pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23756 · v1 · pith:BBN4FQSVnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Probing Solar Wind Structures with Solar Energetic Particle Observations from Solar Orbiter

Xiaohang Chen , Gang Li , Joe Giacalone , Xiangliang Kong , Shuai Fu , Rumeng Zhang , Changyue Zhao , George C. Ho
show 7 more authors
David Lario Zheyi Ding Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber Glenn M. Mason Roberto Bruno Nicolas Wijsen Javier Rodr\'iguez-Pacheco
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords solar energetic particlesSEP flux deflectionsmagnetic flux tubestangential discontinuitiessolar wind structuresSolar Orbiter
0
0 comments X

The pith

Solar Orbiter data show solar energetic particle flux deflections marking magnetic flux tube boundaries in the solar wind.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Researchers using Solar Orbiter observations identify recurring sudden shifts in the arrival directions of solar energetic particles during events. These shifts, termed SEP flux deflections, occur without net change in total intensity, appear dispersionless from tens of keV to over 100 MeV, and display steep spatial gradients. The events coincide with crossings into plasma regions of distinct properties separated by tangential discontinuities in the magnetic field. Inside the regions the particles stream along the local field direction, interpreted as the axis of embedded flux tubes. The pattern implies that such tubes form a basic organizational feature of the solar wind and that energetic particles can trace their extent and motion.

Core claim

Using Solar Orbiter observations, we identify SEP flux deflections (SFDs) as sudden changes in SEP flux directions where intensities drop in one direction and increase in another without significant net change in total flux magnitude. These deflections occur dispersionlessly across energies from tens of keV to over 100 MeV, exhibit steep intensity gradients, and are typically associated with magnetic flux tubes whose boundary features are consistent with tangential discontinuities. The solar wind inside these structures exhibits distinct plasma properties, and the SEP streaming direction within SFDs aligns closely to the flux-tube axis.

What carries the argument

SEP flux deflections (SFDs), abrupt directional intensity shifts that mark crossings of magnetic flux tube boundaries with tangential discontinuities.

If this is right

  • Magnetic flux tubes are a prevalent structural element of the solar wind.
  • SEPs can serve as an effective diagnostic tool for probing the topology and dynamics of solar wind structures.
  • Solar wind plasma inside the structures shows distinct properties from surrounding regions.
  • SFDs commonly recur multiple times within a single SEP event.
  • SEP streaming direction aligns closely with the flux-tube axis.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If SFDs reliably mark flux tube boundaries, the same signatures in data from other spacecraft could map how tube occurrence varies with distance from the Sun.
  • Particle transport models that treat the interplanetary field as smoothly varying may need adjustment to incorporate discrete tube boundaries.
  • Repeated SFDs within one event could be used to estimate typical tube cross-sections and their lifetimes in the inner heliosphere.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the observed SEP flux deflections result from crossing boundaries of magnetic flux tubes with tangential discontinuities rather than other plasma features or measurement artifacts.

