Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 89 references

Thermal and Turbulence Characteristics of Fast and Slow Coronal Mass Ejections at 1 AU

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The central claim is that the magnetic ejecta of coronal mass ejections are still being heated at 1 AU, with effective polytropic indices near isothermal (0.88 and 0.76) that match near-Sun states.

desk verdict Two-event case study with a plausible near-isothermal result; the statistics behind the headline need real work before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18296 v1 pith:JF6OAGK3 submitted 2025-05-23 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Soumyaranjan Khuntia , Wageesh Mishra This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords coronalmassejectionsICMEpolytropicindexsolarwindturbulencemagneticejectaplasmaheatingcompressibilityintermittency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper uses in-situ measurements at 1 AU to reconstruct the thermal and turbulent state of two interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs), one fast and one slow. Its central claim is that the magnetic ejecta — the CME's magnetized plasma body — is near-isothermal at Earth: the effective polytropic index, a thermodynamic measure where 1 means constant temperature and 5/3 means adiabatic expansion, is 0.88 for the fast 2011 event and 0.76 for the slow 2018 event. That implies expansion cooling is offset by ongoing heating from near the Sun to 1 AU, matching states the authors previously derived close to the Sun. The paper also reports that the fast ejecta shows Kolmogorov-like magnetic turbulence while the slow ejecta has less developed turbulence, and that intermittent current-sheet-like structures cluster in the sheath and trailing regions and correlate with local heating. If right, heliospheric CME models must include sustained internal heating rather than assuming adiabatic expansion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective polytropic index, a temperature-weighted blend of the electron and proton polytropic indices, $\Gamma_{\rm eff}=(\Gamma_e T_e+\Gamma_p T_p)/(T_e+T_p)$, derived from the polytropic relation $T n^{1-\Gamma}=\text{constant}$. Each component index is obtained by linear fits of $\log T$ versus $\log n$ over moving six-point windows, filtered to retain only high-correlation fits, which lets the analysis map how heating varies across the sheath, five subdivisions of the magnetic ejecta, and the surrounding solar wind. The turbulence argument runs on the trace magnetic power spectrum $P_{\rm tr}\sim f^{\alpha_B}$, the magnetic compressibility $C_B=P_t/P_{\rm tr}$, and the partial variance of increments (PVI), which together connect spectral shape, Alfvénic character, and intermittent dissipation sites to the thermal state.

