Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Statistical analysis of ions in two-dimensional plasma turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hybrid PIC runs—ions as particles, electrons as fluid—reproduce full kinetic results for ion diffusion across beta 0.1–5, but sub-ion electric fields and acceleration tails need electron kinetics.

desk verdict Useful hybrid-vs-full-PIC benchmark showing real agreement on ion diffusion and magnetic spectra, but the claim that sub-ion electric-field and acceleration differences stem from full kinetic treatment overreaches given mi/me=25 and unresolved electron scales. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02791 v1 pith:2ZQPAKQN submitted 2019-08-07 physics.space-ph astro-ph.SR

Francesco Pecora (1) , Francesco Pucci (2) , Giovanni Lapenta (2) , David Burgess (3) , Sergio Servidio (1) ((1) Dipartimento di Fisica , Università della Calabria , Italy , (2) Plasma-astrophysics Section
show 6 more authors
KU Leuven Belgium (3) School of Physics Astronomy Queen Mary University of London United Kingdom)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.SR PACS 52.35.Ra52.65.Rr96.50.Ci
keywords plasmaturbulencehybridPICsimulationfullparticle-in-celliondiffusionparticleaccelerationbetaturbulentheatingsolarwind
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 asks whether a computationally cheap plasma model—hybrid PIC, which follows ions as particles and treats electrons as a massless fluid—can reproduce the ion statistics of a full PIC model that evolves both species kinetically. Using matched initial conditions at plasma $\beta = 0.1$, $0.5$, and $5$, spanning conditions from the solar corona to the solar wind and magnetosheath, it finds close agreement on magnetic field power spectra and on ion diffusion, with measured diffusion coefficients tracking the two-dimensional nonlinear guiding center prediction. Small but systematic differences appear at sub-ion scales: the full PIC electric field carries more power, and the low-$\beta$ ion high-energy tail is less pronounced, which the authors attribute to the more consistent treatment of electrons in the full kinetic approach. The practical stake is that, if these results hold, hybrid simulations are adequate for ion transport studies across a wide range of heliospheric conditions, while questions about fine-scale electric fields and particle acceleration need the full kinetic description.

What carries the argument

The comparison is carried by a paired numerical experiment: identical initial conditions (superimposed large-scale fluctuations with $\delta b/B_0 \sim 0.3$ in a $128 \times 128 d_i^2$ periodic box with a mean out-of-plane field) evolved by two codes—a hybrid PIC code with an adiabatic electron pressure closure, and the implicit full PIC code iPIC3D with a mass ratio $m_i/m_e = 25$—at $\beta = 0.1$, $0.5$, and $5$. The diagnostic that carries the central comparison is the per-energy-class perpendicular mean squared displacement $\langle \Delta s^2 \rangle = 2D\tau$, whose plateau defines a measured diffusion coefficient $D$, tested against the 2D nonlinear guiding center (NLGC) prediction evaluated in a time-independent-field approximation; the magnetic and electric power spectra and the ion kinetic-energy PDFs provide the secondary diagnostics that expose the kinetic-electron contributions.

