Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Tracing magnetic switchbacks to their source: An assessment of solar coronal jets as switchback precursors

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper tests whether small coronal eruptions called jets are the precursors of magnetic switchbacks in the solar wind, and finds that although overall activity levels match, hourly event rates do not correlate, so the precursor link…

desk verdict A careful null result that is more persuasive as a methodological caution about back-mapping than as a definitive test of the jet-precursor hypothesis. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12340 v1 pith:HULDADVQ submitted 2025-01-21 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Nina Bizien , Clara Froment , Maria S. Madjarska , Thierry Dudok de Wit , Marco Velli This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords magneticswitchbackscoronaljetsbrightpointsParkerSolarProbewindconnectivitypotentialfieldsourcesurfaceback-mappingcorotationintervals
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether small eruptions in the lower solar corona — jets from clusters of small loops called coronal bright points — are the precursors of the large magnetic-field deflections known as switchbacks that Parker Solar Probe sees throughout the solar wind. The authors identify the two spacecraft–Sun alignment windows in seventeen encounters for which the magnetic connection is unambiguous, count jets in EUV images of the connected coronal hole, and compare those hourly counts with switchbacks measured in situ. They find a matching overall level of activity: the larger connected coronal hole produced both more jets and more switchbacks, but the two hourly time series show no stable correlation. The central importance of this result is negative: it shows that a simple one-to-one jet-to-switchback mapping is not supported by the data, and that the standard way of tracing solar wind back to its source is too sensitive to model choices to justify such a mapping.

What carries the argument

The central object is the corotation interval: a period when Parker Solar Probe's Carrington longitude is roughly fixed so it keeps sampling the same solar source region. On top of it, the analysis chain is: ballistic back-mapping (from in-situ velocity to a source surface), a potential-field source-surface extrapolation (PFSS) to find the photospheric footpoint, and a comparison of hourly rates of EUV jets from that footpoint region with in-situ switchback counts. The argument is carried by the sensitivity analysis: repeating the mapping for source-surface heights from 1.5 to 3.5 solar radii and for velocity corrections of ±80 km/s (including acceleration and Alfvén-wave propagation models) shows that the identified source and the resulting correlation coefficient both change drastically, even reversing sign. This sensitivity is what prevents the paper from establishing — or discarding — the jet-precursor connection.

What would settle it

Recompute the correlation using a block bootstrap that resamples whole 5-hour clusters rather than single hours, or bin the counts into 5-hour intervals: if the correlation then becomes significant and stable across the three velocity assumptions, the paper's null result would be overturned; if it remains insignificant, the no-correlation claim would be strengthened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the jet-precursor hypothesis cannot be validated by direct comparison: in the only two corotation intervals with unambiguous connectivity (PSP encounters E10 and E15), the jet rate and switchback rate agree in overall magnitude but not in their hour-to-hour pattern, producing Pearson correlation coefficients that swing from insignificant to significantly anticorrelated or positively correlated depending on which solar-wind velocity profile is assumed. The paper further finds that the connectivity itself is not robust: varying the assumed source-surface height between 1.5 and 3.5 solar radii moves the connected footpoint by up to over 60 degrees of latitude, often across different coronal holes, without changing the magnetic polarity — so polarity checks cannot detect the ambiguity. Because the outcome of the correlation study flips when the time series is shifted by 2.5 hours or when the velocity correction changes by 80 km/s, the authors conclude that jets are neither established nor excluded as the main switchback precursors, and that a causal one-to-one link has not yet been achieved.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that jet and switchback rates are uncorrelated assumes each hour's count is an independent sample, but the events arrive in clusters lasting about five hours, so the actual number of independent samples is far smaller than the number of hourly bins and the stated significance thresholds do not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the jet-precursor hypothesis were the whole story, the hourly jet and switchback rates in a well-connected interval should track each other; the absence of such tracking means a large fraction of switchbacks must have other origins, either higher in the corona, in the wind itself, or from jets too small or dark to be seen in EUV images.
  • The matching overall activity level implies that the rate of switchbacks scales with the size and activity of the connected coronal hole, so source-region properties matter even if a one-to-one event link is not visible.
  • The extreme sensitivity of the inferred source region to the assumed source-surface height means that studies claiming a specific jet–switchback pairing must demonstrate stability of the connectivity against these model choices, not just polarity agreement.
  • The result cautions against interpreting barely significant correlation coefficients as causal evidence, since a 2.5-hour shift or an 80 km/s velocity change can reverse the sign of the correlation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the precursor hypothesis would need to follow individual jet-produced disturbances along the wind, for example by searching in the switchback record for the specific magnetic and velocity signatures expected from a single reconnection-driven untwisting jet, rather than comparing rates.
  • The clustering of both jet and switchback events on ~5-hour timescales suggests that the 'hourly rate' picture may be the wrong resolution; binning at the cluster scale or using a cluster-matching analysis might reveal a relationship the hourly Pearson test misses.
  • If the source-surface-height sensitivity is as large as reported, previously published back-mapping-based connections between in-situ solar wind structures and solar features may need to be re-examined with an ensemble of source-surface heights before their source assignments can be trusted.
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. The manuscript tests the hypothesis that small-scale solar coronal jets, mostly associated with coronal bright points, are the main precursors of the magnetic switchbacks observed by Parker Solar Probe. For two PSP corotation intervals (E10 and E15) with unambiguous magnetic connectivity, the authors back-map the in situ switchbacks to the Sun using ballistic back-mapping and PFSS extrapolations, scanning source-surface heights and three solar-wind velocity profiles. They identify jets in AIA 193 images with a combination of automated brightening detection and visual inspection, construct hourly jet and switchback rate time series, and compute Pearson correlations. They report a matching level of activity in the two intervals (high in E10, low in E15) but no statistically significant linear correlation under the constant-velocity assumption, and they emphasize that the inferred connectivity and the correlation values depend strongly on the assumed source-surface height and propagation model. The paper concludes that the data neither establish nor exclude jets as the dominant switchback precursors.