What would settle it

Recompute $\Gamma_e$ and $\Gamma_p$ without the correlation filter, or with windows aligned to plasma parcels identified by composition and velocity, and check whether $\Gamma_{\rm eff}$ stays near 1; if unfiltered or parcel-aligned values drift toward $\Gamma=5/3$ or outside roughly 0.7--1.3, the sustained-heating claim fails. Resolving the stated $p<0.05$ versus $p<0.5$ threshold inconsistency and repeating the fit over all windows would settle the point directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the magnetic ejecta of an ICME does not cool adiabatically as it travels. By fitting the polytropic relation $T n^{1-\Gamma}=\text{constant}$ in short moving windows of electron and proton data, the authors obtain localized polytropic indices for each substructure, then combine them through a temperature-weighted average, $\Gamma_{\rm eff}=(\Gamma_e T_e+\Gamma_p T_p)/(T_e+T_p)$. This yields $\Gamma_{\rm eff}=0.88$ (ICME1) and $0.76$ (ICME2), close to the isothermal value $\Gamma=1$ and far from the adiabatic $\Gamma=5/3$, implying substantial heating inside the ejecta at 1 AU despite its expansion. The same near-isothermal state was found near the Sun at roughly 15--20 $R_\odot$ in the companion modeling, so the authors conclude that heating persists across heliospheric distances. In addition, inertial-range magnetic spectra are near Kolmogorov ($\alpha_B\approx -5/3$) in the fast ejecta but shallower in the central parts of the slow ejecta, and both ejecta have magnetic compressibility $C_B\ll 1$, indicating mostly Alfvénic fluctuations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each six-point density-temperature window samples one coherent plasma parcel obeying a single polytropic relation, so that keeping only high-correlation fits (CC>0.8 and, as stated variously, p<0.05 vs p<0.5) does not bias the remaining $\Gamma$ values; if windows blend parcels with different expansion histories, the near-isothermal effective indices could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heliospheric CME transport models should not treat ejecta expansion as adiabatic; the near-isothermal indices imply a heating term that roughly balances expansion cooling out to 1 AU.
  • Fast and slow ejecta can arrive with different turbulence development states: the fast ejecta's magnetic ejecta is Kolmogorov-like, while the slow ejecta's central magnetic ejecta has a shallower inertial spectral index, indicating a less fully developed cascade.
  • Magnetic fluctuations inside both magnetic ejecta are predominantly Alfvénic ($C_B\ll 1$), so models that treat ejecta fluctuations as compressive will mischaracterize their energy cascade.
  • Intermittent structures identified by PVI, likely current sheets and reconnection sites, cluster in sheaths and post-ICME regions and coincide with elevated temperatures and compressibility, making them plausible local dissipation sites.
  • The two events' ambient wind has similar thermal states but different turbulence properties, implying the surrounding medium shapes ejecta turbulence more than ejecta temperature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not separate event speed from ambient environment; a larger sample of ICMEs with decoupled speed and wind-type combinations would test whether the fast/slow turbulence contrast is general.
  • If the near-isothermal state truly persists from roughly 15--20 $R_\odot$ to 1 AU, the implied corollary is that heating approximately tracks expansion over the whole radial range; multi-spacecraft radial crossings of the same ejecta would provide a direct test.
  • Because most fitted windows are discarded by the correlation filter, the sensitivity of $\Gamma_{\rm eff}$ to the correlation-coefficient and p-value thresholds is not quantified; recomputing with all windows or with relaxed thresholds is the natural robustness check.
  • The PVI--$C_B$ association is qualitative; conditioning PVI statistics on $C_B$, plasma beta, or local temperature would test whether intermittent structures causally drive compressive fluctuations and dissipation.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a two-event case study of a fast ICME (2011 September 26) and a slow ICME (2018 August 25) observed at 1 AU by the Wind spacecraft, analyzing the thermal state and magnetic turbulence properties of the pre-ICME solar wind, the sheath, five equal segments of the magnetic ejecta (ME), and the post-ICME wind. Using 9-second electron and 92-second proton density/temperature data, the authors fit the polytropic relation T n^{1−Γ} = constant in moving 6-point windows, retain fits with CC > 0.8 and a stated p-value threshold (given as p < 0.05 in Section 2.1 and p < 0.5 in Section 3.2), and report region-averaged Γ_e and Γ_p. The headline result is the effective polytropic index of the ME, Γ_eff ≈ (Γ_e T_e + Γ_p T_p)/(T_e + T_p), equal to 0.88 (ICME1) and 0.76 (ICME2), interpreted as near-isothermal, strongly sub-adiabatic states implying sustained heating at 1 AU and consistent with the authors' earlier FRIS-model near-Sun results (Khuntia et al. 2023). Supporting analyses estimate inertial- and dissipation-range magnetic spectral indices α_B from FFT power spectra, magnetic compressibility C_B, and PVI-based intermittency statistics, leading to claims about Kolmogorov-like turbulence in ICME1's ME, less developed turbulence in ICME2's ME, and qualitative correlations between PVI events and local heating or compressibility.

