Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Dynamics of phase space vortices in Vlasov plasmas with ion scale inhomogeneity : I Constant frequency drive study

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new ion trapped-particle instability is shown to destabilize a driven ion-scale inhomogeneity in a Vlasov plasma, forcing a two-vortex stream to merge into one.

desk verdict Interesting simulation observations but the central ITPI claim is unsupported: the drive frequency doesn't match the paper's own dispersion relation. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16779 v1 pith:ZIAUP2KX submitted 2026-07-18 physics.plasm-ph physics.comp-ph

Sanjeev Kumar Pandey , Amudon Chingangbam , Rajaraman Ganesh This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.comp-ph PACS 52.35.Fp52.65.Ff
keywords Vlasov-PoissonsimulationphasespacevortexiontrappedparticleinstabilityelectronacousticwavedriveBGKmodesmodecouplingion-scaleinhomogeneity
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 asks what happens when a low-amplitude ion-acoustic wave drive imprints a quasi-stationary ion-scale density inhomogeneity on a collisionless plasma, and then probes that inhomogeneity with an electron acoustic wave. Using high-resolution Vlasov-Poisson simulations with kinetic ions and electrons, the authors find that the driven ion wave does not simply settle into a Bernstein-Greene-Kruskal phase-space vortex state. Instead, as sideband modes grow to match the amplitude of the driven mode, an instability they name ion trapped particle instability (ITPI) sets in, detrapping ions and forcing the two-vortex stream to merge into a single vortex. If real, this instability would be the ion analogue of trapped-particle instability in large-amplitude electron plasma waves, meaning driven ion-scale inhomogeneities have an intrinsic relaxation channel. The paper then shows that an electron acoustic wave launched on this inhomogeneity exhibits wave-wave mode coupling, transient vortex structures, and Langmuir excitation that are absent in a homogeneous background.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are (i) the ion-acoustic drive E_D sin(k_eq x ± ω_IA^D t) multiplied by an adiabatic envelope g(t)=[1+((t-τ)/Δτ)^n]^{-1}, intended to excite ions at the ion-acoustic scale k_eq = 2k_min without disturbing the electron Maxwellian; (ii) the nonlinear sideband modes generated by the drive's finite amplitude, whose growth to amplitude parity with the driven mode at T_D^ion ≈ 65000 ω_pe^{-1} triggers the destabilization; and (iii) the m=2→m=1 vortex merging in ion phase space, interpreted as the signature of ion trapped particle instability. The paper uses mode-amplitude time series, 1D/2D power spectra, phase-space portraits, density fraction, entropy, and energy diagnos

What would settle it

Rerun the identical simulation but set the drive frequency to the linear ion-acoustic value from Eq. (7), about 0.0164; if sideband growth, sideband-parity time ~65000, and m=2 to m=1 transition are unchanged or absent, the role of resonance is settled. Alternatively, measure the phase velocity of the driven mode in the simulation; if it deviates from ω_IA^D/k_eq, the state is not the claimed resonant IA wave.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A constant-frequency, adiabatic ion-acoustic drive creates a self-consistent ion-scale inhomogeneity, but the result is transient: coupled sideband modes (k/k_min=1,3,4,5) grow by inverse Landau damping from a bump in the ion distribution at phase velocities v_φ≈0.021–0.027. When sideband amplitudes equal the driven mode amplitude (~65000 ω_pe^{-1}), the ion phase space becomes unstable — an instability termed ion trapped particle instability (ITPI) — detrapping particles, cascading energy, and merging the m=2 vortex pair into m=1. This is claimed as the ion analogue of trapped-particle instability in large-amplitude electron waves. A subsequent electron acoustic perturbation (k_p/k_min=1, ω

