Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Can Alfv\'enic Fluctuations Affect the Correlation and Complexity of Magnetic Fields in Magnetic Ejecta? A Case Study Based on Multi-Spacecraft Measurements at 1~au

T0 review · 4 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 A case study of a 2001 interplanetary coronal mass ejection argues that large-amplitude Alfvénic fluctuations decrease the correlation of magnetic field profiles between two closely separated spacecraft and increase the complexity of the…

desk verdict A careful single-event study with a believable correlation drop but an over-claimed complexity result that needs a control. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08008 v1 pith:QS5HT2N4 submitted 2024-12-11 physics.space-ph astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

Camilla Scolini , Bin Zhuang , Noé Lugaz , Réka M. Winslow , Charles J. Farrugia , Norbert Magyar , Fabio Bacchini This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR PACS 96.50.Ci96.50.Qx
keywords Alfvénicfluctuationsmagneticejectainterplanetarycoronalmassejectionsmulti-spacecraftcorrelationcomplexityhodogramsresidualenergycrosshelicity
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

The paper asks whether large-amplitude Alfvénic fluctuations (AFs) can alter the magnetic structure of a magnetic ejecta (ME) inside an interplanetary coronal mass ejection. For the 2001 December 29 ICME seen by ACE and Wind at a separation of ~0.014 au, it identifies a six-hour rear region, called R1, where AFs are present at both spacecraft. Within R1, the Pearson correlation of the magnetic field components measured at the two spacecraft drops below the rest of the ME, and hodograms in the minimum-variance frame show a complex configuration with an inverted rotation sense. The paper concludes that AFs can decrease the correlation scale of ME magnetic fields and increase the complexity of the ME topology observed in situ, plausibly because the two spacecraft sample the same fluctuations in different oscillation phases.

What carries the argument

The diagnostic engine is the wavelet-based normalized residual energy $\sigma_r = (E_v - E_b)/(E_v + E_b)$, integrated over periods of 30 minutes to 12 hours, with values near zero flagging Alfvénic fluctuations; the normalized cross helicity $\sigma_c$ then distinguishes propagation direction relative to the local magnetic field. Correlation is quantified with global and rolling-window Pearson coefficients between ACE and Wind profiles, after rebinning and time-shifting, in both RTN and the minimum-variance (MVA) frame. Complexity is read from magnetic hodograms in the MVA frame, whose number of rotations and rotation sense classify the configuration as a simple flux rope or a Cx complex ejecta.

What would settle it

Recompute the ACE–Wind correlation coefficients and the hodogram rotation classification using several explicit R1 boundary definitions (for example, shifting the R1 start and end times by ±1 hour or adopting a fixed threshold such as median $|\sigma_r| < 0.2$), and check whether the decrease in $cc_{BR}$ and the inverted hodogram rotation persist; if they disappear under any reasonable boundary, the claimed association between AFs and reduced correlation/complexity fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Alfvénic region R1 at the rear of the magnetic ejecta is the specific substructure responsible for both a local drop in magnetic-field correlation between ACE and Wind and a locally increased complexity of the in-situ magnetic topology. This is supported by quantitative comparisons: global correlation coefficients in R1 are 0.82, 0.48, 0.90, and 0.68 for field strength and the R, T, N components, versus 0.91, 0.81, 0.97, and 0.94 for the whole ME; in the MVA frame the component correlations fall from 0.38–0.98 in the pre-R1 region to 0.27–0.87 in R1. Magnetic hodograms in the MVA frame show an extra, inverted rotation in R1 at both spacecraft, matching the Cx 'complex' class of the Nieves-Chinchilla classification. The authors further argue, from cross helicity, unidirectional suprathermal electron strahls, source-region magnetograms, and the timing relative to the following ICME, that the AFs most likely formed in interplanetary space rather than at the Sun.

