Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Variability in energetic particle observations at strong interplanetary shocks: Multi-spacecraft observations

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A strong interplanetary shock seen at 0.8 and 1 AU produces energy-dependent particle profiles: low-energy ions look nearly identical at both distances, while high-energy ions decorrelate and their peak flux shifts downstream by about 30 mi

desk verdict A genuinely useful cross-correlation diagnostic for multi-mission SEP profiles, but the shock-evolution interpretation is not uniquely supported by the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19812 v1 pith:4RMWDR6Z submitted 2025-08-27 physics.space-ph

Domenico Trotta , Timothy S. Horbury , Joe Giacalone This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-ph
keywords interplanetaryshocksenergeticparticlesparticleaccelerationshockevolutionmulti-spacecraftobservationsSolarOrbiterACE/Windcross-correlation
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 uses a rare three-spacecraft radial alignment—Solar Orbiter at 0.8 AU and ACE and Wind at 1 AU—to observe the same strong interplanetary shock on 3 November 2021. The authors aim to show that energetic particle profiles from the same shock are strongly energy-dependent: ions below about 0.5 MeV look nearly identical at all three vantage points (a classic diffusive 'ESP' rise and plateau), while ions above about 0.5 MeV decorrelate, with their peak flux arriving downstream of the shock and about 30 minutes late at 1 AU. They interpret this as shock evolution—the shock becomes a less efficient accelerator of the highest energies as it travels from 0.8 to 1 AU—rather than purely local conditions. To quantify the variability despite mismatched energy channels between missions, they introduce a cross-correlation 'magic square' diagnostic that maps how well intensity-time profiles track each other across energy and spacecraft separation.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is a cross-correlation 'magic square' built from normalized intensity-time profiles for every pair of available energy channels, giving both the peak correlation coefficient and the time lag at which that peak occurs. It lets the authors compare profiles from missions whose energy channels do not overlap exactly, and it reduces to two energy-dependent curves—peak correlation and lag—after interpolating onto a common logarithmic energy grid. The other key element is the event geometry: Solar Orbiter, Wind, and ACE were radially aligned (0.8 AU versus 1 AU, with 0.2 AU and 0.02 AU separations), so the same shock front is observed at two different evolutionary stages.

What would settle it

If a second pair of spacecraft at the same heliocentric distance but with the same large θBn difference (e.g., 45° vs 10°) showed the same high-energy decorrelation and 30-minute downstream delay, the effect would be local geometry, not shock evolution. Equivalently, if a simulated shock with time-independent parameters but the measured upstream turbulence reproduced the observed decorrelation, the evolutionary interpretation would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the 3 November 2021 supercritical forward shock, low-energy (≲0.5 MeV) ion intensity-time profiles are well correlated between Solar Orbiter at 0.8 AU and ACE/Wind at 1 AU, consistent with diffusive shock acceleration producing an ESP signature. At higher energies (≳0.5 MeV), the profiles decorrelate at 0.2 AU separation: the flux peak moves from the shock ramp at Solar Orbiter to the downstream region with roughly a 30-minute delay at 1 AU. The paper argues this energy-dependent change is an evolutionary effect—high-energy particle production becomes less efficient as the shock propagates outward—and that the downstream drifting spike reflects transient connection to patches of the shoc

