Electron Heating by Parallel Electric Fields in Magnetotail Reconnection

Andris Vaivads; Cecilia Norgren; Daniel B. Graham; Jan Egedal; Konrad Steinvall; Louis Richard; Rumi Nakamura; Yuri V. Khotyaintsev

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Electron Heating by Parallel Electric Fields in Magnetotail Reconnection

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 Parallel electric fields in magnetotail reconnection can heat electrons to about ten times the inflow temperature, with the acceleration potential scaling as the square root of inflow electron temperature times the inflow electron Alfvén…

desk verdict A useful observational confirmation of a predicted scaling, with a real caveat: the inferred potential is a fit-based proxy, and the absolute calibration is the main weakness. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10188 v2 pith:WU64W4DW submitted 2024-12-13 physics.space-ph physics.plasm-ph

Louis Richard , Yuri V. Khotyaintsev , Cecilia Norgren , Konrad Steinvall , Daniel B. Graham , Jan Egedal , Andris Vaivads , Rumi Nakamura This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.space-phphysics.plasm-ph

keywords magneticreconnectionelectronheatingparallelelectricfieldmagnetotailflat-topdistributionaccelerationpotentialquasi-neutralityion-to-electronenergypartition

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 analyzes 140 reconnection outflow events in Earth's magnetotail to test whether parallel electric fields are a major electron heating channel. Inferring the acceleration potential $e\Phi_{\parallel}$ from the knee energy of flat-top electron distributions, the authors find the potential reaches about ten times the inflow electron temperature. They show $e\Phi_{\parallel}$ scales as $T_{e\infty}^{1/2} V_{Ae\infty}$, matching a firehose-limited trapping prediction, and that the ion-to-electron heating ratio decreases as $1 - \beta_{e\infty}^{1/2}$. If right, the result makes parallel electric fields a central, quantified part of reconnection energy partition rather than a secondary correction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $(r,q)$ electron velocity distribution model, which fits the measured flat-top phase-space density with two shape parameters: $q$ controls the high-energy tail and $r$ controls the low-energy flat part. From the fit, the knee velocity is defined by the parallel speed where the phase-space density decays to $\varepsilon = 1/e$ of its central value, and this knee energy is interpreted as the acceleration potential $e\Phi_{\parallel}$. A separate electron momentum balance along the field line decomposes the potential change into temperature, density, and magnetic-field gradient terms, which the authors use to argue the parallel field is ambipolar and primarily balances electron density gradients.

What would settle it

Take one reconnection outflow observed by two closely spaced spacecraft and compare the line-integrated parallel electric field computed from the measured electric field along the magnetic field line with the knee-inferred potential from the same outflow; a systematic mismatch across several events would falsify the mapping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the knee energy of the flat-top electron velocity distribution in a reconnection outflow equals the net work $e\Phi_{\parallel}$ done on electrons by the parallel electric field. Using this proxy on 140 events, the paper finds the acceleration potential reaches about $10\,T_{e\infty}$ and obeys $e\Phi_{\parallel} \propto T_{e\infty}^{1/2} V_{Ae\infty}$, the scaling a firehose-limited trapping model gives for maintaining quasi-neutrality. The paper further combines this with empirical ion and electron heating laws to predict that the ion-to-electron heating ratio falls as $1 - \beta_{e\infty}^{1/2}$, meaning parallel electric fields become increasingly important to the energy partition as the inflow electron $\beta$ rises.

Load-bearing premise

The knee energy of the flat-top distribution, taken from a fit restricted to electron energies below five times the parallel electron temperature, is assumed to equal the net parallel electric field work $e\Phi_{\parallel}$; if that mapping fails, the inferred scalings describe the thermal width and flatness of the distribution instead of a field potential.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Parallel electric field acceleration is a major electron heating channel, with potentials up to about $10\,T_{e\infty}$ in magnetotail reconnection outflows.
The scaling $e\Phi_{\parallel} \propto T_{e\infty}^{1/2} V_{Ae\infty}$ turns quasi-neutrality into a quantitative prediction for outflow electron energization.
The ion-to-electron heating ratio in reconnection decreases as $1 - \beta_{e\infty}^{1/2}$, so parallel electric fields matter more as the inflow beta increases.
Flat-top electron distributions become a usable remote diagnostic of the parallel acceleration potential, allowing statistical surveys without direct field-line integration.

