Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Direct comparison of the energization of self-consistent charged particles vs test particles in a turbulent plasma

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Test-particle runs overestimate proton heating in turbulent plasma simulations.

desk verdict The paper gives a useful first side-by-side comparison of test-particle and self-consistent kinetic energization in a shared turbulent state, but its central quantitative claim is weakened because the two arms differ in model physics as well as in particle feedback. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18771 v1 pith:C3X3VHL7 submitted 2024-11-27 physics.plasm-ph

Facundo Pugliese , Pablo Dmitruk This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords turbulentplasmatestparticleapproximationhybridparticle-in-cellenergizationsuprathermalparticlesHallmagnetohydrodynamicscollisionlessdissipationprotonheating
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

The paper asks whether the cheap and widely used test-particle approximation—pushing charged particles through precomputed electromagnetic fields without letting them act back on the fields—can reproduce the energization of protons in a turbulent plasma. By directly comparing a compressible Hall magnetohydrodynamic run with test protons against a hybrid particle-in-cell run with self-consistent protons, starting from identical turbulent initial conditions, the authors find that test particles gain substantially more thermal energy: about three times more in the 2.5D run and roughly six times more in the 3D run. They also find that suprathermal particles fill the entire domain in the test-particle case but remain localized in the self-consistent case. The upshot is that test-particle studies are trustworthy for early energization and for the direction of preferential heating, but they overstate heating rates and the abundance of suprathermal particles.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a side-by-side simulation protocol: a single stationary turbulent state produced by the CHMHD model (a compressible Hall MHD system with viscous and resistive dissipation) serves as the common initial condition for both branches. From that state, particles are sampled from the local fluid density and temperature, and the run splits: one branch continues the CHMHD evolution while pushing particles as test particles that do not feed back on the fields; the other branch switches to HPIC, a hybrid particle-in-cell scheme with kinetic protons and massless adiabatic electrons, where particles self-consistently generate the fields. The diagnostic that carries the suprathermal-particle comparison is the kurtosis field $\kappa_\ell(x,t) = \delta M_{\ell,4}(x,t)/T_\ell^2(x,t)$, computed from the fourth-order centered moment of the local velocity distribution; $\kappa_\ell > 3$ marks a suprathermal tail, and the paper tracks the fraction of grid points with $\kappa_\ell > 3$ over time.

What would settle it

Run a third simulation with the same initial turbulent state but with particle feedback added to the CHMHD fluid equations (a two-way coupled fluid-particle scheme); if the energization gap between it and the test-particle branch disappears, the overestimation is not caused by the test-particle approximation alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that removing the coupling from particles back to the electromagnetic fields—the test-particle approximation—biases particle energization upward in turbulent plasmas with a magnetic guide field. The authors demonstrate this by starting both branches from the same stationary CHMHD turbulent state, then evolving one branch self-consistently with the particles (HPIC) and the other with particles riding as test particles on the CHMHD fields. In both 2.5D and 3D simulations, the test-particle branch reaches a higher mean temperature increase: about three times higher in 2.5D and roughly six times higher in 3D at the end of the runs, after a short period where both agree. The suprathermal analysis shows that in the test-particle case the fraction of grid points with kurtosis greater than 3 reaches one across the whole domain, while in the self-consistent case that fraction stays lower and the suprathermal particles remain confined to specific regions. The authors conclude that test particles capture the early energization and the preferential perpendicular heating, but miss finer phenomena and systematically overestimate energization and the width of the velocity tails.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the difference between the CHMHD-plus-test-particle run and the HPIC run is caused by the test-particle approximation itself, but the two runs also differ in physical model—CHMHD treats ions as a single fluid with a pi=pe closure, while HPIC treats ions kinetically—and no run isolates these two sources.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Test-particle results are reliable for early energization (up to roughly 0.13 large-eddy turnover times) and for the preferential perpendicular heating, but not for absolute heating rates.
  • Studies using test particles to estimate cosmic-ray or suprathermal ion production in turbulent plasmas will overestimate those rates, because the same normalized velocity distributions give heavier tails in the test-particle case.
  • The bias worsens in 3D relative to 2.5D, so conclusions drawn from lower-dimensional test-particle runs may be even less reliable when the injection scale is close to ion scales.
  • Higher-order velocity statistics (kurtosis and tail weight) are more poorly captured by the test-particle approximation than mean temperature, so suprathermal-population studies need self-consistent kinetics.
  • Self-consistent particles can develop suprathermal tails in the parallel direction even when the simulation is 2.5D, indicating parallel energization mechanisms that are inaccessible to test particles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A two-way coupled fluid-particle run (CHMHD with particle feedback) would be needed to separate the effect of removing particle feedback from the effect of treating ions as a fluid; the paper does not include such a run, so part of the gap could be model-dependent rather than approximation-dependent.
  • Because the HPIC results change little between 2.5D and 3D while the CHMHD results change substantially, self-consistent energization may be controlled by local kinetic structures that are insensitive to dimensionality, whereas test particles respond more to the global field geometry.
  • The paper's qualitative argument that self-consistent high-energy particles generate fields that arrest their own acceleration suggests a feedback saturation mechanism that could be tested by measuring the correlation between suprathermal particle density and local magnetic-field enhancement in the HPIC runs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a numerical comparison of proton energization in driven turbulence between a 'test-particle' approach, where protons are evolved as test particles in the fields of a compressible Hall magnetohydrodynamic (CHMHD) simulation, and a 'self-consistent' hybrid particle-in-cell (HPIC) simulation in which the same particles supply the ion moments that determine the fields. The authors conduct one 2.5D and one 3D case, initialized from the same CHMHD stationary state. They find that the test particles gain about three times (2.5D) and about six times (3D) more perpendicular and parallel temperature increase than the HPIC ions, and that the kurtosis-based suprathermal fraction saturates over the entire domain for test particles while remaining localized for HPIC particles. They conclude that the test-particle approximation overestimates heating and suprathermal production while retaining some qualitative features such as preferential perpendicular heating and a similar early ballistic energization.