Load-bearing premise

The shock-evolution explanation assumes that the differences between Solar Orbiter and the near-Earth spacecraft come from the shock's age and distance, not from the differences in local shock geometry, upstream turbulence, and a pre-existing weak upstream shock that the paper documents but does not separate quantitatively.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the interpretation is right, MeV-ion acceleration efficiency at strong IP shocks measurably declines between 0.8 and 1 AU, so single-spacecraft events cannot be treated as snapshots of a stationary accelerator.
  • Low-energy (≲0.5 MeV) diffusive ESP profiles are robust across separations up to 0.2 AU, suggesting the low-energy acceleration process is insensitive to the small-scale shock structure tested here.
  • The cross-correlation technique provides a quantitative, energy-resolved way to compare particle data from different missions, overcoming the problem of non-overlapping energy channels.
  • The downstream drift of the high-energy peak is a combined signature of shock evolution and transient connection to efficient acceleration sites; future lineups can use the lag to infer where on the shock front acceleration is happening.
  • Comparisons with transport models that include an evolving shock speed and scattering strength should reproduce the observed 30-minute delay at 1 AU.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method could be applied to the same 3 Nov 2021 shock using Parker Solar Probe or STEREO data if any radial alignments exist, to extend the evolution curve inward of 0.8 AU and test whether the efficiency decline is monotonic.
  • The energy threshold near 0.5 MeV where decorrelation appears may mark the transition between populations accelerated locally by the shock and particles accelerated earlier and then advected downstream; this threshold could be compared with DSA predictions given the shock Mach number and θBn.
  • The paper does not quantitatively separate the ~45° vs ~33°/10° shock angles and the factor-of-ten turbulence difference; a controlled multi-event study matching θBn across radial distances would isolate the evolutionary component the paper emphasizes.
  • The magic-square diagnostic could be adapted to suprathermal electrons or heavy ions, or to stream interaction regions, to see whether the energy-dependent decorrelation is a general property of evolving shocks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes a strong interplanetary shock observed on 3 November 2021 by Solar Orbiter (0.8 AU) and, later, by ACE and Wind at 1 AU, leveraging a favorable near-radial alignment. Using energetic ion intensity-time profiles from three missions, the authors introduce a cross-correlation-based 'magic square' diagnostic to compare profile shapes across energy channels and spacecraft separations. They report that at energies below ~0.5 MeV the profiles are ESP-like and similar at all three spacecraft, whereas at higher energies (>~0.5 MeV) the profiles decorrelate at 0.2 AU separation and the peak flux occurs downstream of the shock at 1 AU with a delay of about 30 minutes relative to the shock crossing. The paper suggests that this energy-dependent decorrelation and lag reflect shock evolution—i.e., less efficient high-energy particle production as the shock propagates from 0.8 to 1 AU—and that spatial irregularities of the shock and ambient medium modulate the profiles.

Significance. If the evolutionary interpretation holds, this is a valuable multi-spacecraft radial study of a single IP shock, complementing earlier statistical work (e.g., Kallenrode 1997) and making use of a rare spacecraft configuration. The paper explicitly builds on an independent prior characterization of the same event (Trotta et al. 2023a), and the raw observational findings—energy-dependent profile decorrelation and a downstream peak at 1 AU—are clearly presented and supported by the figures. The proposed cross-correlation diagnostic is a useful tool for multi-mission comparisons where energy channels do not overlap. However, the central interpretation is not uniquely determined by the data: the three spacecraft also differ in local shock geometry, upstream turbulence, and preconditioning history, and the paper does not quantitatively separate these effects from radial evolution. The authors themselves acknowledge the interpretation is 'somewhat qualitative,' which is an important limitation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3 (Figs. 4-6) and Section 4] The central claim that the high-energy decorrelation and ~30-min downstream peak at Wind/ACE reflect shock evolution rather than local conditions is not uniquely established. The manuscript reports that θBn differs strongly between sites (45° at Solar Orbiter vs 33° at Wind and 10° at ACE), that upstream magnetic fluctuation power at Solar Orbiter is about an order of magnitude higher, and that a weak upstream shock at 12:28 UT may have preconditioned the Solar Orbiter environment. Each of these can plausibly shift the high-energy peak and decorrelate profiles without invoking radial evolution: quasi-parallel geometry broadens the foreshock, lower turbulence reduces particle confinement, and pre-accelerated seed populations alter the injection. The paper's statement that the analysis is 'somewhat qualitative' (Section 3) is an admission that this decomposition is missing. I request a qua
  2. [Section 3 (Figure 5 and Figure 6)] The new cross-correlation diagnostic is not fully specified, yet it underpins the paper's quantitative claims. Please define the correlation measure precisely: the time window used, the normalization (profiles 'normalized to their relative peak flux'), the lag search range and resolution, and the interpolation procedure for the nine logarithmically spaced energies (green dots). Critically, no uncertainty or significance measure is given for the peak correlation or the lag. Without error bars or a null-hypothesis test, the conclusion that correlation decreases with energy at 0.2 AU but increases at 0.02 AU is not quantitatively supported, and the ~30-minute lag is reported without uncertainty. Add at least a sensitivity analysis and error estimates.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Many typographical errors: 'di fferent' (multiple), 'quantitavely' (Sections 2 and 4), 'One the one hand' (Section 4), 'staring point' (Section 4), 'precontitioning' (Section 3), and 'advect with the speed' should be 'advected with the speed'.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 2] The nine EPT energy channels shown in Figure 2 are not listed. Please specify the channel energies, as this affects interpretation of the low/high-energy comparison.
  3. [Section 3, Figure 5] The green dots are said to be 'selected logarithmically spaced energies at which the peak correlation and lags are interpolated in Figure 6.' Please state the exact energies and justify the selection criterion beyond 'compatible with the spacing in energy that Wind and ACE have.'
  4. [Section 4] The sentence 'We then elucidated that large-scale irregularities shape the energetic particles profile' would benefit from a specific pointer to Figures 4-6, and 'shock and downstream structure appear to play a crucial role' (Section 3) is stated without quantitative support; consider tempering or adding a reference to the correlation lag trends.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cross-correlation results are direct statistics of observed profiles, and the shock-evolution interpretation is an acknowledged qualitative hypothesis, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical content is a comparison of observed energetic-particle intensity-time profiles at three spacecraft. The 'magic square' diagnostic (Figures 5-6) computes the peak cross-correlation and the lag at that peak directly from the normalized observed fluxes; no model parameters are fitted to any subset of data and then used to predict a closely related quantity. The low-energy similarity and high-energy decorrelation/downstream peak (~30 min delay at 1 AU) are therefore descriptive statistics, not predictions that reduce to fitted inputs. The authors explicitly offer the shock-evolution explanation as a suggestion ('we suggest', 'we interpret', 'we propose') and acknowledge in Section 3 that 'Our discussion is limited by the fact that it remains based on somewhat qualitative interpretations of the observations.' They also note local-condition differences (θBn ~45° vs ~33°/~10°, higher upstream turbulence at Solar Orbiter, and a weak upstream shock) that could contribute; this is an alternative-explanation/robustness concern, not circularity, because the conclusion is not identical to its inputs by construction. Self-citations (Trotta et al. 2022 method, Trotta et al. 2023a characterization of the same event, Trotta et al. 2025 statistical context) supply methods and context but are not load-bearing for the cross-correlation result, which is computed directly from publicly available measurements. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The 'magic square' is a representation of ordinary cross-correlations, not a renaming of a known result into a new physical law. Hence no circular step is present; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities and fits no model parameters; the quantitative output is a cross-correlation of observed, normalized profiles. The main hidden inputs are the chosen analysis windows and the assumption that the three crossings sample the same shock at different evolutionary stages.