Reading between the lines

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

If the knee-to-potential mapping holds at higher energies, the same method could be applied to events where the knee falls outside the $5\,T_{e\parallel}$ fitting range, directly testing whether the reported scalings hold for the largest potentials.
The predicted dependence on $\beta_{e\infty}$ suggests magnetopause reconnection, where one inflow is colder and denser, should show a smaller normalized acceleration potential; this is testable with existing spacecraft data.
The predicted decrease of $\Delta T_i/\Delta T_e$ with increasing $\beta_{e\infty}$ implies that in high-beta environments electron heating could dominate the energy partition, which would affect how remote reconnection sites are modeled.
Because the method relies on the flat-top shape, it is best suited to reconnection regimes where beam-driven instabilities have had time to flatten the distribution; applying it to very short-lived or strongly magnetized outflows may require a different proxy.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, what's new: this is the first large-sample (140 MMS outflows) statistical test of the Le et al. (2010) prediction that the parallel acceleration potential scales as eΦ∥/Te∞ ∝ βe∞^{-1/2}. The data and code are public, the fits are transparent with uncertainties, and the single-event momentum balance check is a nice sanity test. The derived βe∞ dependence of ΔTi/ΔTe (Eq. 6) is a genuinely new synthesis, combining their scaling with existing empirical heating laws. That part is worth citing on its own.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points. The quantity eΦ∥ is never directly measured; it's obtained from the knee of the flat-top distribution using the (r,q) fit with ε=1/e, and the fit only uses energy bins up to 5Te∥. For events where the knee lies above that, the values are extrapolations of the model shape. Because eΦ∥ is proportional to Te∥ times a shape factor, any correlation between outflow and inflow temperatures could in principle produce the reported βe∞ scaling without a real potential. The paper does not include a synthetic recovery test to show the mapping is robust. That's a legitimate gap, but it's not a fatal flaw. The method is standard in the literature (Asano et al. 2008, Egedal et al. 2012), and the case study's momentum balance gives some independent support. The abstract's phrase 'heating by E∥' is loose; what's measured is a potential, not a direct temperature increase, though the beam energy likely thermalizes.

Overall, I think the central claim is likely correct, but the absolute calibration and the sensitivity to ε deserve scrutiny. A referee should ask for a forward-modeling or synthetic distribution test, and for a sensitivity scan over ε and the fit range.

Who is this for? Space physicists working on reconnection and MMS data analysis. It deserves a serious referee; the analysis is careful, the sample is large, and the result is directly relevant to an ongoing debate.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 140 MMS magnetotail reconnection outflows and infers the parallel electric field acceleration potential eΦ∥ from the shape of field-aligned electron velocity distributions. Using an (r,q) fit to the flat-top part of the electron phase-space density, the authors define a knee energy through Eq. (3) with an empirically chosen threshold ε=1/e, and interpret this knee as the net work eΦ∥ done by E∥. They report that eΦ∥ reaches up to ~10 Te∞ and scales as Te∞^{1/2} VAe∞, or equivalently eΦ∥/Te∞ ∝ βe∞^{-1/2}, in agreement with the firehose-limited trapping prediction of Ref. [42]. They also combine this scaling with empirical ion and electron heating relations to obtain ΔTi/ΔTe ∝ 1 - βe∞^{1/2}. A case study supports the ambipolar interpretation via a single electron momentum-balance check (Eq. 4).

Significance. If the knee-energy-to-potential mapping is valid, the paper provides the first large statistical observational test of the predicted E∥-driven electron heating scaling in magnetotail reconnection, with implications for energy partition and for interpreting remote observations. Strengths include the use of 140 events, public MMS data, a publicly archived dataset for Fig. 3, and propagation of fit uncertainties into the flatness factor and the inferred potential. The tested scaling comes from an independent theoretical derivation (Ref. [42]) rather than from a fit to the same data, so the comparison is not circular. However, the central proxy—identifying the knee of the fitted distribution with eΦ∥—is not independently validated, and several aspects of the fitting procedure are empirical. These issues must be addressed before the claimed scalings can be considered established.

major comments (4)