Significance. The question addressed is of practical importance because test-particle studies are widely used to model energetic particle transport and acceleration in turbulent space plasmas. If the reported overestimation is robust, the paper would provide a concrete cautionary result and a quantitative reference for the bias introduced by omitting particle feedback. The manuscript also contributes a detailed energy budget of the HPIC run, including the partition of injected energy among magnetic, bulk, and thermal channels, and a kurtosis-based diagnostic of suprathermal spatial distribution. The use of both 2.5D and 3D geometries, with matched initial conditions and forcing, is a step toward practical guidance on when the test-particle approximation can be trusted. However, because the two arms differ in the underlying physical model as well as in particle feedback, the central attribution of the difference to the test-particle approximation is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV A, first paragraph] The statement that 'any difference should be due to kinetic effects and the test particle approximation' is an assertion that the numerical design does not support. The CHMHD and HPIC runs differ not only in particle feedback but also in the ion model (fluid versus kinetic), the dissipation operators (viscosity and resistivity versus collisionless processes), and the closure assumptions (Ti=Te with an adiabatic electron fluid versus kinetic ions with a separate adiabatic electron pressure). The reported overestimation factors, about 3x in Figure 4 and about 6x in Figure 8, could therefore be dominated by these model differences. To isolate the test-particle approximation, the authors need a control such as an HPIC run in which the same particles are evolved without feeding back into the fields, or a CHMHD run with self-consistent particle feedback. Without such a control, the conclusion that the test-particle approximation overestimates heating is not established by the present comparison.
  2. [Sections III C and IV A, Figures 2 and 7] The reference CHMHD run is statistically stationary (energies fluctuate around constant values), while the HPIC run is not: injected energy is only partially balanced by dissipation, so thermal and magnetic energies increase monotonically throughout the simulation. Consequently, the test particles evolve in a stationary electromagnetic field, whereas the self-consistent particles evolve in a field that is gaining energy. The difference in energization between the two arms may reflect this asymmetry in the global energy balance rather than particle feedback. The authors should either modify the HPIC setup to achieve a statistically stationary state, or discuss how the different injection/dissipation balance affects the interpretation of the comparison.
  3. [Section IV B and Section V, Figures 4 and 8] The 3D simulation is explicitly described as 'mostly qualitative' because of lower resolution and shorter duration, yet the conclusions state that the CHMHD test particles are heated 'approximately twice' as much relative to its 2.5D counterpart and about 6 times more than the HPIC case. These quantitative factors are derived from a single short run and may not be converged with respect to resolution or duration. The 3D numbers should be presented as qualitative trends, or supported by a resolution study, before being reported as quantitative factors in the abstract and conclusions.
  4. [All results, Figures 2, 4, 8] Each case is a single realization with no ensemble averages or error bars. The quantitative claims of 3x and 6x overestimation are therefore point estimates from one run. While the qualitative separation between CHMHD and HPIC may be robust, the specific magnitudes are fragile. The authors should provide at least an estimate of statistical uncertainty, for example by dividing the domain into sub-boxes or by performing multiple realizations, before presenting these factors as quantitative results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III C] The phrase 'split en two cases' should be 'split into two cases'.
  2. [Section II C] The word 'Prandlt' should be 'Prandtl'.
  3. [Section IV A] The word 'colissionless' should be 'collisionless'.
  4. [Figure 9 caption] The caption says 'both parallel (left) and parallel (right)'; the left panel should be 'perpendicular'.
  5. [Section IV B] The verb 'resemblances' should be 'resembles'.
  6. [Section V] The notation 'kIdi' is used for the injection wavenumber, but Table I uses 'kmin'; clarify the relation between the injection scale and kmin in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the comparison is an empirical simulation study with independently stated models.