Significance. If the near-isothermal Γ_eff result survives scrutiny, it provides a valuable link between in-situ thermal states of ICME magnetic ejecta at 1 AU and remote-sensing/model-based near-Sun states, strengthening the case for continuous heating of CME plasma throughout heliospheric propagation, which is directly relevant to CME evolution and space-weather modeling. The paper's strengths include the use of publicly available high-resolution Wind data (reproducibility), the systematic dissection of each ejecta into five parts with explicit discussion of boundary contamination, the combination of three complementary turbulence diagnostics (PSD slopes, compressibility, PVI) with the thermal analysis, and an explicit, falsifiable prediction that Γ_eff should remain near unity across heliocentric distances. The main limitation is statistical: the central quantitative claim rests on a windowed-correlation procedure whose uncertainties and selection biases are not characterized, and the manuscript contains an unresolved threshold inconsistency and an abstract-level typo that reverses the comparison object.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1 vs Section 3.2] The acceptance criterion for 'reliable' polytropic fits is stated as p < 0.05 in Section 2.1 but as p < 0.5 in Section 3.2 (in the caption of Figure 4). These thresholds differ by an order of magnitude, and because all reported mean Γ_e and Γ_p values are computed only from windows passing this criterion, the manuscript must state the operative threshold consistently and demonstrate that the regional means are insensitive to it; as written, a reader cannot determine which filter produced the headline Γ_e values, even though the binding constraint is likely CC > 0.8.
  2. [Section 2.1] The moving-window fits overlap by five of six data points (the step equals the cadence), so multi-hour ME intervals at 9-s cadence produce thousands of highly correlated trials; under the null hypothesis of no T–n correlation, a 6-point sample has roughly 5% probability of |CC| > 0.8, implying that dozens to hundreds of windows are expected to pass the filter by chance. The paper reports neither the number of retained windows per region, nor the full Γ distribution including the rejected windows, nor any null test (e.g., shuffled-density or lagged trials), and it provides no uncertainties on the fitted slopes or on the mean Γ_e and Γ_p. The skeptical concern about selection bias is therefore well-founded, and the manuscript should address it with retained-window counts, bootstrap or fitting uncertainties on each regional mean, and a null test.
  3. [Section 3.3] Γ_eff = (Γ_e T_e + Γ_p T_p)/(T_e + T_p) is evaluated from single mean values with no uncertainty propagation even though it is the paper's headline result, and because T_e > T_p, Γ_eff is dominated by Γ_e. For ICME1, an upward bias of about 0.17 in Γ_e — well within the range made plausible by the selection issue raised above — shifts Γ_eff from 0.88 to roughly 1.0, making it indistinguishable from exactly isothermal and destroying the quantitative 'substantial heating' claim; a similar but smaller shift affects ICME2. In addition, the approximation T_e + T_p ∝ n^{Γ_eff−1} treats the ratio T_p/T_e as locally constant, which is inconsistent with the very different reported values Γ_e ≈ 0.4–0.5 and Γ_p ≈ 1.5–1.8 (T_p/T_e ∝ n^{Γ_p−Γ_e}); the authors should quantify the error of this local-logarithmic-derivative approximation rather than assuming it.
  4. [Section 2.1] The choice of six data points and the CC > 0.8 threshold is justified only by the statement that it yielded the maximum number of reliable Γ estimates, with no sensitivity analysis shown. Since the regional mean Γ values and therefore Γ_eff depend on these choices, the paper should present how the means and their scatter vary with window length (3–10 points) and with the correlation threshold (e.g., CC from 0.7 to 0.9) before the reported Γ_e and Γ_p can be treated as robust.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] In the abstract and in Conclusions item 4, 'the ME of slower ICME2 is less affected by the ambient medium than the faster ICME2' should read 'faster ICME1'; the same error appears in the abstract's dissipation-scale sentence.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states 'The derived PVI values for ICME1 (c) and ICME2 (d)', which conflicts with the text in Section 3.5 referring to 'Figure 5(b) and (d)' for the PVI panels; panel (b), not (c), is presumably the ICME1 PVI panel.
  3. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'Figure 4(a) and (b) show the polytropic index for electron Γp and proton Γe' has the species labels reversed relative to the figure caption, which correctly assigns panels (a,c) to Γ_e and (b,d) to Γ_p.
  4. [Section 3.5] The sentence 'The transition from Gaussian to non-Gaussian magnetic field fluctuations is observed around PVI = 3' has no citation attached; the Osman et al. (2011a,b) references appear only in the next sentence and should be cited directly at the transition statement.
  5. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'to derived proton polytropic index' should read 'to derive the proton polytropic index'; also re-read the sentence beginning 'The higher resolution of the electron data captures finer variations' for clarity, since the claim that the resolution difference does not affect the regional means is asserted without justification.
  6. [Table 1] The mean in-situ parameters are presented without uncertainties or spread measures; adding standard errors or interquartile ranges would help the reader evaluate the significance of the differences between regions discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
  7. [Section 3.4 and Appendix A] Spectral slopes α_B are quoted to two significant figures (e.g., −1.6 versus −1.7) without fitting uncertainties; given that differences of ~0.1 are interpreted physically, confidence intervals on each fitted slope should be reported alongside the R² values shown in the appendix.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation reduces to its inputs: Gamma_eff is an explicit temperature-weighted combination of independently fitted in-situ indices, and the sole self-citation (near-Sun FRIS isothermal states) is corroborative framing, not a load-bearing input.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3.3 (Connection to the near-Sun thermal states); echoed in Abstract and Conclusions item 2.]
    "Thus, the ME of both the ICMEs exhibit substantial heating even at 1AU, despite their expansion. Interestingly, a similar near-isothermal state was also derived at heights near the Sun, around 20 R⊙ and 15 R⊙ for the corresponding fast and slow CMEs (Figure 5 and 6 in Khuntia et al. 2023), respectively."

