Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Radial evolution of a density structure within a solar wind magnetic sector boundary

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single solar-wind density structure, tracked from 0.075 to 0.9 au, flips from radially elongated to transversely elongated while staying intact.

desk verdict A convincing two-point HPS case study whose shape-evolution headline is more sensitive to the non-radial deflection correction than the paper admits. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09395 v2 pith:K33B7R5R submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Etienne Berriot , Pascal Démoulin , Olga Alexandrova , Arnaud Zaslavsky , Milan Maksimovic , Georgios Nicolaou This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords SolarWindHeliosphereheliosphericplasmasheetsectorboundarydensitystructureParkerProbeOrbiterinterchangereconnection
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

Using a radial alignment of Parker Solar Probe (0.075 au) and Solar Orbiter (0.9 au) on 29 April 2021, the paper argues that the same solar-wind density enhancement -- a structure with a $\sim$1.5 h duration and $\sim$20-30 min substructures -- passed both spacecraft after a 137.6 h propagation. That structure belongs to the heliospheric plasma sheet, the dense band around the magnetic sector boundary, and its density is dominated by radial gradients while the magnetic field reversal is organized in longitude in the Carrington frame. From the two crossings the paper reconstructs the structure's minimum sizes and finds that its radial length stays near $10^6$ km while its transverse sizes grow from roughly $10^4$-$10^5$ km near 2-3 solar radii to $10^6$-$10^7$ km at 0.9 au, so its inferred shape flips from radially elongated to transversely elongated. The measurements argue against local reconnection of open field lines, and the authors propose instead that the structure was released by interchange reconnection near the tip of a coronal streamer. If right, this gives a direct view of how a small coronal density feature survives and reshapes as it becomes part of the large-scale solar wind.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the density structure itself, used as a Lagrangian marker of a solar-wind plasma parcel: a $\sim$1.5 h enhancement with four identifiable 20-30 min substructures that are matched between PSP and SolO using the adjusted time variable $t_{\rm adj}$ and the propagation delay $\tau = 137.6$ h. The argument then turns on comparing the same data in two coordinate systems: in adjusted time the density profiles coincide, while in Carrington longitude the magnetic field and strahl-electron pitch-angle reversals coincide. That contrast separates radial density gradients from longitudinal magnetic gradients. The longitudinal-extension estimate is built from the identity $\Delta\varphi_{\rm str} = \Delta\varphi_{\rm PSP} + \Delta\varphi_{\rm SolO} + \Delta\varphi_{\rm shift}$, with a correction $\Delta\varphi_{\rm NR} \simeq 2.0^\circ$ for non-radial deflection by the stream interaction region, and size evolution is obtained by combining $L_R$ from radial crossing times with $L_\varphi = R\,\Delta\varphi_{\rm str}$ and $L_\theta = R\,\Delta\theta_{\rm str}$ under the assumption of spherical expansion with non-decreasing angular size.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be a third spacecraft, or a second aligned pair, sampling the same sector boundary at an intermediate heliocentric distance: if the matched density structure's inferred angular width in Carrington longitude decreases with distance by more than the $\sim$2 degree deflection attributed to the stream interaction region, the non-decreasing angular-size assumption fails and the reported transverse sizes and aspect-ratio flip at 0.9 au would be invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the density enhancement identified in the authors' previous study is one coherent substructure of the heliospheric plasma sheet, not a transient artifact of each spacecraft's local sampling. When the two density profiles are aligned in adjusted time, with a propagation delay $\tau = 137.6$ h, the main structure and its four substructures match in detail, while they no longer match when plotted against Carrington longitude; conversely, the magnetic field and strahl-electron pitch-angle reversals match in Carrington longitude but not in time. The paper reads this as evidence that the density structure has dominant radial gradients and is advected with the flow, whereas the sector boundary itself is a longitudinally organized magnetic feature. From the scanned longitudes it derives a minimum longitudinal extent of about $4.5^\circ$ (${\sim}1.1\times10^7$ km at SolO and ${\sim}9\times10^5$ km at PSP) and, assuming the angular size does not decrease during spherical expansion, it estimates the structure launched near 2-3 solar radii with $L_R \lesssim 10^6$ km and $L_{\varphi,\theta} \sim 10^4$-$10^5$ km, becoming roughly isotropic at PSP and transversely elongated at SolO. A compression of the corrected density by a factor $\sim$1.3-1.5 at SolO is attributed to the formation of a stream interaction region. Because a Wal\'en-relation test fails and no strahl-electron dropout accompanies the $+V_R$ outflow, the authors reject local reconnection of open field lines as the source; they propose interchange reconnection at the streamer tip, where dense coronal loop plasma is injected alternately into both magnetic polarities.