Significance. If the null result is correct, it is a useful negative constraint on the simple jet-precursor picture and a warning that back-mapping-based causal claims require more than matching activity levels. The paper is transparent in its methods: it specifies the switchback and jet selection criteria, provides example event tables, tests three propagation models, and discusses the major sources of uncertainty. It also makes a specific falsifiable claim (no hour-to-hour correlation for the two cleanly connected intervals) rather than an unfalsifiable qualitative statement. The main limitation is the small number of usable intervals and the as-yet-incomplete statistical treatment of autocorrelation; these are fixable in revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Fig. 3] The significance thresholds r* = ±0.32 (E10) and r* = ±0.42 (E15) are the 5% critical values for Pearson correlation under the assumption that the hourly bins are independent samples. The authors themselves report that events appear in clusters lasting about five hours and that shifting the time series by 2.5 hours reverses the sign of r. With an autocorrelation timescale of about five hours, the effective number of independent samples is much smaller than the number of hourly bins (roughly N/5), and the corresponding critical |r| is approximately 0.7 or higher. Consequently, the observed coefficients (0.05, -0.42, 0.03, -0.10, 0.44, 0.03) cannot be judged against the quoted thresholds, and the abstract's statement that 'no correlation is found' is not statistically established as written. The authors should apply an autocorrelation-aware test (e.g., block bootstrap or an AR(1) effective-sample-size correction) or explicitly label the correlation analysis as descriptive.
  2. [§3.3] The six Pearson coefficients (two encounters × three propagation models) are each tested against α = 0.05, so with six tests the probability of at least one false positive is about 26%, and two nominally significant coefficients (r = -0.42 in E10 and r = 0.44 in E15) are exactly what would be expected by chance. In addition, the coefficient changes sign or becomes negligible depending on the assumed velocity profile, and the authors note that the value of r reverses with a 2.5-hour shift. The conclusion of 'no correlation' is therefore not robust across the equally plausible model choices. I recommend that the abstract and conclusions state that no correlation is found under the constant-velocity model, and that a quantitative summary of the correlation values across the full ±80 km/s velocity range and across source-surface heights be provided.
  3. [§3.3 and Abstract] The claim that the switchback rate 'depends on the size of the region connected to PSP' is based on only two intervals (E10 with 346 switchbacks/day from a large CH and E15 with 142 switchbacks/day from a small CH). With two data points, a dependence cannot be established; this is at most a qualitative observation consistent with such a dependence. I suggest either adding more cleanly connected intervals or explicitly presenting this statement as a hypothesis for future work.
  4. [§3.3, Fig. 3] The hourly event rates are plotted as exact counts without any uncertainty estimates, which conveys a false precision given that the automated jet detection threshold is not fully specified, visual identification is known to miss dark/stealth jets, and the switchback threshold (36°, 3 s) is a selection choice. Adding Poisson error bars or a detection-threshold sensitivity test would make both the 'matching level of activity' statement and the correlation coefficients more interpretable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table A.2] The table note refers to 'Fig. 2d', but Fig. 2 has panels (a)-(c); this should be Fig. 2c.
  2. [Table A.1] The table is described as 'a sample for the sake of conciseness', but it claims to correspond to all jets in Fig. 1c for that hour; please clarify whether the table is complete for the displayed interval.
  3. [§3.1 and §3.3] The back-mapping interval given in the text (November 17 11:00 to November 19 00:00) does not exactly match the correlation window used in Section 3.3 (November 17 09:00 to November 18 22:00); please reconcile the two.
  4. [§3, first paragraph] The phrase 'exceeds the expected dependence on the solar cycle' should be quantified with a reference or a brief description of the expected variability, since no such quantitative expectation is given.
  5. [References] The reference 'Koukras et al. 2022, A&A, in revision' should be updated to the final publication details if available.
  6. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption explains that the switchback bins correspond to 50 min (E10) and 1h10m (E15) intervals; this should be defined in the main text when the correlation is first described.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's null result and connectivity caveats are derived from independent observations, fixed propagation assumptions, and external models, not from its own fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are negative and conditional: for two corotation intervals with unambiguous connectivity, the hourly jet and switchback rates show no stable correlation, and the inferred solar source depends strongly on the assumed PFSS source-surface height. These claims are not equivalent to the paper's inputs. The switchback identification from Bizien et al. (2023) is a measurement tool from prior work; it is not used to define the jet rate or to force the correlation outcome. The correlation analysis explicitly tests three fixed propagation hypotheses rather than fitting a delay to maximize r, and the paper itself warns that 'shifting the time series by 2.5 hours then reverses the value of r' and that barely significant values should not be taken as causal evidence. This is honest sensitivity analysis, not circularity. The selection of only two 'straightforwardly connected' intervals is a post-hoc selection effect and a limitation, which the authors acknowledge, but it does not make the derivation circular. Concerns about Pearson thresholds ignoring autocorrelation are statistical correctness risks, not circular-reasoning defects. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained relative to its stated inputs and assumptions.