    The 'consistent heating across heliospheric distances' framing (Abstract: 'aligning with measurements near the Sun'; Conclusion item 2) rests on agreement with near-Sun isothermal states taken from Khuntia et al. (2023, 2024), which are prior same-group FRIS-model papers. The quoted passage presents that same-group result as if it were an external measurement supporting the in-situ conclusion. However, the 1 AU Gamma_eff = 0.88/0.76 is fully determined before this passage by the Section 2.1 windowed fits of Wind data and the Section 3.3 weighted-average formula, into which no near-Sun value enters.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Section 2.1 fits Gamma_e and Gamma_p from linear log T versus log n regressions on 6-point moving windows of Wind/SWE data, retaining windows with CC > 0.8; Section 3.2 forms regional means from those retained distributions; Section 3.3 defines Gamma_eff = (Gamma_e Te + Gamma_p Tp)/(Te + Tp) from the stated polytropic scaling Te + Tp proportional to n^(Gamma_eff - 1) with Te and Tp taken as the mean ME temperatures. This is an explicit weighted-mean summary of the independent fits, and the reported numbers follow arithmetically (for ICME1, 0.42 x 14.2 + 1.8 x 7.2 over 21.4 gives 0.88); no later claim is fed back into the fits, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The turbulence results (alpha_B from PSD slope fits, C_B = Pt/Ptr, PVI) are standard observational diagnostics computed directly from Wind/MFI data and are compared with external benchmarks (Kolmogorov/Kraichnan indices, Kilpua et al. 2020, Good et al. 2023). The only same-author citation is the near-Sun FRIS comparison, which is corroborative rather than load-bearing. In-manuscript inconsistencies such as the significance threshold (p < 0.05 in Section 2.1 versus p < 0.5 in Section 3.2), the absence of retained-window counts, and the lack of uncertainties on Gamma values are statistical robustness concerns for the six-point-window selection bias, not circular reductions, and should be weighed under correctness risk rather than circularity. Verdict: score 2, one minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis relies on standard plasma physics assumptions: the local polytropic approximation, the validity of weighted averaging for the effective index, the interpretation of spacecraft-frame PSD as spatial turbulence, and the statistical stability of PVI. The only ad hoc choices are the window size, frequency bands, and lags, which are tuned to the data.

free parameters (5)
  • sub-interval duration for polytropic fits = 6 data points
    Chosen after testing 3-10 points to maximize the number of 'reliable' fits (Section 2.1). This directly affects the distribution of Gamma_e and Gamma_p and hence Gamma_eff.
  • inertial frequency band = -3 < log10 f < -0.7
    Selected by visual inspection of the PSD as the 'nearly straight line' segment (Section 2.2). The band boundaries affect the fitted alpha_B.
  • dissipation frequency band = -0.3 < log10 f < 0.5
    Selected as the steepening segment of the PSD (Section 2.2).
  • PVI time lags = 0.18 s, 9.2 s, 92 s
    Chosen to sample inertial and dissipation scales (Section 2.2). Results depend on these lags.
  • CC and p thresholds for fit acceptance = CC > 0.8, p < 0.05 (inconsistent p < 0.5 in Section 3.2)
    Filtering criteria for retaining polytropic indices; the inconsistency in the stated p-value is itself a concern.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Polytropic relation T n^{1-Gamma} = const holds locally for collisionless magnetized plasma
    Used to estimate Gamma from log T-log n fits in Section 2.1; the paper acknowledges this is an empirical approximation.
  • domain assumption Each 6-data-point window samples a single plasma parcel with a well-defined polytropic index
    Needed for the local Gamma estimates; if a window mixes different streamlines, the inferred Gamma is not physically meaningful (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption The weighted-average formula Gamma_eff = (Gamma_e Te + Gamma_p Tp)/(Te + Tp) is a valid summary of the ME thermal state
    Derived from a logarithmic derivative of (Te+Tp) with respect to n, but applied with constant mean temperatures over the whole ME (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption The chosen frequency bands correspond to inertial and dissipation ranges for all subregions
    The bands are fixed a priori and applied to every region; if the spectral break moves into a band, the fitted slope mixes regimes (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Taylor's hypothesis (or spacecraft-frame frequency equals spatial wavenumber) holds for the turbulence analysis
    Power spectra are computed in the spacecraft frame and interpreted as spatial turbulence spectra, standard practice but an assumption for these flows.
  • domain assumption PVI normalization over the entire dataset is statistically stable
    The PVI denominator is computed over the whole interval including pre, sheath, ME, and post regions, following Yordanova et al. (2021); the standard deviation of increments is not reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal and Turbulence Characteristics of Fast and Slow Coronal Mass Ejections at 1 AU." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JF6OAGK3