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the assumption that the chosen drive frequency (0.020223) actually resonates with an ion-acoustic wave at the chosen scale; the paper's own dispersion relation with its stated parameters gives a frequency about 23% lower, so if the drive is off-resonant, the background state is not the claimed ion-acoustic BGK state and the subsequent instability conclusions could be mismatched.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The driven ion-scale inhomogeneity is not a stationary BGK-like equilibrium; it passes through an ion trapped-particle-instability phase at a predictable time when sideband amplitude reaches the driven mode amplitude.
  • The m=2 to m=1 vortex transition defines an energy-cascading route from shorter to longer wavelength in ion phase space, visible in the spectrogram as a band of generated frequencies.
  • An electron acoustic wave launched on this inhomogeneous background behaves qualitatively differently than in a homogeneous plasma: Langmuir excitation during the drive, intermediate separatrix vortices, and a transient vortex at zero electron velocity.
  • The adiabatic envelope drive design keeps electrons Maxwellian for 120000 ω_pe^{-1} even while ions are strongly perturbed, giving a recipe for creating ion-scale background inhomogeneities in kinetic simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the resonance offset is ignored, the sideband-parity criterion suggests a general instability-onset predictor: any driven electrostatic wave whose coupled sidebands reach the primary mode's amplitude will undergo vortex merging; this could be tested in electron-driven or multi-species systems.
  • The EAW response implies that ion-scale inhomogeneity acts as a nonlinear mode-coupling agent; the presence of Langmuir bands during the EA drive could be used as a diagnostic for background ion density fluctuations, in simulations and possibly in experiments with controlled inhomogeneities.
  • A direct follow-up is a drive-frequency scan across the linear ion-acoustic resonance; if ITPI disappears at exact resonance, the instability is a detuning effect; if it persists, it is a true nonlinear sideband phenomenon.
  • The transient v=0 electron vortex, if reproducible, could indicate a new zero-velocity trapping channel mediated by the ion background, testable by measuring electron distribution flattening at v=0 during relaxation.
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. This manuscript reports 1D Vlasov–Poisson simulations (VPPM-OMP 1.0) of a plasma with kinetic ions and kinetic electrons. A low-amplitude electric-field drive at a frequency labeled 'ion acoustic' is used to create a quasi-stationary ion-scale (QSIS) inhomogeneity; the authors observe growth of sideband modes, an amplitude-equivalence event at T_ion^D ≈ 6.5×10^4 ω_pe^-1, and a transition of ion phase-space vortices from m=2 to m=1, which they term ion trapped particle instability (ITPI). An electron-acoustic (EA) perturbation is then launched on top of the QSIS background and compared with the same EA perturbation in a homogeneous plasma, with reported differences in LAN-mode generation, intermediate vortex structures, and mode-coupling signatures. The paper concludes that the QSIS state is a steady-state equilibrium and that the ITPI and subsequent mode transition arise from energy cascading via wave-wave coupling.