Load-bearing premise

The whole reconstruction depends on the assumption that PSP and SolO truly crossed the same physical density structure, moving with the adopted 137.6-hour propagation delay, and that the structure's angular size does not shrink as it travels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One tracked density structure can keep its identity and internal substructure across a 0.8 au journey, so transient density enhancements are usable as tracers of solar-wind propagation and compression.
  • Density and magnetic field need not be organized in the same way across a sector boundary: radial density gradients and longitudinal magnetic reversals can coexist, which should be accounted for when interpreting single-spacecraft time series as spatial structure.
  • If the angular-size assumption holds, heliospheric-plasma-sheet substructures launched near a few solar radii systematically flatten into transverse pancakes by 1 au; the same mechanism would make many observed 1 au density structures appear wider perpendicular to the radial direction.
  • The structure's survival through stream-interaction-region formation, with compression by a factor $\sim$1.3-1.5, argues that SIRs can reshape but not destroy small density features, constraining models of stream interaction region development.
  • The failure of the Wal\'en test and the absence of strahl dropout point away from local reconnection of open field lines and toward interchange reconnection at streamer tips as a source of dense solar-wind structures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit: the same two-spacecraft longitude-shift method could be applied to other radially aligned PSP/SolO windows to build a statistical map of how heliospheric-plasma-sheet substructures are oriented at different distances, rather than relying on a single event.
  • If the interchange-reconnection scenario is right, a testable prediction follows: density substructures inside sector boundaries should preferentially appear when the sampled field lines connect back to streamer cusp regions and should show depleted alpha abundance because of gravitational stratification; a survey of alpha/proton ratios near current-sheet crossings could check this.
  • The non-decreasing angular-size assumption is conservative in one direction only; if angular sizes actually shrink due to reconnection or compression, the inferred transverse sizes at SolO would be overestimated, so the aspect-ratio flip at 1 au is better read as a lower bound on the flattening.
  • A natural extension would be to compare the same structure in white-light streamer-blob observations with the in-situ crossings, directly linking the proposed interchange-reconnection source region to outward-moving density enhancements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses a rare radial alignment between Parker Solar Probe (PSP) and Solar Orbiter (SolO) on 29 April 2021 to track a density structure from ~0.075 au to ~0.9 au. It argues that the structure is a substructure of the heliospheric plasma sheet (HPS), that its density gradients are predominantly radial (Section 2.2, Figure 1), that it is compressed by a factor ~1.3-1.5 while propagating through an SIR (Section 2.3, Appendix C), and that its shape evolves from radially elongated near 2-3 solar radii to transversely elongated at 0.9 au (Table 2, Section 5). The authors propose interchange reconnection at the tip of a streamer as the origin, excluding local open-field reconnection on the basis of strahl-electron and Walén-relation tests (Section 4, Appendix B).

