Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Properties of current sheets in two-dimensional tearing-mediated incompressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A high-resolution two-dimensional simulation of incompressible MHD turbulence finds that current sheets follow Sweet-Parker aspect-ratio scaling and are not shaped by scale-dependent dynamic alignment.

desk verdict Solid 2D simulation paper with a real measurement, but the headline claim against SDDA is an indirect comparison, not a test. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.16707 v4 pith:P5HEB3QX submitted 2025-10-19 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Chen Shi , Marco Velli , Nikos Sioulas , Zijin Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph PACS 96.50.Ci52.35.Vd47.65.-k
keywords MHDturbulencecurrentsheetstearinginstabilitymagneticreconnectionscale-dependentdynamicalignmentSweet-ParkerscalingLundquistnumbersolarwinddissipation
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 tries to show that the thin current sheets produced in two-dimensional incompressible MHD turbulence with active tearing instability obey the Sweet-Parker scaling of aspect ratio versus Lundquist number, and that their properties are controlled by the largest turbulent eddies and by recursive tearing, not by the scale-dependent dynamic alignment of the turbulence. The authors argue that the common assumption connecting current sheet shapes to dynamically aligned eddies is not supported by the simulation, because the alignment angles are too weak and the current sheets are too sparse to be the same objects as the eddies. If this is right, models of reconnection-mediated turbulence that built on scale-dependent dynamic alignment need to be revisited, and dissipation in solar wind turbulence should be understood through large-scale eddy stretching and recurrent tearing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the current sheet, identified by a recursive flood-fill around local maxima of current density (|J_z|) down to 10% of the global maximum, with a minimum size of 20 grid points. Its geometry (length L, half-thickness a) is measured by recursive principal component analysis that splits a curved sheet into nearly straight segments, and its Lundquist number S = L B_up / eta is computed from the upstream field B_up and the magnetic diffusivity eta. The comparison to scale-dependent dynamic alignment uses whole-domain structure functions and alignment angles of the velocity and magnetic field increments.

What would settle it

Run the same simulation but identify current sheets with a different threshold, say 5% or 20% of the global maximum |J_z|, and check whether the a/L versus S relation and the lack of B_up-a correlation persist. Alternatively, compute the local alignment angle between velocity and magnetic field inside each current sheet and test whether sheet aspect ratio correlates with that local alignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that in a 2D simulation of balanced incompressible MHD turbulence with Lundquist numbers around 4e4, the aspect ratio a/L of current sheets scales as S^(-1/2) (Sweet-Parker) both before and during tearing, that the sheets break recursively into smaller pieces, and that there is no correlation between the upstream magnetic field strength and the sheet thickness, in contrast to the scale-dependent dynamic alignment prediction B_up ~ a^(1/4). The paper also finds that although the turbulence displays scale-dependent alignment and eddy anisotropy, the current sheets' aspect ratios are much smaller than the eddy anisotropy and their filling factor is