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

The analysis rests on standard connectivity tools (PFSS, back-mapping) and on several user-chosen thresholds; no new physics is postulated. The main non-standard choices are the detection thresholds and the selection of only two corotation intervals out of 33.

free parameters (6)
  • Switchback detection thresholds = deflection >= 36 degrees, duration >= 3 s
    Events below these thresholds are excluded as indistinguishable from fluctuations; the thresholds affect switchback counts and hence the correlation.
  • Jet detection thresholds = base size >= 3 arcsec (2.17 Mm), duration >= 3 min
    Minimum size and duration for detection in AIA 193 images; affects jet counts and rates.
  • Source surface height scan range = 1.5 to 3.5 solar radii
    Scanned to test connectivity; the connectivity-ambiguity conclusion depends on this chosen range, which is not derived from data.
  • Velocity profile uncertainty range = -80 to +80 km/s
    Range derived from prior model comparisons (Koukras et al. 2022; Dakeyo et al. 2022); used to shift jet and switchback time series, and correlation significance changes across this range.
  • Hourly bin width for event rates = 1 hour
    Chosen binning; event clustering on ~5-hour timescales makes bin width influential on the correlation result.
  • Coronal hole subregion for jet counting = Manually selected subregion
    The paper states 'we considered the same subregion of the CH for all 1-hour intervals' but does not specify its boundaries; affects jet counts.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The corona can be modeled as a potential field (PFSS) for mapping PSP connectivity to the Sun.
    Invoked in Section 2 (PFSS extrapolation) and acknowledged as a limitation in Section 4.1; small-scale dynamic events are not well represented.
  • domain assumption Solar wind propagates radially from the source surface to PSP according to a constant or specified acceleration velocity profile.
    Ballistic back-mapping in Section 2; the paper tests three profiles but all assume straight radial propagation without transverse motion.
  • domain assumption The PFSS-computed open field lines identify the actual flux tube connecting PSP to the solar source during the corotation intervals.
    Section 3: without this, the jet-switchback comparison is void.
  • domain assumption Hourly event counts are independent samples for Pearson correlation significance testing.
    Section 3.3 uses r* thresholds assuming independent samples, while the paper notes events cluster on ~5-hour timescales, making the effective sample size much smaller.
  • domain assumption ADAPT/GONG synoptic magnetograms (resolution ~1 degree) are adequate to resolve the ~30 arcsec-scale source regions.
    Section 4.1 acknowledges the resolution mismatch between the magnetograms and the size of the events.
  • domain assumption Jets observed in AIA 193 are the relevant precursor population, i.e., they are a proxy for switchback-generating activity.
    The paper acknowledges dark/stealth jets may be missed and that not all jets escape; this assumption is required to interpret the null correlation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tracing magnetic switchbacks to their source: An assessment of solar coronal jets as switchback precursors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HULDADVQ