free parameters (2)
  • Correlation time window = 12 hours centered on shock crossing
    Hand-chosen analysis window; the peak-correlation and lag values in Figures 5-6 depend on this window and no sensitivity study is provided.
  • Nine interpolation energies (green dots) = Log-spaced energies spanning Wind/ACE overlap, roughly 0.07-5 MeV
    Chosen to match the coarser energy spacing of Wind and ACE; the energy-dependence curves in Figure 6 depend on this grid.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The three spacecraft observed the same evolving IP shock front.
    Section 3 orders the crossings in time (14:04:26 UT SolO; 19:24:05 UT ACE; 19:35:01 UT Wind) and uses the radial alignment for comparison; a strongly corrugated or disconnected front would break the radial-evolution interpretation.
  • domain assumption Normalized energetic particle profiles from EPT, 3DP, and EPAM are directly comparable.
    Figure 4 normalizes each profile to its peak flux; instrument energy bins, fields of view, and responses differ, and instrumental uncertainties are not propagated into the cross-correlation.
  • domain assumption Single-spacecraft shock parameters (θBn, MA, Mfms) computed previously are accurate.
    Section 3 quotes shock parameters from Trotta et al. (2023a) using mixed-mode normals and mass-flux conservation; errors in these values would alter the discussion of why the three crossings differ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variability in energetic particle observations at strong interplanetary shocks: Multi-spacecraft observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4RMWDR6Z

@misc{pith2026250819812,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variability in energetic particle observations at strong interplanetary shocks: Multi-spacecraft observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4RMWDR6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19812}
}
read the original abstract

