Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 55 references

Small-scale inhomogeneity effects on coherent solar radio emission

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Zebra-pattern radio stripes can reveal the density gradient at their coronal source.

desk verdict Genuinely new inhomogeneous-PIC setup with a plausible, conditional zebra-stripe result; the unverified kinetic equilibrium and missing convergence checks are the main soft spots. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02832 v2 pith:GZENYOE5 submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Xiaowei Zhou , Patricio Munoz , Jan Benacek , Lijie Zhang , Dejin Wu , Ling Chen , Zongjun Ning , Joerg Buechner This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords SolarcoronacoronalradioemissionburstsZebra-patternElectroncyclotronmaserPlasmaParticle-in-cellsimulationinhomogeneity
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 small-scale inhomogeneities that fill the solar corona change the radio waves emitted by energetic electrons, and it answers yes in a specific, usable way. Using 2.5-dimensional (two spatial, three velocity) particle-in-cell simulations initialized as magnetohydrodynamic equilibria, it shows that ring-beam electrons excite both beam-driven plasma emission and electron cyclotron maser emission, and that the electromagnetic spectrum forms a zebra-stripe pattern with harmonic bands near the mean electron cyclotron frequency. Density inhomogeneity across the magnetic field broadens those bands and concentrates the fundamental X-mode source in the low-density region, whereas temperature inhomogeneity leaves the bands narrower and suppresses that mode. If the simulations are right, observed zebra-pattern bursts can serve as a remote probe of the perpendicular density gradient and the local cyclotron-to-plasma frequency ratio at the emission site.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ring-beam momentum distribution: energetic electrons whose phase-space density peaks at nonzero momenta both parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field, providing the two positive gradients that separately feed the beam instability and the electron cyclotron maser. Around this the paper constructs an MHD-equilibrium background, an inhomogeneous magnetic field $\mathbf{B}=[B_x(y),0,0]$ whose magnetic pressure gradient is balanced by either an inhomogeneous background density (Case 2) or an inhomogeneous background temperature (Case 4), with drifting Maxwellian background species carrying the required current. Excited modes are then identified by overlaying cold-plasma magnetoionic dispersion relations (whistler, Z, O, X), measuring polarization handedness, checking the Doppler-shifted Bernstein resonance, and locating each mode in the y-frequency plane.