Significance. If established, the ITPI would be a new ion-phase-space instability, and the paper would be a first self-consistent kinetic study of BGK/EAW dynamics on an ion-scale inhomogeneous background. The simulations are long-time, high-resolution, and supported by energy-conservation and entropy diagnostics, which is a strength. However, the central ITPI claim is supported only by qualitative amplitude plots; no growth-rate measurement, threshold scan, or sideband dispersion comparison is provided. In addition, the drive-frequency relation in Eq. (7) is internally inconsistent with the parameters used in Sec. 4.1. These are load-bearing issues for the interpretation of the QSIS state and the ITPI claim, so the paper requires substantive revision before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (7), Sec. 4.1] The stated dispersion does not yield the simulation frequency. With k_eq=0.8, m_r=1836, T_r=0.1, γ_e=1, γ_i=3, Eq. (7) gives ω_IA^D = 0.8/sqrt(1836×1.3) ≈ 0.0164, but the simulations use 0.020223. Even the physically expected IA frequency k_eq sqrt((γ_e+γ_i T_r)/m_r) is ≈0.0213, still ~5% above the used value. The paper therefore does not currently demonstrate that the QSIS state is the intended IA/BGK-like mode. Please correct the dispersion relation, state the exact linear IA phase velocity used, and justify any offset as a nonlinear frequency shift, or rerun with a resonant drive. Note also that g(t) in Eq. (6) is a finite-width pulse (τ=10000, Δτ=6000), so the effective drive spectrum is broad; this should be incorporated into the resonance discussion.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Figs. 2 and 6] The label 'ion trapped particle instability' is not quantitatively established. The paper shows sideband growth and amplitude equivalence at T_ion^D, but does not measure an exponential growth rate, compare with a TPI sideband dispersion, or test whether the sidebands continue to grow after the drive is switched off at t=20000 ω_pe^-1. The observed growth could be a forced response to the pulse spectrum or to nonlinear mode coupling rather than to an instability. Please provide a growth-rate measurement, a drive-amplitude threshold scan, or an independent instability calculation. This is essential because the existence of ITPI is the paper's central new claim.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, coupling parameter and sideband set] The selection of sideband modes k/k_min = 1,3,4,5 with N∼3 is not derived. The formula quoted from Ref. [55], |k ± N k0| with k0 = k_eq = 2 k_min and N=3, yields modes at 4 and 8 k_min, not the set 1,3,4,5. The paper also does not show the full Fourier spectrum from which these modes were selected. Since the amplitude-equivalence condition at T_ion^D and the m=2→m=1 transition rest on these modes, please either derive the sideband set from the drive parameters or present the complete spectrum and justify the selection empirically.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, homogeneous comparison] The comparison is described as using 'exact parameters', but the homogeneous case has immobile ions and no prior IA drive, while the QSIS case has kinetic ions with a non-Maxwellian hump and a nonzero background electric field. The paper should clarify whether the reported differences in EAW response (LAN generation, intermediate structures, v=0 vortex) are due to the QSIS background as such or to the different ion model. A control with kinetic ions and uniform density, or an explicit statement that immobile ions are the intended control, would strengthen the causal interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7)] The formula as written has a misplaced parenthesis; if the intended expression is k_eq sqrt((γ_e+γ_i T_r)/m_r), the numerical value is ≈0.0213, not 0.020223. Please verify the normalization and correct the equation.
  2. [Fig. 16 caption vs Sec. 4.2] The EA drive frequency is given as 0.624 in the text and Fig. 12, but as 0.625 in the Fig. 16 caption. Please make the values consistent.
  3. [Fig. 12 caption and Sec. 4.2] The LAN phase velocity is given as v_LAN=3.21 with ω=1.284 and k=0.4 in Fig. 12, while Sec. 4.2 and Fig. 14 give v_LAN=3.025. Please reconcile these values.
  4. [General] Typos and grammar issues: 'adibatic', 'wvave-wave', 'sepratix', 'consitions', 'descretization', 'drve', and 'sufficent' should be corrected.
  5. [Table 1] The phase velocities in Table 1 are computed as ω_k/k with k = (k/k_min) k_min; please double-check entries such as k/k_min=1 (ω=0.0106, v=0.0265) and k/k_min=5 (ω=0.0425, v=0.0213) for consistency with the definition of k_min.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims are simulation observations; self-citations are only analogies, and the Eq. 7/drive-frequency mismatch is an internal-consistency issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

This is a simulation paper whose central results (sideband growth, ion detrapping at T_ion^D ≈ 65000 ω_pe^-1, m=2→m=1 transition, EA/LAN vortex formation) are printed directly from the Vlasov-Poisson evolution; they are not derived from, or fitted to, the input drive parameters. The IA drive frequency and EA frequency are inputs; Table 1 reports measured FFT peaks, and although the k_eq/k_min=2 peak trivially records the drive frequency, the paper does not repackage that as a successful prediction of the dispersion. The references to the authors' earlier TPI work [23,24] are used only as analogy/comparison ("Similar destabilization effect ... was observed by the Authors [23,24]") and do not carry the argument; the simulation itself supplies the phase-space and mode-amplitude evidence. The one substantive defect is arithmetic: Eq. (7) with m_r=1836, T_r=0.1, γ_e=1, γ_i=3, k_eq=0.8 gives ω_IA ≈ 0.0164, not the stated ω_IA^D=0.020223, and likewise the EA phase velocity 1.56 differs from the cited Holloway–Dorning 1.31. That makes the driven states possibly off-resonant and mislabeled, and it should be corrected or justified, but it is not circularity: the code still solves the stated driven Vlasov–Poisson system, and no conclusion is equal to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on several hand-chosen frequencies and a hand-chosen coupling number N; the drive frequencies do not match the paper's own dispersion formulas. No quantitative instability analysis (e.g., bounce-resonance match) is provided for the new ITPI instability.