full rationale

The paper is a direct numerical comparison between two simulation models sharing initial conditions and large-scale forcing. The central quantities (temperature increase, kurtosis-based suprathermal fraction, energization rates) are computed from the simulations, not derived from a fitted parameter or from a cited prior result. The CHMHD and HPIC equations are independently stated; the comparison does not define test-particle energization in terms of HPIC energization or vice versa. The statement in Sec. IV A that 'any difference should be due to kinetic effects and the test particle approximation' is a modeling assumption about attribution, and a possible confound given different closures and dissipation, but that is a correctness/design issue, not circularity: no result is equivalent to its input by construction. Self-citations (refs 24-31, 34) provide context for the test-particle method and are not used to justify the conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction; the simulation parameters are choices, not fitted values. Therefore no circular steps; score 0.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities; it compares existing models. The free parameters are simulation choices that set the turbulence and kinetic regimes, not fitted values, and none is tuned to force the stated conclusion.

free parameters (5)
  • plasma beta beta_i = beta_e = ~0.47
    Chosen for both CHMHD and HPIC runs; controls the ratio of thermal to magnetic pressure and influences the turbulence regime and energization, but is not fitted to the target result.
  • magnetic Prandtl number Pr = 1
    Set by hand in all CHMHD runs; sets the ratio of viscosity to resistivity and therefore the dissipation scales.
  • forcing correlation time tau_f = ~4.5 Omega_i^-1
    Chosen for the electromotive forcing; controls the energy injection rate and large-scale dynamics.
  • box size Lbox = 140 d_i (2.5D), 34.9 d_i (3D)
    Chosen domain sizes set the scale separation between injection and ion scales; the paper notes the 3D case has less scale separation.
  • particles per cell = 625 (2.5D), 512 (3D)
    Chosen particle counts set the statistical noise level of HPIC moments and the initial kurtosis offsets.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Vlasov equation for ions with massless-fluid electrons and quasi-neutrality
    Standard hybrid kinetic model assumptions invoked in Eqs. (1) through (9); they define the HPIC ground truth.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic electron closure pe = pe0 (ne/n0)^(5/3)
    Eq. (8) closes the electron pressure in both models; the paper notes it makes grad pe/ne a gradient so it drops out of the induction equation.
  • domain assumption Thermal equilibrium closure pi=pe and Ti=Te for CHMHD
    Stated before Eq. (16); merges ion and electron thermal energies and is part of the fluid model being compared, so model differences are entangled with the test-particle effect.
  • domain assumption The CHMHD stationary state is a dynamically consistent initial condition for both CHMHD test particles and HPIC particles
    Section III C initializes both cases from the same CHMHD fields and distributions; the HPIC run shows a fast transient, indicating the state is not exactly stationary for the kinetic model.
  • ad hoc to paper Differences between the two runs are attributable to kinetic effects and the test-particle approximation
    Section IV A states this explicitly; it is the load-bearing interpretive assumption that lets the authors attribute the energization gap to lack of self-consistency.
  • domain assumption Kurtosis field threshold kappa > 3 identifies suprathermal regions and finite-size noise is benign
    Eq. (25) and Fig. 5 use kurtosis to locate non-Maxwellian tails; the paper notes the initial value is about 0.47 due to noise, so the metric is noisy at low particle counts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct comparison of the energization of self-consistent charged particles vs test particles in a turbulent plasma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C3X3VHL7