@misc{pith2026250112340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tracing magnetic switchbacks to their source: An assessment of solar coronal jets as switchback precursors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HULDADVQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12340}
}
read the original abstract

The origin of large-amplitude magnetic field deflections in the solar wind, known as magnetic switchbacks, is still under debate. These structures, which are ubiquitous in the observations made by Parker Solar Probe, likely have their seed in the lower solar corona, where small-scale events driven by magnetic reconnection could provide conditions ripe for either direct or indirect generation. We investigated potential links between in situ measurements of switchbacks and eruptions originating from the clusters of small-scale coronal loops known as coronal bright points to establish whether these eruptions act as precursors to switchbacks. We traced solar wind switchbacks from PSP back to their source regions using the ballistic back-mapping and potential field source surface methods, and analyzed the influence of the source surface height and solar wind propagation velocity on magnetic connectivity. Using EUV images, we combined automated and visual approaches to identify small-scale eruptions in the source regions. We find that the source region connected to the spacecraft varies significantly depending on the source surface height, which exceeds the expected dependence on the solar cycle and cannot be detected via polarity checks. For two corotation periods that are straightforwardly connected, we find a matching level of activity (jets and switchbacks), which is characterized by the hourly rate of events and depends on the size of the region connected to PSP. However, no correlation is found between the two time series of hourly event rates. Modeling constraints and the event selection may be the main limitations in the investigation of a possible correlation. Evolutionary phenomena occurring during the solar wind propagation may also influence our results. These results do not allow us to conclude that the jets are the main switchback precursors, nor do they rule out this hypothesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12340 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histogram of jet and switchback counts. The hourly counts of jets are shown in blue and the corresponding counts of switchbacks in orange. The reference time corresponds to the start of the jet-counting interval. (a): E10 counts with constant velocity. (b): E10 counts with acceleration correction. (c): E10 counts with acceleration correction and Alfvén velocity. Each switchback bin, which is equivalent to the 1 h in… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Altschuler, M. D. & Newkirk, G. 1969, Sol. Phys., 9, 131

    work page 1969

  2. [2]

    N., Henney, C

    Arge, C. N., Henney, C. J., Koller, J., et al. 2010, Saint-Malo, (France), 343–346

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    T., Brooks, D

    Badman, S. T., Brooks, D. H., Poirier, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 135

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    T., Riley, P., Jones, S

    Badman, S. T., Riley, P., Jones, S. I., et al. 2023, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 128

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    D., Badman, S

    Bale, S. D., Badman, S. T., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 237

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    D., Drake, J

    Bale, S. D., Drake, J. F., McManus, M. D., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 252

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P

    Bale, S. D., Goetz, K., Harvey, P. R., et al. 2016, Space Sci. Rev., 204, 49

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    D., Horbury, T

    Bale, S. D., Horbury, T. S., Velli, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 174

    2021

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    J., Lucek, E

    Balogh, A., Forsyth, R. J., Lucek, E. A., Horbury, T. S., & Smith, E. J. 1999, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 631

    1999

  2. [10]

    Bizien, N., Wit, T. D. d., Froment, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 23

    2023

  3. [11]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 71

    Chen, J., Su, J., Yin, Z., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 71

    2015

  4. [12]

    2001, JGR, 106

    Collier, M., Szabo, A., Farrell, W., et al. 2001, JGR, 106

    2001

  5. [13]

    T., Rouillard, A

    Dakeyo, J.-B., Badman, S. T., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A12

    2024

  6. [14]

    Dakeyo, J.-B., Maksimovic, M., Démoulin, P., Halekas, J., & Stevens, M. L. 2022, ApJ, 940, 130 de Pablos, D., Samanta, T., Badman, S. T., et al. 2022, Sol. Phys., 297, 90

    2022

  7. [15]

    F., Agapitov, O., Swisdak, M., et al

    Drake, J. F., Agapitov, O., Swisdak, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A2 Dudok de Wit, T., Krasnoselskikh, V . V ., Bale, S. D., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 39

    2021

  8. [16]

    T., et al

    Ervin, T., Jaffarove, K., Badman, S. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 156

    2024

  9. [17]

    P., et al

    Fargette, N., Lavraud, B., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 96

    2021

  10. [18]

    Fisk, L. A. & Kasper, J. C. 2020, ApJ, 894, L4

    2020

  11. [19]