[§2 Data, Eq. (3)] The entire statistical result rests on identifying the knee energy of the (r,q) fit with the parallel acceleration potential eΦ∥, but ε=1/e is chosen empirically based on visual inspection, and no independent validation of this mapping is provided. I ask the authors to add a synthetic recovery test: construct model eVDFs with a known beam energy/potential, process them through the same fitting pipeline (including the Ee ≤ 5Te∥ restriction and the ε=1/e knee definition), and show that the recovered eΦ∥ matches the input. In addition, report the sensitivity of the slopes in Fig. 3 to ε (e.g., ε=1/2 and 1/e²). Without such a test, the reported scalings may describe properties of the fitted distribution shape rather than a physical acceleration potential.
[§2 Data, fit range] The fit is restricted to energy bins Ee ≤ 5Te∥, but many inferred knees in Fig. 3 lie at energies exceeding this range. For those events eΦ∥ is an extrapolation of a model fitted only to the thermal core, so the inferred potential depends on the assumed functional form of the (r,q) family. Moreover, Eq. (3) gives vΦ ∝ vte∥, hence eΦ∥ ∝ Te∥ by construction; since outflow Te∥ generally correlates with inflow Te∞, part of the reported Te∞^{1/2} scaling could be a thermal-width correlation rather than a potential scaling. Please quantify how many of the 140 events have knee energy above 5Te∥, and test robustness by refitting with a wider energy range where counting statistics allow.
[§3 Case study, Eq. (4)] The electron momentum-balance check is only an order-of-magnitude consistency test and assumes the CS center and edge are on the same field line, an assumption the authors acknowledge may not be strongly verified. As written, this single-event check cannot validate the knee-energy mapping for the statistical sample; I recommend either softening the claim or providing a multi-event version of this check, e.g., comparing e∆Φ∥ from Eq. (4) with the change in the inferred knee potential across the outflow for several events.
[§4 Statistical results, Fig. 3] The paper reports scalings eΦ∥ ∝ Te∞^{1/2} and eΦ∥ ∝ VAe∞ based on Fig. 3, but no fitted slopes, uncertainties, or goodness-of-fit are given. Please report the best-fit power-law exponents with confidence intervals and the scatter about the fit, and state whether the binned averages are weighted by the propagated uncertainties on eΦ∥. This is needed to judge whether the data are consistent with the predicted exponents or merely consistent within large scatter. The empirical coefficient αΦ≈0.31 in Eq. (6) should also be defined with its uncertainty and fitting procedure.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 3 caption and §4 text] The text refers to Fig. 3a as Te∞ and Fig. 3b as VAe∞, while the caption lists (a) as VAe∞ and (b) as Te∞; please fix the mismatch.
[Fig. 2(b) and text] The reported potential is 2.0±0.2 keV in the Fig. 2(b) caption but 2.0±0.3 keV in the text; please harmonize the values.
[Discussion] The word 'independant' should be 'independent' in the sentence describing the assumption that Te∞ is independent of VAe∞.
[Eq. (4) and following text] The sign convention in e∆Φ∥ = eΦ(a)-eΦ(b) = -e∫_a^b E∥ dl should be stated explicitly, since the relation between the potential drop and the integral depends on the chosen integration direction along the magnetic field line.
[§2 Data, flat-top selection] The flat-top threshold ˜Ξ > 1+e^{-1} is chosen empirically based on visual inspection; please provide a brief sensitivity analysis showing how the number of selected events and the main scalings in Fig. 3 change when this threshold is varied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted scaling is externally derived and the data are external to the theory.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain has three load-bearing elements: (1) inferring an acceleration potential ePhi_parallel from the knee of the flat-top electron distribution via Eq. (3); (2) comparing the statistical scaling of ePhi_parallel with the firehose-limited prediction of Ref. [42]; and (3) combining the observed scaling with empirical heating relations to obtain Eq. (6). None of these reduces to its own input by construction. Eq. (3) defines the knee velocity in terms of the fitted (r,q) parameters and the local parallel thermal velocity, and the paper then interprets that energy as the acceleration potential on the basis of prior work [13,19]; this is a physical modeling assumption, not a tautology, and it does not contain the theoretical scaling or the inflow parameters used in Fig. 3. Ref. [42], although it shares an author with the present paper (Egedal), is an independent analytical result based on the electron current sheet firehose stability condition, not on the present MMS data; it is parameter-free with stated assumptions and is externally falsifiable, so it does not raise the circularity score. The coefficient alpha_Phi about 0.31 in Eq. (6) is fitted from the same data, but the paper explicitly presents Eq. (6) as combining the observed scaling with prior empirical ion and electron heating relations, i.e., as a consistency implication rather than as an independent prediction. The order-of-magnitude momentum balance check in Eq. (4) is likewise a separate consistency test. Concerns that the epsilon = 1/e threshold or the knee-to-potential mapping may be uncertain are validity and fitting questions, not circularity; they cannot be exhibited as an equation-level reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Therefore no specific circular step is identifiable.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central claim depends on two fitted or empirically chosen constants (αΦ and ε) and on the trapping and firehose framework from prior literature.