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable two-spacecraft case study of the radial evolution of a coherent density structure within the heliospheric plasma sheet, exploiting a rare alignment geometry. The paper's strengths include a visually convincing matching of density substructures at the two spacecraft, a clean diagnostic separating radial from longitudinal gradients via time- versus longitude-frame comparisons, explicit labeling of size estimates as lower bounds, a concrete mechanism (SIR compression) for the observed density excess, and falsifiable predictions about the structure's aspect-ratio evolution. The proposal of interchange reconnection as the generation mechanism is placed in context and is consistent with the lack of strahl dropouts and the failure of the Walén test. The central inference of radial-gradient dominance is supported by the data and does not appear to be an artifact of fitting the conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4 and Appendix A.2] The headline result that the structure is 'transversely elongated' at 0.9 au depends directly on the assumed non-radial deflection Δφ_NR used in Eq. (5) and (A5). The paper adopts Δφ_NR ≈ 2.0° from Berriot et al. (2024) while its own analytic estimate in Eq. (A9) gives Δφ_NR = 5.7°. Replacing 2.0° by 5.7° changes Δφ*_str from 4.5° to ~0.8°, reducing Lφ,SolO from ~1.1×10^7 km to ~2×10^6 km, i.e., from a clearly transverse elongation to a nearly spherical shape (Lφ ≈ L_R ≈ 1.5×10^6 km). The authors argue that the model value is 'more relevant' because the SIR tangential deflection appears farther out, but no independent validation is provided. A sensitivity analysis over the plausible range of Δφ_NR is necessary to support the qualitative aspect-ratio evolution claimed in the abstract and Section 5.
  2. [Section 2.4 and Appendix C] The inference of the minimum longitudinal extension Δφ_str relies on the assumption that the structure's angular size does not decrease during propagation (Section 2.4). This assumption is directly in tension with the paper's own analysis in Section 3.3 and Appendix C, where the HPS's longitudinal extension is found to decrease from ~2.0° at PSP to ~1.8° at SolO, attributed to SIR compression. If the SIR can compress the surrounding HPS in longitude, there is no obvious reason why the embedded density structure is immune to the same compression. If the density structure's angular width can decrease, the quantities Δφ_str and Δφ*_str would overestimate the structure's width at SolO, and the qualitative conclusion of transverse elongation would be weakened. The paper should either justify why the density structure is not subject to the longitudinal compression that affects the HPS, or present the SolO transverse size as an upper bound rather than a lower bound.
  3. [Section 2.2] The identification of the same physical structure at PSP and SolO relies on the propagation time τ = 137.6 h taken from the Berkeley et al. (2024) model. The paper does not report an uncertainty for τ or test the sensitivity of the structure association to plausible variations in τ or in the model's assumptions (constant acceleration, SIR deflection). Since the radial-gradient inference and all subsequent size estimates presuppose this association, a quantitative statement of the uncertainty in τ — for example, the width of the cross-correlation peak in Figure 1 — would make the central claim more robust. Without it, the possibility that a different time shift could degrade the matching and affect the inferred gradients cannot be assessed from the present manuscript.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 3] The right panels (a'–g') use a common longitude origin defined in Eq. (10) with t=0.5 h, but the sensitivity of the resulting Δϕ comparison to this choice is not discussed; a brief statement on how the common origin affects the alignment would improve clarity.
  2. [Appendix A.2] The two reasons given for the discrepancy between the model-based and analytic Δφ_NR values are somewhat terse; expanding the explanation of the difference between a fixed-RTN-frame rectilinear deflection and a rotating-frame analytic integration would help the reader assess which estimate is more appropriate.
  3. [Section 2.3] The compression factor is quoted as 1.5 in the text and then as 1.3-1.5 in the conclusion due to the QTN calibration check; the origin of this range and its quantitative implications for the radial-size estimate could be stated more explicitly.
  4. [Figure 3, axis labels] The axis label 't & t − τ' on the left panels is typographically ambiguous; it should be written as 't (PSP), t − τ (SolO)' or similar to avoid confusion.
  5. [Throughout] The paper repeatedly references Berriot et al. (2024) for the propagation model and the latitudinal size Δθ_str; a brief summary of the model's assumptions and the meaning of Δθ_str in an appendix would make this manuscript more self-contained.
  6. [Section 3.3] The difference in HPS longitude extension between PSP and SolO (2.0° vs 1.8°) is small and may be within the uncertainty of identifying the HPS boundaries; the paper should acknowledge this uncertainty before attributing the decrease to SIR formation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the structure identification, radial-gradient inference, and shape evolution are derived from spacecraft data under explicit assumptions; reliance on Berriot et al. (2024) is independent prior work rather than a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The same density structure at PSP and SolO is established by visual inspection and cross-correlation of the measured density profiles (Section 2.2), with the propagation time tau = 137.6 h independently reported in Berriot et al. (2024); the present paper also re-examines the crossing times rather than merely asserting them. The inference of dominant radial gradients follows from the temporal correspondence of Np(t) despite very different spacecraft scanning directions, an inference that could fail if non-radial density gradients were dominant. The longitudinal-size estimate (Eqs. 5-6, Appendix A) combines measured spacecraft longitudes with an explicit non-radial correction; the choice of Delta_phi_NR ~ 2.0 deg rather than the analytic A.2 estimate 5.7 deg is a model-sensitivity issue, not a circular reduction, because the correction is not derived from the measured angular span or from the final aspect-ratio conclusion. Table 2's radial-to-transverse shape evolution is a transparent consequence of the stated assumptions (nearly spherical expansion, non-decreasing angular size, L_phi = R Delta_phi, and measured L_R): it is an inferred implication, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to Berriot et al. (2024) are load-bearing for the propagation model and non-radial deflection, but that prior work is external, published, and based on independent data and modeling; no equation here equates an output to an input by construction. The main risks in the paper are parameter sensitivity and structural-association uncertainty, which are correctness concerns rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central size estimates rely on the propagation model and angular-size conservation assumptions, which are reasonable but not directly measured. No genuinely new physical entities are introduced; the proposed interchange-reconnection origin uses existing concepts.