    J., Velli, M

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

    2016

  12. [20]

    W., Hill, F., Hubbard, R

    Harvey, J. W., Hill, F., Hubbard, R. P., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 1284

    1996

  13. [21]

    2023, ApJ, 946, L17

    Huang, N., D’Anna, S., & Wang, H. 2023, ApJ, 946, L17

    2023

  14. [22]

    C., Bale, S

    Kasper, J. C., Bale, S. D., Belcher, J. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 228

    2019

  15. [23]

    2022, A&A, in revision

    Koukras, A., Dolla, L., & Keppens, R. 2022, A&A, in revision

    2022

  16. [24]

    T., Uritsky, V

    Kumar, P., Karpen, J. T., Uritsky, V . M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L15

    2023

  17. [25]

    2006, Geophys

    Landi, S., Hellinger, P., & Velli, M. 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14101

    2006

  18. [26]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 17

    2012

  19. [27]

    H., Altschuler, M

    Levine, R. H., Altschuler, M. D., Harvey, J. W., & Jackson, B. V . 1977, ApJ, 215, 636

    1977

  20. [28]

    H., Schulz, M., & Frazier, E

    Levine, R. H., Schulz, M., & Frazier, E. N. 1982, Sol. Phys., 77, 363

    1982

  21. [29]

    S., et al

    Lionello, R., Török, T., Titov, V . S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, L2

    2016

  22. [30]

    E., Kasper, J

    Livi, R., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 138

    2022

  23. [31]

    Madjarska, M. S. 2011, A&A, 526, A19

    2011

  24. [32]

    Madjarska, M. S. 2019, Liv. Rev. Sol. Phys., 16, 2 Nisticò, G., Bothmer, V ., Patsourakos, S., & Zimbardo, G. 2009, Sol. Phys., 259, 87

    2019

  25. [33]

    Nolte, J. T. & Roelof, E. C. 1973, Sol. Phys., 33, 241

    1973

  26. [34]

    2020, ApJS, 246, 54

    Panasenco, O., Velli, M., D’Amicis, R., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 54

    2020

  27. [35]

    R., Lacatus, D

    Paraschiv, A. R., Lacatus, D. A., Badescu, T., et al. 2010, Sol. Phys., 264, 365

    2010

  28. [36]

    2024, A&A, 687, A10

    Perri, B., Finley, A., Réville, V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A10

    2024

  29. [37]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 3

    2012

  30. [38]

    E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al

    Raouafi, N. E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al. 2016, Space Sci. Rev., 201, 1

    2016

  31. [39]

    H., Chhiber, R., et al

    Ruffolo, D., Matthaeus, W. H., Chhiber, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 94

    2020

  32. [40]

    N., & Boucher, D

    Schulz, M., Frazier, E. N., & Boucher, D. J. 1978, Sol. Phys., 60, 83

    1978

  33. [41]

    Schwadron, N. A. & McComas, D. J. 2021, ApJ, 909, 95

    2021

  34. [42]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 152

    Shi, C., Panasenco, O., Velli, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 152

    2022

  35. [43]

    W., et al

    Shibata, K., Ishido, Y ., Acton, L. W., et al. 1992, PASJ, 44, L173

    1992

  36. [44]

    Squire, J., Chandran, B. D. G., & Meyrand, R. 2020, ApJ, 891, L2

    2020

  37. [45]

    Stansby, D., Yeates, A., & Badman, S. T. 2020, J. Open Source Softw., 5, 2732

    2020

  38. [46]

    S., & Doyle, J

    Subramanian, S., Madjarska, M. S., & Doyle, J. G. 2010, A&A, 516, A50

    2010

  39. [47]

    Toth, G., Velli, M., & Holst, B. v. d. 2023, ApJ, 957, 95

    2023

  40. [48]

    2024, A&A, 692, A71

    Touresse, J., Pariat, E., Froment, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A71

    2024

  41. [49]

    Viall, N. M. & Borovsky, J. E. 2020, JGR Space Phys., 125, e2018JA026005

    2020

  42. [50]

    M., Sheeley, N

    Wang, Y . M., Sheeley, N. R., J., Socker, D. G., et al. 1998, ApJ, 508, 899

    1998

  43. [51]

    Young, P. R. 2015, ApJ, 801, 124 Article number, page 6 of 8 N. Bizien et al.: Tracing magnetic switchbacks to their source Appendix A: Jet count This section presents the jets identified over a one-hour inter- val for both periods considered in the paper. Table A.1 indicates ...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.