free parameters (3)

αΦ = ≈ 0.31
Empirical coefficient in the scaling eΦ∥/Te∞ = αΦ βe∞^(-1/2) fitted to the 140-event sample (Fig. 3c); used in Eq. 6 to derive the ion-to-electron heating ratio.
ε (knee threshold) = 1/e
Threshold phase-space density decay defining the knee velocity vΦ in Eq. 3; chosen because it qualitatively captures the plateau cutoff. The absolute value of eΦ∥ depends on this choice.
flat-top threshold = Ξ > 1 + e^(-1)
Empirical threshold, based on visual inspection, for classifying eVDFs as flat-tops and therefore including them in the eΦ∥ sample.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The (r,q) distribution model represents the measured eVDFs well enough that the fitted knee energy equals the parallel electric field acceleration potential.
Stated before Eq. 1 and used throughout; the central measurement depends on this mapping.
domain assumption t∞ = argmax(B/B∞) gives representative inflow parameters (n∞, Te∞, VAe∞, βe∞).
Used in the case study and statistics to assign inflow conditions to each outflow; B∞ itself comes from pressure balance.
standard math The firehose stability derivation of Ref. 42 is valid and applicable to these magnetotail inflows.
Provides the tested scaling eΦ∥/Te∞ ∝ βe∞^(-1/2) and the maximum potential Eq. 5; the paper compares its observations to this benchmark.
domain assumption Electron momentum balance along the field line, Eq. 4, applies with gyrotropic pressure and negligible inertia.
Used in the case study to interpret the observed potential drop as dominated by the density-gradient term; the same-field-line assumption is acknowledged as weakly verified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electron Heating by Parallel Electric Fields in Magnetotail Reconnection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WU64W4DW

@misc{pith2026241210188,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electron Heating by Parallel Electric Fields in Magnetotail Reconnection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WU64W4DW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10188}
}

abstract

We investigate electron heating by magnetic-field-aligned electric fields ($E_\parallel$) during anti-parallel magnetic reconnection in the Earth's magnetotail. Using a statistical sample of 140 reconnection outflows, we infer the acceleration potential associated with $E_\parallel$ from the shape of the electron velocity distribution functions. We show that heating by $E_\parallel$ in the reconnection outflow can reach up to ten times the inflow electron temperature. We demonstrate that the magnitude of the acceleration potential scales with the inflow Alfv\'en and electron thermal speeds to maintain quasi-neutrality in the reconnection region. Our results suggest that, as the inflow plasma parameter $\beta_{e\infty}$ increases, $E_\parallel$ becomes increasingly important to the ion-to-electron energy partition associated with magnetic reconnection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10188 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Examples of eVDFs in the plasma frame in the recon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Statistics of the acceleration potential in the recon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

[42]

A. Le, J. Egedal, W. Daughton, J. F. Drake, W. Fox, and N. Katz, Geophysical Research Letters 37, 2009GL041941 (2010)

work page 2010
[1]

Ripperda, M

B. Ripperda, M. Liska, K. Chatterjee, G. Musoke, A. A. Philippov, S. B. Markoff, A. Tchekhovskoy, and Z. Younsi, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 924, L32 (2022)

work page 2022
[2]

Masuda, T

S. Masuda, T. Kosugi, H. Hara, S. Tsuneta, and Y. Ogawara, Nature 371, 495 (1994)

work page 1994
[3]

Angelopoulos, J

V. Angelopoulos, J. P. McFadden, D. Larson, C. W. Carl- son, S. B. Mende, H. Frey, T. Phan, D. G. Sibeck, K.-H. Glassmeier, U. Auster, E. Donovan, I. R. Mann, I. J. Rae, C. T. Russell, A. Runov, X.-Z. Zhou, and L. Kepko, Science 321, 931 (2008)

work page 2008
[4]

Yamada, R

M. Yamada, R. Kulsrud, and H. Ji, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 603 (2010)

2010
[5]