@misc{pith2026250518296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal and Turbulence Characteristics of Fast and Slow Coronal Mass Ejections at 1 AU},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JF6OAGK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18296}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding the thermal and turbulence properties of interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) is essential for analyzing their evolution and interactions with the surrounding medium. This study explores these characteristics across different regions of two distinct ICMEs observed at 1 AU, utilizing in-situ measurements from the Wind spacecraft. The polytropic indices, Gamma_e for electrons and Gamma_p for protons) reveal significant deviations from adiabatic expansion, suggesting sustained heating mechanisms within the ICMEs even at 1AU. The effective polytropic index (Gamma_eff) of the magnetic ejecta (ME) in both ICME1 and ICME2 is found to be near-isothermal (Gamma_eff = 0.88 and 0.76), aligning with measurements near the Sun, highlighting consistent heating across heliospheric distances. Spectral analysis at the inertial scale reveals Kolmogorov-like turbulence in the fast ICME1's ME, while the ME of the slower ICME2 exhibits less developed turbulence with a shallower spectral index (alpha_B). The turbulence analysis in the dissipation scale indicates that the ME of slower ICME2 is less affected by the ambient medium than the faster ICME2. The MEs of both ICMEs show magnetic compressibility much smaller than unity (C_B < 1), suggesting dominant Alfvenic fluctuations in the MEs. Notably, the partial variance of increments (PVI) method identifies more intermittent structures, such as current sheets and reconnection sites, in the sheath and post-ICME regions. Higher PVI values correlate with regions of increased electron and proton temperature (for the sheath region), as well as higher C_B values, highlighting their role in local energy dissipation. These results underscore the importance of ongoing heating and turbulence processes in shaping the evolution of ICMEs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Ala-Lahti M., Kilpua E. K. J., Sou c ek J., Pulkkinen T. I., Dimmock A. P., 2019, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2019JA026579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JGRA..124.3893A 124, 3893

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja026579 2019

  3. [3]

    N., 2009, @doi [Space Weather] 10.1029/2009SW000465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009SpWea...7.2003B 7, 02003

    Baker D. N., 2009, @doi [Space Weather] 10.1029/2009SW000465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009SpWea...7.2003B 7, 02003

    work page doi:10.1029/2009sw000465 2009

  4. [4]

    F., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00151617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982SoPh...78..373B 78, 373

    Bavassano B., Dobrowolny M., Fanfoni G., Mariani F., Ness N. F., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00151617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982SoPh...78..373B 78, 373

    doi:10.1007/bf00151617 1982

  5. [5]

    E., Denton M

    Borovsky J. E., Denton M. H., Smith C. W., 2019, @doi [J. Geophys. Res. (Space Phys.)] 10.1029/2019JA026580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JGRA..124.2406B 124, 2406

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja026580 2019

  6. [6]

    Bruno R., Bavassano B., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0032-0633(93)90052-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993P&SS...41..677B 41, 677

    doi:10.1016/0032-0633(93)90052-4 1993

  7. [7]

    Bruno R., Carbone V., 2013, @doi [Living Rev. Sol. Phys.] 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013LRSP...10....2B 10, 2

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2013-2 2013

  8. [8]

    book Vol

    Bruno R., Carbone V., 2016, Turbulence in the Solar Wind . book Vol. 928, Springer International Publishing, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-43440-7

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

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Chasapis A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804L...1C 804, L1

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Chen C. H. K., Leung L., Boldyrev S., Maruca B. A., Bale S. D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1002/2014GL062009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014GeoRL..41.8081C 41, 8081

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Chen C. H. K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab60a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..246...53C 246, 53

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Chhiber R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab53d2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..246...31C 246, 31

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    D'Amicis R., Bruno R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...84D 805, 84

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Lepri S

    D'Amicis R., Alielden K., Perrone D., Bruno R., Telloni D., Raines J. M., Lepri S. T., Zhao L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A.111D 654, A111

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Livadiotis G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aca673 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941L..26D 941, L26

    Dayeh M. A., Livadiotis G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aca673 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941L..26D 941, L26

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Anderson B

    Denton R. E., Anderson B. J., Gary S. P., Fuselier S. A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1029/94JA00272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JGR....9911225D 99, 11225

    1994 doi

  9. [17]

    T., Gonzalez W

    Echer E., Tsurutani B. T., Gonzalez W. D., 2013, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2012JA018086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013JGRA..118..385E 118, 385

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Filippov B., Koutchmy S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1020532607451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002SoPh..208..283F 208, 283

    2002 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Fuselier S

    Gary S. P., Fuselier S. A., Anderson B. J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1029/92JA01844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993JGR....98.1481G 98, 1481

