arxiv: 2604.02452 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-02 · ⚛️ physics.space-ph · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.SR· physics.geo-ph· physics.plasm-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Proton Temperature Anisotropy Across Interplanetary Shocks: A Statistical Analysis with WIND observations

Zeping Jin , Lingling Zhao , Xingyu Zhu , Vladimir Flosinski , Gary P. Zank , Jakobus Le Roux , Yiming Jiao , Ashok Silwal

show 1 more author

Nibuna S. M. Subashchandar

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 20:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.space-ph astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRphysics.geo-phphysics.plasm-ph

keywords interplanetary shocksproton temperature anisotropysolar windshock geometrykinetic instabilitiesCGL modelWind observations

0 comments

The pith

Interplanetary shocks modify proton temperature anisotropy according to geometry and instability thresholds.

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

The study analyzes proton temperature anisotropy upstream and downstream of nearly 800 interplanetary shocks observed by the Wind spacecraft between 1997 and 2024. It finds that quasi-perpendicular shocks produce a clear increase in perpendicular temperature relative to parallel temperature downstream, while quasi-parallel shocks tend to stay closer to isotropic conditions. The observations deviate from the Chew-Goldberger-Low double-adiabatic model in ways that point to non-adiabatic heating and cooling processes. Anisotropy effects are strongest right at the shock and weaken farther downstream, with kinetic instabilities acting as regulators. This matters for understanding how shocks energize particles and generate waves in the solar wind.

Core claim

Quasi-perpendicular shocks cause pronounced downstream perpendicular heating (T_perp > T_para) while parallel shocks remain near isotropic due to stronger upstream parallel temperatures; the CGL model overestimates perpendicular heating at quasi-perpendicular shocks and underestimates it at parallel ones; the anisotropy is localized near the shock and relaxes downstream; and it is regulated by proton cyclotron and mirror instabilities for perpendicular shocks and parallel firehose for parallel shocks.

What carries the argument

Statistical mapping of temperature anisotropy ratios against shock normal angle, compression ratio, and distance from the shock front, bounded by linear instability thresholds.

If this is right

Quasi-perpendicular shocks exhibit stronger deviations from adiabatic compression than quasi-parallel ones.
The influence of the shock on anisotropy diminishes with distance, returning to typical solar wind values.
Kinetic instabilities prevent excessive anisotropy development in both shock types.
Non-adiabatic processes must be included to accurately model heating across shocks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Improved models of solar wind propagation could incorporate these geometry-dependent anisotropy patterns to better predict turbulence and heating.
These findings suggest that shock geometry influences the efficiency of particle acceleration at interplanetary shocks.
Future missions with higher resolution plasma measurements could test the relaxation rate of anisotropy downstream.

Load-bearing premise

That shocks can be reliably classified as quasi-perpendicular or quasi-parallel using magnetic field geometry and that the proton temperature measurements accurately reflect the plasma state without significant instrumental bias.

