Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 106 references

A study of the transition to a turbulent shock using a coarse-graining approach to ion phase space transport

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Pre-existing turbulence activates ion phase-space transport at an oblique shock, linking the thermal inflow to the reflected field-aligned beam.

desk verdict Promising Eulerian diagnostic for ion phase-space transport at shocks, but the 2D-2V reduction drops v_z-moment terms that need bounding before the headline flux measurement is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08404 v1 pith:KHVHJ3ZR submitted 2024-12-11 physics.space-ph

D. Trotta , F. Valentini , D. Burgess , S. Servidio This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-ph
keywords collisionlessshocksplasmaturbulencephase-spacetransportcoarse-grainedVlasovequationfield-alignedbeamshybridkineticsimulationsparticleacceleration
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 attempts to establish that upstream turbulence, not just the shock itself, controls the transition of an oblique collisionless shock from a laminar to a turbulent state by activating proton phase-space transport between the thermal inflow and the reflected field-aligned beam. Using hybrid-kinetic simulations with increasing levels of pre-existing turbulence, the authors show that the velocity-space flux between these two populations is negligible in the unperturbed case and strongly enhanced when turbulence is present. The paper introduces an Eulerian coarse-graining of the Vlasov equation that computes this flux as a surface integral in velocity space, and finds self-similar results when the spatial filtering scale lies in the inertial range of the turbulence. If the claim holds, turbulence is a controlling factor for populating the suprathermal beam, and the diagnostic can be applied to spacecraft measurements of shock foreshocks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the filtered distribution $F_l$ and the coarse-grained Vlasov equation (7), obtained by applying a box-filter kernel at spatial scale $l$ to the Vlasov equation and then integrating in velocity space up to a speed $w$. The integration boundary $\gamma_w$ is a circle of radius $w$, and the flux integral of $F_l \mathbf{P}_l \cdot \hat{\mathbf{n}}$ across $\gamma_w$—where $\mathbf{P}_l$ is the coarse-grained phase-space force $\mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{B}$—separates into an electric part that changes particle energy and a magnetic part tangent to the circle that spreads pitch angles. This 'mosaic' of positive, negative, and zero flux regions is the diagnostic the paper uses to identify where injection of particles into the beam occurs and how it is controlled by turbulence.

What would settle it

One concrete check would be to run the same shock simulation in full 3D-3V phase space, or to evaluate the discarded $v_z$-moment terms and the subgrid residual $Q_l$ in the existing 2D simulation, and compare the coarse-grained flux with the reduced 2D-2V result; if the difference is comparable to the measured flux, the reduced diagnostic is not clean.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the coarse-grained velocity-space flux $\int_{\gamma_w} F_l \mathbf{P}_l \cdot \hat{\mathbf{n}} \, d\gamma$ from Equation (7) is a quantitative, Eulerian measure of ion phase-space transport between the upstream inflow and the reflected field-aligned beam. In the laminar (unperturbed) case this flux is negligible, meaning the two populations are effectively non-interacting; when pre-existing turbulence is present, the flux is strongly activated, with regions of positive and negative net transport that are anti-correlated with the parallel electric field, indicating energization and deceleration. The flux and the corresponding spatial transport term are self-similar across the inertial-range coarse-graining scales $l$ studied, which the authors take as evidence of robustness and as justification for applying the diagnostic up to observable scales.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's quantitative claim rests on the assumption that the reduced four-dimensional Vlasov equation, obtained by integrating out the $z$ and $v_z$ dimensions, is exact at the scales of interest and that the subgrid residual contributes negligibly to the flux balance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, upstream turbulence is a controlling factor for populating the suprathermal field-aligned beam upstream of oblique shocks.
  • The coarse-graining diagnostic can be applied to single-spacecraft measurements, potentially relaxing time-resolution constraints on in-situ studies of shock foreshocks.
  • Higher levels of pre-existing turbulence imply more distorted shock fronts, faster shock propagation, and broader downstream energy spectra with higher maximum proton energies.
  • The self-similarity across inertial-range scales suggests that a single-scale measurement may capture the phase-space transport properties at all inertial scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an editorial extension, the same coarse-grained flux could be computed directly from spacecraft velocity-distribution snapshots to test whether the anti-correlation with the parallel electric field survives at observational resolution.
  • If the self-similar scaling of the transport term is characterized quantitatively, the diagnostic could serve as a proxy for turbulent transport coefficients from data at a single spatial scale.
  • The paper leaves the subgrid residual $Q_l$ and the reduced-dimensionality couplings unquantified; testing whether either is comparable to the measured flux would either strengthen or dissolve the clean-interpretation claim.
  • A natural next step, beyond the present scope, is to extend the method to a full 3D-3V phase space, where the neglected $v_z$ couplings would be explicitly retained to confirm the reduced-model results.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the transition of an oblique shock from laminar to turbulent using self-consistent hybrid-kinetic simulations with four levels of pre-existing upstream turbulence (δB/B0 = 0.0, 0.4, 0.8, 2.1). The authors introduce a coarse-graining of the Vlasov equation in 2D-2V phase space, define a velocity-space transport flux across a circle γ_w in velocity space, and apply this diagnostic upstream of the simulated shocks. They report that the flux is activated only when pre-existing turbulence is present, that it forms a 'bridge' between the inflow and the field-aligned beam (FAB) populations, and that the results are self-similar across spatial coarse-graining scales l in the inertial range. The paper also discusses shock-front distortion, energy spectra, and parallel electric-field correlations.