A. Le, J. Egedal, and W. Daughton, Physics of Plasmas 23, 102109 (2016)

work page 2016
[6]

M. Oka, J. Birn, J. Egedal, F. Guo, R. E. Ergun, D. L. Turner, Y. Khotyaintsev, K.-J. Hwang, I. J. Cohen, and J. F. Drake, Space Science Reviews 219, 75 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

T. D. Phan, M. A. Shay, J. T. Gosling, M. Fujimoto, J. F. Drake, G. Paschmann, M. Oieroset, J. P. Eastwood, and V. Angelopoulos, Geophysical Research Letters 40, 4475 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 55 references

[8]

Øieroset, T

M. Øieroset, T. D. Phan, M. Oka, J. F. Drake, S. A. Fuselier, D. J. Gershman, K. Maheshwari, B. L. Giles, Q. Zhang, F. Guo, J. L. Burch, R. B. Torbert, and R. J. Strangeway, The Astrophysical Journal 954, 118 (2023)

2023
[9]

M. A. Shay, C. C. Haggerty, T. D. Phan, J. F. Drake, P. A. Cassak, P. Wu, M. Oieroset, M. Swisdak, and K. Malakit, Physics of Plasmas 21, 122902 (2014)

2014
[10]

C. C. Haggerty, M. A. Shay, J. F. Drake, T. D. Phan, and C. T. McHugh, Geophysical Research Letters 42, 9657 (2015)

2015
[11]

D. A. Uzdensky and R. M. Kulsrud, Physics of Plasmas 13, 062305 (2006)

2006
[12]

Egedal, W

J. Egedal, W. Daughton, A. Le, and A. L. Borg, Physics of Plasmas 22, 101208 (2015)

2015
[13]

Asano, R

Y. Asano, R. Nakamura, I. Shinohara, M. Fujimoto, T. Takada, W. Baumjohann, C. J. Owen, A. N. Fazaker- ley, A. Runov, T. Nagai, E. A. Lucek, and H. R` eme, Jour- nal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 113, A01207 (2008)

2008
[14]

Fujimoto and S

K. Fujimoto and S. Machida, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics 111, 2005JA011542 (2006)

2006
[15]

Fujimoto, Geophysical Research Letters 41, 2721 (2014)

K. Fujimoto, Geophysical Research Letters 41, 2721 (2014)

2014
[16]

Yu. V. Khotyaintsev, C. M. Cully, A. Vaivads, M. Andr´ e, and C. J. Owen, Physical Review Letters 106, 165001 (2011)

2011
[17]

Yu. V. Khotyaintsev, D. B. Graham, K. Steinvall, L. Alm, A. Vaivads, A. Johlander, C. Norgren, W. Li, A. Di- vin, H. S. Fu, K.-J. Hwang, J. L. Burch, N. Ahmadi, O. Le Contel, D. J. Gershman, C. T. Russell, and R. B. Torbert, Physical Review Letters 124, 045101 (2020)

2020
[18]

Norgren, M

C. Norgren, M. Hesse, D. B. Graham, Yu. V. Khotyaint- sev, P. Tenfjord, A. Vaivads, K. Steinvall, Y. Xu, D. J. Gershman, P.-A. Lindqvist, F. Plaschke, and J. L. Burch, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 125, e2019JA027440 (2020)

2020
[19]

Egedal, W

J. Egedal, W. Daughton, and A. Le, Nature Physics 8, 321 (2012). 6

2012
[20]

Egedal, M

J. Egedal, M. Øieroset, W. Fox, and R. P. Lin, Physical Review Letters 94, 025006 (2005)

2005
[21]

B. A. Wetherton, J. Egedal, A. Le, and W. Daughton, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 126, e2020JA028604 (2021)

2021
[22]

S. Lu, V. Angelopoulos, P. L. Pritchett, J. Nan, K. Huang, X. Tao, A. V. Artemyev, A. Runov, Y. Jia, H. Sun, and N. Kang, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 126, e2021JA029550 (2021)

2021
[23]

Bessho, L.-J

N. Bessho, L.-J. Chen, K. Germaschewski, and A. Bhat- tacharjee, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 120, 9355 (2015)

2015
[24]

J. L. Burch, T. E. Moore, R. B. Torbert, and B. L. Giles, Space Science Reviews 199, 5 (2016)

2016
[25]

Richard, Yu

L. Richard, Yu. V. Khotyaintsev, D. B. Graham, and C. T. Russell, Geophysical Research Letters 49, e2022GL101693 (2022)

2022
[26]

C. T. Russell, B. J. Anderson, W. Baumjohann, K. R. Bromund, D. Dearborn, D. Fischer, G. Le, H. K. Lein- weber, D. Leneman, W. Magnes, J. D. Means, M. B. Moldwin, R. Nakamura, D. Pierce, F. Plaschke, K. M. Rowe, J. A. Slavin, R. J. Strangeway, R. Torbert, C. Ha- gen, I. Jernej...