Load-bearing premise

The statistical conclusions rest on the algorithm's choices for what counts as a current sheet: the 10% of maximum current-density threshold, the 20-point minimum size, and the PCA variance-ratio stop at 3; if those choices were changed, the measured distributions of length, thickness, and Lundquist number—and therefore the claimed scalings—could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reconnection-mediated turbulence models that assume current sheets inherit the shape of dynamically aligned eddies need to be re-examined.
  • In turbulence where tearing is active, current sheet statistics can be predicted from the largest eddies and the Sweet-Parker threshold, rather than from alignment angles.
  • The absence of a correlation between upstream field and thickness means the Lundquist number of a current sheet is determined mainly by its length, so smaller sheets have lower Lundquist numbers.
  • The recursive tearing mechanism generates a hierarchy of smaller current sheets with lower Lundquist numbers, which may explain the broadband nature of dissipation in solar wind turbulence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's comparison is indirect: it compares whole-domain eddy anisotropy and alignment angles against sparse current sheets (filling factor <0.1). A direct test would measure local alignment in the immediate vicinity of each current sheet and see whether its aspect ratio tracks the local eddy anisotropy.
  • The Sweet-Parker scaling found here may be specific to two dimensions; in three dimensions the propagation effect along the guide field could modify the scaling, so the conclusion about SDDA should be tested in 3D simulations with similar resolution.
  • If the largest eddies set the initial current sheet length, then in the solar wind one might expect current sheet statistics to reflect the correlation length of the turbulence, a prediction that could be tested with spacecraft data.
  • The ad hoc thresholds used to identify current sheets (10% of max current, 20-point minimum, PCA variance ratio <3) are a plausible source of hidden selection bias; the robustness of the scaling to these choices is not established in the paper.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a 2D pseudospectral simulation of balanced incompressible MHD turbulence with parameters chosen so that tearing instability and plasmoid formation occur. The authors develop an automated current-sheet identification and recursive-PCA characterization algorithm, and use it to measure the thickness, length, upstream field, and Lundquist number of current sheets at several times. They report that before tearing onset current sheets have lengths comparable to the injection scale; after onset, smaller sheets are generated; the aspect ratio scales approximately as a/L ~ S^{-1/2} (Sweet-Parker); a power-law L-a relation is observed; and no clear correlation is found between upstream field strength and thickness. They also measure scale-dependent alignment angles and eddy anisotropy, concluding that there is no direct correspondence between the shape of turbulent eddies and the shape of current sheets, and therefore urge caution in applying scale-dependent dynamic alignment to reconnection-mediated turbulence models.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, this is a useful contribution to the debate on how current sheets are generated in MHD turbulence and whether SDDA-based reconnection-mediated cascade models are structurally appropriate. The paper's strengths include a high-resolution 2D simulation with explicit tearing-mediated evolution, an automated and repeatable current-sheet identification method, a detailed case study, and a comparison of statistics against reference scalings such as Sweet-Parker. The study also provides a concrete falsifiable claim — that turbulent current sheets in this regime follow a/L ~ S^{-1/2} rather than a steeper SDDA-type relation — and it explicitly quantifies the sparse filling factor of current sheets. However, the statistical evidence for the central scalings and for the negative claim about SDDA is weaker than the text implies, and the 2D setting limits the strength of the conclusions about 3D SDDA models.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, Fig. 8(a1–a3)] The central claim a/L ~ S^{-1/2} is asserted from visual inspection of scatter plots overlaid with a reference line. There is no least-squares fit, no reported slope uncertainty, and no quantitative measure of scatter. Since this scaling is the paper's main positive result and is used later to argue against SDDA-based models, the authors should provide a power-law fit with confidence intervals for each time, and ideally test robustness to the identification parameters (|J| threshold, minimum data points, PCA variance ratio). Without this, 'roughly obey' is not a quantitative claim.
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 8(b1–b3)] The statement that 'there is no clear correlation between B_up and a' is not supported by a statistical test. A Spearman or Pearson correlation coefficient with a p-value should be reported, because the eye is unreliable for scatter plots with a limited number of points and a narrow dynamic range. The same applies to the assertion at t=0.15 that B_up is 'quite consistent' across sheets. Quantifying the correlation is necessary: the absence of the SDDA-predicted B_up ∝ a^{1/4} relation is one of the planks of the paper's negative conclusion.
  3. [§4, Fig. 11 vs. Fig. 8] The no-correspondence claim is not directly tested. The eddy anisotropy ξ/λ is computed from second-order structure functions over the entire domain, while current sheets occupy less than 10% of the domain (Fig. 5c). These are different statistical objects: structure functions are dominated by the space-filling typical fluctuations, whereas current sheets are extreme current-density regions. The absence of a correlation between the average eddy shape and the current-sheet aspect ratio is therefore not evidence against a local correspondence. A conditional test — e.g., computing ξ/λ from structure functions restricted to points inside identified current sheets, or comparing local eddy orientation at current-sheet locations — is needed before concluding that the current sheets and eddies are unrelated.
  4. [§5, item 3; §1] The conclusion that 'it is necessary to revisit the reconnection-mediated turbulence model' overreaches the evidence. The authors explicitly state in §1 that classic SDDA is not strictly applicable to 2D turbulence because the parallel scale l→∞. A 2D simulation that finds no correspondence between whole-domain eddy anisotropy and sparse current sheets cannot, by itself, rule out a structural correspondence in 3D SDDA models. This should be reframed as a caution about applying 3D phenomenology to 2D simulations and about using global anisotropy to infer local current-sheet properties, rather than as a disproof of the SDDA-based reconnection-mediated model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Fig. 7(c)–(e)] The reported numbers are inconsistent: the text states a≈0.005 but then uses a/L≈5×10^{-4}/0.08, which gives 0.00625. The half-width should be either 5×10^{-4} or 5×10^{-3}; the correct value affects the quoted a/L and the comparison with S^{-0.46}. Please fix the typo and re-check the derived value.
  2. [Abstract and §3.4] Minor formatting issues: 'While a power-law scaling betweenLandais observed' is missing spacing; similarly in the abstract. These are likely LaTeX artifacts but should be corrected.
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 5] The current-sheet identification algorithm relies on several thresholds (|J|≤0.1 max|J|, minimum 20 points, PCA variance ratio 3). No sensitivity study is presented. Even if a full parameter scan is not feasible, at least one alternate threshold should be tested to show that the main scaling results are not an artifact of the identification criteria.
  4. [§4, Fig. 10] The reference lines with slopes 0.25 and 0.10 are described as 'for visual assistance,' but the text later compares double power laws to these slopes. The break scale and its time evolution are interesting, but the absence of uncertainties on the fitted slopes makes it hard to judge whether the quoted values are meaningful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured scalings are compared against external reference models, not derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are direct measurements from a numerical simulation: current-sheet thickness a, length L, upstream field B_up, and Lundquist number S_L = L B_up / eta are independently defined in Sections 3.2-3.3 and then compared with externally specified reference scalings (Sweet-Parker a/L ~ S_L^{-1/2}, SDDA B_up ~ a^{1/4}, and L ~ a^2). No parameter is fitted to the data and then relabeled as a prediction; the reported S_L^{-1/2} behavior is an empirical comparison with an outside model, not an output forced by a fitted input. The SDDA-related conclusion is explicitly hedged: the authors state in Section 1 that classic SDDA theories are not strictly applicable in 2D because l -> infinity, and in Section 4 they note that the filling factor of current sheets is <0.1 while the eddy anisotropy is evaluated over the whole domain, so the absence of a direct correspondence is an acknowledged aggregate comparison rather than a circular reduction. Self-citations (LAPS code, prior simulation results, the structure-function method) are used as tools or context and are not load-bearing for the main claim; the critical tearing and Sweet-Parker references are external. The methodology has limitations -- the identification threshold and the whole-domain versus current-sheet-population comparison could weaken the conclusions -- but these are correctness or interpretation concerns, not circularity. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