What would settle it

Run the same ring-beam simulation with a true kinetic equilibrium initial condition, or with the background drift velocities switched off, and compare the wave spectra; if the zebra stripes vanish or substantially change, the MHD-equilibrium initialization is not inert. Observationally, if EUV density-gradient measurements of active regions show no correlation with zebra-stripe bandwidth, the paper's diagnostic claim would be undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a ring-beam electron population injected into a coronal plasma whose magnetic-field gradient is balanced by either background density or background temperature produces a radio spectrum organized as zebra stripes: harmonic bands centered on $h\omega_{\mathrm{ce,mean}}$, the multiples of the mean electron cyclotron frequency. The beam instability acts first, exciting quasi-parallel Langmuir and whistler waves; the electron cyclotron maser acts later and dominates, producing quasi-perpendicular Z, O, and X-mode waves at the fundamental and higher harmonics. Which mode is strongest and how wide each harmonic band is depends on how the equilibrium is achieved: with density inhomogeneity the X1-mode is excited in the low-density center and the bands are wide, while with temperature inhomogeneity the X1-mode is absent and the bands are thin. The paper infers that the mean cyclotron frequency sets the stripe spacing, that the Doppler shift of the drifting ring-beam distorts that spacing at small propagation angles, and that the perpendicular density gradient controls the bandwidth.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the MHD-equilibrated background, a magnetic-field gradient balanced by pressure alone, is also an inert kinetic state, so that every instability and stripe seen in the simulation is caused by the injected ring-beam electrons rather than by the initial drifting-Maxwellian populations relaxing or by residual currents.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Zebra-stripe spacing directly estimates the mean magnetic field strength at the source, since the harmonic bands sit near integer multiples of the mean electron cyclotron frequency.
  • Stripe width becomes an observable proxy for the perpendicular density gradient: steeper gradients should produce broader bands, as the inhomogeneous-density simulation shows.
  • The presence or absence of a fundamental X-mode stripe can flag a low-density cavity where $\omega_{\mathrm{ce}}/\omega_{\mathrm{pe}}>1$, because that mode is excited only in the low-density region.
  • Non-equidistant stripe spacing in real bursts need not rule out a cyclotron-harmonic origin, because the Doppler shift of the drifting beam changes the spacing at small propagation angles.
  • Temperature stratification alone cannot explain broad zebra stripes, because the temperature-inhomogeneous case behaves nearly like the homogeneous-plasma case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A quantitative inversion is the natural next step: fitting observed stripe spacing and width to the simulated harmonic bands and the $\omega_{\mathrm{ce}}/\omega_{\mathrm{pe}}$ dependence could turn zebra bursts into a two-parameter magnetic-field and density-gradient diagnostic; the paper itself stops at the qualitative connection.
  • The 2.5D geometry restricts wave propagation to one plane; a 3D simulation would test whether the stripe pattern and its bandwidth dependence survive realistic three-dimensional mode propagation, and whether the X1 source stays localized.
  • If the mechanism holds, joint zebra-burst and EUV density-gradient observations of the same active region should show stripe bandwidth correlated with the measured perpendicular density gradient, a test current instruments can attempt.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports 2.5D particle-in-cell simulations of wave excitation by ring-beam distributed energetic electrons in two types of inhomogeneous, magnetized coronal plasmas: one where the magnetic field gradient is balanced by a density gradient (Case 2) and one where it is balanced by a temperature gradient (Case 4). The authors find that both the beam and electron cyclotron maser (ECM) instabilities are excited, producing electrostatic Langmuir waves and electromagnetic waves with harmonic bands near integer multiples of the mean electron gyrofrequency. They report that the density-inhomogeneous case shows broader harmonic bandwidths and excitation of the fundamental X-mode, while the temperature-inhomogeneous case has narrower bands and no X1-mode. The harmonic structure is interpreted as relevant to solar radio bursts with zebra-stripe patterns, and the authors propose that the perpendicular density gradient can be diagnosed from stripe bandwidth.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper offers a new, physically motivated connection between small-scale plasma inhomogeneity and the spectral properties of coherent solar radio emission, with a testable prediction that density-gradient strength broadens harmonic bands. Strengths include the thermal control runs (Cases 1 and 3) that show negligible wave growth without energetic electrons, the mode identification via cold-plasma dispersion overlays and polarization analysis, and the fact that the harmonic frequencies at multiples of the mean gyrofrequency arise from the setup rather than from fitting. The manuscript is also explicit about its limitations, for example, the tentative nature of the proposed nonlinear wave-wave interaction and the absence of DPR/Bernstein mechanisms in the simulation. The main weaknesses are the reliance on a single run per inhomogeneous case, the incomplete specification of the initial current compensation, and an abstract wording that overstates the direct simulation of a "zebra-stripe pattern."