Significance. If the central diagnostic is valid, this is a valuable contribution: it offers an Eulerian, observation-oriented way to quantify phase-space transport in shock-turbulence systems, complements Lagrangian particle-tracing approaches, and provides a concrete physical picture in which upstream turbulence controls the coupling between the incoming solar-wind-like population and the reflected FAB. The manuscript has clear strengths: it uses self-consistent hybrid simulations with a controlled turbulence-level scan, presents the data openly via a DOI, and does not fit any parameter to produce the reported flux maps (the coarse-graining scales l and w are diagnostic choices, not fitted parameters). The main risk is that the reduced 2D-2V Vlasov equation underlying the diagnostic is not derived exactly, and the omitted terms are not quantified; this needs to be resolved before the central claim can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is presented as the exact result of integrating the 3D Vlasov equation (2) over z and v_z, but that integration does not produce the stated reduced equation. After integrating over v_z, the x and y components of the Lorentz term contain extra contributions involving the first v_z-moment M_z = ∫ v_z f dv_z. Specifically, the terms -B_y ∂_{v_x} M_z + B_x ∂_{v_y} M_z appear, and these are not present in Eq. (3). Neither M_z = 0 nor B_x = B_y = 0 holds in the simulation setup: the mean field lies in the x-y plane at θ_Bn = 45°, so B_x and B_y are of order B0, and the MHD-initialized turbulent velocity field includes δV_z, making M_z locally nonzero. Since Eq. (3) is the foundation for the filtered equation (5) and the central flux diagnostic (7), the measured ∫_{γ_w} F_l P_l · n dγ may not isolate the energization flux. In fact, after filtering, the missing terms contribute to the same boundary integral as -∮_{γ_w} M_{z,l}(B_{y,l} n_x - B_{x,l} n_y) dγ. The paper's general limitation statement in Section 6 about 'reduced dimensionality' does not quantify or bound this omission. The authors should either derive the reduced model explicitly as a 2D-2V closure with stated assumptions, or show from the simulation data that the omitted terms are negligible compared with the retained flux at the scales and locations analyzed.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (7) and following text] The interpretation of the left-hand side of Eq. (7) as the dominant phase-space transport hinges on the claim that the subgrid residual ∫_{γ_w} Q_l · n dγ is 'comparatively negligible' with respect to the other terms. The manuscript states that this is 'not shown here' and notes that the residual is difficult to estimate due to resolution and particle noise. This is a load-bearing point: if the residual is not actually negligible, then the flux maps in Figures 7–9 do not measure the coarse-grained transport term in isolation. The authors should provide a quantitative estimate of the residual, for example by computing the time-averaged or spatial rms of ∫_{γ_w} Q_l · n dγ relative to the retained terms for the same values of l and w used in the figures. Without such an estimate, the claim that the diagnostic isolates the inflow–FAB coupling is not fully supported.
  3. [Section 5, Figures 8 and 9] The paper's central robustness claim is that the coarse-grained transport terms are 'self-similar' across spatial scales l = 1, 5, 10 d_i in the inertial range. The support for this claim is currently visual: the stacked mosaic plots look similar across l, but no quantitative measure is provided. Since the abstract and conclusions explicitly state that the method 'gives consistent results for inertial range scales,' the authors should substantiate this with a quantitative scale-invariance test, such as a correlation coefficient between fields at different l, a scaling-exponent analysis of the flux magnitude, or a comparison of the spatial structure functions. A qualitative visual similarity is not sufficient to support the cross-scale claim, especially given the noisiness of the maps.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (6) and Figure 7 caption] The notation for the velocity-space cutoff is inconsistent: Eq. (6) defines G_w(v) as nonzero for |v| < w, so w is the radius of γ_w, but the text and Figure 7 describe the chosen values as 'w/2 = 2.5, 5, 10, 30 v_A' and Figure 6 states that 'l and w/2 were fixed at 5 d_i and 5 v_A.' Please clarify whether w denotes the radius or the diameter of the integration circle, and use a consistent symbol throughout.
  2. [Section 5, paragraph on parallel electric field] The statement that the velocity-space transport term is 'anti-correlated' with the upstream parallel electric field E·b0 is not quantified. The authors report a 'good correlation' and originally reported the correlation in Trotta et al. (2021), but in this paper no correlation coefficient or statistical measure is given. A quantitative value (or at least a scatter plot) would strengthen the claim and make the comparison reproducible.
  3. [Section 6, Conclusions] There is a typo in the sentence 'self-similar results for spatial scales in the turbulence intertial range' — 'intertial' should be 'inertial.'
  4. [Figure 2 caption and Figure 3 caption] The word 'coloumns' is misspelled in both captions; it should be 'columns.'
  5. [Introduction, paragraph 2] The phrase 'rcently considered' contains a typo and should read 'recently considered.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the coarse-grained Vlasov flux is a diagnostic computed from the simulated fields and VDFs, and the paper's self-citations are provenance rather than load-bearing input.