Load-bearing premise

The central result depends on hand-drawn boundaries for the Alfvénic region R1, set by visual inspection of the median $|\sigma_r|$ time series with no formal threshold or sensitivity test, so alternative boundary choices could change the reported correlation drop and complexity classification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-spacecraft correlation studies of ICME coherence should treat Alfvénic fluctuations as a possible cause of reduced correlation, since this event shows a correlation drop localized to the AF-containing region.
  • Single-spacecraft flux-rope fits and hodogram classifications can be misled by large-amplitude AFs, which add rotation structure that mimics a more complex topology.
  • The rear of a magnetic ejecta may be the part most likely to show low correlation and high complexity, because that is where the observed large-amplitude AFs sit.
  • Two spacecraft crossing the same ejecta along different trajectories can observe the same AF population at different oscillation phases, which by itself lowers the measured correlation without any change in the underlying flux rope.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A formal threshold on $|\sigma_r|$ and a sensitivity sweep of the R1 boundaries would test whether the correlation drop and hodogram inversion survive reasonable redefinitions of the AF region.
  • If the phase-sampling explanation is right, the correlation drop should depend on the wavelength of the AFs relative to the spacecraft separation; events with longer-wavelength AFs at the same separation should show less decorrelation.
  • The Cx 'complex' classification may be a viewing artifact produced by combining a coherent flux rope with a superposed wave field, rather than evidence that the ejecta's magnetic topology is intrinsically more complex.
  • Applying the same wavelet and hodogram analysis to other multi-spacecraft ICME events with and without large-amplitude AFs would convert this case study into a statistical relation between AF amplitude and duration and the degree of correlation loss.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a case study of an ICME/magnetic ejecta observed by ACE and Wind on 2001 December 29, with spacecraft separation of about 0.8 degrees. Using wavelet-based residual energy and cross helicity, the authors identify a roughly six-hour region (R1) of large-amplitude Alfvénic fluctuations in the rear of the magnetic ejecta at both spacecraft. They compare Pearson correlations of magnetic field components (in RTN coordinates and in the MVA frame) between ACE and Wind inside and outside R1, finding lower correlations in R1. They also inspect magnetic hodograms and classify the ME as complex (Cx), noting a temporal coincidence with R1. They discuss possible solar and interplanetary origins of the AFs, favoring an interplanetary formation scenario. The paper's central claims are that AFs reduce the multi-spacecraft correlation of ME magnetic profiles and that large-amplitude AFs increase the complexity of the ME magnetic topology observed in situ.