What would settle it

Re-run the same $\beta = 0.1$ and $\beta = 5$ configurations with a mass ratio substantially above 25, or in a fully three-dimensional domain, and check whether the full PIC excess in sub-ion electric power and the suppressed low-$\beta$ ion acceleration tail persist; if they shrink or vanish, those differences stem from the mass-ratio or geometry approximations rather than from the hybrid-versus-full distinction the paper draws.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a calibration result: the two methods agree on everything governed by large scales and differ precisely where electron kinetics enters. Both codes produce a Kolmogorov-like $k^{-5/3}$ magnetic spectrum in the inertial range and a steeper $k^{-8/3}$ kinetic range, with grid-scale differences attributed to particle-noise smoothing in the full PIC runs. The running diffusion coefficient for each parallel-energy class reaches a plateau in both codes, and the measured values agree with each other and with the 2D nonlinear guiding center prediction $D^* \sim (\sqrt{\langle v_z^2 \rangle}/B_0^2) \int dk\, S(k)/k^2$ across all three $\beta$ values. The differences are confined to the electric field—more sub-ion power in full PIC at low $\beta$, credited to electron pressure-divergence and inertial terms missing from the hybrid Ohm's law—and to the ion energy distribution, whose low-$\beta$ high-energy tail is slightly weaker in full PIC, which the authors interpret as electrons participating more effectively in the turbulence–particle energy exchange.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison treats the full PIC runs as the faithful reference, but those runs use an ion-to-electron mass ratio of 25, and in the conclusions the authors concede that this unphysical ratio cannot fully clarify the competition between species; if electron kinetics is distorted at that ratio, the claimed differences in sub-ion electric fields and acceleration tails could be artifacts of the approximation rather than genuine consequences of the modeling approach.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hybrid PIC is sufficient for computing ion spatial diffusion coefficients in 2.5D turbulence for $\beta$ from 0.1 to 5, because the diffusion statistics match full PIC and the 2D-NLGC prediction.
  • Sub-ion electric field spectra and ion acceleration statistics require full kinetic PIC: the hybrid generalized Ohm's law omits electron pressure-divergence and inertial terms that add electric power at $k d_i \gtrsim 1$.
  • In full PIC runs, increasing the number of particles per cell improves energy conservation far more than increasing grid resolution, especially at high $\beta$ where low-particle-count runs lose up to 13.5% of the total energy.
  • Ion energization is strongest at low $\beta$ in both models, consistent with current-sheet resonance, but the high-energy tail is weaker in full PIC, suggesting kinetic electrons draw energy from the turbulence before ions can absorb it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The diffusion agreement is a large-scale result: the running diffusion coefficient is set by the energy-containing and inertial ranges where the two codes' spectra coincide, so the methods should diverge only for transport dominated by sub-ion-scale scattering—a regime this 2.5D setup cannot resolve; a testable extension would compare test-particle scattering at $k d_i \ge 1$ between the two codes
  • If kinetic electrons genuinely suppress low-$\beta$ ion acceleration, hybrid-based predictions of turbulent ion heating in the solar wind may run high; a check would be to compare proton temperature enhancements with electron measurements across the same turbulent intervals observed by spacecraft.
  • The high-$\beta$ energy loss at low particle counts implies a practical floor on particles-per-cell for weakly magnetized, magnetosheath-like conditions, a constraint hybrid codes avoid because their electrons are cheap; seeding a hybrid run with kinetic test electrons could pinpoint which electron terms produce the full PIC electric-field excess.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares hybrid PIC (fluid electrons) and full PIC (iPIC3D) simulations of 2.5D decaying plasma turbulence at ion beta values 0.1, 0.5, and 5, using identical initial conditions and a 128 x 128 di^2 domain. The comparison covers total energy conservation, magnetic and electric field power spectra, ion perpendicular diffusion against the 2D-NLGC prediction, and kinetic-energy probability density functions. The paper reports good agreement in magnetic spectra and ion diffusion statistics, with differences in sub-ion electric-field spectra and ion acceleration tails attributed to the more complete kinetic treatment in the full PIC approach.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides practically useful guidance: hybrid PIC appears adequate for bulk ion diffusion statistics across a range of beta, while full PIC would be needed for sub-ion electric fields and acceleration tails. The study's strengths include a systematic scan over beta and numerical parameters, energy-conservation diagnostics, a convergence appendix for particle-per-cell effects, and the use of an externally derived NLGC formula (Eq. 5) rather than a fitted model, so the diffusion comparison is not circular. The main limitation is that the full PIC reference uses an unphysical ion-to-electron mass ratio of 25 with electron scales below the grid resolution, which makes the attribution of the sub-ion and acceleration differences to full kinetic physics uncertain.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, §3.2, §4] The abstract and Section 4 claim that the sub-ion electric-field and ion-acceleration differences are 'due evidently to the more consistent treatment' of the plasma in the full PIC approach, but this causal claim is not established by the presented runs. With mi/me=25, L=128 di, and N=512, the electron skin depth is de=0.2 di, which is below the grid spacing dx=0.25 di; at beta_i=0.1 the electron gyroradius is about 0.06 di, far below the grid. The electron-pressure-divergence and electron-inertia terms invoked in Section 3.2 to explain the enhanced full-PIC electric field live on these unresolved scales, so the enhancement could be a mass-ratio or under-resolution artifact rather than a physical property of the full kinetic model. The paper itself concedes in Section 4 that the mass ratio 'cannot clarify completely the possible competition taking place between the two species.' The conclusion that full PIC is required for sub-ion fields and acceleration tails should therefore be softened or supported by additional evidence, such as a resolved-electron run or a scan over mi/me.
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 4] The central claim of good agreement in ion diffusion between the two codes and with 2D-NLGC is made by visual inspection without error bars or a quantitative agreement metric. The running-diffusion coefficient in Eq. (6) has statistical uncertainty from the finite particle ensembles, and the diffusion coefficients in Figure 4 are shown as points without uncertainty estimates. A bootstrap or ensemble-based error bar on D, together with a stated tolerance for agreement with Eq. (5), would make the comparison quantitative and would strengthen the paper's main positive result.
  3. [§3.4, Fig. 5] The claimed differences in acceleration statistics, specifically that the low-beta tail is 'slightly less pronounced' in the full PIC case, are reported without a quantitative comparison of the PDFs. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test or another distribution-comparison statistic, or at least an estimate of the noise level in the tails, is needed to support the qualitative statement that the two models differ in ion energization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2, §3.1] The text says 'eight runs out of ten' conserve energy, but Table 2 lists nine runs; please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Figure 2] The bottom panel (electric field spectrum) is discussed in the text before the top panel (magnetic field spectrum), and the caption only mentions the magnetic spectra; please clarify the panel order in the caption.
  3. [Figure 3] The full PIC panels label the squared parallel velocity as v_z^2/2[c_A^2], while the hybrid panels use v_z^2/2[v_A^2]; the notation should be unified.
  4. [References] The reference to Marsch (2006) is cited as 'JLR, 3, 2006'; it should be Living Reviews in Solar Physics, volume 3.
  5. [§3.1] The statement that 'the number of particles should increase to correctly reconstruct the VDF' is vague; a quantitative relation between required ppc and beta would be more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the hybrid/full-PIC comparison is an independent code comparison, and the 2D-NLGC check uses an external theory as a benchmark rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