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (2)-(5)] The initial state is only an MHD equilibrium, not a demonstrated Vlasov-Maxwell equilibrium, and the numerical compensation of the ring-beam current is not specified. In Eq. (5), the background electrons and pbg-protons have drift only along z, while the energetic ring-beam electrons drift along x (u_d,erb,∥); it is therefore unclear which species carries the return current that cancels the net parallel current. The thermal control runs (Cases 1 and 3) do not rule out transients from the compensation because they omit the ring-beam and its compensation. Please specify the compensation procedure and provide early-time diagnostics, such as the net current and field spectra for ω_norm t < 100, to separate initial transients from the intended beam instability.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figs. 4-7] The conclusions about density versus temperature inhomogeneity effects are based on a single simulation per case with a single inhomogeneity amplitude (η = 0.1). The statement in Section 4 that "a larger perpendicular density gradient in plasmas could lead to a wider frequency bandwidth in each harmonic branch" is an extrapolation not supported by any parameter scan, and the absence of the X1-mode in Case 4 could be sensitive to the particular ω_ce/ω_pe profile. Please add at least one additional value of η for the density-inhomogeneous case (or otherwise vary the gradient strength), or restrict the diagnostic claim to the two simulated configurations.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The phrase "zebra-stripe pattern" overstates what is directly simulated. The outputs are time- and space-integrated frequency spectra with harmonic bands near h ω_ce,mean, not dynamic spectra with multiple drifting stripes in time. Since this phrase is part of the abstract's central claim, please reword to something like "harmonic structure reminiscent of zebra-pattern stripes" and clarify how the slow frequency drift would enter in an observational context, as the simulation timescale is too short to show drifting stripes.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2, Fig. 1 caption] The labels "prb-background protons" and "pbg-background protons" are confusing, and the caption lists them in a different order than the text; please define the acronyms and use consistent ordering throughout.
  2. [Section 2, normalization paragraph] Please provide the physical dimensions of the simulation box, the total macroparticle numbers per species, and the timestep in absolute units, in addition to the normalized values, to allow quantitative comparison with coronal scales.
  3. [Section 3.1, Fig. 2] The claimed correlation between the first electromagnetic enhancement and the decrease of u_d,erb,∥ is based on visual timing; a quantitative onset-time or cross-correlation statement would strengthen the attribution of the two growth phases.
  4. [Section 3.2.1] The proposed decay process 2H + 2H → F + 3H is speculative; please mark it explicitly as a tentative suggestion or support it with a bispectrum or coherence analysis.
  5. [References] There is a duplicate reference for Lee et al. 2011; please remove one of the two identical entries.
  6. [Section 4, bullet list] The sentence beginning "For instance," immediately before the bulleted list appears to be a leftover from an earlier draft; please rephrase to introduce the list cleanly.
  7. [Section 2, text near Eq. (3)] The phrase "uniform thermal velocity uth,erb = 0.0014c" for the prb-background protons appears to be a typo for uth,prb; please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: harmonic positions are physical consequences of the imposed field; inhomogeneity effects are emergent simulation outputs.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to the zebra-stripe spectrum. The harmonic bands at h*omega_ce,mean follow from the imposed magnetic field (Eq. 1) and the ring-beam free energy, and the simulation then diagnoses which modes (X1, X2, O1, whistler) are excited, their polarizations, localizations, and bandwidths; these are independent physical outputs, not re-statements of inputs. The comparison cases with inhomogeneous density vs temperature are constructed to share the same magnetic field and energetic electron distribution, so the bandwidth and source-region differences are emergent simulation results. Citations to the authors' previous homogeneous PIC studies (Zhou et al. 2020, 2022) serve as benchmarks for saturation efficiency and mode identification, not as assumed conclusions; the new inhomogeneous-plasma claims are established by the present simulations and by external theoretical references (Winglee & Dulk 1986; Tong et al. 2017). The only substantive caveat is that the initialization is an MHD equilibrium (div B = 0, J x B = grad P, Eq. 2) rather than a demonstrated Vlasov-Maxwell equilibrium, and the ring-beam current compensation is not specified in detail; this is a correctness/robustness risk, not a circularity, because the growth in the thermal control runs (Cases 1 and 3) is negligible and the mode attributions are supported by timing correlations with the ring-beam drift-momentum evolution. No step reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. All wave modes and instabilities (whistler, Z, O, X, Langmuir, beam, ECM) come from prior literature. The free parameters are simulation setup choices chosen by hand from typical solar values or previous studies; none are fitted to the zebra-stripe spectrum.