Significance. If substantiated, the results would provide a concrete physical mechanism—large-amplitude Alfvénic fluctuations—by which magnetic ejecta signatures can appear less coherent and more complex across closely separated spacecraft, with implications for single-spacecraft interpretation and multi-spacecraft correlation studies. The strengths of the paper are its multi-instrument approach (wavelet analysis, MVA, LFF fitting, suprathermal electron PAD, and remote-sensing context), the use of a well-documented publicly available event, and the explicit discussion of AF origins. The study is, however, a single case, and the two main claims currently rest on a hand-drawn time segmentation and on hodograms computed from the same fluctuations used to define the segmentation. With additional sensitivity and control analyses, the paper could make a meaningful contribution; in its present form the evidence does not fully support the complexity claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Figure 2] The identification of the Alfvénic region R1 is based on visual inspection of time-dependent median values of |σr|, without any quantitative threshold for "large amplitude" or a stated criterion for the onset and end of the region. Because every subsequent comparison (correlation in §3.2, hodograms in §3.3) uses R1 versus the pre-R1 ME, the entire quantitative case depends on this hand-picked segmentation. The authors should provide either an objective algorithm for defining R1 or a sensitivity analysis (e.g., shifting the R1 boundaries by ±30 min or ±1 h and recomputing the correlations and median spectra) to show that the reported differences are robust. As written, the reader cannot distinguish a real property of AFs from a property of the chosen time interval.
  2. [§3.3, Figure 6] The claim that AFs increase the complexity of the ME magnetic topology is potentially circular and is not supported by a quantitative metric. R1 is selected from the same wavelet σr fluctuations that appear as large rotations of B in the MVA-frame hodograms; large-amplitude Alfvénic fluctuations will by construction produce additional loops or inverted rotations in a hodogram regardless of whether the underlying flux-rope topology is altered. The paper does not define a numerical complexity measure, does not state the threshold used to assign the Cx classification to R1, and provides no control case: neither a synthetic flux rope overlaid with observed-amplitude Alfvén waves nor the R1 field after removing the 30-min–12-h fluctuations. Consequently, the sentence in Section 5 that AFs "can increase complexity of the ME magnetic topology detected in situ" goes beyond the evidence, which at most establishes a temporal coincidence between AFs and complex-looking hodograms.
  3. [§2.3, §3.2] The correlation comparison lacks statistical support. Pearson coefficients are reported for time intervals of very different lengths (the full pre-R1 ME spans about 12 h, whereas R1 spans about 6 h), without confidence intervals, significance tests, or accounting for autocorrelation in the solar wind and ME time series. In addition, the ACE profiles are time-shifted and stretched to match the Wind ME boundaries; this preprocessing can systematically alter correlation coefficients, and the manuscript does not evaluate the sensitivity of the results to the stretching procedure or to the 5-min rebinning. The difference between, e.g., ccBR = 0.85 before R1 and ccBR = 0.48 in R1 needs an uncertainty estimate before it can be interpreted as evidence that AFs reduce magnetic-field correlation.
  4. [§4.2] The discussion of AF origins concludes that an interplanetary origin is likely, based on the localized and uni-directional character of R1 and on the absence of local reconnection signatures. This inference is reasonable, but the quantitative estimate that the AFs must have formed more than about 4 h in the past assumes a static Alfvén travel time between ACE and Wind. The authors should acknowledge that this estimate ignores field-line connectivity, propagation along the flux rope, and solar-wind advection, and should phrase the origin discussion as a scenario assessment rather than a demonstrated result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2] There is a typo: "expected to to have enough time" should read "expected to have enough time."
  2. [§2.3, Figures 4 and 5] The captions for Figures 4 and 5 do not explain how the median correlation spectra (black solid curves) are computed across the 30-min–6-h window sizes; a reader cannot reproduce these curves without referring back to the text in §2.3.
  3. [§3.3] The term "Cx" is introduced via Nieves-Chinchilla et al. (2018, 2019), but the classification criteria are not summarized; a one-sentence definition of what makes a hodogram "complex" would improve readability and would also help the reader assess the AF-complexity connection.
  4. [§3.1] The sentence "The LFF model can not fully capture of the flux rope structure" contains a grammatical error; it should be "The LFF model cannot fully capture the flux rope structure."
  5. [§2.2] The choice of wavelet scale range (30 min to 12 h) is stated to fall within the injection range of the power spectrum, but no reference or figure is given to support this claim; adding a reference to the relevant spectrum or a brief justification would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two quantitative claims rest on independent observables, and the self-citations to Scolini et al. (2024) are methodological/event-list references, not load-bearing derivations.

full rationale

The derived chain does not reduce to its inputs. R1 is identified from wavelet-based residual energy sigma_r and cross helicity sigma_c (Section 2.2), while the correlation decrease is measured by comparing independent ACE and Wind time series in the RTN and MVA frames (Sections 2.3 and 3.2), and the complexity classification is based on the external Nieves-Chinchilla et al. (2018) Cx hodogram criterion (Section 3.3). No parameter is fitted to the correlation or complexity outputs, and the reported coefficients are direct Pearson correlations over the chosen intervals. The closest potential concern is that large-amplitude AFs are associated with extra rotations in the same B-field hodograms used to score complexity, but this does not amount to circularity because AF identification uses sigma_r and sigma_c rather than the hodogram rotation count, and the Cx classification is an independent observable. The absence of an AF-removed control is a robustness limitation, not a constructed equivalence. Self-citations to Scolini et al. (2024) supply the event list and the wavelet-analysis approach, but the method is described in-text and the case-study measurements are newly analyzed, so these citations are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on standard wavelet analysis, multi-spacecraft correlation, and MVA/LFF modeling, plus a subjectively defined R1 region. The most consequential ledger entries are the hand-picked R1 boundaries and the time-stretching assumption, both of which could affect the reported correlations.