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

The central empirical claims rest on hand-chosen simulation and identification parameters (dissipation, thresholds, injection wavenumbers) and on standard reconnection scaling relations. No new physical entities are introduced. The main caveat is that the Sweet-Parker and SDDA reference scalings are assumed rather than derived within the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • resistivity/viscosity eta = nu = 5e-7
    Chosen by testing different dissipation amplitudes so that tearing instability is triggered while Gibbs phenomenon is suppressed; sets the Reynolds number S0 ~ 4e4.
  • current-sheet threshold = 0.1 max|Jz|
    Ad hoc threshold for including grid points in a current sheet; directly affects what is counted as a current sheet.
  • minimum points per sheet = 20
    Small regions discarded; affects the lower end of the current-sheet distribution.
  • recursive PCA variance ratio = 3
    Stopping criterion for segmenting curved current sheets; affects measured length and thickness.
  • injection wavenumber band = k in [8,16]
    Initial fluctuation band that sets the energy injection scale and the initial current-sheet lengths.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Incompressible 2D MHD with uniform density and an out-of-plane B_z = 1 that is dynamically passive
    Section 2 states B_z only serves as a normalization unit. This restricts the dynamics to 2D and incompressible regimes.
  • domain assumption Balanced initial conditions with sigma_c ~ 0 and sigma_r ~ 0
    Section 2: equal-amplitude Elsässer modes with random phases; this is a standard initial condition choice.
  • standard math Sweet-Parker scaling a/L ~ S^{-1/2} is the correct reference for laminar current sheets
    Used as the reference line in Figure 8 and in the case study (Section 3.3).
  • standard math Ideal tearing / critical Lundquist number ~ O(10^4) for tearing onset
    Invoked to interpret the simulation's Lundquist numbers and the tearing onset (Sections 3.3 and 4, citing Pucci & Velli 2013).
  • domain assumption SDDA model scaling theta ~ lambda^{1/4} and lambda/xi relations are applicable enough to compare with 2D data
    The paper states SDDA is not strictly applicable in 2D, but still compares aspect ratios and slopes to SDDA references (Sections 4, Figure 10). This is an acknowledged assumption that weakens the negative conclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Properties of current sheets in two-dimensional tearing-mediated incompressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5HEB3QX