What would settle it

An SFD recorded simultaneously with no measurable change in magnetic field direction, plasma density, or temperature at the expected boundary location.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23756 by Changyue Zhao, David Lario, Gang Li, George C. Ho, Glenn M. Mason, Javier Rodr\'iguez-Pacheco, Joe Giacalone, Nicolas Wijsen, Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber, Roberto Bruno, Rumeng Zhang, Shuai Fu, Xiangliang Kong, Xiaohang Chen, Zheyi Ding.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Energy spectrograms observed by SolO/EPD for two intervals: (a–e) 2022 July 23 21:00 UT to July 24 14:00 UT, and (f-j) from 2023 December 14 16:00 UT to December 15 23:00 UT. In both cases, the top four panels show observations from the HET and EPT in four looking directions (sunward, anti-sunward, north, and south), and the lowest panel shows the averaged spectrogram. The flux intensities in (f-j) are sca… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Magnetic field components in RTN coordinates and energy spectrograms in four looking directions (with the averaged value subtracted) of two SEP events in Figure (1). The vertical dotted lines outlined the selected SFDs intervals in each event. The magnetic field and flux intensities in the right panels are scaled by factors of 1.5 and 10, respectively. only the bulk speed for clarity. The magnetic field li… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SEP and solar wind observations from 05:30 to 10:00 UT on 15 December 2023. The SFD interval is marked by vertical dotted lines. (a–d) Background-subtracted energy spectrograms in four looking directions. (e) Magnetic field components in RTN coordinates. (f) Proton number density. (g) Proton temperature. (h) Bulk solar wind speed. (i)The angle between the magnetic field and the ambient solar wind flow. (j)… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Discontinuity analysis across the SFD boundaries on 15 December 2023. (a-b) Magnetic hodograms across the leading (07:16:05 UT) and trailing (08:34:23 UT) boundaries, where the color bar denotes the progression of time. The blue plane and red arrow indicate the discontinuity plane and its nor￾mal vector obtained from the SVD method. The orange sphere (radius = |B|) represents the averaged field magnitude d… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic illustrating SolO traversing meandering magnetic flux tubes (not to scale). Tubes filled with SEPs are shown in yellow, while the empty tube is left uncolored. These structures are carried outward into the heliosphere by the solar wind and may tangle up in interplanetary space ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The propagation of solar energetic particles (SEPs) through the heliosphere is primarily guided by the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) which is embedded in the solar wind plasma. Large-scale IMF structures can drive transient variations in SEP intensities. Using Solar Orbiter observations, we identify a distinct class of SEP variations: SEP flux deflections (SFDs), which are commonly detected in SEP events and frequently recur multiple times within a single event. SFDs are characterized by a sudden change in SEP flux directions where the intensities drop in one direction and increase in another direction, without a significant net change in total flux magnitude. These deflections occur dispersionlessly across a broad energy range-from tens of keV to over 100 MeV-and exhibit steep intensity gradients. SFDs are typically associated with magnetic flux tubes with boundary features consistent with tangential discontinuities. We further show that the solar wind inside these structures exhibits distinct plasma properties, and that the SEP streaming direction within SFDs aligns closely to the flux-tube axis. These observations suggest that magnetic flux tubes are a prevalent structural element of the solar wind, and demonstrate that SEPs can serve as an effective diagnostic tool for probing the topology and dynamics of solar wind structures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports observations from Solar Orbiter of a class of SEP intensity variations termed SEP flux deflections (SFDs). These are characterized as sudden, dispersionless changes in SEP arrival direction (with intensity dropping in one direction and rising in another) without net change in total flux, occurring across energies from tens of keV to >100 MeV. The authors associate SFDs with crossings of magnetic flux tube boundaries exhibiting tangential-discontinuity signatures, note distinct plasma properties inside the structures, and report that SEP streaming aligns with the inferred flux-tube axis. They conclude that flux tubes are a prevalent solar-wind structural element and that SEPs constitute an effective diagnostic for solar-wind topology.

Significance. If the mapping from SFDs to flux-tube boundaries is robust, the work would supply direct evidence that magnetic flux tubes are common in the solar wind and would establish SEPs as a practical remote-sensing tool for heliospheric magnetic structure, complementing in-situ magnetometer data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that SFDs arise from crossings of flux-tube boundaries that are tangential discontinuities rests on the statement that these features are 'typically associated' and exhibit 'distinct plasma properties,' yet supplies no quantitative thresholds, identification algorithm (minimum-variance analysis, Walén test, normal-component continuity), event-selection criteria, or control comparison against non-SFD intervals.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no error bars, recurrence statistics, or quantitative measures of alignment between SEP streaming and flux-tube axis are reported, so the assertion that 'SEPs can serve as an effective diagnostic tool' cannot be evaluated from the given text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the abstract while preserving its concise nature.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that SFDs arise from crossings of flux-tube boundaries that are tangential discontinuities rests on the statement that these features are 'typically associated' and exhibit 'distinct plasma properties,' yet supplies no quantitative thresholds, identification algorithm (minimum-variance analysis, Walén test, normal-component continuity), event-selection criteria, or control comparison against non-SFD intervals.