I find no circular derivation. The central result is a side-by-side comparison of two independently implemented simulation approaches (hybrid PIC with fluid electrons versus full kinetic PIC) run from the same initial conditions; agreement is measured directly from each code's fields and particle statistics, with no fitting constants used to force agreement. The 2D-NLGC test in Eq. (5) is a genuine external benchmark: the formula is taken from Matthaeus et al. (2003) and Ruffolo et al. (2012), as adapted in Pecora et al. (2018), and it takes the simulated magnetic spectrum S(k) as input to predict D*, while the measured diffusion coefficient comes separately from the mean squared displacement. Nothing in the comparison is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict. The self-citations (e.g., Servidio et al. 2016 for hybrid convergence and Pecora et al. 2018 for the diffusion approximation) are references to published, external prior work and are not load-bearing: the hybrid/full-PIC agreement does not reduce to those citations. The only notable limitation is stated in Section 4, where the authors concede that the mi/me = 25 mass ratio in the full-PIC runs 'cannot clarify completely the possible competition taking place between the two species'; this weakens the causal attribution of sub-ion electric-field and acceleration differences to 'the more consistent treatment of the plasma in the full PIC approach,' but that is a limitation on external validity and causal interpretation, not a circularity in the derivation. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no fitted input renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on the chosen numerical models, the 2.5D geometry, and prior diffusion theory. The listed axioms are assumptions the reader must accept for the comparison to be meaningful. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Hybrid resistivity eta = 0.006
    Introduced ad hoc in the generalized Ohm's law (Eq. 1) as numerical dissipation; affects small-scale spectra and particle energization in hybrid runs.
  • Ion-to-electron mass ratio mi/me = 25
    Unphysical mass ratio chosen for the full PIC runs; limits fidelity of electron kinetics and thus the interpretation of electric-field and acceleration differences.
  • Initial fluctuation amplitude delta_b/B0 = 0.3
    Chosen initial condition setting turbulence strength; diffusion coefficients and acceleration depend on this amplitude.
  • Particles per cell = 1500 hybrid; 4000 selected full PIC
    Numerical resolution parameter used in the selected runs; the appendix shows convergence at 400 ppc for spectra, but the physics comparison uses 4000 ppc for better energy conservation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 2.5D geometry with mean magnetic field along z captures the dominant perpendicular turbulent dynamics relevant to ion diffusion and acceleration.
    The authors acknowledge the neglect of parallel-propagating waves and compressive fluctuations along B0 in Section 2; they rely on literature claims that 2D and 3D results are quantitatively similar.
  • domain assumption The Vlasov-Maxwell system, discretized by PIC, accurately represents weakly collisional plasma turbulence at ion and sub-ion scales.
    The entire comparison rests on the PIC codes being valid models of collisionless turbulence; no benchmark against observations or an independent simulation is attempted here.
  • domain assumption The 2D-NLGC diffusion formula D* ~ sqrt(v_z^2)/B0^2 times the integral of S(k)/k^2, with time decorrelation neglected, is valid for these runs.
    Equation 5 is taken from prior theory and the approximation is described as discussed in Pecora et al. 2018; it is used as the reference for measured diffusion coefficients.
  • domain assumption Electron pressure closure Pe = beta n^gamma with gamma = 5/3 and a resistive term suffices for the hybrid model.
    Hybrid runs treat electrons as a massless fluid with adiabatic pressure in Eq. 1; the paper hypothesizes that missing electron terms cause electric-field differences, so this closure is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Statistical convergence of full PIC runs at ppc >= 400 is established by the appendix spectral and diffusion comparisons.
    The convergence check is limited to the high-beta case and compares only 400 and 4000 ppc; the paper generalizes this to all runs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Statistical analysis of ions in two-dimensional plasma turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ZQPAKQN