free parameters (3)
  • R1 time boundaries at Wind = 13:27-19:10 UT on 2001-12-30
    Hand-picked by visual inspection of the median |σr| time series (Figure 2). All correlation and complexity comparisons depend on this segmentation.
  • R1 time boundaries at ACE = 12:37-18:30 UT on 2001-12-30
    Hand-picked by visual inspection of the median |σr| time series (Figure 2). Same dependence as the Wind boundaries.
  • Wavelet scale integration range = 30 minutes to 12 hours
    Chosen to match the injection range of the power spectrum and the AF timescale. Affects the median σr and σc values used to define R1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The wavelet-based σr and σc correctly identify Alfvénic fluctuations in the magnetic ejecta.
    The method follows Telloni et al. (2012, 2013) and Scolini et al. (2024); if the wavelet approach misclassifies non-Alfvénic turbulence, the R1 region would be misidentified. Invoked in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption ACE and Wind are close enough (0.014 au) that differences in their magnetic measurements reflect internal structure of the same ejecta rather than large-scale gradients or different crossing geometries.
    Used throughout Section 3.2 and 3.3 to interpret correlation differences. The LFF fit shows slightly different impact parameters, but the paper assumes the crossings are comparable. Invoked in Sections 2.1 and 3.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Time-shifting and stretching ACE profiles to match Wind ME boundaries preserves the physical correspondence of structures between the two spacecraft.
    Section 2.3 states 'the sheath and ME time-series portions at ACE are each then shifted and stretched to match the sheath and ME start and end times at Wind.' This linear mapping is a strong assumption that could distort the correlation if the ejecta is not expanding in a simple self-similar way.
  • domain assumption The LFF and MVA frames accurately represent the flux rope axis and geometry.
    Used to interpret σc direction and to construct hodograms. The paper notes the LFF model 'cannot fully capture' the structure, particularly in R1. Invoked in Section 3.1 and 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Alfv\'enic Fluctuations Affect the Correlation and Complexity of Magnetic Fields in Magnetic Ejecta? A Case Study Based on Multi-Spacecraft Measurements at 1~au." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QS5HT2N4

@misc{pith2026241208008,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Alfv\'enic Fluctuations Affect the Correlation and Complexity of Magnetic Fields in Magnetic Ejecta? A Case Study Based on Multi-Spacecraft Measurements at 1~au},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QS5HT2N4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08008}
}
abstract