@misc{pith2026251016707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Properties of current sheets in two-dimensional tearing-mediated incompressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5HEB3QX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.16707}
}
abstract

It is well known that the nonlinear evolution of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence generates current sheets. In the solar wind turbulence, current sheets are frequently observed and they are believed to be an important pathway for the turbulence energy to dissipate and heat the plasma. In this study, we perform a comprehensive analysis of current sheets in a high-resolution two-dimensional simulation of balanced, incompressible MHD turbulence. The simulation parameters are selected such that tearing mode instability is triggered and plasmoids are generated throughout the simulation domain. We develop an automated method to identify current sheets and accurately quantify their key parameters including thickness ($a$), length ($L$), and Lundquist number ($S$). Before the triggering of tearing instability, the current sheet lengths are mostly comparable to the energy injection scale. After the tearing mode onsets, smaller current sheets with lower Lundquist numbers are generated. While power-law scaling relations between $L$ and $a$ and between $a/L$ and $S$ are observed, no clear correlation is found between the upstream magnetic field strength and thickness $a$. Finally, although the turbulence energy shows anisotropy between the directions parallel and perpendicular to the local magnetic field increment, we do not observe a direct correspondence between the shape of the current sheets and that of the turbulence ``eddies.'' These results suggest that one needs to be cautious when applying the scale-dependent dynamic alignment model to the analysis of current sheets in MHD turbulence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.16707 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of (a) σc (blue) and σr (orange); (b) kinetic energy (blue), magnetic energy (orange), and en￾ergies of z + (green) and z − (red); (c) averaged J 2 (blue), ω 2 (orange), and 2J · ω (green). with different amplitudes of dissipation and the values η = ν = 5 × 10−7 are chosen such that the dissipation is strong enough to effectively suppress the numerical er￾ror induced by Gibbs phenomenon while not too … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Power spectra of (a) magnetic field, (b) velocity, (c) z +, and (d) z − calculated along x. In each panel, different solid curves correspond to spectra at different time moments. Blue dotted-dashed lines are linear-fitting of the spectra at t = 0.6 using 1 128 ≤ k ≤ 1 16 . The black dashed lines show ∝ k −5/3 for reference. The yellow shade in each panel marks 1 16 ≤ k ≤ 1 8 that correspond to the initial fluctuatio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of Jz in the subdomain x ∈ [0.2, 0.7], y ∈ [0, 0.5]. In Panel (c), the green box marks the current sheet analyzed in detail in Section 3.3 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scale-dependent Kurtosis of magnetic field at different time moments. The yellow shade marks the wave￾length-range of the initial fluctuations. with a total area less than 10% of the simulation domain, contribute roughly 50% of the dissipation of magnetic energy. 3.3. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Same as Panel (c) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time evolution of a single current sheet within the domain marked by the green box in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Bl as a function of distance along the minor axis at t = 0.25. Different curves correspond to different segments (see the text) in the recursive PCA analysis. Red circles mark the maximum and minimum of each Bl profile. (b) Vl as a function of distance along the ma…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Statistics of the current sheet properties. Top to bottom rows show t = 0.15, 0.30, and 0.60 respectively. Left column (a) shows the aspect ratio a/L as a function of Lundquist number SL. Middle column (b) shows the upstream magnetic field Bup as a function of half-wid…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Probability distribution function (PDF) of cos(θub) (a) and cos(θz± ) (b) at t = 0.3. Here θub is the angle between u and b, and θz± is the angle between z + and z −. Background magnetic field was subtracted before calculating the angles. In each panel, blue bars corre…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scale-dependent alignment angles between (a) u and b and (b) z + and z −. Solid curves with different colors correspond to different times. Dashed and dotted lines show ∝ l 0.25 and l 0.1 for reference. (c) & (d): Same as (a) & (b) but the horizontal axis is λ (perpen…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Second-order structure functions of magnetic field S2(b) as a function of spatial increment l at t = 0.6. Different curves correspond to different angles between δb(l) and l. (b) Scale parallel (ξ) to δb as a function of scale perpendicular (λ) to δb. (c) λ/ξ as a…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    H., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Horbury, T