free parameters (7)
  • Magnetic field inhomogeneity factor eta = 0.1
    Sets the Bx(y) profile in Eq. (1) and controls the location and magnitude of the magnetic field extremum. Chosen by hand, not fitted to observations.
  • Background magnetic field B0 and enhancement Be = B0 = 1.2 G, Be = 400 B0, max |B| about 480 G
    Sets the magnetic field scale and contrast to mimic active-region field strengths and a strong small-scale gradient.
  • Energetic electron density ratio = n_erb / (n_erb + n_ebg) = 0.05
    Sets the fraction of ring-beam electrons; value taken from previous PIC studies such as Lee et al. 2011 and Zhou et al. 2020.
  • Ring-beam drift and thermal momenta = u_d,erb,parallel = u_d,erb,perp = 0.47c; u_th = 0.03c
    Ring-beam parameters corresponding to about 100 keV electrons, chosen as a typical flare electron energy.
  • Background electron thermal velocity = u_th,ebg = 0.06c
    Sets the background electron temperature and helps balance the magnetic pressure gradient in the equilibrium setup.
  • Background proton thermal velocity = u_th,pbg = u_th,prb = 0.0014c
    Sets the proton temperature so that electron and proton temperatures are equal at the boundaries.
  • Gradient drift velocities of background species = max u_dz,ebg = 1.1e-4c (Case 2), 2.5e-5c (Case 4)
    Introduced to satisfy J x B = grad P in Eq. (2); approximate equilibrium currents chosen to reduce non-equilibrium transients.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Vlasov-Maxwell system solved by the ACRONYM PIC code is a valid description of collisionless coronal plasma at kinetic scales.
    Used throughout the paper as the underlying physical model; not derived in the manuscript.
  • domain assumption The MHD equilibrium relation J x B = grad P (Eq. 2) with the specified Bx(y) and gradient-drift currents is adequate to keep the initial plasma near equilibrium.
    Section 2 after Eq. (2). This is an MHD equilibrium, not an exact kinetic equilibrium, so residual forces could excite spurious waves.
  • domain assumption The ring-beam electron distribution (Eq. 3) is representative of energetic electrons produced by shocks or magnetic reconnection in the solar corona.
    Section 1 and Eq. (3); based on cited theoretical work, not on direct coronal measurements.
  • domain assumption Small-scale magnetic field gradients of order 10^-3 G/cm can exist in the corona due to turbulence even though they are four orders of magnitude larger than standard active-region model gradients.
    Section 2, paragraph after Eq. (1). Needed to justify the chosen magnetic field profile.
  • domain assumption Cold-plasma magnetoionic dispersion relations evaluated at mean omega_ce and omega_norm are adequate overlays for identifying wave modes in the inhomogeneous hot plasma.
    Figures 4, 5, 8, and 9 with text; uses Willes and Cairns 2000 modes with domain-averaged frequencies, though local frequencies vary with y.
  • domain assumption Periodic boundary conditions and a 2.5D simulation box capture the relevant emission physics and do not introduce artificial spectral features.
    Section 2; standard for PIC studies but unverified for this inhomogeneous setup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Small-scale inhomogeneity effects on coherent solar radio emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZENYOE5

@misc{pith2026250202832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Small-scale inhomogeneity effects on coherent solar radio emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZENYOE5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02832}
}
read the original abstract