We investigate whether Alfv\'enic fluctuations (AFs) can affect the structure of magnetic ejecta (MEs) within interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs). We study an ICME observed on 2001 December 29 at 1 au by ACE and Wind, at a total angular separation of $\sim$0.8$^\circ$ ($\sim0.014$~au). We focus on the correlation and complexity of its magnetic structure measured between two spacecraft in association with large-amplitude AFs. The Alfv\'enicity of the ME is investigated in terms of the residual energy and cross helicity of fluctuations. We find that as for the event of interest, large-amplitude AFs occur in the rear region of the ME at both Wind and ACE with a duration of about six hours. We compare the correlation of the magnetic field strength and vector components measured between Wind and ACE, and investigate complexity in terms of the magnetic hodograms. The region showing AFs is found to be associated with a decreased correlation of the magnetic field components and an increased complexity of the ME magnetic configuration detected at ACE and Wind, which may be due to the fact that the two spacecraft crossing the same ME along different trajectories likely sampled AFs in different oscillation phases. Combining multi-point in-situ measurements and remote-sensing observations of the ICME source region, we further discuss different potential sources of the AFs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08008 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relevant spacecraft positions in GSE coordinates at 05:00 UT on 2001 December 29. (a): view in the YGSE-ZGSE plane, looking towards the Sun. (b): view in the XGSE-ZGSE plane, looking downwards on the ecliptic plane. Earth, ACE, and Wind are shown in black, red, and blue, respectively. Large separation in the east-west direction (Y) corresponds to Wind’s second distant prograde orbit. 2.2. Identification of Alfv´enic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In situ plasma and magnetic field signatures for the 2001 December 29 ICME. (a): ACE. (b): Wind. From top to bottom: magnetic field components, radial speed, proton number density associated with proton beta (in red), suprathermal electron PAD data, wavelet of σr(k, t), wavelet of σc(k, t), and median of |σr(k, t)| and |σc(k, t)| across scales ki between 30 minutes and 12 hours. Velocity and magnetic field data are … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) for ACE data. The LFF fit models the flux rope as having a left-handed chirality (related to negative helicity) and an axial field direction of (θ, ϕ) ACE LFF = (55◦ , 213◦ ) (all fitted angles are given in RTN coordinates). The spacecraft impact parameter (normalization of the closest-approach distance with the flux rope radius) is estimated to be -0.11. Similar results (not shown) are obtained for Wind data, w… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlation of magnetic field signatures at ACE and Wind for the 2001 December 29 ICME. (a), (c), (e), and (g): B, BR, BT , and BN profiles at Wind (in black) and ACE (in red). ACE profiles are time-shifted to the ME start time at Wind and stretched to match the ME end…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation of magnetic field signatures at ACE and Wind for the 2001 December 29 ICME. (a), (c), (e): Bmin, Bint, and Bmax profiles at Wind (in black) and ACE (in red). ACE profiles are time shifted to the ME start time at Wind and stretched to match the ME end time a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magnetic hodograms of the ME at ACE (top) and Wind (bottom) for the 2001 December 29 ICME. At each spacecraft, the magnetic field components are projected in the respective MVA frame. Signatures for the ME pre-R1 region are shown in black, while those for the R1 region…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Source region magnetic configuration and global magnetic topology for the 2001 December 29 ICME. (a): SOHO/MDI photospheric magnetic field map on 2001 December 21 at 22:24 UT. AR 9742 is zoomed onto in the magenta box, with the polarity inversion line marked in yellow,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Velocity and non-radial flow angles in and around R1. (a): ACE. (b): Wind. From top to bottom: R, T, and N velocity components, and angle of velocity flow in the θ and ϕ directions. Regions R1, R2 and R3 are marked by the shaded magenta, cyan, and orange areas, respect…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac32e1

    Yu, W. 2022, ApJ, 927, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac32e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac32e1 2022

  2. [2]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e28002, doi: 10.1029/2020JA028002

    Lugaz, N. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e28002, doi: 10.1029/2020JA028002

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ja028002 2020

  3. [3]

    E., Denton, M

    Borovsky, J. E., Denton, M. H., & Smith, C. W. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 2406, doi: 10.1029/2019JA026580

    doi:10.1029/2019ja026580 2019

  4. [4]

    1998, Annales Geophysicae, 16, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x

    Bothmer, V., & Schwenn, R. 1998, Annales Geophysicae, 16, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x

    doi:10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x 1998

  5. [5]

    Burlaga, L., Sittler, E., Mariani, F., & Schwenn, R. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 6673, doi: 10.1029/JA086iA08p06673

    doi:10.1029/ja086ia08p06673 1981

  6. [6]

    V., & Richardson, I

    Cane, H. V., & Richardson, I. G. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 1156, doi: 10.1029/2002JA009817 Effects of Alfv ´enic fluctuations on Magnetic Ejecta 15

    doi:10.1029/2002ja009817 2003

  7. [7]

    Cranmer, S. R. 2018, ApJ, 862, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac953

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac953 2018

  8. [8]

    H., D´ emoulin, P., & Luoni, M

    Dasso, S., Mandrini, C. H., D´ emoulin, P., & Luoni, M. L. 2006, A&A, 455, 349, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064806

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20064806 2006

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    J., Vasquez, B

    Farrugia, C. J., Vasquez, B. J., Lugaz, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf7

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    W., Hatakka, L

    Good, S. W., Hatakka, L. M., Ala-Lahti, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1388

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Kilpua, E

    Good, S. W., Kilpua, E. K. J., Ala-Lahti, M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 900, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb021

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    T., Skoug, R

    Gosling, J. T., Skoug, R. M., McComas, D. J., & Smith, C. W. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A01107, doi: 10.1029/2004JA010809