free parameters (4)
  • IA drive frequency ω_IA^D = 0.020223
    Stated as computed from Eq. (7) but direct evaluation with m_r=1836, T_r=0.1, γ_e=1, γ_i=3, k_eq=0.8 gives 0.0164. The chosen value matches a phase velocity 0.0253, i.e. the frequency is effectively fitted to the observed nonlinear mode rather than derived.
  • EA drive frequency ω_P^EA = 0.624
    Not derived; Holloway-Dorning EAW relation ω=1.31 k v_th with k=0.4 gives 0.524. The chosen value (phase velocity 1.56) is 19% higher, so the drive is effectively fitted to produce a desired EAW-like response.
  • Coupling parameter N = ~3
    The paper states 'we consider N∼3, since we can not directly determine it' and uses this to select which sideband modes (k/k_min=1,3,4,5) are analyzed; the sideband-growth claim depends on this choice.
  • Drive envelope parameters τ, δτ, n = 10000, 6000, 14
    Hand-chosen to make the IA drive adiabatic; no sensitivity study is provided.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption 1D Vlasov-Poisson model with kinetic ions and electrons is an adequate description of the physics
    Used throughout; magnetized, collisional, and multi-dimensional effects are neglected.
  • domain assumption The PPM advection + Cheng-Knorr splitting scheme conserves energy and entropy well enough that observed vortex dynamics are physical
    The paper uses energy/entropy diagnostics (Figs. 10-11, 17-18) as evidence, but no convergence study is provided.
  • standard math Sideband growth obeys the Kaw-Lin-Dawson nonlinear coupling scaling N ∼ A/(γ k_0^2)
    Invoked in Sec. 4.1 to justify sideband mode selection; prior literature [55].
invented entities (1)
  • Ion trapped particle instability (ITPI)
    purpose: Explains the destabilization and m=2→m=1 vortex transition in the ion phase space during QSIS formation
    No quantitative prediction (growth rate, bounce resonance condition) is given; the paper only shows qualitative simulation signatures. The term is an ion analogue of electron TPI, asserted by analogy with refs [23,24].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of phase space vortices in Vlasov plasmas with ion scale inhomogeneity : I Constant frequency drive study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZIAUP2KX

@misc{pith2026260716779,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of phase space vortices in Vlasov plasmas with ion scale inhomogeneity : I Constant frequency drive study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZIAUP2KX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16779}
}
read the original abstract