free parameters (4)
  • Propagation time tau = 137.6 h
    The time shift between PSP and SolO density profiles that maximizes the correspondence of the density structure; determined by cross-correlation and the propagation model of Berriot et al. (2024).
  • Non-radial deflection Delta_phi_NR = approximately 2.0 deg
    Estimated from the SIR deflection model in Berriot et al. (2024), used to correct the minimum longitudinal extension of the structure.
  • Magnetic field scaling exponent = 1.6
    Used to normalize B by (R/R0)^1.6 for display in Figure 3; an empirical choice between R^-2 and R^-1 scaling, not central to the claims.
  • Walen relation factor epsilon = 0.8
    Chosen to test alfvenicity of the observed outflow; the conclusion is that the Walen relation is not satisfied, so this parameter does not support the central claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The solar wind propagates ballistically with constant acceleration, as modeled in Berriot et al. (2024).
    Used to compute the plasma line-up and propagation time tau=137.6 h (Section 2.2). This is a modeling assumption from the companion paper.
  • domain assumption The solar wind expands nearly spherically, so density scales as (R/R0)^-2 and angular sizes are preserved.
    Used to correct densities and to estimate longitudinal and latitudinal sizes as R*Delta_phi and R*Delta_theta (Sections 2.3, 2.4, 5).
  • domain assumption The angular size of the density structure does not decrease during propagation.
    Stated in Section 2.4; needed to interpret the measured longitude separation as a lower bound on the structure's size.
  • domain assumption Strahl electrons are produced at the Sun and travel freely along magnetic field lines, so their pitch-angle distribution indicates magnetic connectivity.
    Used in Section 3.1 to identify the true sector boundary and to rule out disconnection due to reconnection.
  • domain assumption The PAS proton moments on SolO represent the proton population, with alpha abundance about 1 percent.
    Stated in Section 2.1; if alpha contamination were significant, density moments would be biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radial evolution of a density structure within a solar wind magnetic sector boundary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K33B7R5R

@misc{pith2026241209395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radial evolution of a density structure within a solar wind magnetic sector boundary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K33B7R5R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09395}
}
abstract