    1993 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Tsurutani B

    Gonzalez W. D., Tsurutani B. T., Cl \'u a de Gonzalez A. L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1005160129098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999SSRv...88..529G 88, 529

    1999 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Ala-Lahti M., Palmerio E., Kilpua E

    Good S. W., Ala-Lahti M., Palmerio E., Kilpua E. K. J., Osmane A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fa2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893..110G 893, 110

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    a A. S. M., Chen C. H. K., M \

    Good S. W., Rantala O. K., Jylh \"a A. S. M., Chen C. H. K., M \"o stl C., Kilpua E. K. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acfd1c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956L..30G 956, L30

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Ferradas C

    Gopalswamy N., Yashiro S., Akiyama S., Xie H., M \"a kel \"a P., Fok M. C., Ferradas C. P., 2022, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2022JA030404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JGRA..12730404G 127, e30404

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    T., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1029/93JA01896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993JGR....9818937G 98, 18937

    Gosling J. T., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1029/93JA01896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993JGR....9818937G 98, 18937

    1993 doi

  17. [25]

    T., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1029/1999JA900254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999JGR...10419851G 104, 19851

    Gosling J. T., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1029/1999JA900254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999JGR...10419851G 104, 19851

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    H., Servidio S., Dmitruk P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2008GL035454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008GeoRL..3519111G 35, L19111

    Greco A., Chuychai P., Matthaeus W. H., Servidio S., Dmitruk P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2008GL035454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008GeoRL..3519111G 35, L19111

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    H., Servidio S., Chuychai P., Dmitruk P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/L111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691L.111G 691, L111

    Greco A., Matthaeus W. H., Servidio S., Chuychai P., Dmitruk P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/L111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691L.111G 691, L111

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    H., Perri S., Osman K

    Greco A., Matthaeus W. H., Perri S., Osman K. T., Servidio S., Wan M., Dmitruk P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-017-0435-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SSRv..214....1G 214, 1

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    W., Vasquez B

    Hamilton K., Smith C. W., Vasquez B. J., Leamon R. J., 2008, @doi [J. Geophys. Res. (Space Phys.)] 10.1029/2007JA012559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRA..113.1106H 113, A01106

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Phillips J

    Hammond C. M., Phillips J. L., Crawford G. K., Balogh A., 1996, in Winterhalter D., Gosling J. T., Habbal S. R., Kurth W. S., Neugebauer M., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 382, Proceedings of the eigth International solar wind Conference: Solar wind ...

    1996 doi

  23. [31]

    P., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/500127 , 636, L165

    Hayashi K., Benevolenskaya E., Hoeksema T., Liu Y., Zhao X. P., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/500127 , 636, L165

    2005 doi

  24. [32]

    Hellinger P., Matsumoto H., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1029/1999JA000297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000JGR...10510519H 105, 10519

    2000 doi

  25. [33]

    V., V \"o lk H

    Hollweg J. V., V \"o lk H. J., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA075i028p05297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970JGR....75.5297H 75, 5297

    1970 doi

  26. [34]

    Q., Feng X

    Hu Y. Q., Feng X. S., Wu S. T., Song W. B., 2008, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JA012750 , 113

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    S., 1963, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963AZh....40..742I 40, 742

    Iroshnikov P. S., 1963, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963AZh....40..742I 40, 742

    1963

  28. [36]

    K., Wang Y., Zhang J., Lyu S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad00ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958...92K 958, 92

    Khuntia S., Mishra W., Mishra S. K., Wang Y., Zhang J., Lyu S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad00ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958...92K 958, 92

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    K., Nieves-Chinchilla T., Lyu S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2585K 535, 2585

    Khuntia S., Mishra W., Wang Y., Mishra S. K., Nieves-Chinchilla T., Lyu S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2585K 535, 2585

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    arXiv:2504.03335

    Khuntia S., Mishra W., Agarwal A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250403335K p. arXiv:2504.03335

    2025 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kilpua E. K. J., et al., 2020, @doi [Annales Geophysicae] 10.5194/angeo-38-999-2020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AnGeo..38..999K 38, 999

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Kilpua E. K. J., Good S. W., Ala-Lahti M., Osmane A., Fontaine D., Hadid L., Janvier M., Yordanova E., 2021, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2020.610278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021FrASS...7..109K 7, 109

    2021

  33. [41]

    Kolmogorov A., 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941DoSSR..30..301K 30, 301

    1941

  34. [42]

    H., 1965, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.1761412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965PhFl....8.1385K 8, 1385