2016
[27]

Lindqvist, G

P.-A. Lindqvist, G. Olsson, R. B. Torbert, B. King, M. Granoff, D. Rau, G. Needell, S. Turco, I. Dors, P. Beckman, J. Macri, C. Frost, J. Salwen, A. Eriksson, L. ˚Ahl´ en, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, J. Porter, K. Lappalainen, R. E. Ergun, W. Wermeer, and S. Tucker, Space Science Revi...

2016
[28]

R. E. Ergun, S. Tucker, J. Westfall, K. A. Goodrich, D. M. Malaspina, D. Summers, J. Wallace, M. Karlsson, J. Mack, N. Brennan, B. Pyke, P. Withnell, R. Torbert, J. Macri, D. Rau, I. Dors, J. Needell, P.-A. Lindqvist, G. Olsson, and C. M. Cully, Space Science Reviews 199, 167 (2016)

2016
[29]

D. T. Young, J. L. Burch, R. G. Gomez, A. De Los San- tos, G. P. Miller, P. Wilson, N. Paschalidis, S. A. Fuselier, K. Pickens, E. Hertzberg, C. J. Pollock, J. Scherrer, P. B. Wood, E. T. Donald, D. Aaron, J. Furman, D. George, R. S. Gurnee, R. S. Hourani, A. Jacques, T. Johns...

2016
[30]

Pollock, T

C. Pollock, T. Moore, A. Jacques, J. Burch, U. Gliese, Y. Saito, T. Omoto, L. Avanov, A. Barrie, V. Cof- fey, J. Dorelli, D. Gershman, B. Giles, T. Rosnack, C. Salo, S. Yokota, M. Adrian, C. Aoustin, C. Auletti, S. Aung, V. Bigio, N. Cao, M. Chandler, D. Chor- nay, K. Christia...

2016
[31]

D. J. Gershman, J. C. Dorelli, A. F.-Vi˜ nas, and C. J. Pollock, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 120, 6633 (2015)

2015
[32]

Richard, Yu

L. Richard, Yu. V. Khotyaintsev, D. B. Graham, M. I. Sitnov, O. Le Contel, and P.-A. Lindqvist, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 126, e2021JA029152 (2021)

2021
[33]

Asano, T

Y. Asano, T. Mukai, M. Hoshino, Y. Saito, H. Hayakawa, and T. Nagai, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 108, 10.1029/2002JA009785 (2003)

2003 doi
[34]

Vaivads, A

A. Vaivads, A. Retin` o, Yu. V. Khotyaintsev, and M. Andr´ e, Annales Geophysicae29, 1917 (2011)

2011
[35]

Nagai, I

T. Nagai, I. Shinohara, M. Fujimoto, S. Machida, R. Nakamura, Y. Saito, and T. Mukai, Journal of Geo- physical Research: Space Physics 108, 2003JA009900 (2003)

2003
[36]

D. J. Gershman, L. A. Avanov, S. A. Boardsen, J. C. Dorelli, U. Gliese, A. C. Barrie, C. Schiff, W. R. Pa- terson, R. B. Torbert, B. L. Giles, and C. J. Pollock, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 122, 10.1002/2017JA024518 (2017)

2017 doi
[37]

M. N. S. Qureshi, H. A. Shah, G. Murtaza, S. J. Schwartz, and F. Mahmood, Physics of Plasmas 11, 3819 (2004)

2004
[38]

Pierrard and M

V. Pierrard and M. Lazar, Solar Physics 267, 153 (2010)

2010
[39]

J. J. Mor´ e, in Numerical Analysis, Vol. 630, edited by G. A. Watson (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 1978) pp. 105–116

1978
[40]