    Alexandrova, O., Chen, C. H., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Horbury, T. S., & Bale, S. D. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 178, 101

    2013

  2. [2]

    1986, The Physics of fluids, 29, 1520 13 Figure 11.(a) Second-order structure functions of magnetic fieldS 2(b) as a function of spatial incrementlatt= 0.6

    Biskamp, D. 1986, The Physics of fluids, 29, 1520 13 Figure 11.(a) Second-order structure functions of magnetic fieldS 2(b) as a function of spatial incrementlatt= 0.6. Different curves correspond to different angles betweenδb(l) andl. (b) Scale parallel (ξ) toδbas a function of scale perpendicular (λ) toδb. (c)λ/ξas a function ofλ

    1986

  3. [3]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, L37

    Boldyrev, S. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, L37

    2005

  4. [4]

    2006, Phys

    Boldyrev, S. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 115002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.115002

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.115002 2006

  5. [5]

    Boldyrev, S., & Loureiro, N. F. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 125

    2017

  6. [6]

    C., Borovsky, J

    Boldyrev, S., Perez, J. C., Borovsky, J. E., & Podesta, J. J. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 741, L19

    2011

  7. [7]

    A., Chandran, B

    Bowen, T. A., Chandran, B. D., Squire, J., et al. 2022, Physical Review Letters, 129, 165101

    2022

  8. [8]

    2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 1

    Bruno, R., & Carbone, V. 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 1

    2013

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    2001, Planetary and Space Science, 49, 1201

    Bavassano, B. 2001, Planetary and Space Science, 49, 1201

    2001

  2. [10]

    S., Franci, L., Califano, F., Landi, S., & Hellinger, P

    Cerri, S. S., Franci, L., Califano, F., Landi, S., & Hellinger, P. 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 705830202

    2017

  3. [11]

    D., Schekochihin, A

    Chandran, B. D., Schekochihin, A. A., & Mallet, A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 39

    2015

  4. [12]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 125

    Chen, C., Bale, S., Salem, C., & Maruca, B. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 125

    2013

  5. [13]

    H., Mallet, A., Schekochihin, A., et al

    Chen, C. H., Mallet, A., Schekochihin, A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 120 Del Zanna, L., Landi, S., Papini, E., Pucci, F., & Velli, M. 2016, 719, 012016

    2012

  6. [14]

    2022, Science Advances, 8, eabn7627

    Dong, C., Wang, L., Huang, Y.-M., et al. 2022, Science Advances, 8, eabn7627

    2022

  7. [15]

    1980, New York Academy of

    Frisch, U., & Parisi, G. 1980, New York Academy of

    1980

  8. [16]

    1995, Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 3393

    Goldstein, B., Smith, E., Balogh, A., et al. 1995, Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 3393

    1995

  9. [17]

    1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 425

    Grappin, R., & Velli, M. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 425

    1996

  10. [18]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 121

    He, J., Duan, D., Wang, T., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 121

    2019

  12. [20]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07502

    Khan, M., Shay, M., Oughton, S., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07502

    2025

  14. [22]

    A., & Cowley, S

    Loureiro, N., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14

    2007

  15. [23]

    F., & Boldyrev, S

    Loureiro, N. F., & Boldyrev, S. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 118, 245101

    2017

  16. [24]

    Mallet, A., Schekochihin, A., & Chandran, B. D. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 4862

    2017

  17. [25]

    D., et al

    Mallet, A., Schekochihin, A., Chandran, B. D., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 2130

    2016

  18. [26]