@misc{pith2026241118771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct comparison of the energization of self-consistent charged particles vs test particles in a turbulent plasma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C3X3VHL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18771}
}
read the original abstract

The test particle approach is a widely used method for studying the dynamics of charged particles in complex electromagnetic fields and has been successful in explaining particle energization in turbulent plasmas. However, this approach is fundamentally not self-consistent, as test particles do not generate their own electromagnetic fields and therefore do not interact with their surroundings realistically. In this work, we compare the energization of a population of test protons in a magnetofluid to that of a plasma composed of self-consistent particles. We use a compressible Hall magnetohydrodynamic (CHMHD) model for the test particle case and a hybrid particle-in-cell (HPIC) approach for the self-consistent case, conducting both 2D and 3D simulations. We calculate the rate of energization and conversion to thermal energy in both models, finding a higher temperature for the test particle case. Additionally, we examine the distribution of suprathermal particles and find that, in the test particle scenario, these particles eventually occupy the entire domain, while in the self-consistent case, suprathermal particles are confined to specific regions. We conclude that while test particles capture some qualitative features of their self-consistent counterparts, they miss finer phenomena and tend to overestimate energization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18771 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Bulk kinetic (upper) and magnetic (lower) energy spectra at selected times throughout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evolution of the different energies for the CHMHD (left), and HPIC (right) simulations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Energy increase normalized by injection for the HPIC case. There is an initial fast energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Left) Mean kinetic energy variation of the particles in both cases as a function of time, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Top panels) Fraction of grid points with kurtosis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Normalized velocity fluctuation (see text for definition) PDFs at the end of the simulations, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Evolution of the different energies for the CHMHD (left), and HPIC (right) 3D simulations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Left) Mean kinetic energy variation of the particles in both 3D cases (CHMHD and HPIC) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Top panels) Fraction of grid points where the kurtosis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Normalized velocity fluctuation (see text for definition) PDFs at the end of the simulations, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  2. [2]

    merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  3. [3]

    merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  4. [4]

    merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  5. [5]

    merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  6. [6]

    author author R. P. \ Lin \ and\ author H. S. \ Hudson ,\ 10.1007/bf00150045 journal journal Solar Physics \ volume 17 ,\ pages 412–435 ( year 1971 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00150045 1971

  7. [7]

    author author D. V. \ Reames , author J. P. \ Meyer , \ and\ author T. T. \ von Rosenvinge ,\ 10.1086/191887 journal journal The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series \ volume 90 ,\ pages 649 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1086/191887 1994

  8. [8]

    author author J. A. \ Miller , author P. J. \ Cargill , author A. G. \ Emslie , author G. D. \ Holman , author B. R. \ Dennis , author T. N. \ LaRosa , author R. M. \ Winglee , author S. G. \ Benka , \ and\ author S. Tsuneta ,\ 10.1029/97ja00976 journal journal Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics \ volume 102 ,\ pages 14631–14659 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1029/97ja00976

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Desai \ and\ author J

    author author M. Desai \ and\ author J. Giacalone ,\ 10.1007/s41116-016-0002-5 journal journal Living Reviews in Solar Physics \ volume 13 ( year 2016 ),\ 10.1007/s41116-016-0002-5 NoStop

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Vlahos , author A

    author author L. Vlahos , author A. Anastasiadis , author A. Papaioannou , author A. Kouloumvakos , \ and\ author H. Isliker ,\ 10.1098/rsta.2018.0095 journal journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences \ volume 37...

    2018

  3. [11]

    author author E. N. \ Parker ,\ 10.1086/146579 journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 128 ,\ pages 664 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

    1958 doi

  4. [12]

    author author W. H. \ Matthaeus , author G. P. \ Zank , author C. W. \ Smith , \ and\ author S. Oughton ,\ 10.1103/physrevlett.82.3444 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 82 ,\ pages 3444–3447 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999 doi

  5. [13]

    Hellinger , author P

    author author P. Hellinger , author P. M. \ Tr\'avn\'i c ek , author S t e p\'an , author L. Matteini , \ and\ author M. Velli ,\ 10.1002/jgra.50107 journal journal Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics \ volume 118 ,\ pages 1351–1365 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    doi

  6. [14]