@misc{pith2026190802791,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Statistical analysis of ions in two-dimensional plasma turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ZQPAKQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02791}
}
abstract

The statistical properties of ions in two-dimensional fully developed turbulence have been compared between two different numerical algorithms. In particular, we compare Hybrid Particle In Cell (hybrid PIC with fluid electrons) and full PIC simulations, focusing on particle diffusion and acceleration phenomena. To investigate several heliospheric plasma conditions, a series of numerical simulations has been performed by varying the plasma $\beta$ - the ratio between kinetic and magnetic pressure. These numerical studies allow the exploration of different scenarios, going from the solar corona (low $\beta$) to the solar wind ($\beta \sim 1$), as well as the Earth's magnetosheath (high $\beta$). It has been found that the two approaches compare pretty well, especially for the spectral properties of the magnetic field and the ion diffusion statistics. Small differences among the models have been found regarding the electric field behaviour at sub-ion scales and the acceleration statistics, due evidently to the more consistent treatment of the plasma in the full PIC approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02791 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Total energy conservation for the full PIC simulations. All of them conserve energy within 3% of the initial value but run 7 and run 9 go down to ∼ 14% and ∼ 10%, respectively. kinetic energy EK = 1/2 P α P p mαv 2 α,p, where the index p runs over all the particles and α over the two species (ions and electrons) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the magnetic field power spectra for the hybrid (H1, H2, H3) and the full PIC (K1, K2, K3) simulations. In both cases, the spectra follow the Kolmogorov’s prediction k−5/3 in the inertial range (ks smaller than the ion skin depth) and the magnetic field spectrum approaches a k −8/3 power law at smaller scales. directly to the noise of the particles in the momentum, since E ∼ u × B. Regarding the physic… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Ion mean squared displacement for the hybrid and the full kinetic simulations at the lowest and the highest values of the plasma β. For each β the particles energy class value is reported in the label. In all cases, the linear trend expected for the diffusion is achiev…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Perpendicular diffusion coefficient measured for the lower and higher β values, for the hybrid and full kinetic runs. The solid (black) line represent the theoretical prediction in Equation 5 3.4. Particle Heating Along with diffusion, the process of heating is current…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 10−1 100 101 102 Ekin[v 2 thi] 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 PDF Hybrid β =0.1, t = 50Ω −1 ci β =0.1, t = 200Ω −1 ci β =5, t = 50Ω −1 ci β =5, t = 200Ω −1 ci 10−1 100 101 102 Ekin[v 2 thi] 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 PDF Full PIC βi =0.1, t = 50Ω −1 ci βi =0.1, t = 200Ω −1 ci βi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magnetic field power spectra for run7 and run8 (K3) with 400 and 4000 particles per cell respectively. The spectra show the statistical converged achieved already at 400 ppc since the large scales are quite similar and the inertial ranges have the same slopes. SOLA: ma…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alexandrova , J