Context. Interplanetary (IP) shock waves offer an unparalleled opportunity to directly study the elusive mechanisms of particle acceleration that are pervasive in our Universe. Novel spacecraft missions, orbiting poorly-explored regions of the heliosphere, opened a new observational window on particle acceleration at IP shocks that is relevant to space and astrophysical plasmas. Aims. We address shock variability and its effects on the production of accelerated particles at different energies. We leveraged three different missions that directly observed a strong IP shock in a range of separations that cannot be achieved with a single mission. We linked spatial shock irregularities and evolutionary effects to the observed energetic particle responses in the shock passage at the three different heliospheric vantage points. Methods. We exploited direct observations of magnetic field, plasma, and energetic particle fluxes from the Wind and ACE missions at 1 AU and from the Solar Orbiter spacecraft. They are well-aligned radially at 0.8 AU. We devised a new technique based on the cross-correlation of energetic particle profiles to quantitatively address the variability in the characteristics of energetic particles at different points in space and time. Results. We show that ions with different energies respond differently to the shock passage in the range of observer separations 0.02 - 0.2 AU we explored. The shape and behavior of high-energy (> 0.5 MeV) particle profiles vary between the 0.8 and 1 AU observations, and we suggest that this is caused by shock-evolution, in which high-energy particles are produced less efficiently at 1 AU than at 0.8. Finally, we show that shock and ambient spatial irregularities that are observed throughout the event modulate the energetic particle responses at different energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19812 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Orbital configuration for the event, showing the positions of Solar Orbiter (blue), ACE (orange) and Wind in the GSE coordinate system when the IP shock was recorded at Solar Orbiter on 3 November 2021 14:04:26 UT. The arrows show the (average) shock normal vectors. at a resolution of 64 vectors/s by the flux-gate magnetometer MAG (Horbury et al. 2020). Energetic proton fluxes were used as well, measured from the su… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sixteen-hour overview of energetic particle fluxes (top) and magnetic field (bottom) observations by Solar Orbiter, Wind, and ACE (from left to right). The dashed vertical line identifies the shock transition, and it is at the center of the overview for each plot. We show 9 of the 64 energy channels available from Solar Orbiter EPT. et al. 2023a, for further details). In the bottom panel of Fig￾ure 3, we show the tr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnetic field magnitude and components for 2 hours upstream of the shock at Solar Orbiter, Wind, and ACE (top to bottom, respec￾tively). The dashed red line marks the shock transition. In the bottom panel, we show the trace magnetic field power spectral densities for 2 hours upstream of each event. each intensity-time profile to its relative peak flux in the chosen time interval. Finally, in the bottom panel, we sh… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Twelve-hour overview of the event, where magnetic fields and intensity-time energetic particle profiles are overlaid for the Solar Orbiter￾Wind (left) and for the ACE-Wind observations. The fluxes are normalized to the maximum flux in each interval. From top to bottom,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Magic squares showing the peak correlation for particle intensity-time profiles in all available energy bins (left) for Solar Orbiter-Wind (top) and ACE-Wind (bottom). Right: Magic squares displaying the lag at which the peak correlation displayed in the left pan…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Peak correlation (left) and lag (right) as a function of energy, interpolated from the magic squares (see green dots in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Axford, W. I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G. 1977, International Cosmic Ray Confer- ence, 11, 132

    work page 1977

  2. [2]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147

    1978

  3. [3]

    Blandford, R. D. & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJ, 221, L29

    1978

  4. [4]

    & Jones, T

    Brunetti, G. & Jones, T. W. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430007

    2014

  5. [5]

    & Carbone, V

    Bruno, R. & Carbone, V . 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 2

    2013

  6. [6]

    A., Cline, T

    Bryant, D. A., Cline, T. L., Desai, U. D., & McDonald, F. B. 1962, J. Geo- phys. Res., 67, 4983

    work page 1962

  7. [7]

    2012, Space Sci

    Burgess, D., Möbius, E., & Scholer, M. 2012, Space Sci. Rev., 173, 5

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    & Scholer, M

    Burgess, D. & Scholer, M. 2015, Collisionless Shocks in Space Plasmas (Cam- bridge University Press)

    work page 2015

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Burlaga, L. F. 1971, Space Sci. Rev., 12, 600

    1971

  2. [10]

    M., Vazza, F., Kropotina, J

    Bykov, A. M., Vazza, F., Kropotina, J. A., Levenfish, K. P., & Paerels, F. B. S. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 14

    2019

  3. [11]

    2023, Front

    Chiappetta, F., Laurenza, M., Lepreti, F., et al. 2023, Front. Astron. Space Sci., 10

    2023

  4. [12]

    J., Schwartz, S

    Cohen, I. J., Schwartz, S. J., Goodrich, K. A., et al. 2019, J. Geophys. Res., 124, 3961

    2019

  5. [13]

    Decker, R. B. 1983, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 9959

    1983

  6. [14]