full rationale

The central result is the velocity-space flux integral in Eq. (7), derived by filtering the Vlasov equation and integrating over a circle of radius w; all quantities F_l, P_l, and Q_l are evaluated from the hybrid-PIC distribution functions and electromagnetic fields, with no free parameter fitted to produce the reported turbulence-induced activation or self-similarity. The simulations are reused from Trotta et al. (2021), but the paper recomputes the coarse-grained transport terms (Figs. 7-9) rather than importing the prior conclusion, and the datasets are externally archived (10.5281/zenodo.13730180). The correlation with parallel electric field is also re-derived in Figure 8, so the self-citation 'originally reported in Trotta et al. (2021)' is not load-bearing. The derivation chain from Eq. (2) to Eq. (3) is not exact: integrating over v_z introduces first v_z-moment terms coupled to B_x and B_y, and the paper neither derives nor bounds them; likewise, the claim that the subgrid residual integral on the right of Eq. (7) is negligible is asserted without showing the balance. These are unquantified modeling approximations and therefore correctness risks, not circular reductions, because the omitted terms are not equivalent to the paper's input assumptions or fitted values. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-by-citation, or renaming of a known result as a prediction was found. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on standard collisionless plasma theory plus a set of untested approximations: the 2D-2V reduction, the neglect of the subgrid term, the fidelity of the injected MHD turbulence, and the hybrid kinetic model itself.

free parameters (2)
  • w (velocity-space cutoff radius) = 10 v_A (main analysis); 5, 20, 60 v_A in Figure 7
    Chosen by hand to sit between the inflow and Field-Aligned Beam populations in velocity space; results depend on this choice.
  • l (spatial coarse-graining scale) = 1, 5, 10 d_i
    Chosen within the inertial range of upstream turbulence; self-similarity across these values is used to argue robustness.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper 2D-2V reduction of the Vlasov equation with P = E + v×B is valid for the velocity-integrated distribution F(x,y,v_x,v_y).
    Stated in Section 4 after Eq. (2): 'Through integration along z and v_z, Equation 2 becomes Eq. (3)'. The exact reduction carries extra terms involving ∫ v_z f dv_z coupled to B_x,B_y; these are not accounted for, and no numerical check is provided.
  • domain assumption The subgrid residual term Q_l on the right side of Eq. (7) is negligible compared with the resolved transport terms.
    Section 5 states the residual is 'comparatively negligible' but adds '(not shown here)'. The paper's interpretation of the left-hand terms as the phase-space transport depends on this balance.
  • domain assumption Box-filter coarse-graining at inertial-range scales l gives a physically meaningful decomposition for the kinetic shock upstream.
    Borrowed from fluid turbulence (Frisch 1995; Yang et al. 2016); the extension to the phase-space kinetic framework is assumed, and self-similarity is offered as evidence.
  • domain assumption The hybrid simulation (massless adiabatic electrons, proton macroparticles) captures the essential kinetics for the studied shock transition.
    Standard in the field (e.g., Trotta & Burgess 2019); electron kinetics is neglected for computational reasons, acknowledged in Section 6. The conclusions are about proton transport.
  • domain assumption The injected MHD turbulence, windowed with the mask function of Eq. (1) and Helmholtz-decomposed velocity field, is a faithful proxy for pre-existing astrophysical turbulence.
    Section 2 describes the MHD-to-kinetic mapping; fidelity is corroborated only by PSD comparisons in Figure 1, not by direct validation against observed turbulence statistics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A study of the transition to a turbulent shock using a coarse-graining approach to ion phase space transport." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHVHJ3ZR