    Verscharen , author K

    author author D. Verscharen , author K. G. \ Klein , \ and\ author B. A. \ Maruca ,\ 10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0 journal journal Living Reviews in Solar Physics \ volume 16 ( year 2019 ),\ 10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0 NoStop

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    author author W. H. \ Matthaeus \ and\ author M. Velli ,\ 10.1007/s11214-011-9793-9 journal journal Space Science Reviews \ volume 160 ,\ pages 145–168 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Bruno \ and\ author V

    author author R. Bruno \ and\ author V. Carbone ,\ 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2 journal journal Living Reviews in Solar Physics \ volume 10 ( year 2013 ),\ 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2 NoStop

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Frisch ,\ 10.1017/cbo9781139170666 title Turbulence: The Legacy of A.N

    author author U. Frisch ,\ 10.1017/cbo9781139170666 title Turbulence: The Legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 1995 ) NoStop

    1995 doi

  10. [18]

    Sorriso-Valvo , author R

    author author L. Sorriso-Valvo , author R. Marino , author V. Carbone , author A. Noullez , author F. Lepreti , author P. Veltri , author R. Bruno , author B. Bavassano , \ and\ author E. Pietropaolo ,\ 10.1103/physrevlett.99.115001 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ vo...

    doi

  11. [19]

    author author L. Z. \ Hadid , author F. Sahraoui , \ and\ author S. Galtier ,\ 10.3847/1538-4357/aa603f journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 838 ,\ pages 9 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Andrés , author F

    author author N. Andrés , author F. Sahraoui , author S. Galtier , author L. Hadid , author R. Ferrand , \ and\ author S. Huang ,\ 10.1103/physrevlett.123.245101 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 123 ( year 2019 ),\ 10.1103/physrevlett.123.245101 NoStop

    doi

  13. [21]

    Romanelli , author N

    author author N. Romanelli , author N. Andrés , \ and\ author G. A. \ DiBraccio ,\ 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5902 journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 929 ,\ pages 145 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    author author T. H. \ Stix ,\ @noop title Waves in plasmas \ ( publisher American Institute of Physics ,\ year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992

  15. [23]

    author author J. W. \ Bieber , author W. H. \ Matthaeus , author A. Shalchi , \ and\ author G. Qin ,\ 10.1029/2004gl020007 journal journal Geophysical Research Letters \ volume 31 ( year 2004 ),\ 10.1029/2004gl020007 NoStop

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    Ruffolo , author P

    author author D. Ruffolo , author P. Chuychai , author P. Wongpan , author J. Minnie , author J. W. \ Bieber , \ and\ author W. H. \ Matthaeus ,\ 10.1086/591493 journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 686 ,\ pages 1231–1244 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi

  17. [25]

    Ruffolo , author P

    author author D. Ruffolo , author P. Chuychai , \ and\ author W. H. \ Matthaeus ,\ 10.1086/503625 journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 644 ,\ pages 971–980 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    Minnie , author J

    author author J. Minnie , author J. W. \ Bieber , author W. H. \ Matthaeus , \ and\ author R. A. \ Burger ,\ 10.1086/518765 journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 663 ,\ pages 1049–1054 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    Dalena , author A

    author author S. Dalena , author A. Greco , author A. F. \ Rappazzo , author R. L. \ Mace , \ and\ author W. H. \ Matthaeus ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevE.86.016402 journal journal Phys. Rev. E \ volume 86 ,\ pages 016402 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    author author R. C. \ Tautz \ and\ author A. Dosch ,\ 10.1063/1.4789861 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 20 ,\ pages 022302 ( year 2013 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4789861 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4789861 NoStop

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    Dalena , author A

    author author S. Dalena , author A. F. \ Rappazzo , author P. Dmitruk , author A. Greco , \ and\ author W. H. \ Matthaeus ,\ 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/143 journal journal ApJ \ volume 783 ,\ eid 143 ( year 2014 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3745 arXiv:1402.3745 [astro-ph.SR] NoStop

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dmitruk , author W

    author author P. Dmitruk , author W. H. \ Matthaeus , \ and\ author N. Seenu ,\ 10.1086/425301 journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 617 ,\ pages 667 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    Dmitruk \ and\ author W

    author author P. Dmitruk \ and\ author W. H. \ Matthaeus ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 13 ,\ pages 042307 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  24. [32]

    author author C. A. \ Gonz \'a lez , author P. Dmitruk , author P. D. \ Mininni , \ and\ author W. H. \ Matthaeus ,\ 10.1063/1.4960681 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 23 ,\ eid 082305 ( year 2016 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02811 arXiv:1605.02811 [physics.plasm-...