    O. Alexandrova , J. Saur , C. Lacombe , A. Mangeney , J. Mitchell , S. J. Schwartz , and P. Robert . Universality of Solar-Wind Turbulent Spectrum from MHD to Electron Scales . , 103 0 (16): 0 165003, Oct 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.165003

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.165003 2009

  2. [2]

    S. D. Bale , P. J. Kellogg , F. S. Mozer , T. S. Horbury , and H. Reme . Measurement of the Electric Fluctuation Spectrum of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence . Physical Review Letters, 94 0 (21): 0 215002, June 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.215002

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.215002 2005

  3. [3]

    Electron and Proton Acceleration in Trans-relativistic Magnetic Reconnection: Dependence on Plasma Beta and Magnetization

    David Ball , Lorenzo Sironi , and Feryal \"O zel . Electron and Proton Acceleration in Trans-relativistic Magnetic Reconnection: Dependence on Plasma Beta and Magnetization . , 862 0 (1): 0 80, Jul 2018. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac820

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac820 2018

  4. [4]

    G. K. Batchelor. Brownian diffusion of particles with hydrodynamic interaction. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 74 0 (1): 0 1--29, 1976. doi:10.1017/S0022112076001663

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112076001663 1976

  5. [5]

    Bieber , Wolfgang Wanner , and William H

    John W. Bieber , Wolfgang Wanner , and William H. Matthaeus . Dominant two-dimensional solar wind turbulence with implications for cosmic ray transport . , 101 0 (A2): 0 2511--2522, Feb 1996. doi:10.1029/95JA02588

    doi:10.1029/95ja02588 1996

  6. [6]

    Bruno and V

    R. Bruno and V. Carbone , editors. Turbulence in the Solar Wind , volume 928 of Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43440-7

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43440-7 2016

  7. [7]

    J. L. Burch , R. B. Torbert , T. D. Phan , L. J. Chen , T. E. Moore , R. E. Ergun , J. P. Eastwood , D. J. Gershman , P. A. Cassak , M. R. Argall , S. Wang , M. Hesse , C. J. Pollock , B. L. Giles , R. Nakamura , B. H. Mauk , S. A. Fuselier , C. T. Russell , R. J. Strangeway , J. F. Drake , M. A. Shay , Yu. V. Khotyaintsev , P. A. Lindqvist , G. Marklund ...

    2016

  8. [8]

    B. D. G. Chandran , B. Li , B. N. Rogers , E. Quataert , and K. Germaschewski . Perpendicular Ion Heating by Low-frequency Alfv \'e n-wave Turbulence in the Solar Wind . The Astrophysical Journal, 720: 0 503--515, September 2010. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/503

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/503 2010

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Chandrasekhar

    S. Chandrasekhar. Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy. Rev. Mod. Phys., 15 0 (1): 0 1--89, Jan 1943. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.15.1

    1943 doi

  2. [10]

    Particle acceleration in relativistic plasma turbulence

    Luca Comisso and Lorenzo Sironi. Particle acceleration in relativistic plasma turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121: 0 255101, Dec 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.255101

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Daughton , V

    W. Daughton , V. Roytershteyn , H. Karimabadi , L. Yin , B. J. Albright , B. Bergen , and K. J. Bowers . Role of electron physics in the development of turbulent magnetic reconnection in collisionless plasmas . Nature Physics, 7: 0 539--542, July 2011. doi:10.1038/nphys1965