    & Giacalone, J

    Desai, M. & Giacalone, J. 2016, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 13, 3

    2016

  7. [15]

    2023, A&A, 679, A106

    Dimmock, A., Gedalin, M., Lalti, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A106

    2023

  8. [16]

    C., et al

    Dresing, N., Rodríguez-García, L., Jebaraj, I. C., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A105

    2023

  9. [17]

    Drury, L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973

    1983

  10. [18]

    Ellison, D. C. 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 29

    1985

  11. [19]

    P., Schmidt, R., & Goldstein, M

    Escoubet, C. P., Schmidt, R., & Goldstein, M. L. 1997, Space Sci. Rev., 79, 11

    1997

  12. [20]

    Fairfield, D. H. & Behannon, K. W. 1976, Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977), 81, 3897

    1976

  13. [21]

    1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169

    Fermi, E. 1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169

    1949

  14. [22]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, Space Sci. Rev., 204, 7

    2016

  15. [23]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 28

    Giacalone, J. 2012, ApJ, 761, 28

    2012

  16. [24]

    D., et al

    Giacalone, J., Burgess, D., Bale, S. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 102

    2021

  17. [25]

    E., Krimigis, S

    Gold, R. E., Krimigis, S. M., Hawkins, III, S. E., et al. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 86, 541

    1998

  18. [26]

    2021, Front

    Guo, F., Giacalone, J., & Zhao, L. 2021, Front. Astron. Space Sci., 8

    2021

  19. [27]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 2415

    Hietala, H., Trotta, D., Fedeli, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2415

    2024

  20. [28]

    S., Bale, S

    Horbury, T. S., Bale, S. D., McManus, M. D., et al. 2023, PoP, 30, 082905

    2023

  21. [29]

    S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al

    Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A9

    2020

  22. [30]

    C., Dresing, N., Krasnoselskikh, V ., et al

    Jebaraj, I. C., Dresing, N., Krasnoselskikh, V ., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, L7

    2023

  23. [31]

    Kajdic, P., Pfau-Kempf, Y ., Turc, L., et al. 2021, J. Geophys. Res., 126, e2021JA029283, e2021JA029283 2021JA029283 Kajdiˇc, P., Preisser, L., Blanco-Cano, X., Burgess, D., & Trotta, D. 2019, ApJ, 874, L13

    2021

  24. [32]

    Kallenrode, M.-B. 1997, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 22347

    1997

  25. [33]

    2023, Ap&SS, 368, 66

    Kilpua, E., Vainio, R., Cohen, C., et al. 2023, Ap&SS, 368, 66

    2023

  26. [34]

    K., Lumme, E., Andreeova, K., Isavnin, A., & Koskinen, H

    Kilpua, E. K., Lumme, E., Andreeova, K., Isavnin, A., & Koskinen, H. E. 2015, J. Geophys. Res., 120, 4112

    2015

  27. [35]

    K., et al

    Kruparova, O., Szabo, A., Jian, L. K., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L10

    2025

  28. [36]

    S., O’Brien, H., et al

    Laker, R., Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., et al. 2024, Space Weather, 22, e2023SW003628, e2023SW003628 2023SW003628

    2024

  29. [37]

    V ., Dimmock, A

    Lalti, A., Khotyaintsev, Y . V ., Dimmock, A. P., et al. 2022, J. Geophys. Res., 127, e2022JA030454, e2022JA030454 2022JA030454

    2022

  30. [38]

    & Decker, R

    Lario, D. & Decker, R. B. 2002, GRL, 29, 31

    2002

  31. [39]

    B., et al

    Lario, D., Kallenrode, M.-B., Decker, R. B., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1531

    2006

  32. [40]

    G., Wilson, L

    Lario, D., Richardson, I. G., Wilson, L. B., I., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 198

    2022

  33. [41]

    Lario, D., Sanahuja, B., & Heras, A. M. 1998, ApJ, 509, 415

    1998

  34. [42]

    P., Ac˜una, M

    Lepping, R. P., Ac˜una, M. H., Burlaga, L. F., et al. 1995, Space Sci. Rev., 71, 207

    1995

  35. [43]

    P., Anderson, K

    Lin, R. P., Anderson, K. A., Ashford, S., et al. 1995, Space Sci. Rev., 71, 125

    1995

  36. [44]