    Authors: The full manuscript applies minimum-variance analysis and the Walén test to identify tangential-discontinuity boundaries, requiring the normal-component of B to remain consistent with zero within uncertainties and the Walén relation to hold. Plasma parameters (density, temperature, speed) are compared statistically inside versus outside the structures, and SFD intervals are selected only when directional intensity changes occur without net flux change. A control sample of non-SFD periods is examined to confirm the association is not coincidental. We will add a brief clause to the abstract referencing these methods and the control comparison. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no error bars, recurrence statistics, or quantitative measures of alignment between SEP streaming and flux-tube axis are reported, so the assertion that 'SEPs can serve as an effective diagnostic tool' cannot be evaluated from the given text.

    Authors: The main text quantifies recurrence (multiple SFDs per event in the majority of cases examined), reports mean alignment angles between SEP streaming and the flux-tube axis together with standard deviations, and includes error bars derived from the directional measurements. These numbers underpin the diagnostic claim. We will incorporate the key quantitative results (e.g., typical alignment angle and recurrence fraction) into the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational associations with no derivation chain or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper presents Solar Orbiter SEP and plasma observations, identifies SFDs by their sudden directional changes without net flux change, and reports associations with flux-tube boundaries and aligned streaming. No equations, parameters fitted to subsets, self-citations as load-bearing premises, or renamings of known results appear in the provided text. The central claim is an interpretive suggestion from data patterns, not a reduction of any output to its own inputs by construction. This is the expected non-finding for an observational study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is purely observational and relies on standard domain assumptions about SEP propagation without introducing new free parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The propagation of solar energetic particles through the heliosphere is primarily guided by the interplanetary magnetic field embedded in the solar wind plasma.
    Explicitly stated as the foundational premise in the opening sentence of the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5809 in / 1121 out tokens · 37755 ms · 2026-05-25T02:51:05.012250+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2013, ApJ, 766, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/2

    Arnold, L., Li, G., Li, X., & Yan, Y. 2013, ApJ, 766, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/2

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/766/1/2 2013

  2. [2]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf99a

    Bizien, N., Dudok de Wit, T., Froment, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf99a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf99a 2023

  3. [3]

    Borovsky, J. E. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A08110, doi: 10.1029/2007JA012684

    work page doi:10.1029/2007ja012684 2008

  4. [4]

    2001, Planet

    Bruno, R., Carbone, V., Veltri, P., Pietropaolo, E., & Bavassano, B. 2001, Planet. Space Sci., 49, 1201, doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(01)00061-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(01)00061-7 2001

  5. [5]

    Chang, T., Tam, S. W. Y., & Wu, C.-C. 2004, Physics of Plasmas, 11, 1287, doi: 10.1063/1.1667496

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1667496 2004

  6. [6]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f43

    Chen, X., Giacalone, J., & Guo, F. 2022, ApJ, 941, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f43

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f43 2022

  7. [7]

    E., & Giacalone, J

    Chollet, E. E., & Giacalone, J. 2008, ApJ, 688, 1368, doi: 10.1086/592378

    work page doi:10.1086/592378 2008

  8. [8]

    E., & Giacalone, J

    Chollet, E. E., & Giacalone, J. 2011, ApJ, 728, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/1/64 2011

  9. [9]

    2007, ApJ, 659, 1761, doi: 10.1086/511811

    Meechai, J. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1761, doi: 10.1086/511811

    work page doi:10.1086/511811 2007

  10. [10]

    2005, ApJL, 633, L49, doi: 10.1086/498137

    Rowlands, G. 2005, ApJL, 633, L49, doi: 10.1086/498137

    work page doi:10.1086/498137 2005

  11. [11]

    2011, Nature Physics, 7, 539, doi: 10.1038/nphys1965

    Daughton, W., Roytershteyn, V., Karimabadi, H., et al. 2011, Nature Physics, 7, 539, doi: 10.1038/nphys1965