Formation dynamics and stability starting from various phase space vortex (PSV) or Bernstein-Greene-Kruskal (BGK) structures i.e electron acoustic wave (EAW), Langmuir (LAN) waves is investigated in the presence of a quasi-stationary ion scale (QSIS) inhomogeneity using high resolution Vlasov-Poisson simulations with VPPM-OMP 1.0 solver. In a one dimensional, collisionless, periodic, unmagnetized plasma with kinetic ions and kinetic electrons, we first create a QSIS inhomogeneity using low amplitude electric field drive at ion acoustic (IA) frequency with k eq = mk min [where m = 2 is the mode number, k min corresponds to the longest scale in the system]. While creating QSIS inhomogeneity, we have demonstrated the existence of ion trapped particle instability (ITPI) which saturates as the amplitude of sideband modes become comparable to that of the primary nonlinear mode (quite analogous to the trapped particle instability in large amplitude electron plasma waves). Also, mode transition from m = 2 to m = 1 is observed during relaxation period due to the energy cascading process. Finally, an electron acoustic (EA) perturbation of scale k p = k min [m = 1] is applied on top of the QSIS inhomogeneity to determine its response in the presence of background ion scale inhomogeneity. Some key observations such as formation of transient PSV, wave-wave mode coupling interaction and various frequency generation alongwith comparative investigation with EA perturbation launched in the absence of ion scale inhomogeneity is also reported.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16779 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Temporal variation of external electric field drive Edrive(t) i.e QSIS inhomogeneity construction drive [E Equil IAW ] (defined in Eq. 5) applied from t = 0 ω −1 pe to t = 20000 ω −1 pe and electron acoustic perturbation drive [EP ert EAW (x, t)] (defined in Eq. 8). Zoomed inset plot shows the electron acoustic perturbation applied from t = 120000 ω −1 pe to t = 121000 ω −1 pe . Solid lines denotes the various drive… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal evolution of QSIS inhomogeneity mode i.e keq/kmin = 2 and coupled sideband modes i.e k/kmin = 1, 3, 4, 5 driven adiabatically using IA drive [Eq. 5] with driving frequency ω D IA = 0.020223 upto t = 20000 ω −1 pe indicated by the solid line. Inset plot shows zoomed variation from t = 60000 ω −1 pe to t = 70000 ω −1 pe indicating the amplitude equivalence between equilibrium and sideband modes. of phase spac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variation of (a) |δEk(ω)| 2 vs oscillation frequency ω/ωpe using 1D fast Fourier transform (FFT) analysis for QSIS inhomogeneity keq/kmin = 2 and sideband modes k/kmin = 1, 3, 4, 5 and (b) 2D (ω, k) power spectrum for adiabatic equilibrium IA drive [Eq. 5] case with kmin = 0.4, ED 0 = 0.025 and ω D IA = 0.020223. Oscillation frequency corresponding to the maximum amplitude for each interacting mode in (a) are listed… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatially averaged distribution function ˆf(v, t) [Eq. 11] plot of (a) ions and (b) electrons at different times i.e t = 0, 20000, 60000, 65000, 120000 ω −1 pe and t = 0, 20000, 65000, 120000 ω −1 pe respectively for adiabatic IA drive [Eq. 5] case. In Fig. (a) one can…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase space portrait of electron distribution function fe(x, v) at different times i.e (a) t = 0 ω −1 pe , (b) t = 20000 ω −1 pe , (c) t = 65000 ω −1 pe and (d) t = 120000 ω −1 pe during QSIS inhomogeneity creation using external IA drive as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phase space portrait of ion distribution function fi(x, v) at various times i.e (a) t = 0 ω −1 pe , (b) t = 20000 ω −1 pe , (c) t = 60000 ω −1 pe , (d) t = 65000 ω −1 pe , (e) t = 70000 ω −1 pe , (f) t = 75000 ω −1 pe , (g) t = 80000 ω −1 pe , (h) t = 90000 ω −1 pe and…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 3D surface plot of the ion distribution function