    O., Al-Haddad, N., et al

    Lugaz, N., Lee, C. O., Al-Haddad, N., et al. 2024, Space Sci. Rev., 220, 73

    2024

  37. [45]

    A., Qudsi, Ramiz A., Alterman, B

    Maruca, B. A., Qudsi, Ramiz A., Alterman, B. L., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A196

    2023

  38. [46]

    2024, PoP, 31, 032901

    Matteini, L., Tenerani, A., Landi, S., et al. 2024, PoP, 31, 032901

    2024

  39. [47]

    J., Christian, E

    McComas, D. J., Christian, E. R., Schwadron, N. A., et al. 2018, Space Sci. Rev., 214, 116 Müller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1

    2018

  40. [48]

    & Giacalone, J

    Neugebauer, M. & Giacalone, J. 2005, J. Geophys. Res., 110

    2005

  41. [49]

    Neugebauer, M., Giacalone, J., Chollet, E., & Lario, D. 2006, J. Geophys. Res., 111

    2006

  42. [50]

    2024, A&A, 690, A287

    Nyberg, S., Vuorinen, L., Afanasiev, A., Trotta, D., & Vainio, R. 2024, A&A, 690, A287

    2024

  43. [51]

    2024, MNRAS, 536, 203

    Palmerio, E., Kay, C., Al-Haddad, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 536, 203

    2024

  44. [52]

    & Schwartz, S

    Paschmann, G. & Schwartz, S. J. 2000, ESA Special Publication, V ol. 449, ISSI Book on Analysis Methods for Multi-Spacecraft Data (ESA), 99 Pérez-Alanis, C. A., Janvier, M., Nieves-Chinchilla, T., et al. 2023, Sol. Phys., 298, 60

    2000

  45. [53]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 62

    Perri, S., Prete, G., Zimbardo, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 62

    2023

  46. [54]

    2024, A&A, 686, A116

    Pezzi, O., Trotta, D., Benella, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A116

    2024

  47. [55]

    Preisser, L., Blanco-Cano, X., Trotta, D., Burgess, D., & Kajdiˇc, P. 2020, J. Geo- phys. Res., 125, e2019JA027442, e2019JA027442 10.1029/2019JA027442

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    Reames, D. V . 1999, Space Sci. Rev., 90, 413

    1999

  49. [57]

    J., Badman, S

    Rivera, Y . J., Badman, S. T., Stevens, M. L., et al. 2024, Science, 385, 962 Rodríguez-Pacheco, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Mason, G. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A7

    2024

  50. [58]

    1990, in Physics of the Inner Heliosphere I, ed

    Schwenn, R. 1990, in Physics of the Inner Heliosphere I, ed. R. Schwenn & E. Marsch, 99

    1990

  51. [59]

    & Megala, S

    Seetha, S. & Megala, S. 2017, Current Science, 113, 610

    2017

  52. [60]

    W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N

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

    1998

  53. [61]

    2025, ApJS, 277, 2

    Trotta, D., Dimmock, A., Hietala, H., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 2

    2025

  54. [62]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9 Vršnak, B

    Trotta, D., Vuorinen, L., Hietala, H., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9 Vršnak, B. & Cliver, E. W. 2008, Sol. Phys., 253, 215

    2022

  55. [63]

    H., Horbury, T

    Wang, J. H., Horbury, T. S., Matteini, L., & Trotta, D. 2025, ApJL, 978, L17

    2025

  56. [64]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 172 Wilson III, L

    Wijsen, N., Lario, D., Sánchez-Cano, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 172 Wilson III, L. B., Brosius, A. L., Gopalswamy, N., et al. 2021, Reviews of Geo- physics, 59, e2020RG000714, e2020RG000714 2020RG000714

    2023

  57. [65]

    F., Janitzek, N

    Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Janitzek, N. P., Pacheco, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A22

    2021

  58. [66]

    2024, A&A, 686, A132

    Yang, L., Heidrich-Meisner, V ., Wang, W., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A132

    2024

  59. [67]

    2025, A&A, 695, A270

    Yang, L., Li, X.-Y ., Heidrich-Meisner, V ., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A270

    2025

  60. [68]

    2023, A&A, 673, A73

    Yang, L., Heidrich-Meisner, V ., Berger, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A73

    2023

  61. [69]

    P., Hunana, P., Mostafavi, P., et al

    Zank, G. P., Hunana, P., Mostafavi, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 137 Article number, page 9 of 9

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.