M. Oka, T. D. Phan, M. Øieroset, D. L. Turner, J. F. Drake, X. Li, S. A. Fuselier, D. J. Gershman, B. L. Giles, R. E. Ergun, R. B. Torbert, H. Y. Wei, R. J. Strangeway, C. T. Russell, and J. L. Burch, Physics of Plasmas 29, 052904 (2022)

2022
[41]

J. Nan, K. Huang, Q. Lu, S. Lu, R. Wang, J. Xie, J. Zheng, and S. Wang, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 127, e2021JA029996 (2022)

2022
[43]

Egedal, H

J. Egedal, H. Gurram, S. Greess, W. Daughton, and A. Lˆ e, Physics of Plasmas30, 062106 (2023)

2023
[44]

A. Le, A. Stanier, W. Daughton, J. Ng, J. Egedal, W. D. Nystrom, and R. Bird, Physics of Plasmas 26, 102114 (2019)

2019
[45]

Cozzani, Yu

G. Cozzani, Yu. V. Khotyaintsev, D. B. Graham, and M. Andr´ e, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 128, e2022JA031128 (2023)

2023
[46]

Wang, L.-J

S. Wang, L.-J. Chen, N. Bessho, L. M. Kistler, J. R. Shuster, and R. Guo, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 121, 2104 (2016)

2016
[47]

Egedal, A

J. Egedal, A. Le, P. L. Pritchett, and W. Daughton, Physics of Plasmas 18, 102901 (2011)

2011
[48]

D. B. Graham, Yu. V. Khotyaintsev, A. Vaivads, M. Andr´ e, and A. N. Fazakerley, Physical Review Let- ters 112, 215004 (2014)

2014
[49]

Øieroset, T

M. Øieroset, T. D. Phan, J. F. Drake, M. Starkey, S. A. Fuselier, I. J. Cohen, C. C. Haggerty, M. A. Shay, M. Oka, D. J. Gershman, K. Maheshwari, J. L. Burch, R. B. Tor- bert, and R. J. Strangeway, The Astrophysical Journal 971, 144 (2024)

2024
[50]

J. F. Drake, M. Swisdak, T. D. Phan, P. A. Cassak, M. A. Shay, S. T. Lepri, R. P. Lin, E. Quataert, and T. H. Zur- 7 buchen, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 114, A05111 (2009)

2009
[51]

Chael, M

A. Chael, M. Rowan, R. Narayan, M. Johnson, and L. Sironi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 478, 5209 (2018)

2018
[52]

T. E. H. T. Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L5 (2019)

2019
[53]

https://lasp.colorado.edu/mms/sdc/public
[54]

https://pypi.org/project/pyrfu/
[55]

See https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14984107

doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [42]

A. Le, J. Egedal, W. Daughton, J. F. Drake, W. Fox, and N. Katz, Geophysical Research Letters 37, 2009GL041941 (2010)

work page 2010

[2] [1]

Ripperda, M

B. Ripperda, M. Liska, K. Chatterjee, G. Musoke, A. A. Philippov, S. B. Markoff, A. Tchekhovskoy, and Z. Younsi, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 924, L32 (2022)

work page 2022

[3] [2]

Masuda, T

S. Masuda, T. Kosugi, H. Hara, S. Tsuneta, and Y. Ogawara, Nature 371, 495 (1994)

work page 1994

[4] [3]

Angelopoulos, J

V. Angelopoulos, J. P. McFadden, D. Larson, C. W. Carl- son, S. B. Mende, H. Frey, T. Phan, D. G. Sibeck, K.-H. Glassmeier, U. Auster, E. Donovan, I. R. Mann, I. J. Rae, C. T. Russell, A. Runov, X.-Z. Zhou, and L. Kepko, Science 321, 931 (2008)

work page 2008

[5] [4]

Yamada, R

M. Yamada, R. Kulsrud, and H. Ji, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 603 (2010)

2010

[6] [5]

A. Le, J. Egedal, and W. Daughton, Physics of Plasmas 23, 102109 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [6]

M. Oka, J. Birn, J. Egedal, F. Guo, R. E. Ergun, D. L. Turner, Y. Khotyaintsev, K.-J. Hwang, I. J. Cohen, and J. F. Drake, Space Science Reviews 219, 75 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [7]

T. D. Phan, M. A. Shay, J. T. Gosling, M. Fujimoto, J. F. Drake, G. Paschmann, M. Oieroset, J. P. Eastwood, and V. Angelopoulos, Geophysical Research Letters 40, 4475 (2013)

work page 2013