Coherent radio emission mechanism of solar radio bursts is one of the most complicated and controversial topics in solar physics. To clarify the mechanism(s) of different types of solar radio bursts, (radio) wave excitation by energetic electrons in homogeneous plasmas has been widely studied via particle-in-cell (PIC) code numerical simulations. The solar corona is, however, inhomogeneous over almost all spatial scales. Inhomogeneities of the plasma could influence the emission properties of solar radio bursts. In this paper, we, hence, investigate effects of inhomogeneity (in the magnetic field, plasma density and temperature) of plasmas in the solar corona on radio wave emission by ring-beam distributed energetic electrons utilizing 2.5-dimensional PIC simulations. Both the beam and electron cyclotron maser (ECM) instabilities could be triggered with the presence of the energetic ring-beam electrons. The resultant spectrum of the excited electromagnetic waves presents a zebra-stripe pattern in the frequency space. The inhomogeneous density or temperature in plasmas influences the frequency bandwidth and location of these excited waves. Our results can, hence, help to diagnose the plasma properties at the emission sites of solar radio bursts. Applications of our results to the solar radio bursts with zebra-stripe pattern are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Energy evolution of the total (E⃗tt in panels a1), transverse (E⃗τ in panel a2) and the longitudinal (El in panel a3) electric fields of waves in the whole simulation domain. Panel (b1) presents evolutions of the bulk (or average) drift momenta in the directions along (ud,erb,∥ , solid line) and perpendicular (ud,erb,⊥, dashed line) to the ambient magnetic field B⃗ for the energetic ring-beam electrons, Different co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. k∥ − k⊥ spectrum for the electric field of the electrostatic (El , panels a1 and a2) and electromagnetic E⃗τ, panels b1 and b2) waves over the whole simulation period (ωnormt = 0 ∼ 546) in plasmas with inhomogeneous density (Case 2, panels a1 and b1) or inhomogeneous temperature (Case 4, panels a2 and b2). of both the electrostatic and electromagnetic waves exhibit a symmetry in the k⊥ direction. We would, hence, co… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ⃗k − ω (or dispersion relation) power spectrum of the transverse electric field Eτ| for the electromagnetic waves propagating along different directions θ = | arctan(k⊥/k∥)| (different columns) over the entire space domain but three different time periods (different ro…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For the inhomogeneous-density plasma, columns (a1) and (a2) show the energy distribution for the left-handed (ϵE⃗ τ,L ) and right￾handed (ϵE⃗ τ,R ) polarized electric field of electromagnetic waves in the propagating angle-frequency (θ − ω) space, respectively. Polariz…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Energy distribution of the longitudinal electric field El in the propagating angle-frequency (θ − ω, presented in columns a1, a2) as well as y-axis-frequency spaces (presented in columns b1, b2) for the inhomogeneous-density (Case 2) and inhomogeneous-temperature (Cas…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2005, Physics of the Solar Corona. An Introduction with Problems and Solutions (2nd edition) Ben´aˇcek, J., & Karlick´y, M. 2018, A&A, 611, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731424

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731424 2005

  2. [2]

    J., Shuster, J

    Bessho, N., Chen, L. J., Shuster, J. R., & Wang, S. 2014, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 8688, doi: 10.1002/2014GL062034

    doi:10.1002/2014gl062034 2014

  3. [3]

    J., Zhao, G

    Chen, L., Wu, D. J., Zhao, G. Q., & Tang, J. F. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 122, 35, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023312

    doi:10.1002/2016ja023312 2017

  4. [4]

    2022, ApJL, 924, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac47fa

    Chen, Y ., Zhang, Z., Ni, S., et al. 2022, ApJL, 924, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac47fa

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac47fa 2022

  5. [5]

    Latest news on zebra pattern

    Chernov, G. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1512.06311, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1512.06311

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1512.06311 2015

  6. [6]

    P., Fomichev, V

    Chernov, G. P., Fomichev, V . V ., Gorgutsa, R. V ., et al. 2014, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 54, 406, doi: 10.1134/S0016793214040021

    work page doi:10.1134/s0016793214040021 2014

  7. [7]

    F., Swisdak, M., Cattell, C., et al

    Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., Cattell, C., et al. 2003, Science, 299, 873, doi: 10.1126/science.1080333

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1080333 2003

  8. [8]

    Dulk, G. A. 1985, ARA&A, 23, 169, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.23.090185.001125

    arXiv 1985

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/145

    Ganse, U., Kilian, P., Spanier, F., & Vainio, R. 2012, ApJ, 751, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/145

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    1959, Izv VUZ, Radiofizika, 2, 450

    Gaponov, A. 1959, Izv VUZ, Radiofizika, 2, 450

    1959

  3. [11]

    Gary, S. P. 1993, Theory of Space Plasma Microinstabilities, 193

    1993

  4. [12]

    L., & Zhelezniakov, V

    Ginzburg, V . L., & Zhelezniakov, V . V . 1958, Soviet Ast., 2, 653

    1958

  5. [13]

    2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 1475, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025707