This study focuses on a radial alignment between Parker Solar Probe (PSP) and Solar Orbiter (SolO) on the 29$^{\text{th}}$ of April 2021 (during a solar minimum), when the two spacecraft were respectively located at $\sim 0.075$ and $\sim 0.9$~au from the Sun. A previous study of this alignment allowed the identification of the same density enhancement (with a time scale of $\sim$1.5~h), and substructures ($\sim$20-30~min timescale), passing first by PSP, and then SolO after a $\sim 138$~h propagation time in the inner heliosphere. We show here that this structure belongs to the large scale heliospheric magnetic sector boundary. In this region, the density is dominated by radial gradients, whereas the magnetic field reversal is consistent with longitudinal gradients in the Carrington reference frame. We estimate the density structure radial size to remain of the order L$_R \sim 10^6$~km, while its longitudinal and latitudinal sizes, are estimated to expand from L$_{\varphi, \theta} \sim 10^4$-$10^5$~km in the high solar corona, to L$_{\varphi, \theta} \sim 10^5$-$10^6$~km at PSP, and L$_{\varphi, \theta} \sim 10^6$-$10^7$~km at SolO. This implies a strong evolution of the structure's aspect ratio during the propagation, due to the plasma's nearly spherical expansion. The structure's shape is therefore inferred to evolve from elongated in the radial direction at $\sim$2-3 solar radii (high corona), to sizes of nearly the same order in all directions at PSP, and then becoming elongated in the directions transverse to the radial at SolO. Measurements are not concordant with local reconnection of open solar wind field lines, so we propose that the structure has been generated through interchange reconnection near the tip of a coronal streamer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proton density Np measured by PSP (blue curve) and SolO (orange curves) around the identified den￾sity structure, as functions of tadj & tadj−τ respectively, with tadj defined in equation (3) and τ the plasma propagation time between PSP and SolO. The top x-axis shows the in￾ferred radial sizes of the structures (LR) from measurements of both PSP (blue) and SolO (orange). The principal sub￾structures are labeled 1 t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Not to scale schematic of the density structure’s minimal extension inferred from PSP and SolO measurements, in an inertial reference frame. For clarity reasons, the structure’s longitudinal extension is exaggerated by approximately an order of magnitude. The density structure with radial gradients is depicted by four green arcs labeled 1 to 4 as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Measurements taken by PSP (blue) and SolO (orange) around the structures shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic interpretation of the HPS crossing by PSP and SolO for the studied alignment, represented as an ecliptic cut in the Carrington reference frame. The density structure with radial gradients is depicted, at two different times, by four green arcs labeled 1 to 4 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Panel (a) shows a simplified representation of a coronal streamer with open and closed field lines (black) above a bipolar region (inversion line shown with dashed red line). The current sheet, between open and closed field lines, before the onset of interchange reconn…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Test of the Wal´en relation along PSP crossing of the HPS. Panel (a) shows the three components of the magnetic field in the lmn reference frame of the minimum variance analysis, while panels (b), (c) and (d) show the Vl, Vm, and Vn components of the proton bulk veloci…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Large scale overview of measurements of PSP (left) and SolO (right) near HCS crossings (blue and orange vertical dashed lines). Faster solar wind streams are highlighted in red for both spacecraft. The double arrows and ”FSW1,2”, in panels (b) and (g), denote the two d…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Acton, C. H. 1996, Planet. Space Sci., 44, 65, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(95)00107-7

    doi:10.1016/0032-0633(95)00107-7 1996

  2. [2]

    I., Higginson, A

    Aslanyan, V., Pontin, D. I., Higginson, A. K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d5b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d5b 2022

  3. [3]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5

    Bale, S., Goetz, K., Harvey, P., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0244-5 2016

  4. [4]

    2024, A&A, 686, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449285

    Berriot, E., D´ emoulin, P., Alexandrova, O., Zaslavsky, A., & Maksimovic, M. 2024, A&A, 686, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449285

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449285 2024

  5. [5]

    Wilcox, J. M. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 86, 4565, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JA086iA06p04565

    doi:10.1029/ja086ia06p04565 1981

  6. [6]

    U., Burton, M

    Crooker, N. U., Burton, M. E., Phillips, J. L., Smith, E. J., & Balogh, A. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 2467, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/95JA03148

    work page doi:10.1029/95ja03148 1996

  7. [7]