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    C. E. DeForest , W. H. Matthaeus , T. A. Howard , and D. R. Rice . Turbulence in the Solar Wind Measured with Comet Tail Test Particles . , 812: 0 108, October 2015. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/108

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Dmitruk , W

    P. Dmitruk , W. H. Matthaeus , and N. Seenu . Test Particle Energization by Current Sheets and Nonuniform Fields in Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence . The Astrophysical Journal, 617: 0 667--679, December 2004. doi:10.1086/425301

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    J. F. Drake , M. Opher , M. Swisdak , and J. N. Chamoun . A Magnetic Reconnection Mechanism for the Generation of Anomalous Cosmic Rays . The Astrophysical Journal, 709: 0 963--974, February 2010. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/963

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    Einaudi , M

    G. Einaudi , M. Velli , H. Politano , and A. Pouquet . Energy release in a turbulent corona. , 457 0 (2): 0 L113, feb 1996. doi:10.1086/309893

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    N. J. Fox, M. C. Velli, S. D. Bale, R. Decker, A. Driesman, R. A. Howard, J. C. Kasper, J. Kinnison, M. Kusterer, D. Lario, M. K. Lockwood, D. J. McComas, N. E. Raouafi, and A. Szabo. The solar probe plus mission: Humanity's first visit to our star. Space Science Reviews, 204 ...

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Franci , S

    L. Franci , S. Landi , L. Matteini , A. Verdini , and P. Hellinger . High-resolution Hybrid Simulations of Kinetic Plasma Turbulence at Proton Scales . The Astrophysical Journal, 812: 0 21, October 2015. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/21

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Franci , S

    L. Franci , S. Landi , A. Verdini , L. Matteini , and P. Hellinger . Solar Wind Turbulent Cascade from MHD to Sub-ion Scales: Large-size 3D Hybrid Particle-in-cell Simulations . , 853: 0 26, January 2018. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e8

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    C. T. Haynes , D. Burgess , and E. Camporeale . Reconnection and Electron Temperature Anisotropy in Sub-proton Scale Plasma Turbulence . The Astrophysical Journal, 783: 0 38, March 2014. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/38

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Plasma turbulence and kinetic instabilities at ion scales in the expanding solar wind

    Petr Hellinger, Lorenzo Matteini, Simone Landi, Andrea Verdini, Luca Franci, and Pavel M Tr \'a vn \' c ek. Plasma turbulence and kinetic instabilities at ion scales in the expanding solar wind. The Astrophysical Journal, 811 0 (2): 0 L32, sep 2015. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/l32

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    G. G. Howes . A prospectus on kinetic heliophysics . Physics of Plasmas, 24 0 (5): 0 055907, May 2017. doi:10.1063/1.4983993

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    P. A. Isenberg . Turbulence-driven Solar Wind Heating and Energization of Pickup Protons in the Outer Heliosphere . , 623: 0 502--510, April 2005. doi:10.1086/428609

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    J. R. Jokipii and E. H. Levy . Effects of particle drifts on the solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays . , 213: 0 L85--L88, April 1977. doi:10.1086/182415

    1977 doi

  16. [24]

    J. C. Kasper, A. J. Lazarus, and S. P. Gary. Hot solar-wind helium: Direct evidence for local heating by alfv\'en-cyclotron dissipation. Phys. Rev. Lett., 101: 0 261103, Dec 2008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.261103

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    Particle and fluid simulations of low-temperature plasma discharges: benchmarks and kinetic effects

    HC Kim, Felipe Iza, SS Yang, M Radmilovi \'c -Radjenovi \'c , and JK Lee. Particle and fluid simulations of low-temperature plasma discharges: benchmarks and kinetic effects. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 38 0 (19): 0 R283--R301, sep 2005. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/38/19/r01

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    T. C. Li , G. G. Howes , K. G. Klein , and J. M. TenBarge . Energy Dissipation and Landau Damping in Two- and Three-dimensional Plasma Turbulence . , 832: 0 L24, December 2016. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/832/2/L24

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Y. G. Maneva , A. F. Vi \ n as , and L. Ofman . Turbulent heating and acceleration of He ^ ++ ions by spectra of Alfv \'e n-cyclotron waves in the expanding solar wind: 1.5-D hybrid simulations . Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 118: 0 2842--2853, June 2013. do...