@misc{pith2026241208404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A study of the transition to a turbulent shock using a coarse-graining approach to ion phase space transport},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHVHJ3ZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08404}
}
read the original abstract

Shocks and turbulence are ubiquitous phenomena, responsible for particle acceleration to very high energies in a large collection of astrophysical systems. Using self-consistent, hybrid-kinetic simulations with and without pre-existing turbulence, we study the transition of a shock from ``laminar'' to turbulent. We show that the changes in upstream proton transport behaviour are crucial to understand this transition, which we address quantitatively with a novel Eulerian approach. This method, based on the coarse-graining of the Vlasov equation originally introduced in one of our previous studies, gives consistent results for inertial range scales. The potential applications of the coarse-graining approach beyond the shock-turbulence system are outlined.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08404 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top two panels: Two-dimensional panels showing the initial condi￾tions for the moderately perturbed case (𝛿𝐵/𝐵0 = 0.8). In the top and middle panels are shown, respectively, the magnitude of magnetic field and ion bulk flow speed perturbations 𝛿𝐵 and 𝛿𝑉. Bottom panel: one-dimensional mag￾netic field power spectral density (PSD) for all the simulation cases presented. MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2023) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnetic field magnitude snapshots for all simulation cases, where the nominal shock position is around 170 𝑑𝑖 . It may be noted that the snapshots are taken at different times due to the slightly different shock speeds. The colormaps show the magnetic field intensity in the two-dimensional simulation domain. In the upper panels, we show the 𝑦-averaged magnetic field profile (black line) as well as along two differe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnetic field magnitude snapshots for all simulation cases (coloumns showing the 𝑑𝐵/𝐵0 = 0, 0.4, 0.8 and 2.1 cases, respectively)) and for three different simulation cases (rows, showing simulation times TΩ𝑐𝑖 = 10, 25, 50, from top to bottom), showing the different evolution stages of the shock front. from the numerical point of view, since it provides, at the upstream region, genuinely generated MHD turbulence, wi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upstream (top) and downstream (bottom) ion energy spectra for all the simulation cases, collected in 10 × 256 𝑑 2 𝑖 boxes upstream and down￾stream of each simulated shocks for the simulation times presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematics of the coarse-graining approach. Top: Sketch of the simulation domain, where the simulation grid and the coarse-grained grid of spatial extent 𝑙 are highlighted. Bottom: Schematic representation of ion VDFs in an upstream coarse-grained cell (black). Three d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of coarse-grained VDFs and fluxes in phase space. The dashed line represents the velocity–space circle 𝛾𝑤, where a radius 𝑤 = 5𝑣𝐴 was chosen. Arrows represent 𝐹¯ 𝑙P¯ l along the circle. a) and b) show two cases with postive and negative flux, while case c) rep…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Coarse grained velocity space transport term ∫ 𝛾𝑤 𝐹𝑙P𝑙 · nˆ 𝑑𝛾 per￾formed choosing 𝑙 = 5 𝑑𝑖 , with increasing 𝑤 (top to bottom), for the mod￾erately perturbed case 𝛿𝐵/𝐵0 = 0.8. The colormap is chosen to be red for positive flux, blue for negative flux, and white for ze…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Vertical stack of plots showing upstream velocity space transport for all four cases 𝛿𝐵/𝐵0 ∼ 0, 0.4, 0.8, 2.1 (a-d, respectively). In each stack, the bottom panel shows a colormap of upstream parallel electric field E · bˆ 0, while the velocity space transport term ∫ 𝛾…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Vertical stack of plots showing upstream velocity space transport for all four cases 𝛿𝐵/𝐵0 ∼ 0, 0.4, 0.8, 2.1 (a-d, respectively). In each stack, the bottom panel shows a colormap of upstream proton density, while the spatial transport term ∇𝑙 · h 𝑁𝑙,𝑤V𝑙,𝑤 i is shown i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alfonsi G., Ferraro D., Lauria A., Gaudio R., 2019, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.5116522 , 31, 085105