    Kraichnan R. H., 1965, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.1761412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965PhFl....8.1385K 8, 1385

    1965 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Smith C

    Leamon R. J., Smith C. W., Ness N. F., Matthaeus W. H., Wong H. K., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1029/97JA03394 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JGR...103.4775L 103, 4775

    1998 doi

  36. [44]

    C., Reeves K

    Lee J.-Y., Raymond J. C., Reeves K. K., Moon Y.-J., Kim K.-S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa79a4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844....3L 844, 3

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    P., et al., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00751330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995SSRv...71..207L 71, 207

    Lepping R. P., et al., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00751330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995SSRv...71..207L 71, 207

    1995 doi

  38. [46]

    T., Laming J

    Lepri S. T., Laming J. M., Rakowski C. E., von Steiger R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760..105L 760, 105

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Miki \'c Z., Lionello R., Riley P., Amari T., Odstrcil D., 2003, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.1563668 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhPl...10.1971L 10, 1971

    Linker J. A., Miki \'c Z., Lionello R., Riley P., Amari T., Odstrcil D., 2003, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.1563668 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhPl...10.1971L 10, 1971

    2003 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Belcher J

    Liu Y., Richardson J. D., Belcher J. W., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.pss.2004.09.023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005P&SS...53....3L 53, 3

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    D., Belcher J

    Liu Y., Richardson J. D., Belcher J. W., Kasper J. C., Elliott H. A., 2006a, @doi [J. Geophys. Res. (Space Phys.)] 10.1029/2005JA011329 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JGRA..111.1102L 111, A01102

    doi

  42. [50]

    D., Belcher J

    Liu Y., Richardson J. D., Belcher J. W., Kasper J. C., Skoug R. M., 2006b, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2006JA011723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JGRA..111.9108L 111, A09108

    doi

  43. [51]

    W., Balasubramaniam K

    Manchester W., 2008, in Howe R., Komm R. W., Balasubramaniam K. S., Petrie G. J. D., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 383, Subsurface and Atmospheric Influences on Solar Activity. p. 91 ( @eprint arXiv 0812.3589 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.0812.3589

    2008 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    A., Vasquez B

    Markovskii S. A., Vasquez B. J., Smith C. W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...675.1576M 675, 1576

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    M \'a rquez Rodr \' guez R., Sorriso-Valvo L., Yordanova E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-023-02146-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023SoPh..298...54M 298, 54

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    H., 2021, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/5.0041540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhPl...28c2306M 28, 032306

    Matthaeus W. H., 2021, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/5.0041540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhPl...28c2306M 28, 032306

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    H., Zank G

    Matthaeus W. H., Zank G. P., Smith C. W., Oughton S., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.3444 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PhRvL..82.3444M 82, 3444

    1999 doi

  48. [56]

    Mishra W., Srivastava N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/70 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...70M 772, 70

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    Mishra W., Srivastava N., 2015, @doi [Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate] 10.1051/swsc/2015021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JSWSC...5A..20M 5, A20

    2015

  50. [58]

    Mishra W., Wang Y., Teriaca L., Zhang J., Chi Y., 2020, @doi [Front. Astron. Space Sci.,] 10.3389/fspas.2020.00001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020FrASS...7....1M 7, 1

    2020

  51. [59]

    Mishra W., Wang Y., Lyu S., Khuntia S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952..173M 952, 173

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    Nicolaou G., Livadiotis G., Moussas X., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-013-0401-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SoPh..289.1371N 289, 1371

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    T., Verscharen D., Maruca B

    Nicolaou G., Livadiotis G., Wicks R. T., Verscharen D., Maruca B. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abaaae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901...26N 901, 26

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    Novikov E., 1971, @doi [Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics] https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8928(71)90029-3 , 35, 231

    1971 doi

  55. [63]

    W., et al., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00751326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995SSRv...71...55O 71, 55

    Ogilvie K. W., et al., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00751326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995SSRv...71...55O 71, 55

    1995 doi

  56. [64]

    A., Farrugia C

    Osherovich V. A., Farrugia C. J., Burlaga L. F., Lepping R. P., Fainberg J., Stone R. G., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1029/93JA01012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993JGR....9815331O 98, 15331

    1993 doi

  57. [65]

    T., Matthaeus W

    Osman K. T., Matthaeus W. H., Greco A., Servidio S., 2011a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...727L..11O 727, L11

    doi

  58. [66]

    T., Wan M., Matthaeus W

    Osman K. T., Wan M., Matthaeus W. H., Breech B., Oughton S., 2011b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...75O 741, 75

    doi

  59. [67]