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    author author C. A. \ Gonz \' a lez , author P. Dmitruk , author P. D. \ Mininni , \ and\ author W. H. \ Matthaeus ,\ 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c02 journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 850 ,\ pages 19 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Pugliese \ and\ author P

    author author F. Pugliese \ and\ author P. Dmitruk ,\ 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5abe journal journal Astrophysical Journal \ volume 929 ,\ pages 1538 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Pezzi , author P

    author author O. Pezzi , author P. Blasi , \ and\ author W. H. \ Matthaeus ,\ 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5332 journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 928 ,\ pages 25 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Balzarini , author F

    author author B. Balzarini , author F. Pugliese , \ and\ author P. Dmitruk ,\ 10.1063/5.0117847 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 29 ,\ pages 122303 ( year 2022 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0117847 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0117847 NoStop

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Greco , author A

    author author A. Greco , author A. Artemyev , \ and\ author G. Zimbardo ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020421 journal journal Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics \ volume 119 ,\ pages 8929 ( year 2014 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c...

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Lemoine ,\ 10.1103/physrevd.104.063020 journal journal Physical Review D \ volume 104 ( year 2021 ),\ 10.1103/physrevd.104.063020 NoStop

    author author M. Lemoine ,\ 10.1103/physrevd.104.063020 journal journal Physical Review D \ volume 104 ( year 2021 ),\ 10.1103/physrevd.104.063020 NoStop

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Pugliese , author M

    author author F. Pugliese , author M. Brodiano , author N. Andrés , \ and\ author P. Dmitruk ,\ 10.3847/1538-4357/ad055b journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 959 ,\ pages 28 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Servidio , author A

    author author S. Servidio , author A. Chasapis , author W. Matthaeus , author D. Perrone , author F. Valentini , author T. Parashar , author P. Veltri , author D. Gershman , author C. Russell , author B. Giles , author S. Fuselier , author T. Phan , \ and\ author J. Burch ,\ 1...

    doi

  33. [41]

    author author G. G. \ Howes ,\ 10.1063/1.4983993 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 24 ( year 2017 ),\ 10.1063/1.4983993 NoStop

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    Muñoz , author N

    author author P. Muñoz , author N. Jain , author P. Kilian , \ and\ author J. B\" u chner ,\ 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.10.012 journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 224 ,\ pages 245–264 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Birn , author J

    author author J. Birn , author J. F. \ Drake , author M. A. \ Shay , author B. N. \ Rogers , author R. E. \ Denton , author M. Hesse , author M. Kuznetsova , author Z. W. \ Ma , author A. Bhattacharjee , author A. Otto , \ and\ author P. L. \ Pritchett ,\ 10.1029/1999ja900449 ...

    doi

  36. [44]

    Le , author W

    author author A. Le , author W. Daughton , author H. Karimabadi , \ and\ author J. Egedal ,\ 10.1063/1.4943893 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 23 ( year 2016 ),\ 10.1063/1.4943893 NoStop

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    González , author M

    author author C. González , author M. E. \ Innocenti , \ and\ author A. Tenerani ,\ 10.1017/s0022377823000120 journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 89 ( year 2023 ),\ 10.1017/s0022377823000120 NoStop

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    author author P. D. \ Mininni , author D. Rosenberg , author R. Reddy , \ and\ author A. Pouquet ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parco.2011.05.004 journal journal Parallel Computing \ volume 37 ,\ pages 316 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    author author P. D. \ Mininni , author D. O. \ Gomez , \ and\ author S. M. \ Mahajan ,\ 10.1086/426534 journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 619 ,\ pages 1019–1027 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  40. [48]

    Andrés , author F

    author author N. Andrés , author F. Sahraoui , author S. Galtier , author L. Z. \ Hadid , author P. Dmitruk , \ and\ author P. D. \ Mininni ,\ 10.1017/s0022377818000788 journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 84 ( year 2018 ),\ 10.1017/s0022377818000788 NoStop

    doi

  41. [49]

    author author S. A. \ Orszag ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/sapm1971504293 journal journal Studies in Applied Mathematics \ volume 50 ,\ pages 293 ( year 1971 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sapm1971504293 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/d...

    1971 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.