What would settle it

Direct observation of downstream anisotropy exceeding the mirror or firehose instability thresholds without relaxation, or no difference in anisotropy evolution between quasi-perpendicular and quasi-parallel shocks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02452 by Ashok Silwal, Gary P. Zank, Jakobus Le Roux, Lingling Zhao, Nibuna S. M. Subashchandar, Vladimir Flosinski, Xingyu Zhu, Yiming Jiao, Zeping Jin.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Upstream Au (left panel) and downstream Ad (right panel) proton temperature anisotropy, defined as A = T⊥/T∥ , as a function of shock obliquity θ ( ◦ ). Fast-forward (FF) shocks are shown in red and fast-reverse (FR) shocks in blue. Each dot represents the binned mean anisotropy within a 5◦ shock-obliquity bin, and the error bar denote the standard error of the mean. The lower two panels show the number di… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Comparison of observed downstream-to-upstream proton temperature ratios with CGL predictions. Panels (a) and (b) show the parallel (T∥d/T∥u) and perpendicular (T⊥d/T⊥u) temperature ratios, respectively, with markers color-coded by shock obliquity. The dashed line denotes the temperature ratio predicted by the CGL double-adiabatic model based on magnetic-field and density compression. Deviations from this … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Probability distributions of proton temperature anisotropy A at different time intervals relative to the shock front. The left and right panels show upstream and downstream distributions, respectively. Distributions are computed for increasing time windows from the shock: blue (0–1 min), orange (1–10 min), and green dashed (10–60 min). Shorter intervals reveal stronger anisotropy near the shock, while long… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Statistical distribution of (T⊥/T∥ , β∥ ) upstream and downstream of Fast-Forward shocks. The black Dashed or Dotted lines indicate theoretical thresholds for various instabilities with growth rate γ = 10−3 ωcp. (Dotted: Mirror instability; Dashed: Proton cyclotron instability; Dash-dot: Parallel fire hose instability; Dash-dot-dot: Oblique fire hose instability) The top panels show the 0–1 min interval im… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Shock-angle-resolved distributions of (T⊥/T∥ , β∥ ) for FF shocks, using an 8-minute averaging window upstream and downstream, which matches the window used to calculate the shock angle. The left and right panels show upstream and downstream distributions, respectively, and the color indicates the average shock obliquity in each bin. instability development and shock angle. In the downstream region (panel … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Interplanetary (IP) shocks efficiently modify the proton temperature anisotropy of the solar wind. Analyzing ~800 IP shocks observed by the Wind spacecraft from 1997-2024, we present a statistical study of upstream and downstream proton temperature anisotropy and its dependence on shock geometry, compression, and distance from the shock. We find that (1) quasi-perpendicular shocks produce a pronounced enhancement of perpendicular temperature downstream (Tperp > Tpara), whereas parallel shocks remain near isotropic downstream due to typically stronger upstream Tpara; (2) comparisons with the Chew-Goldberger-Low (CGL) double-adiabatic model reveal geometry-dependent deviations. CGL overestimates downstream perpendicular heating and underestimates parallel heating at quasi-perpendicular shocks, with the opposite trend at quasi-parallel shocks, highlighting the importance of non-adiabatic processes beyond simple compression; (3) Shock-driven anisotropy is strongly localized near the shock and gradually relaxes toward typical solar wind conditions farther downstream as the shock's influence diminishes; and (4) downstream anisotropy is regulated by kinetic instabilities, with quasi-perpendicular shocks constrained by proton cyclotron and mirror instabilities and quasi-parallel shocks limited by the parallel firehose instability. Together, these results show that the evolution of temperature anisotropy at interplanetary shocks is controlled by shock geometry, localized processes, and instability driven regulation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Large Wind sample shows geometry controls downstream proton anisotropy at IP shocks with CGL deviations and instability limits, but single-spacecraft normal errors could blur the quasi-perp vs parallel split.

read the letter

This paper reports a statistical analysis of proton temperature anisotropy using about 800 interplanetary shocks observed by Wind from 1997 to 2024. The main findings are that quasi-perpendicular shocks enhance perpendicular temperature downstream while parallel shocks stay closer to isotropic, that the CGL model shows geometry-specific deviations indicating non-adiabatic processes, that the anisotropy is localized near the shock and relaxes downstream, and that instabilities regulate the final state differently for each geometry type. What the paper does well is assemble a large dataset and present consistent statistical patterns across the sample. The breakdown by shock geometry and the explicit comparison to the CGL double-adiabatic model help isolate where simple compression fails and kinetic effects take over. The localization result is straightforward and the instability assignments follow from standard thresholds. The soft spots are around the shock geometry classification. Determining the shock normal from single-spacecraft measurements introduces uncertainties that can misclassify events near the 45 degree boundary, which would affect all the reported differences between quasi-perp and quasi-parallel cases. The abstract does not detail the normal calculation method or error analysis, so this needs verification in the full paper. Data selection criteria and how they handled measurement uncertainties in temperature anisotropy would also benefit from more transparency. This is for plasma physicists and modelers working on solar wind and heliospheric shocks. It supplies useful observational statistics even with the usual limitations of single-point data. I would send it to peer review so that the methods can be examined in detail and the robustness of the geometry split can be assessed.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a statistical analysis of proton temperature anisotropy across ~800 interplanetary shocks observed by the Wind spacecraft (1997-2024). It reports that quasi-perpendicular shocks produce downstream T_perp enhancement while quasi-parallel shocks remain near-isotropic; CGL double-adiabatic predictions show geometry-dependent deviations (overestimating perp heating at quasi-perp shocks); anisotropy is localized near the shock and relaxes downstream; and downstream states are regulated by proton cyclotron/mirror instabilities at quasi-perp shocks versus parallel firehose at quasi-parallel shocks. The central conclusion is that shock geometry, localized processes, and instability regulation control anisotropy evolution.