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys1965 2011

  12. [12]

    N., & Kobayashi, S

    Rogers, B. N., & Kobayashi, S. 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L13105, doi: 10.1029/2006GL025957 Dudok de Wit, T., Krasnoselskikh, V. V., Bale, S. D., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5853

    work page doi:10.1029/2006gl025957 2006

  13. [13]

    1992, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 24, 395, doi: 10.1146/annurev.fl.24.010192.002143

    Farge, M. 1992, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 24, 395, doi: 10.1146/annurev.fl.24.010192.002143

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.24.010192.002143 1992

  14. [14]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6 2016

  15. [15]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/28

    Giacalone, J. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/28

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/1/28 2012

  16. [16]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8df1

    Giacalone, J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8df1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8df1 2017

  17. [17]

    Giacalone, J., & Jokipii, J. R. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 520, 204, doi: 10.1086/307452

    work page doi:10.1086/307452 1999

  18. [18]

    R., & Mazur, J

    Giacalone, J., Jokipii, J. R., & Mazur, J. E. 2000, ApJL, 532, L75, doi: 10.1086/312564

    work page doi:10.1086/312564 2000

  19. [19]

    H., & van Loan, C

    Golub, G. H., & van Loan, C. F. 2013, Matrix computations (Johns Hopkins University Press), doi: 10.56021/9781421407944

    work page doi:10.56021/9781421407944 2013

  20. [20]

    Mazur, J. E. 2004, ApJ, 614, 412, doi: 10.1086/423368

    work page doi:10.1086/423368 2004

  21. [21]

    Smith, C. W. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A01107, doi: 10.1029/2004JA010809

    work page doi:10.1029/2004ja010809 2005

  22. [22]

    R., & Kota, J

    Guo, F., Jokipii, J. R., & Kota, J. 2010, ApJ, 725, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/128

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/128 2010

  23. [23]

    C., Mason, G

    Ho, G. C., Mason, G. M., Allen, R. C., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 939799, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.939799

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.939799 2022

  24. [24]

    S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al

    Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937257

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937257 2020

  25. [25]

    W., Ness, N

    Hu, Q., Smith, C. W., Ness, N. F., & Skoug, R. M. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A03102, doi: 10.1029/2003JA010101

    work page doi:10.1029/2003ja010101 2004

  26. [26]

    Jokipii, J. R. 1966, The Astrophysical Journal, 146, 480, doi: 10.1086/148912

    work page doi:10.1086/148912 1966

  27. [27]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa97d7

    Kong, X., Guo, F., Giacalone, J., Li, H., & Chen, Y. 2017, ApJ, 851, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa97d7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa97d7 2017

  28. [28]

    Y., Riley, P., & Raouafi, N

    Lario, D., Kwon, R. Y., Riley, P., & Raouafi, N. E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 847, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa89e3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa89e3 2017

  29. [29]

    2008, ApJL, 672, L65, doi: 10.1086/525847

    Li, G. 2008, ApJL, 672, L65, doi: 10.1086/525847

    work page doi:10.1086/525847 2008

  30. [30]

    2011, PhRvL, 106, 125001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.125001

    Li, G., Miao, B., Hu, Q., & Qin, G. 2011, PhRvL, 106, 125001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.125001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.125001 2011

  31. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace9d2

    Liu, W., Kong, X., Guo, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace9d2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace9d2 2023

  32. [32]

    Mariani, F., Bavassano, B., Villante, U., & Ness, N. F. 1973, J. Geophys. Res., 78, 8011, doi: 10.1029/JA078i034p08011

    work page doi:10.1029/ja078i034p08011 1973

  33. [33]

    Zank, G. P. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 590, L53, doi: 10.1086/376613 11

    work page doi:10.1086/376613 2003

  34. [34]

    E., Mason, G

    Mazur, J. E., Mason, G. M., Dwyer, J. R., et al. 2000, ApJL, 532, L79, doi: 10.1086/312561

    work page doi:10.1086/312561 2000

  35. [35]