    U., Gosling, J

    Crooker, N. U., Gosling, J. T., & Kahler, S. W. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1028, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000236

    doi:10.1029/2001ja000236 2002

  8. [8]

    U., Huang, C.-L., Lamassa, S

    Crooker, N. U., Huang, C.-L., Lamassa, S. M., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010170

    doi:10.1029/2003ja010170 2004

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    U., Kahler, S

    Crooker, N. U., Kahler, S. W., Larson, D. E., & Lin, R. P. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A03108, doi: 10.1029/2003JA010278 18 Berriot et al. Di Matteo, S., Katsavrias, C., Kepko, L., & Viall, N. M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 969, 67, doi: 10...

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    M., et al

    Eriksson, S., Swisdak, M., Weygand, J. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac73f6

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad25f0

    Eriksson, S., Swisdak, M., Mallet, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad25f0

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    P., et al

    Fargette, N., Lavraud, B., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346043

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    C., et al

    Foullon, C., Lavraud, B., Wardle, N. C., et al. 2009, SoPh, 259, 389, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9452-4

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    1999, Space Science Reviews, 89, 21, doi: 10.1023/A:1005291711900

    Gosling, J., & Pizzo, V. 1999, Space Science Reviews, 89, 21, doi: 10.1023/A:1005291711900

    1999 doi

  8. [16]

    T., Eriksson, S., & Schwenn, R

    Gosling, J. T., Eriksson, S., & Schwenn, R. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A10102, doi: 10.1029/2006JA011863

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    T., Skoug, R

    Gosling, J. T., Skoug, R. M., McComas, D. J., & Smith, C. W. 2005a, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A01107, doi: 10.1029/2004JA010809 —. 2005b, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L05105, doi: 10.1029/2005GL022406

    doi

  10. [18]

    S., Whittlesey, P

    Halekas, J. S., Whittlesey, P. L., Larson, D. E., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039256

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    K., Antiochos, S

    Higginson, A. K., Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., Wyper, P. F., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2017, ApJ, 837, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/2/113

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

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

    Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937257

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    C.-M., Qi, Z., et al

    Huang, J., Liu, Y. C.-M., Qi, Z., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 10,768, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA022842

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Hudson, P. D. 1970, Planet. Space Sci., 18, 1611, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(70)90036-X

    1970 doi

  15. [23]

    2019, Solar Physics, 294, 31, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1416-8

    Jian, L. 2019, Solar Physics, 294, 31, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1416-8

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Kahler, S., & Lin, R. P. 1994, Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 1575, doi: 10.1029/94GL01362

    1994 doi

  17. [25]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 131, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0206-3

    Kasper, J., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 131, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0206-3

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    V., Graham, D

    Khotyaintsev, Y. V., Graham, D. B., Vaivads, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140936

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad046b

    Krasnoselskikh, V., Zaslavsky, A., Artemyev, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad046b

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 894, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2d

    Lavraud, B., Fargette, N., R´ eville, V., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 894, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2d

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    C., Gallagher, B

    Liewer, P. C., Gallagher, B. M., Stenborg, G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad509b

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    E., Kasper, J

    Livi, R., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2021, ESS Open Archive, 105, essoar.10508651, doi: 10.1002/essoar.10508651.1

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Chust, T., et al

    Maksimovic, M., Bale, S. D., Chust, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936214

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Angold, N., Elliott, H

    McComas, D. J., Angold, N., Elliott, H. A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 779, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/2

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 122, 7925, doi: 10.1002/2017JA024449

    Meyer-Vernet, N., Issautier, K., & Moncuquet, M. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 122, 7925, doi: 10.1002/2017JA024449

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, ApJS, 246, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5a84 M¨ uller, D., St

    Moncuquet, M., Meyer-Vernet, N., Issautier, K., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5a84 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al

    Owen, C. J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937259

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Gosling, J

    Phan, T. D., Gosling, J. T., Davis, M. S., et al. 2006, Nature, 439, 175, doi: 10.1038/nature04393