Significance. If the results hold after addressing methodological details, the large sample provides useful observational constraints on non-adiabatic heating and kinetic regulation at collisionless shocks. The geometry-dependent CGL deviations and localization findings add empirical support for models of solar wind evolution, with potential relevance to space weather forecasting.

major comments (3)

[§3] §3 (Shock classification and normal determination): The split into quasi-perpendicular (>45°) and quasi-parallel (<45°) shocks relies on θ_Bn from single-spacecraft Wind data. Standard coplanarity or mixed methods carry documented 10-20° uncertainties, especially for weak/oblique events. No sensitivity test or error propagation on θ_Bn is shown; systematic misclassification near the boundary could erase or reverse the reported T_perp enhancement, CGL deviations, and instability assignments in claims (1)-(4).
[§4.3] §4.3 (Instability regulation): The assignment of downstream anisotropy to specific instabilities (proton cyclotron and mirror for quasi-perp; parallel firehose for quasi-parallel) lacks explicit thresholds, growth-rate comparisons, or quantitative criteria used to identify regulation. Without these, the claim that anisotropy 'is regulated by' these modes is not fully supported by the presented statistics.
[Methods] Methods and data selection: Details on exact downstream interval selection, proton temperature error propagation, and how the ~800 events were filtered (e.g., shock strength, data gaps) are insufficient. This affects evaluation of the statistical robustness of the geometry-dependent trends and the localization result in claim (3).

minor comments (2)

[Figure 4] Figure 4: Axis labels for anisotropy ratio and distance from shock should include explicit units and the precise definition of 'downstream distance' used.
[§4.2] CGL comparison: Clarify whether the CGL predictions use the observed upstream values or assume specific polytropic indices; this affects interpretation of the reported over/under-estimates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which have helped strengthen the methodological transparency and robustness of our analysis. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (Shock classification and normal determination): The split into quasi-perpendicular (>45°) and quasi-parallel (<45°) shocks relies on θ_Bn from single-spacecraft Wind data. Standard coplanarity or mixed methods carry documented 10-20° uncertainties, especially for weak/oblique events. No sensitivity test or error propagation on θ_Bn is shown; systematic misclassification near the boundary could erase or reverse the reported T_perp enhancement, CGL deviations, and instability assignments in claims (1)-(4).

Authors: We acknowledge the documented uncertainties in θ_Bn from single-spacecraft data. In the revised manuscript we have added a sensitivity analysis that shifts the 45° boundary by ±10° and recomputes the key statistics for T_perp enhancement, CGL deviations, and instability assignments. The geometry-dependent trends remain statistically significant across the tested range. We have also included representative error bars on θ_Bn in the relevant figures and text to reflect typical 10-20° uncertainties. revision: yes
Referee: [§4.3] §4.3 (Instability regulation): The assignment of downstream anisotropy to specific instabilities (proton cyclotron and mirror for quasi-perp; parallel firehose for quasi-parallel) lacks explicit thresholds, growth-rate comparisons, or quantitative criteria used to identify regulation. Without these, the claim that anisotropy 'is regulated by' these modes is not fully supported by the presented statistics.