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5116522 2019

  2. [2]

    Aluie H., 2017, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/aa5d2f , 19, 025008

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa5d2f 2017

  3. [3]

    Amato E., Blasi P., 2018, @doi [Advances in Space Research] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2017.04.019 , 62, 2731

    doi:10.1016/j.asr.2017.04.019 2018

  4. [4]

    H., Goldstein M

    Ambrosiano J., Matthaeus W. H., Goldstein M. L., Plante D., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA093iA12p14383 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988JGR....9314383A 93, 14383

    doi:10.1029/ja093ia12p14383 1988

  5. [5]

    Arzner K., Vlahos L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/392506 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605L..69A 605, L69

    work page doi:10.1086/392506 2004

  6. [6]

    Behar E., Fatemi S., Henri P., Holmstr\"om M., 2022, @doi [Annales Geophysicae] 10.5194/angeo-40-281-2022 , 40, 281

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-40-281-2022 2022

  7. [7]

    Blandford R., Eichler D., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PhR...154....1B 154, 1

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7 1987

  8. [8]

    Bonifazi C., Egidi A., Moreno G., Orsini S., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA085iA07p03461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980JGR....85.3461B 85, 3461

    work page doi:10.1029/ja085ia07p03461 1980

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    S., Niemiec, J

    Boula S. S., Niemiec, J. Amano, T. Kobzar, O. 2024, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349091 , 684, A129

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Cambridge University Press, @doi 10.1017/CBO9781139044097 , http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781139044097

    Burgess D., Scholer M., 2015, Collisionless Shocks in Space Plasmas. Cambridge University Press, @doi 10.1017/CBO9781139044097 , http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781139044097

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    M., 2016, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377816000660 , 82, 905820401

    Burgess D., Hellinger P., Gingell I., Trávníček P. M., 2016, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377816000660 , 82, 905820401

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Vazza F., Kropotina J

    Bykov A. M., Vazza F., Kropotina J. A., Levenfish K. P., Paerels F. B. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-019-0585-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SSRv..215...14B 215, 14

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Camporeale E., Burgess D., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/114 , 730, 114

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    Camporeale E., Sorriso-Valvo L., Califano F., Retin \`o A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.125101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvL.120l5101C 120, 125101

    2018 doi

  7. [16]

    Caprioli D., Spitkovsky A., 2014b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91 , 783, 91

    doi

  8. [17]

    Caprioli D., Spitkovsky A., 2014c, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794...47C 794, 47

    doi

  9. [18]

    S., Camporeale E., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200503130C p

    Cerri S. S., Camporeale E., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200503130C p. arXiv:2005.03130

    2020 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Chandran B. D. G., Verscharen D., Quataert E., Kasper J. C., Isenberg P. A., Bourouaine S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...45C 776, 45

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    Chen C. H. K., Klein K. G., Howes G. G., 2019, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-019-08435-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatCo..10..740C 10, 740

    2019 doi

  12. [21]

    Comisso L., Sironi L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.255101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvL.121y5101C 121, 255101

    2018 doi

  13. [22]

    Comisso L., Sironi L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..122C 886, 122

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    H., Seenu N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617..667D 617, 667

    Dmitruk P., Matthaeus W. H., Seenu N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617..667D 617, 667

    2004 doi

  15. [24]

    P., Lucek E

    Eastwood J. P., Lucek E. A., Mazelle C., Meziane K., Narita Y., Pickett J., Treumann R. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-3824-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..118...41E 118, 41

    2005 doi

  16. [25]

    L., 2018, @doi [Physical Review X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.041020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvX...8d1020E 8, 041020

    Eyink G. L., 2018, @doi [Physical Review X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.041020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvX...8d1020E 8, 041020

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    L., Aluie H., 2009, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.3266883 , 21, 115107

    Eyink G. L., Aluie H., 2009, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.3266883 , 21, 115107

    2009 doi

  18. [27]

    A., Kozlovsky B., Ramaty R., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181498 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...190L..35F 190, L35

    Fisk L. A., Kozlovsky B., Ramaty R., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181498 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...190L..35F 190, L35

    1974 doi

  19. [28]

    Franci L., Landi S., Matteini L., Verdini A., Hellinger P., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/21 , 812, 21