    1990, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 95, 11945 Martinovi´ c, M

    Marsch, E., & Tu, C.-Y. 1990, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 95, 11945 Martinovi´ c, M. M., Klein, K. G., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 30

    1990

  19. [27]

    2006, Physical Review Letters, 97, 255002

    Mason, J., Cattaneo, F., & Boldyrev, S. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 97, 255002

    2006

  20. [28]

    2005, Physical review letters, 95, 231101 14

    Matthaeus, W., Dasso, S., Weygand, J., et al. 2005, Physical review letters, 95, 231101 14

    2005

  21. [29]

    H., Wan, M., Servidio, S., et al

    Matthaeus, W. H., Wan, M., Servidio, S., et al. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:

    2015

  22. [30]

    2005, Physical Review Letters, 95, 114502

    Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373, 20140154 M¨ uller, W.-C., & Grappin, R. 2005, Physical Review Letters, 95, 114502

    2005

  23. [31]

    2014, Physical Review Letters, 112, 215002

    Osman, K., Matthaeus, W., Gosling, J., et al. 2014, Physical Review Letters, 112, 215002

    2014

  24. [32]

    2012, Physical review letters, 108, 261102

    Osman, K., Matthaeus, W., Wan, M., & Rappazzo, A. 2012, Physical review letters, 108, 261102

    2012

  25. [33]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 52

    Papini, E., Franci, L., Landi, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 52

    2019

  26. [34]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  27. [35]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 911

    Pei, Z., He, J., Wang, X., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 911

    2016

  28. [36]

    D., Bhattacharjee, A., Roberts, D., & Goldstein, M

    Podesta, J., Chandran, B. D., Bhattacharjee, A., Roberts, D., & Goldstein, M. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114

    2009

  29. [37]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 664, 543

    Podesta, J., Roberts, D., & Goldstein, M. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 664, 543

    2007

  30. [38]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 780, L19

    Pucci, F., & Velli, M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 780, L19

    2013

  31. [39]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 152

    Shi, C., Sioulas, N., Huang, Z., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 152

    2025

  32. [40]

    F., & Velli, M

    Shi, C., Tenerani, A., Rappazzo, A. F., & Velli, M. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1412905

    2024

  33. [41]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 83

    Shi, C., Velli, M., & Tenerani, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 83

    2018

  34. [42]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A21

    Shi, C., Velli, M., Panasenco, O., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A21

    2021

  35. [43]

    2001, Earth, Planets and Space, 53, 473

    Shibata, K., & Tanuma, S. 2001, Earth, Planets and Space, 53, 473

    2001

  36. [44]

    2023, The Astrophysical journal letters, 943, L8

    Sioulas, N., Huang, Z., Shi, C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical journal letters, 943, L8

    2023

  37. [45]

    2024a, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03649

    Sioulas, N., Velli, M., Mallet, A., et al. 2024a, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03649

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    2024b, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04055

    Sioulas, N., Zikopoulos, T., Shi, C., et al. 2024b, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04055

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    2001, Planetary and Space Science, 49, 1193

    Sorriso-Valvo, L., Carbone, V., Giuliani, P., et al. 2001, Planetary and Space Science, 49, 1193

    2001

  40. [48]

    Tenerani, A., Velli, M., Pucci, F., Landi, S., & Rappazzo, A. F. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820501

    2016

  41. [49]

    F., & Pucci, F

    Tenerani, A., Velli, M., Rappazzo, A. F., & Pucci, F. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 813, L32

    2015

  42. [50]

    Walker, J., Boldyrev, S., & Loureiro, N. F. 2018, Physical Review E, 98, 033209

    2018

  43. [51]

    2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23

    Wan, M., Matthaeus, W., Roytershteyn, V., et al. 2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23

    2016

  44. [52]

    H., Servidio, S., & Oughton, S

    Wan, M., Matthaeus, W. H., Servidio, S., & Oughton, S. 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20

    2013

  45. [53]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 947, L22

    Wu, H., Huang, S., Wang, X., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 947, L22

    2023

  46. [54]

    A., Perez, J

    Zhdankin, V., Uzdensky, D. A., Perez, J. C., & Boldyrev, S. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, 124

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.