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    V., & Kochanov, A

    Grechnev, V. V., & Kochanov, A. A. 2016, SoPh, 291, 3705, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0994-y

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab25e9

    Huang, H., Guo, J., Wang, Z., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab25e9

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    T., Luhmann, J

    Jian, L., Russell, C. T., Luhmann, J. G., & Skoug, R. M. 2006, SoPh, 239, 393, doi: 10.1007/s11207-006-0133-2

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    2010, PASJ, 62, 993, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.4.993

    Nozawa, S. 2010, PASJ, 62, 993, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.4.993

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    Kilpua, E., Koskinen, H. E. J., & Pulkkinen, T. I. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41116-017-0009-6

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    S., O’Brien, H., et al

    Laker, R., Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., et al. 2024, Space Weather, 22, e2023SW003628, doi: 10.1029/2023SW003628

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    P., et al

    Lavraud, B., Ruffenach, A., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 119, 26, doi: 10.1002/2013JA019154

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Jones, J

    Lepping, R. P., Jones, J. A., & Burlaga, L. F. 1990, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 11957, doi: 10.1029/JA095iA08p11957

    1990 doi

  13. [21]

    P., Ac˜ una, M

    Lepping, R. P., Ac˜ una, M. H., Burlaga, L. F., et al. 1995, SSRv, 71, 207, doi: 10.1007/BF00751330

    1995 doi

  14. [22]

    P., Anderson, K

    Lin, R. P., Anderson, K. A., Ashford, S., et al. 1995, SSRv, 71, 125, doi: 10.1007/BF00751328

    1995 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Winslow, R

    Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., Winslow, R. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 864, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad9f4

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    J., & Torbert, R

    Matsui, H., Farrugia, C. J., & Torbert, R. B. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1355, doi: 10.1029/2002JA009251

    2002 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Bame, S

    McComas, D. J., Bame, S. J., Barker, P., et al. 1998, SSRv, 86, 563, doi: 10.1023/A:1005040232597

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    K., Balmaceda, L., et al

    Nieves-Chinchilla, T., Jian, L. K., Balmaceda, L., et al. 2019, SoPh, 294, 89, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1477-8

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    C., et al

    Nieves-Chinchilla, T., Vourlidas, A., Raymond, J. C., et al. 2018, SoPh, 293, 25, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1247-z

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Lockwood, M., & Barnard, L

    Owens, M. J., Lockwood, M., & Barnard, L. A. 2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 4152, doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04546-3

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1883

    Regnault, F., Al-Haddad, N., Lugaz, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1883

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    G., & Cane, H

    Richardson, I. G., & Cane, H. V. 2010, SoPh, 264, 189, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9568-6

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    J., et al

    Ruffenach, A., Lavraud, B., Farrugia, C. J., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 43, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020628

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    M., et al

    Scolini, C., Lugaz, N., Winslow, R. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0ed1

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N

    Smith, C. W., L’Heureux, J., Ness, N. F., et al. 1998, SSRv, 86, 613, doi: 10.1023/A:1005092216668

    1998 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Good, S

    Soljento, J. E., Good, S. W., Osmane, A., & Kilpua, E. K. J. 2023, ApJL, 946, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc071

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

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

    1998

  28. [36]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/19

    Carbone, V. 2012, ApJ, 751, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/19

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    Telloni, D., Perri, S., Bruno, R., Carbone, V., & Amicis, R. D. 2013, ApJ, 776, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/3

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2021, A&A, 656, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140648

    Telloni, D., Scolini, C., M¨ ostl, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140648

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Torrence, C., & Compo, G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 61, doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079 ⟨0061: APGTW A⟩2.0.CO;2

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    1999, SSRv, 87, 339, doi: 10.1023/A:1005110315988

    Velli, M., & Liewer, P. 1999, SSRv, 87, 339, doi: 10.1023/A:1005110315988

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Scolini, C., Jian, L

    Winslow, R. M., Scolini, C., Jian, L. K., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 1064175, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1064175

    2022

  34. [42]

    H., & Richardson, I

    Zurbuchen, T. H., & Richardson, I. G. 2006, SSRv, 123, 31, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9010-4

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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