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Y. G. Maneva , L. Ofman , and A. Vi \ n as . Relative drifts and temperature anisotropies of protons and particles in the expanding solar wind: 2.5D hybrid simulations . , 578: 0 A85, June 2015. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424401

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Multi-scale simulations of plasma with ipic3d

    Stefano Markidis, Giovanni Lapenta, and Rizwan-uddin. Multi-scale simulations of plasma with ipic3d. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 80 0 (7): 0 1509 -- 1519, 2010. ISSN 0378-4754. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2009.08.038. Multiscale modeling of moving interfa...

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    E. Marsch. Kinetic physics of the solar corona and solar wind. JLR, 3, 2006. doi:10.12942/lrsp-2006-1

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    W. H. Matthaeus and S. L. Lamkin . Turbulent magnetic reconnection . Physics of Fluids, 29: 0 2513--2534, August 1986. doi:10.1063/1.866004

    1986 doi

  24. [32]

    Nonlinear collisionless perpendicular diffusion of charged particles

    WH Matthaeus, G Qin, JW Bieber, and GP Zank. Nonlinear collisionless perpendicular diffusion of charged particles. The Astrophysical Journal, 590 0 (1): 0 L53--L56, may 2003. doi:10.1086/376613

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    A. P. Matthews . Current Advance Method and Cyclic Leapfrog for 2D Multispecies Hybrid Plasma Simulations . Journal of Computational Physics, 112: 0 102--116, May 1994. doi:10.1006/jcph.1994.1084

    1994

  26. [34]

    L. Ofman . Wave Modeling of the Solar Wind . Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 7: 0 4, October 2010. doi:10.12942/lrsp-2010-4

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    Ofman and A

    L. Ofman and A. F. Vi \ n as . Two-dimensional hybrid model of wave and beam heating of multi-ion solar wind plasma . Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112: 0 A06104, June 2007. doi:10.1029/2006JA012187

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    Ofman , A

    L. Ofman , A. F. Vi \ n as , and Y. Maneva . Two-dimensional hybrid models of H ^ + -He ^ ++ expanding solar wind plasma heating . Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 119: 0 4223--4238, June 2014. doi:10.1002/2013JA019590

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    Ofman , A

    L. Ofman , A. F. Vi \ n as , and D. A. Roberts . The effects of inhomogeneous proton- drifts on the heating of the solar wind . Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 122: 0 5839--5855, June 2017. doi:10.1002/2016JA023705

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Olshevsky , S

    V. Olshevsky , S. Servidio , F. Pucci , L. Primavera , and G. Lapenta . Properties of Decaying Plasma Turbulence at Subproton Scales . The Astrophysical Journal, 860: 0 11, June 2018. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac1bd

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    Magnetic-confinement fusion

    J Ongena, R Koch, R Wolf, and H Zohm. Magnetic-confinement fusion. Nature Physics, 12 0 (5): 0 398, 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3745

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Evidence for inhomogeneous heating in the solar wind

    KT Osman, WH Matthaeus, A Greco, and S Servidio. Evidence for inhomogeneous heating in the solar wind. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 727 0 (1): 0 L11, 2010. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/l11

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Pecora, S

    F. Pecora, S. Servidio, A. Greco, W. H. Matthaeus, D. Burgess, C. T. Haynes, V. Carbone, and P. Veltri. Ion diffusion and acceleration in plasma turbulence. Journal of Plasma Physics, 84 0 (6): 0 725840601, 2018. doi:10.1017/S0022377818000995

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Ruffolo , T

    D. Ruffolo , T. Pianpanit , W. H. Matthaeus , and P. Chuychai . Random Ballistic Interpretation of Nonlinear Guiding Center Theory . The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 747: 0 L34, March 2012. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L34

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    A. A. Schekochihin , J. T. Parker , E. G. Highcock , P. J. Dellar , W. Dorland , and G. W. Hammett . Phase mixing versus nonlinear advection in drift-kinetic plasma turbulence . Journal of Plasma Physics, 82 0 (2): 0 905820212, April 2016. doi:10.1017/S0022377816000374

