

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a81

    Oka, M., Otsuka, F., Matsukiyo, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a81

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    Parker, E. N. 1965, Planetary and Space Science, 13, 9, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(65)90131-5

    1965 doi

  62. [70]

    1995, Annales Geophysicae, 13, 118, doi: 10.1007/s00585-995-0118-8

    Pedersen, A. 1995, Annales Geophysicae, 13, 118, doi: 10.1007/s00585-995-0118-8

    1995 doi

  63. [71]

    D., Bonnell, J

    Pulupa, M., Bale, S. D., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 122, 2836, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023345

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    L., et al

    Raptis, S., Trotta, D., Turner, D. L., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1000, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae53e5 Santol´ ık, O., Parrot, M., & Lefeuvre, F. 2003, Radio Science, 38, 1010, doi: 10.1029/2000RS002523

    2026 doi

  65. [73]

    Schlickeiser, R., & Miller, J. A. 1998, ApJ, 492, 352, doi: 10.1086/305023

    1998 doi

  66. [74]

    Schwartz, S. J. 1998, in ISSI Scientific Reports Series SR-001, Vol. 1, Analysis Methods for Multi-Spacecraft Data, ed. G. Paschmann & P. W. Daly (ESA Publications Division), 249–270

    1998

  67. [75]

    J., & Burgess, D

    Schwartz, S. J., & Burgess, D. 1991, Geophysical Research Letters, 18, 373, doi: 10.1029/91GL00138

    1991 doi

  68. [76]

    1975, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 172, 557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/172.3.557

    Skilling, J. 1975, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 172, 557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/172.3.557

    1975 doi

  69. [77]

    Sonnerup, B. U. ¨O., & Scheible, M. 1998, ISSI Scientific Reports Series, 1, 185

    1998

  70. [78]

    Stix, T. H. 1992, Waves in Plasmas (New York: American Institute of Physics)

    1992

  71. [79]

    D., et al

    Sundkvist, D., Krasnoselskikh, V., Bale, S. D., et al. 2012, Physical Review Letters, 108, 025002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.025002

    2012 doi

  72. [80]

    2019, Surveys in Geophysics, 40, 39, doi: 10.1007/s10712-018-9496-9

    Taubenschuss, U., & Santol´ ık, O. 2019, Surveys in Geophysics, 40, 39, doi: 10.1007/s10712-018-9496-9

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    M., Podesta, J

    TenBarge, J. M., Podesta, J. J., Klein, K. G., & Howes, G. G. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/107

    2012 doi

  74. [82]

    Torrence, C., & Compo, G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 61, doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079⟨0061: APGTWA⟩2.0.CO;2

    1998 doi

  75. [83]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 131, 519, doi: 10.1086/317372 —

    Vainio, R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 131, 519, doi: 10.1086/317372 —. 2003, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 406, 735, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030822

    2000 doi

  76. [84]

    2014, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 4, A08

    Vainio, R., P¨ onni, A., Battarbee, M., et al. 2014, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 4, A08

    2014

  77. [85]

    L., Larson, D

    Whittlesey, P. L., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7370

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    2025, A&A, 699, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453598 20

    Wijsen, N., Jebaraj, I., Dresing, N., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453598 20

    2025 doi

  79. [87]

    B., I., Cattell, C

    Wilson, L. B., I., Cattell, C. A., Kellogg, P. J., et al. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, A10106, doi: 10.1029/2009JA014376

    2009 doi

  80. [88]

    B., I., Koval, A., Szabo, A., et al

    Wilson, L. B., I., Koval, A., Szabo, A., et al. 2012, Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L08109, doi: 10.1029/2012GL051581

    2012 doi

  81. [89]

    P., Axford, W

    Zank, G. P., Axford, W. I., & McKenzie, J. F. 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 233, 275

    1990

  82. [90]

    L., Zank, G

    Zhao, L. L., Zank, G. P., He, J. S., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 656, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140450

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.