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Bale, S

    Phan, T. D., Bale, S. D., Eastwood, J. P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab55ee

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Lavraud, B., Halekas, J

    Phan, T. D., Lavraud, B., Halekas, J. S., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039863

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Verniero, J

    Phan, T. D., Verniero, J. L., Larson, D., et al. 2022, Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2021GL096986, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096986

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    D., Drake, J

    Phan, T. D., Drake, J. F., Larson, D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6841

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Davies, J

    Plotnikov, I., Rouillard, A. P., Davies, J. A., et al. 2016, Solar Physics, 291, 1853, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0935-9

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Kouloumvakos, A., & Valette, E

    Poirier, N., R´ eville, V., Rouillard, A. P., Kouloumvakos, A., & Valette, E. 2023, A&A, 677, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347146

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    I., & Priest, E

    Pontin, D. I., & Priest, E. R. 2022, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 19, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41116-022-00032-9 R´ eville, V., Fargette, N., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142381

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Richardson, I. G. 2018, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41116-017-0011-z

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2010a, Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, doi: 10.1029/2009JA014471

    Rouillard, A., Davies, J., Lavraud, B., et al. 2010a, Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, doi: 10.1029/2009JA014471

    doi

  38. [46]

    2010b, Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, doi: 10.1029/2009JA014472 R´ eville, V., Velli, M., Rouillard, A

    Rouillard, A., Lavraud, B., Davies, J., et al. 2010b, Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, doi: 10.1029/2009JA014472 R´ eville, V., Velli, M., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 895, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab911d Density structure radial ev...

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    P., Davies, J

    Sanchez-Diaz, E., Rouillard, A. P., Davies, J. A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 851, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa98e2

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    P., Lavraud, B., Kilpua, E., & Davies, J

    Sanchez-Diaz, E., Rouillard, A. P., Lavraud, B., Kilpua, E., & Davies, J. A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab341c

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    J., & Marsch, E

    Schwartz, S. J., & Marsch, E. 1983, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 88, 9919, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JA088iA12p09919

    1983 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Wang, Y.-M., Hawley, S

    Sheeley, N. R., Wang, Y.-M., Hawley, S. H., et al. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 484, 472, doi: 10.1086/304338

    1997 doi

  43. [51]

    Sonnerup, B. U. O., & Cahill, L. J., J. 1967, J. Geophys. Res., 72, 171, doi: 10.1029/JZ072i001p00171

    1967 doi

  44. [52]

    Sonnerup, B. U. ¨O., & Scheible, M. 1998, ISSI Scientific Reports Series, 1, 185

    1998

  45. [53]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5dac

    Szabo, A., Larson, D., Whittlesey, P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5dac

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    D., et al

    Telloni, D., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Woodham, L. D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 912, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf7d1

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    T., & Smith, E

    Thomas, B. T., & Smith, E. J. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 11105, doi: 10.1029/JA086iA13p11105

    1981 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038245

    Velli, M., Harra, L., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038245

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    M., & Vourlidas, A

    Viall, N. M., & Vourlidas, A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 176, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/176

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Socker, D

    Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley Jr., N. R., Socker, D. G., Howard, R. A., & Rich, N. B. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 105, 25133, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JA000149

    2000 doi

  51. [59]

    Wang, Y.-M., N. R. Sheeley, J., Walters, J. H., et al. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 498, L165, doi: 10.1086/311321

    1998 doi

  52. [60]

    L., Larson, D

    Whittlesey, P. L., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7370

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    M., & Ness, N

    Wilcox, J. M., & Ness, N. F. 1965, Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977), 70, 5793, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ070i023p05793

    1965 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Burton, M

    Winterhalter, D., Smith, E. J., Burton, M. E., Murphy, N., & McComas, D. J. 1994, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 99, 6667, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/93JA03481

    1994 doi

  55. [63]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84d6

    Yogesh, Gopalswamy, N., Chakrabarty, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84d6

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.