    Piersanti M., et al., 2020, @doi [Annales Geophysicae] 10.5194/angeo-38-703-2020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AnGeo..38..703P 38, 703

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    E., Laming J

    Rakowski C. E., Laming J. M., Lepri S. T., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...667..602R 667, 602

    2007 doi

  61. [69]

    Reva A., Bogachev S., Loboda I., Kirichenko A., Ulyanov A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-023-02154-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023SoPh..298...61R 298, 61

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    O., Rakhmanova L

    Riazantseva M. O., Rakhmanova L. S., Zastenker G. N., Yermolaev Y. I., Lodkina I. G., 2019, @doi [Geomagnetism and Aeronomy] 10.1134/S0016793219020117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Ge&Ae..59..127R 59, 127

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    A., Mikić Z., Lionello R., Ledvina S

    Riley P., Linker J. A., Mikić Z., Lionello R., Ledvina S. A., Luhmann J. G., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/508565 , 653, 1510

    2006 doi

  64. [72]

    L., Robert P., Khotyaintsev Y

    Sahraoui F., Goldstein M. L., Robert P., Khotyaintsev Y. V., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.231102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhRvL.102w1102S 102, 231102

    2009 doi

  65. [73]

    H., Osman K

    Servidio S., Greco A., Matthaeus W. H., Osman K. T., Dmitruk P., 2011, @doi [J. Geophys. Res. (Space Phys.)] 10.1029/2011JA016569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JGRA..116.9102S 116, A09102

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    I., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3005S 530, 3005

    Shaikh Z. I., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3005S 530, 3005

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    C., Burlaga L

    Sittler E. C., Burlaga L. F., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1029/98JA01289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JGR...10317447S 103, 17447

    1998 doi

  68. [76]

    W., Hamilton K., Vasquez B

    Smith C. W., Hamilton K., Vasquez B. J., Leamon R. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645L..85S 645, L85

    2006 doi

  69. [77]

    P., Telloni D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac26c5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919L..30S 919, L30

    Sorriso-Valvo L., Yordanova E., Dimmock A. P., Telloni D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac26c5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919L..30S 919, L30

    2021 doi

  70. [78]

    Telloni D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abf7d1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...912L..21T 912, L21

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

    Temmer M., 2021, @doi [Living Rev. Sol. Phys.] 10.1007/s41116-021-00030-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021LRSP...18....4T 18, 4

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    Temmer M., et al., 2023, @doi [Advances in Space Research] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2023.07.003

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    A., Matthaeus W

    Tessein J. A., Matthaeus W. H., Wan M., Osman K. T., Ruffolo D., Giacalone J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/776/1/L8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776L...8T 776, L8

    2013 doi

  74. [82]

    T., Lakhina G

    Tsurutani B. T., Lakhina G. S., Verkhoglyadova O. P., Gonzalez W. D., Echer E., Guarnieri F. L., 2011, @doi [Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics] 10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JASTP..73....5T 73, 5

    2011 doi

  75. [83]

    G., Maruca B

    Verscharen D., Klein K. G., Maruca B. A., 2019, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019LRSP...16....5V 16, 5

    2019 doi

  76. [84]

    V., M \"o stl C., Vennerstrom S., Vrbanec D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...512A..43V 512, A43

    Vr s nak B., Z ic T., Falkenberg T. V., M \"o stl C., Vennerstrom S., Vrbanec D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...512A..43V 512, A43

    2010 doi

  77. [85]

    F., Howard T

    Webb D. F., Howard T. A., 2012, @doi [Living Rev. Sol. Phys.] 10.12942/lrsp-2012-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012LRSP....9....3W 9, 3

    2012 doi

  78. [86]

    E., Lean J

    Wood B. E., Lean J. L., McDonald S. E., Wang Y.-M., 2016, @doi [J. Geophys. Res. (Space Phys.)] 10.1002/2015JA021953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JGRA..121.4938W 121, 4938

    2016 doi

  79. [87]

    T., Guo W

    Wu S. T., Guo W. P., Michels D. J., Burlaga L. F., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1029/1999JA900099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999JGR...10414789W 104, 14789

    1999 doi

  80. [88]

    P., Kilpua E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1942 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921...65Y 921, 65

    Yordanova E., V \"o r \"o s Z., Sorriso-Valvo L., Dimmock A. P., Kilpua E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1942 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921...65Y 921, 65

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    H., Richardson I

    Zurbuchen T. H., Richardson I. G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-9010-4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123...31Z 123, 31

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.