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Servidio , F

    S. Servidio , F. Valentini , D. Perrone , A. Greco , F. Califano , W. H. Matthaeus , and P. Veltri . A kinetic model of plasma turbulence . Journal of Plasma Physics, 81 0 (1): 0 325810107, January 2015. doi:10.1017/S0022377814000841

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    Servidio, C

    S. Servidio, C. T. Haynes, W. H. Matthaeus, D. Burgess, V. Carbone, and P. Veltri. Explosive particle dispersion in plasma turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117: 0 095101, Aug 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.095101

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    Servidio, A

    S. Servidio, A. Chasapis, W. H. Matthaeus, D. Perrone, F. Valentini, T. N. Parashar, P. Veltri, D. Gershman, C. T. Russell, B. Giles, S. A. Fuselier, T. D. Phan, and J. Burch. Magnetospheric multiscale observation of plasma velocity-space cascade: Hermite representation and th...

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    J. V. Shebalin . Hybrid statistics of ideal 2D MHD turbulence in a mean magnetic field . Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids, 166: 0 774--788, October 2011. doi:10.1080/10420150.2011.615314

    2011

  40. [48]

    J. V. Shebalin , W. H. Matthaeus , and D. Montgomery . Anisotropy in MHD turbulence due to a mean magnetic field . Journal of Plasma Physics, 29: 0 525--547, June 1983. doi:10.1017/S0022377800000933

    1983 doi

  41. [49]

    Heating of the low-latitude solar wind by dissipation of turbulent magnetic fluctuations

    Charles W Smith, William H Matthaeus, Gary P Zank, Norman F Ness, Sean Oughton, and John D Richardson. Heating of the low-latitude solar wind by dissipation of turbulent magnetic fluctuations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 106 0 (A5): 0 8253--8272, 2001. doi:...

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    J. A. Tessein , W. H. Matthaeus , M. Wan , K. T. Osman , D. Ruffolo , and J. Giacalone . Association of Suprathermal Particles with Coherent Structures and Shocks . The Astrophysical Journall, 776: 0 L8, October 2013. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/776/1/L8

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    Valentini, P

    F. Valentini, P. Trávníček, F. Califano, P. Hellinger, and A. Mangeney. A hybrid-vlasov model based on the current advance method for the simulation of collisionless magnetized plasma. Journal of Computational Physics, 225 0 (1): 0 753 -- 770, 2007. ISSN 0021-9991. doi:http://...

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    Turbulent heating and temperature evolution in the solar wind plasma

    MK Verma, DA Roberts, and ML Goldstein. Turbulent heating and temperature evolution in the solar wind plasma. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 100 0 (A10): 0 19839--19850, 1995. doi:10.1029/95JA01216

    1995 doi

  45. [53]

    When brownian diffusion is not gaussian

    Bo Wang, James Kuo, Sung Chul Bae, and Steve Granick. When brownian diffusion is not gaussian. Nature materials, 11 0 (6): 0 481, 2012. doi:10.1038/nmat3308

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    D. Winske . Hybrid simulation codes with application to shocks and upstream waves . Space Science Review, 42: 0 53--66, October 1985. doi:10.1007/BF00218223

    1985 doi

  47. [55]

    The two-fluid dynamics and energetics of the asymmetric magnetic reconnection in laboratory and space plasmas

    M Yamada, L-J Chen, J Yoo, S Wang, W Fox, J Jara-Almonte, H Ji, W Daughton, A Le, J Burch, et al. The two-fluid dynamics and energetics of the asymmetric magnetic reconnection in laboratory and space plasmas. Nature communications, 9 0 (1): 0 5223, 2018. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07680-2

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    Magnetic turbulence in the geospace environment

    G Zimbardo, A Greco, L Sorriso-Valvo, S Perri, Z V \"o r \"o s, G Aburjania, K Chargazia, and O Alexandrova. Magnetic turbulence in the geospace environment. Space science reviews, 156 0 (1-4): 0 89--134, 2010. doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9692-5

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.