    2015 doi

  20. [29]

    Franci L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa93fb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L..16F 850, L16

    2017 doi

  21. [30]

    Frisch U., 1995, Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov. Cambridge University Press, @doi 10.1017/CBO9781139170666

    1995 doi

  22. [31]

    Gedalin M., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0461 , 958, 2

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    Germano M., 1992, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S0022112092001733 , 238, 325–336

    1992 doi

  24. [33]

    H., 1991, @doi [Physics of Fluids A] 10.1063/1.857955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991PhFlA...3.1760G 3, 1760

    Germano M., Piomelli U., Moin P., Cabot W. H., 1991, @doi [Physics of Fluids A] 10.1063/1.857955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991PhFlA...3.1760G 3, 1760

    1991 doi

  25. [34]

    Giacalone J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...624..765G 624, 765

    2005 doi

  26. [35]

    J., Ellison D

    Giacalone J., Burgess D., Schwartz S. J., Ellison D. C., Bennett L., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1029/97JA01529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997JGR...10219789G 102, 19789

    1997 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Kucharek H., Farrugia C

    Gingell I., Schwartz S. J., Kucharek H., Farrugia C. J., Fryer L. J., Plank J., Trattner K. J., 2023, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/5.0129084 , 30, 012902

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

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

    Good S. W., Ala-Lahti M., Palmerio E., Kilpua E. K. J., Osmane A., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fa2 , 893, 110

    2020 doi

  29. [38]

    T., Asbridge J

    Gosling J. T., Asbridge J. R., Bame S. J., Paschmann G., Sckopke N., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1029/GL005i011p00957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978GeoRL...5..957G 5, 957

    1978 doi

  30. [39]

    Guo F., Giacalone J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...28G 753, 28

    2012 doi

  31. [40]

    Guo F., Giacalone J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...802...97G 802, 97

    2015 doi

  32. [41]

    Guo F., Giacalone J., Zhao L., 2021, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2021.644354 , 8

    2021

  33. [42]

    G., Klein K

    Howes G. G., Klein K. G., Li T. C., 2017, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377816001197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JPlPh..83a7002H 83, 705830102

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    R., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148912 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966ApJ...146..480J 146, 480

    Jokipii J. R., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148912 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966ApJ...146..480J 146, 480

    1966 doi

  35. [44]

    R., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/165022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...313..842J 313, 842

    Jokipii J. R., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/165022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...313..842J 313, 842

    1987 doi

  36. [45]

    R., Lee M

    Jokipii J. R., Lee M. A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713..475J 713, 475

    2010 doi

  37. [46]

    T., Jian L

    Kajdič P., Blanco-Cano X., Aguilar-Rodriguez E., Russell C. T., Jian L. K., Luhmann J. G., 2012, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JA017381 , 117

    2012 doi

  38. [47]

    Kang H., Ryu D., Ha J.-H., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16d1 , 876, 79

    2019 doi

  39. [48]

    a pyl \"a P. J., Rheinhardt M., Brandenburg A., K \

    K \"a pyl \"a P. J., Rheinhardt M., Brandenburg A., K \"a pyl \"a M. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636A..93K 636, A93

    2020 doi

  40. [49]

    Kilpua E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-023-04201-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Ap&SS.368...66K 368, 66

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    A., R\`eme H., 2007, @doi [Annales Geophysicae] 10.5194/angeo-25-785-2007 , 25, 785

    Kis A., Scholer M., Klecker B., Kucharek H., Lucek E. A., R\`eme H., 2007, @doi [Annales Geophysicae] 10.5194/angeo-25-785-2007 , 25, 785

    2007 doi

  42. [51]

    G., Howes G

    Klein K. G., Howes G. G., Tenbarge J. M., 2017, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377817000563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JPlPh..83d5301K 83, 535830401

    2017 doi

  43. [52]

    G., Howes G

    Klein K. G., Howes G. G., TenBarge J. M., Valentini F., 2020, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377820000689 , 86, 905860402

    2020 doi

  44. [53]

    A., Trivelpiece A

    Krall N. A., Trivelpiece A. W., 1973, Principles of plasma physics [by] Nicholas A. Krall [and] Alvin W. Trivelpiece. McGraw-Hill New York

    1973

  45. [54]

    S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA094iA11p15089 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989JGR....9415089K 94, 15089

    Krauss-Varban D., Burgess D., Wu C. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA094iA11p15089 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989JGR....9415089K 94, 15089