fi(x, v) at times t = 20000 ω −1 pe (left) and t = 120000 ω −1 pe (right) for QSIS inhomogeneity construction run using IA drive [Eq. 5] indicating the vortex structure transition from mode m = 2 to m = 1 via the energy …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temporal evolution of the excess density fraction (EDF) defined in Eq. 12 for (a) electrons and (b) ions with IA drive [5] applied upto t = 20000 ω −1 pe . Solid black line denotes the time when the IA drve is switched off. One can observe the increase in the trapping …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spatial variation of (a) ion density ni(x), (b) electron density ne(x) and (c) electric field E(x) at different times i.e t = 0, 20000, 65000 and 120000 ω −1 pe for QSIS inhomogeneity construction run with IA drive applied from t = 0 ω −1 pe to t = 20000 ω −1 pe . Comp…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Signature of the difference in entropy ∆S (defined in Eq. 13, 14) of ions and electrons with respect to time for QSIS inhomogeneity construction run with IA drive applied from t = 0 ω −1 pe to t = 20000 ω −1 pe with grid sizes [Nx×Nv = 1024×6000]. Solid line at t = 20…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Relative total, kinetic and potential energies (∆T E, ∆KE, ∆P E) [defined in Eq. 15, 16 and 17] signatures with respect to time for QSIS inhomogeneity construction run with IA drive applied from t = 0 ω −1 pe to t = 20000 ω −1 pe . Spatial and velocity (x, v) domain g…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Phase space portrait of electron distribution function fe(x, v) at different times i.e (a) t = 120000 ω −1 pe , (b) t = 121000 ω −1 pe , (c) t = 123000 ω −1 pe , (d) t = 125000 ω −1 pe , (e) t = 127000 ω −1 pe and (f) t = 130000 ω −1 pe for EAW perturbation driven fro…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Phase space portrait of electron distribution function fe(x, v) at different times i.e (a) t = 0 ω −1 pe , (b) t = 1000 ω −1 pe , (c) t = 3000 ω −1 pe , (d) t = 5000 ω −1 pe , (e) t = 7000 ω −1 pe and (f) t = 10000 ω −1 pe for EAW perturbation driven from 0 < t < 1000…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Spatially averaged distribution function ˆf(v, t) [Eq. 11] plot of (a) ions and (b) electrons at different times i.e t = 121000, 125000, 130000 ω −1 pe for EAW perturbation applied from 0 < t < 121000 ω −1 pe in the presence of QSIS inhomogeneity with kp/kmin = 1, EP …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: However, the formation of the LAN mode begins after the EA drive is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: 2D (ω, k) power spectrum plot for (a) homogeneous and (b) QSIS inhomogeneous case where EAW perturbation is applied from 0 < t < 121000 ω −1 pe in the presence of QSIS inhomogeneity with kp/kmin = 1, EP 0 = 0.025 and ω P EA = 0.624. In (a) we observe the major power i…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Portrait of spectogram i.e variation of frequency ω/ωmin with respect to time for different intervals (a) t = 0 to 20000 ω −1 pe , (b) t = 50000 to 70000 ω −1 pe , (c) t = 110000 to 120000 ω −1 pe and (d) t = 120000 to 130000 ω −1 pe where IA drive is applied between …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Variation of difference in entropy ∆S[i,e] (defined in Eq. 13, 14) of ions and electrons with respect to time for EAW perturbation driven from 0 < t < 121000 ω −1 pe in the presence of QSIS inhomogeneity with kp/kmin = 1, EP 0 = 0.025, ω P EA = 0.624 and grid sizes [N…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Relative total, kinetic and potential energies (∆T E, ∆KE[i,e] , ∆P E) [defined in Eq. 15, 16 and 17] signatures with respect to time for the case where EAW perturbation is applied from 0 < t < 121000 ω −1 pe in the presence of QSIS inhomogeneity with kp/kmin = 1, EP …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy conservation and entropy diagnostics suggested that obtained QSIS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [55]