    Henri, P., Sgattoni, A., Briand, C., Amiranoff, F., & Riconda, C. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 1475, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025707

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    2012, ApJ, 745, 186, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/186

    Huang, J., & Tan, B. 2012, ApJ, 745, 186, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/186

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    C., & Lyu, L

    Huang, Y . C., & Lyu, L. H. 2019, Physics of Plasmas, 26, 092102, doi: 10.1063/1.5110991

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Kainer, S., & MacDowall, R. J. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 495, doi: 10.1029/95JA02026 Karlick´y, M., B´arta, M., Jiˇriˇcka, K., et al. 2001, A&A, 375, 638, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010888 Karlick´y, M., Ben´aˇcek, J., & Ryb´ak, J. 2021, ApJ, 910, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/...

    1996 doi

  9. [17]

    Kasaba, Y ., Matsumoto, H., & Omura, Y . 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 18693, doi: 10.1029/2000JA000329

    2001 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Schreiner, C., & Spanier, F

    Kilian, P., Mu˜noz, P. A., Schreiner, C., & Spanier, F. 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 707830101, doi: 10.1017/S0022377817000149

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Krucker, S., & Benz, A. O. 1994, A&A, 285, 1038

    1994

  12. [21]

    H., Omura, Y ., & Lee, L

    Lee, K. H., Omura, Y ., & Lee, L. C. 2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 092110, doi: 10.1063/1.3626562

    2011 doi

  13. [22]

    2021, ApJL, 909, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe708

    Li, C., Chen, Y ., Ni, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 909, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe708

    2021 doi

  14. [23]

    1993, Computer Space Plasma Physics : Simulation Techniques and Software (Terra Scientific Publishing Company)

    Matsumoto, H., & Omura, Y . 1993, Computer Space Plasma Physics : Simulation Techniques and Software (Terra Scientific Publishing Company). https://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/cspp/

    1993

  15. [24]

    Melrose, D. B. 1970a, Australian Journal of Physics, 23, 871, doi: 10.1071/PH700871 —. 1970b, Australian Journal of Physics, 23, 885, doi: 10.1071/PH700885 —. 1975, SoPh, 43, 79, doi: 10.1007/BF00155144 —. 1986, Instabilities in Space and Laboratory Plasmas, 288 —. 1991, ARA&A...

    1975

  16. [25]

    E., Zucca, P., Bloomfield, D

    Morosan, D. E., Zucca, P., Bloomfield, D. S., & Gallagher, P. T. 2016, A&A, 589, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628392 Mu˜noz, P. A., & B¨uchner, J. 2018, Phys. Rev. E, 98, 043205, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.98.043205

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    2020, ApJL, 891, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7750

    Ni, S., Chen, Y ., Li, C., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7750

    2020 doi

  18. [27]

    2021, A&A, 651, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140427

    Ning, H., Chen, Y ., Ni, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140427

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    Pritchett, P. L. 1984, J. Geophys. Res., 89, 8957, doi: 10.1029/JA089iA10p08957

    1984 doi

  20. [29]

    L., & Coroniti, F

    Pritchett, P. L., & Coroniti, F. V . 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A01220, doi: 10.1029/2003JA009999

    2004 doi

  21. [30]

    L., & Winglee, R

    Pritchett, P. L., & Winglee, R. M. 1989, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 129, doi: 10.1029/JA094iA01p00129 R´egnier, S. 2015, A&A, 581, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425346

    1989 doi

  22. [31]

    Reid, H. A. S., & Ratcliffe, H. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 773, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/7/003

    2014 doi

  23. [32]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 618, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/618

    Rhee, T., Ryu, C.-M., Woo, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 618, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/618

    2009 doi

  24. [33]

    1959, Physical Review Letters, 2, 504, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.2.504

    Schneider, J. 1959, Physical Review Letters, 2, 504, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.2.504

    1959 doi

  25. [34]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/161

    Schreiner, C., Kilian, P., & Spanier, F. 2017, ApJ, 834, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/161

    2017 doi

  26. [35]