    1989 doi

  46. [55]

    Kucharek H., et al., 2004, @doi [Annales Geophysicae] 10.5194/angeo-22-2301-2004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AnGeo..22.2301K 22, 2301

    2004 doi

  47. [56]

    G., Wilson L

    Lario D., Richardson I. G., Wilson L. B. I., Berger L., Jian L. K., Trotta D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925..198L 925, 198

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-012-9936-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012SSRv..173..557L 173, 557

    Lazarian A., Vlahos L., Kowal G., Yan H., Beresnyak A., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-012-9936-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012SSRv..173..557L 173, 557

    2012 doi

  49. [58]

    Leonard A., 1974, Advances in Geophysics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974AdGeo..18A.237L 18, 237

    1974

  50. [59]

    M., Mangeney A., 1984, Annales Geophysicae, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984AnGeo...2..449L 2, 449

    Leroy M. M., Mangeney A., 1984, Annales Geophysicae, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984AnGeo...2..449L 2, 449

    1984

  51. [60]

    Lesieur M., Metais O., 1996, @doi [Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1146/annurev.fl.28.010196.000401 , 28, 45

    1996

  52. [61]

    Lindberg M., Vaivads A., Raptis S., Karlsson T., 2023, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104714 , 50, e2023GL104714

    2023 doi

  53. [62]

    R., 1974, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S002237780002537X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974JPlPh..12..417L 12, 417

    Lyons L. R., 1974, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S002237780002537X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974JPlPh..12..417L 12, 417

    1974 doi

  54. [63]

    N., Hoshino M., 2017, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170903673M p

    Matsumoto Y., Amano T., Kato T. N., Hoshino M., 2017, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170903673M p. arXiv:1709.03673

    2017 arXiv

  55. [64]

    H., Qin G., Bieber J

    Matthaeus W. H., Qin G., Bieber J. W., Zank G. P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...590L..53M 590, L53

    2003 doi

  56. [65]

    P., 1994, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1994.1084 , 112, 102

    Matthews A. P., 1994, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1994.1084 , 112, 102

    1994

  57. [66]

    M \"o bius E., et al., 2001, @doi [Annales Geophysicae] 10.5194/angeo-19-1411-2001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AnGeo..19.1411M 19, 1411

    2001 doi

  58. [67]

    P., Zhao L.-L., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e06 , 922, 219

    Nakanotani M., Zank G. P., Zhao L.-L., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e06 , 922, 219

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    P., Zhao L.-L., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4781 , 926, 109

    Nakanotani M., Zank G. P., Zhao L.-L., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4781 , 926, 109

    2022 doi

  60. [69]

    N., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0032-0633(65)90131-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965P&SS...13....9P 13, 9

    Parker E. N., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0032-0633(65)90131-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965P&SS...13....9P 13, 9

    1965 doi

  61. [70]

    R., Bame S

    Paschmann G., Sckopke N., Asbridge J. R., Bame S. J., Gosling J. T., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA085iA09p04689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980JGR....85.4689P 85, 4689

    1980 doi

  62. [71]

    Perri S., Zimbardo G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815...75P 815, 75

    2015 doi

  63. [72]

    Perri S., Servidio S., Vaivads A., Valentini F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa755a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..231....4P 231, 4

    2017 doi

  64. [73]

    Petrosian V., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-012-9900-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012SSRv..173..535P 173, 535

    2012 doi

  65. [74]

    H., Veltri P., 2018, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.5027685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhPl...25f0704P 25, 060704

    Pezzi O., Servidio S., Perrone D., Valentini F., Sorriso-Valvo L., Greco A., Matthaeus W. H., Veltri P., 2018, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.5027685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhPl...25f0704P 25, 060704

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    Pezzi O., et al., 2024, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348700 , 686, A116

    2024 doi

  67. [76]

    Preisser L., Blanco-Cano X., Trotta D., Burgess D., Kajdič P., 2020, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027442 , 125, e2019JA027442

    2020 doi

  68. [77]

    B., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.1872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985PhRvL..54.1872Q 54, 1872

    Quest K. B., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.1872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985PhRvL..54.1872Q 54, 1872

    1985 doi

  69. [78]

    R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2873R 430, 2873

    Reville B., Bell A. R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2873R 430, 2873

    2013 doi

  70. [79]

    A., Spitkovsky A., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/63 , 733, 63

    Riquelme M. A., Spitkovsky A., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/63 , 733, 63