    G., & Ness, N

    McCracken, K. G., & Ness, N. F. 1966, J. Geophys. Res., 71, 3315, doi: 10.1029/JZ071i013p03315

    work page doi:10.1029/jz071i013p03315 1966

  36. [36]

    2011, Annales Geophysicae, 29, 237, doi: 10.5194/angeo-29-237-2011 M¨ uller, D., St

    Miao, B., Peng, B., & Li, G. 2011, Annales Geophysicae, 29, 237, doi: 10.5194/angeo-29-237-2011 M¨ uller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038467

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-29-237-2011 2011

  37. [37]

    1981, FCPh, 7, 131

    Neugebauer, M. 1981, FCPh, 7, 131

    work page 1981

  38. [38]

    J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al

    Owen, C. J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937259

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937259 2020

  39. [39]

    2008, ApJL, 682, L129, doi: 10.1086/591229

    Qin, G., & Li, G. 2008, ApJL, 682, L129, doi: 10.1086/591229

    work page doi:10.1086/591229 2008

  40. [40]

    R., & Rassoul, H

    Qin, G., Zhang, M., Dwyer, J. R., & Rassoul, H. K. 2004, ApJ, 609, 1076, doi: 10.1086/421101 Rodr´ ıguez-Pacheco, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Mason, G. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935287

    work page doi:10.1086/421101 2004

  41. [41]

    Roelof, E. C. 1968, Canadian Journal of Physics Supplement, 46, 990, doi: 10.1139/p68-401

    work page doi:10.1139/p68-401 1968

  42. [42]

    H., & Chuychai, P

    Ruffolo, D., Matthaeus, W. H., & Chuychai, P. 2003, ApJL, 597, L169, doi: 10.1086/379847

    work page doi:10.1086/379847 2003

  43. [43]

    2012, ApJL, 747, L34, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L34

    Chuychai, P. 2012, ApJL, 747, L34, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L34

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/l34 2012

  44. [44]

    2010, ApJL, 720, L127, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/720/2/L127

    Shalchi, A. 2010, ApJL, 720, L127, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/720/2/L127

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/720/2/l127 2010

  45. [45]

    F., & Telloni, D

    Trenchi, L., Bruno, R., D’Amicis, R., Marcucci, M. F., & Telloni, D. 2013a, Annales Geophysicae, 31, 1333, doi: 10.5194/angeo-31-1333-2013

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-31-1333-2013 2013

  46. [46]

    2013b, ApJ, 770, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/11

    Trenchi, L., Bruno, R., Telloni, D., et al. 2013b, ApJ, 770, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/11

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/11

  47. [47]

    1991, Annales Geophysicae, 9, 319

    Tu, C.-Y., & Marsch, E. 1991, Annales Geophysicae, 9, 319

    work page 1991

  48. [48]

    Tu, C.-Y., & Marsch, E. 1993, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 1257, doi: 10.1029/92JA01947

    work page doi:10.1029/92ja01947 1993

  49. [49]

    Webber, J. B. W. 2013, Measurement Science and Technology, 24, 027001, doi: 10.1088/0957-0233/24/2/027001

    work page doi:10.1088/0957-0233/24/2/027001 2013

  50. [50]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd1ed

    Wijsen, N., Lario, D., S´ anchez-Cano, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd1ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd1ed 2023

  51. [51]

    2021, A&A, 656, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140940

    Pacheco, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140940

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140940 2021

  52. [52]

    2023, A&A, 678, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346319

    Kollhoff, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346319

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346319 2023

  53. [53]

    2026, A&A, 705, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555814

    Kieokaew, R., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555814

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555814 2026

  54. [54]

    F., Squire, J., Pariat, E., et al

    Wyper, P. F., Squire, J., Pariat, E., et al. 2026, SSRv, 222, 43, doi: 10.1007/s11214-026-01296-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-026-01296-5 2026

  55. [55]

    H., & Dmitruk, P

    Zhou, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., & Dmitruk, P. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1015, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1015

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.76.1015 2004