    Kaw P K, Lin A T and Dawson J M 1973The Physics of Fluids161967– 1975 (Preprinthttps://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1694242) URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1694242

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1694242 1975

  2. [1]

    Rev.108(3) 546–550 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.108.546

    Bernstein I B, Greene J M and Kruskal M D 1957Phys. Rev.108(3) 546–550 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.108.546

    doi:10.1103/physrev.108.546

  3. [2]

    Landau(Elsevier Science) ISBN 9781483152707 URL https://books.google.co.in/books?id=epc4BQAAQBAJ

    Haar D 2013Collected Papers of L.D. Landau(Elsevier Science) ISBN 9781483152707 URL https://books.google.co.in/books?id=epc4BQAAQBAJ

  4. [3]

    O’Neil T 1965The Physics of Fluids82255–2262 (Preprint https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1761193) URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1761193

    doi:10.1063/1.1761193

  5. [4]

    Kruer W L, Dawson J M and Sudan R N 1969Phys. Rev. Lett.23(15) 838–841 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.838

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.23.838

  6. [5]

    Kruer W L and Dawson J M 1970The Physics of Fluids132747–2751 (Preprinthttps://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1692859) URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1692859

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1692859

  7. [6]

    Goldman M V 1970The Physics of Fluids131281–1289 (Preprint https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1693061) URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1693061

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1693061

  8. [7]

    Rosen B, Schmidt G and Kruer W L 1972The Physics of Fluids152001– 2006 (Preprinthttps://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1693814) URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1693814

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1693814 2006

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    Schamel H 1975Journal of Plasma Physics13139–145

  2. [9]

    Canosa J and Wray A 1976The Physics of Fluids191958–1966 (Preprinthttps://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.861413) URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.861413

    1966 doi

  3. [10]

    Shoucri M M 1978The Physics of Fluids211359–1365 (Preprint https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.862377) URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.862377 Dynamics of phase space vortices in Vlasov plasmas with ion scale inhomogeneity : I Constant frequency drive study26

    doi

  4. [11]

    Shoucri M 1980The Physics of Fluids232030–2033 (Preprint https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.862889) URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.862889

    doi

  5. [12]

    Schamel H 1982Phys. Rev. Lett.48(7) 481–483 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.481

    doi

  6. [13]

    Koch B P and Leven R W 1983Physica Scripta27220–224 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/27/3/013

    doi

  7. [14]

    Ghizzo A, Izrar B, Bertrand P, Fijalkow E, Feix M R and Shoucri M 1988The Physics of Fluids3172–82 (Preprinthttps://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.866579) URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.866579

    doi

  8. [15]

    Manfredi G 1997Phys. Rev. Lett.79(15) 2815–2818 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.2815

    doi

  9. [16]

    Manfredi G and Bertrand P 2000Physics of Plasmas72425–2431 (Preprint https://doi.org/10.1063/1.874081) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.874081

    doi

  10. [17]

    Brunetti M, Califano F and Pegoraro F 2000Phys. Rev. E62(3) 4109–4114 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.62.4109

    doi

  11. [18]

    Brunner S and Valeo E J 2004Phys. Rev. Lett.93(14) 145003 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.145003

    doi

  12. [19]

    Shoucri M 2006Journal of Plasma Physics72861–864

  13. [20]

    Brunner S, Berger R L, Cohen B I, Hausammann L and Valeo E J 2014Physics of Plasmas21102104 (Preprinthttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.4896753) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4896753

    doi

  14. [21]

    Shoucri M 2017Laser and Particle Beams35706–721

  15. [22]

    Yang T, Feng Q S, Wang Y X, Zhou Y Z, Ban S S, Zhang S T, Xie R, Jiang Y, Cao L H, Liu Z J and Zheng C Y 2020Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion62095009 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ab9d68

    doi

  16. [23]

    Pandey S K and Ganesh R 2021Physica Scripta96125616 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ac25a1

    doi

  17. [24]

    Pandey S K and Ganesh R 2021Physica Scripta96125615 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ac25a2

    doi

  18. [25]

    Temerin M, Cerny K, Lotko W and Mozer F S 1982Phys. Rev. Lett.48(17) 1175–1179 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1175

    doi

  19. [26]

    Franz J R, Kintner P M and Pickett J S 1998Geophysical Research Letters251277–1280 (Preprinthttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/98GL50870) URL https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/98GL50870

    doi

  20. [27]

    Mangeney A, Salem C, Lacombe C, Bougeret J L, Perche C, Manning R, Kellogg P J, Goetz K, Monson S J and Bosqued J M 1999Annales Geophysicae17307–320 URL https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/17/307/1999/

    1999

  21. [28]

    Lynov J P, Michelsen P, P´ ecseli H L, Rasmussen J J, Sa´ eki K and Turikov V A 1979Physica Scripta20328 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/20/3-4/005

    doi

  22. [29]

    Saeki K, Michelsen P, P´ ecseli H L and Rasmussen J J 1979Phys. Rev. Lett.42(8) 501–504 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.501

    doi

  23. [30]