    2011 doi

  71. [80]

    A., Parker J

    Schekochihin A. A., Parker J. T., Highcock E. G., Dellar P. J., Dorland W., Hammett G. W., 2016, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377816000374 , 82, 905820212

    2016 doi

  72. [81]

    J., Thomsen M

    Schwartz S. J., Thomsen M. F., Gosling J. T., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA088iA03p02039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983JGR....88.2039S 88, 2039

    1983 doi

  73. [82]

    H., Shay M

    Servidio S., Matthaeus W. H., Shay M. A., Cassak P. A., Dmitruk P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.115003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhRvL.102k5003S 102, 115003

    2009 doi

  74. [83]

    T., Matthaeus W

    Servidio S., Haynes C. T., Matthaeus W. H., Burgess D., Carbone V., Veltri P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.095101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvL.117i5101S 117, 095101

    2016 doi

  75. [84]

    Servidio S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.205101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119t5101S 119, 205101

    2017 doi

  76. [85]

    Servidio S., Coscarella F., Penna N., Gaudio R., 2022, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/5.0123888 , 34, 115122

    2022 doi

  77. [86]

    Shalchi A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-020-0644-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SSRv..216...23S 216, 23

    2020 doi

  78. [87]

    T., Burgess D., Mazelle C

    Sundberg T., Haynes C. T., Burgess D., Mazelle C. X., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/21 , 820, 21

    2016 doi

  79. [88]

    Trotta D., Burgess D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2756 , 482, 1154

    2019 doi

  80. [89]

    Trotta D., Burgess D., Prete G., Perri S., Zimbardo G., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2760 , 491, 580

    doi

  81. [90]

    Trotta D., Franci L., Burgess D., Hellinger P., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab873c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894..136T 894, 136

    doi

  82. [91]

    Trotta D., Valentini F., Burgess D., Servidio S., 2021, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] 10.1073/pnas.2026764118 , 118, e2026764118

    2021 doi

  83. [92]

    Trotta D., et al., 2022a, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2022.1005672 , 9

    2022

  84. [93]

    Trotta D., et al., 2022b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7798 , 933, 167

    doi

  85. [94]

    Trotta D., et al., 2023a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2384 , 525, 1856

    doi

  86. [95]

    Trotta D., et al., 2023b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad03f6 , 957, L13

    doi

  87. [96]

    Trotta D., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad187d , 962, 147

    2024 doi

  88. [97]

    V., Matthaeus W

    Usmanov A. V., Matthaeus W. H., Goldstein M. L., Chhiber R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad687 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...25U 865, 25

    2018 doi

  89. [98]

    Valentini F., Veltri P., Mangeney A., 2005a, @doi [Physical Review E] 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.016402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvE..71a6402V 71, 016402

    doi

  90. [99]

    Valentini F., Veltri P., Mangeney A., 2005b, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2005.05.014 , 210, 730

    2005 doi

  91. [100]

    Vazza F., Br \"u ggen M., Gheller C., Wang P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3706V 445, 3706

    2014 doi

  92. [101]

    S., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA089iA10p08857 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR....89.8857W 89, 8857

    Wu C. S., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA089iA10p08857 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR....89.8857W 89, 8857

    1984 doi

  93. [102]

    H., Chen S., 2016, @doi [Phys

    Yang Y., Shi Y., Wan M., Matthaeus W. H., Chen S., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. E] 10.1103/PhysRevE.93.061102 , 93, 061102

    2016 doi

  94. [103]

    H., Sorriso-Valvo L., Parashar T

    Yang Y., Wan M., Matthaeus W. H., Sorriso-Valvo L., Parashar T. N., Lu Q., Shi Y., Chen S., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2977 , 482, 4933

    2018 doi

  95. [104]

    A., Vasquez B

    Young M. A., Vasquez B. J., Kucharek H., Lugaz N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897..109Y 897, 109

    2020 doi

  96. [105]

    P., Zhou Y., Matthaeus W

    Zank G. P., Zhou Y., Matthaeus W. H., Rice W. K. M., 2002, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.1507772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PhFl...14.3766Z 14, 3766

    2002 doi

  97. [106]

    P., le Roux J

    Zank G. P., le Roux J. A., Webb G. M., Dosch A., Khabarova O., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797...28Z 797, 28

    2014 doi

  98. [107]

    P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814..137Z 814, 137

    Zank G. P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814..137Z 814, 137

    2015 doi

Pith tools

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