    R., Chen, L

    Shuster, J. R., Chen, L. J., Hesse, M., et al. 2015, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 2586, doi: 10.1002/2015GL063601

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    R., Chen, L

    Shuster, J. R., Chen, L. J., Daughton, W. S., et al. 2014, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 5389, doi: 10.1002/2014GL060608

    2014 doi

  28. [37]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/129

    Tan, B., Tan, C., Zhang, Y ., M´esz´arosov´a, H., & Karlick´y, M. 2014, ApJ, 780, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/129

    2014 doi

  29. [38]

    O., & Tsiklauri, D

    Thurgood, J. O., & Tsiklauri, D. 2015, A&A, 584, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527079

    2015 doi

  30. [39]

    2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 052902, doi: 10.1063/1.4982213

    Tong, Z.-J., Wang, C.-B., Zhang, P.-J., & Liu, J. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 052902, doi: 10.1063/1.4982213

    2017 doi

  31. [40]

    Twiss, R. Q. 1958, Australian Journal of Physics, 11, 564, doi: 10.1071/PH580564

    1958 doi

  32. [41]

    2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 115, A01204, doi: 10.1029/2009JA014643

    Umeda, T. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 115, A01204, doi: 10.1029/2009JA014643

    2010 doi

  33. [42]

    Coroniti, F. V . 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A04212, doi: 10.1029/2006JA012124

    2007 doi

  34. [43]

    1987, SoPh, 111, 155, doi: 10.1007/BF00145448

    Vlahos, L. 1987, SoPh, 111, 155, doi: 10.1007/BF00145448

    1987 doi

  35. [44]

    2009, Turbulence in Space Plasmas

    Vlahos, L., & Cargill, P. 2009, Turbulence in Space Plasmas

    2009

  36. [45]

    1987, ApJ, 322, 463, doi: 10.1086/165742

    Vlahos, L., & Sprangle, P. 1987, ApJ, 322, 463, doi: 10.1086/165742

    1987 doi

  37. [46]

    Wild, J. P. 1985, The beginnings (of solar radiophysics)., ed. D. J. McLean & N. R. Labrum, 3–17

    1985

  38. [47]

    J., & Cairns, I

    Willes, A. J., & Cairns, I. H. 2000, Physics of Plasmas, 7, 3167, doi: 10.1063/1.874180

    2000 doi

  39. [48]

    M., & Dulk, G

    Winglee, R. M., & Dulk, G. A. 1986, ApJ, 307, 808, doi: 10.1086/164467

    1986 doi

  40. [49]

    J., Chen, L., Zhao, G

    Wu, D. J., Chen, L., Zhao, G. Q., & Tang, J. F. 2014, A&A, 566, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423898

    2014 doi

  41. [50]

    A., B¨uchner, J., Zhou, X., & Liu, S

    Yao, X., Mu˜noz, P. A., B¨uchner, J., Zhou, X., & Liu, S. 2021, Journal of Plasma Physics, 87, 905870203, doi: 10.1017/S0022377821000076

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6de3

    Yousefzadeh, M., Chen, Y ., Ning, H., & Hosseinpour, M. 2022, ApJ, 932, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6de3

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    Q., Feng, H

    Zhao, G. Q., Feng, H. Q., Wu, D. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 58, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/58

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/6

    Zhou, X., B¨uchner, J., B´arta, M., Gan, W., & Liu, S. 2015, ApJ, 815, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/6

    2015 doi

  45. [54]

    A., B¨uchner, J., & Liu, S

    Zhou, X., Mu˜noz, P. A., B¨uchner, J., & Liu, S. 2020, ApJ, 891, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a0d

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    A., B¨uchner, J., Liu, S., & Yao, X

    Zhou, X., Mu˜noz, P. A., B¨uchner, J., Liu, S., & Yao, X. 2021, ApJ, 920, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac18c1

    2021 doi

  47. [56]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aae

    Zhou, X., Wu, D., & Chen, L. 2022, ApJ, 928, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5aae

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.