    Danielson J R, Anderegg F and Driscoll C F 2004Phys. Rev. Lett.92(24) 245003 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.245003

    doi

  24. [31]

    Raghunathan M and Ganesh R 2013Physics of Plasmas20032106 (Preprint https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4794320) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.4794320

    doi

  25. [32]

    thesis Institute for Plasma Research

    Trivedi P 2019Driven Phase Space Structures In A 1D Vlasov-Poisson PlasmaPh.D. thesis Institute for Plasma Research

  26. [33]

    Holloway J P and Dorning J J 1991Phys. Rev. A44(6) 3856–3868 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.44.3856

    doi

  27. [34]

    Valentini F, O’Neil T M and Dubin D H E 2006Physics of Plasmas13052303 ISSN 1070-664X URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.2198467 Dynamics of phase space vortices in Vlasov plasmas with ion scale inhomogeneity : I Constant frequency drive study27

    doi

  28. [35]

    Valentini F, O’Neil T M and Dubin D H 2025Physics of Plasmas32042104 ISSN 1070-664X URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0256797

    doi

  29. [36]

    Anderegg F, Driscoll C F, Dubin D H E, O’Neil T M and Valentini F 2009Physics of Plasmas16 055705 ISSN 1070-664X URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.3099646

    doi

  30. [37]

    Anderegg F, Driscoll C F, Dubin D H E and O’Neil T M 2009Phys. Rev. Lett.102(9) 095001 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.095001

    doi

  31. [38]

    Rivera D M, Carril H A, Araneda J A and Navarro R E 2025Physica Scripta100105605 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ae0c47

    doi

  32. [39]

    Breizman B N, Berk H L, Pekker M S, Porcelli F, Stupakov G V and Wong K L 1997Physics of Plasmas41559–1568 ISSN 1070-664X URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.872286

    doi

  33. [40]

    Eremin D Y and Berk H L 2002Physics of Plasmas9772–785 ISSN 1070-664X URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1436492

    doi

  34. [41]

    Bertsche W, Fajans J and Friedland L 2003Phys. Rev. Lett.91(26) 265003 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.265003

    doi

  35. [42]

    Friedland L, Peinetti F, Bertsche W, Fajans J and Wurtele J 2004Physics of Plasmas114305–4317 ISSN 1070-664X URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.1781166

    doi

  36. [43]

    Peinetti F, Bertsche W, Fajans J, Wurtele J and Friedland L 2005Physics of Plasmas12062112 ISSN 1070-664X URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.1928251

    doi

  37. [44]

    Trivedi P and Ganesh R 2016Physics of Plasmas23062112 (Preprint https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4953603) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.4953603

    doi

  38. [45]

    Trivedi P and Ganesh R 2017Physics of Plasmas24032107 (Preprint https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4978560) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.4978560

    doi

  39. [46]

    Pandey S K and Ganesh R 2021AIP Advances11025229 (Preprint https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0030082) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0030082

    doi

  40. [47]

    Pandey S K, Mahapatra J and Ganesh R 2022Physica Scripta97105602 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ac90f4

    doi

  41. [48]

    Pandey S K and Ganesh R 2024Physica Scripta99125608 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ad8cae

    doi

  42. [49]

    Saini V, Pandey S K, Trivedi P and Ganesh R 2018Physics of Plasmas25092107 (Preprint https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5024376) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.5024376

    doi

  43. [50]

    thesis Institute for Plasma Research

    Pandey S K 2023Linear and non-linear waves in spatially non-uniform 1D Vlasov-Poisson plasmas.Ph.D. thesis Institute for Plasma Research

  44. [52]

    Cheng C and Knorr G 1976Journal of Computational Physics22330 – 351 ISSN 0021-9991 URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002199917690053X

  45. [53]

    Chen F F 2018Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion(Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London)

  46. [54]

    Feix M R, Bertrand P and Ghizzo A 1994Advances in Kinetic Theory and Computing(World Scientific, Singapore. pp. 45–81.)

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.