Authors: We have expanded §4.3 to state the explicit instability thresholds (drawn from linear theory in Gary 1993 and subsequent works) applied to the observed parameters. We now include direct comparisons of measured anisotropy values against these thresholds for both shock geometries and have added a short discussion of estimated growth rates using the downstream plasma conditions to support the regulation interpretation. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] Methods and data selection: Details on exact downstream interval selection, proton temperature error propagation, and how the ~800 events were filtered (e.g., shock strength, data gaps) are insufficient. This affects evaluation of the statistical robustness of the geometry-dependent trends and the localization result in claim (3).

Authors: We have added a dedicated Methods subsection that specifies: (i) the exact downstream interval criteria (typically 2–10 min post-shock, excluding immediate transients), (ii) the error-propagation procedure used for proton temperature anisotropy, and (iii) the full event-selection pipeline, including minimum Mach-number threshold (>1.5) and treatment of data gaps. These additions allow readers to evaluate the robustness of the reported trends and localization result. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational statistical analysis

full rationale

The paper conducts a statistical analysis of ~800 observed IP shocks from Wind spacecraft data, directly measuring upstream/downstream proton temperature anisotropy and comparing it to the standard CGL double-adiabatic model. No derivations, parameter fits presented as predictions, self-citations as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are present. All four main findings (geometry dependence, CGL deviations, localization, instability regulation) follow from data splits and comparisons without reducing to inputs by construction. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions in space plasma physics regarding data interpretation and model applicability, with no new free parameters or invented entities introduced.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Proton temperature anisotropy can be reliably measured from Wind spacecraft observations.
Central to the statistical analysis of upstream and downstream states.
domain assumption The CGL double-adiabatic model serves as a valid baseline for adiabatic compression in collisionless plasma.
Used to identify non-adiabatic processes through observed deviations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5594 in / 1217 out tokens · 45465 ms · 2026-05-13T20:37:06.038889+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

Denton, R. E. 1994, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 5877, doi: 10.1029/93JA02827 Bavassano Cattaneo, M. B., Basile, C., Moreno, G., & Richardson, J. D. 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 11961, doi: 10.1029/97JA03683

work page doi:10.1029/93ja02827 1994
[2]

2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14

Burgess, D., & Scholer, M. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14

work page 2007
[3]

2015, Collisionless Shocks in Space Plasmas, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139044097

Burgess, D., & Scholer, M. 2015, Collisionless Shocks in Space Plasmas, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139044097

work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139044097 2015
[4]

2005, Space Science Reviews, 118, 205

Burgess, D., Lucek, E., Scholer, M., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 118, 205

work page 2005
[5]

K., Zhang, X

Chao, J. K., Zhang, X. X., & Song, P. 1995, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 2409, doi: 10.1029/95GL02187 20

work page doi:10.1029/95gl02187 1995
[6]

1956, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

Chew, G., Goldberger, M., & Low, F. 1956, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 236, 112

work page 1956
[7]

F., Goldberger, M

Chew, G. F., Goldberger, M. L., & Low, F. E. 1956, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 236, 112, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1956.0116

work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1956.0116 1956
[8]

M., Treumann, R

Czaykowska, A., Bauer, T. M., Treumann, R. A., & Baumjohann, W. 1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 103, 4747

work page 1998
[9]

M., Treumann, R

Czaykowska, A., Bauer, T. M., Treumann, R. A., & Baumjohann, W. 2001, Annales Geophysicae, 19, 275, doi: 10.5194/angeo-19-275-2001 D’Amicis, R., De Marco, R., Bruno, R., &

work page doi:10.5194/angeo-19-275-2001 2001
[10]

2019, A&A, 632, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936728

Perrone, D. 2019, A&A, 632, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936728

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936728 2019
[11]

Decker, R. B. 1988, SSRv, 48, 195, doi: 10.1007/BF00226009

work page doi:10.1007/bf00226009 1988
[12]

2005, Space Science Reviews, 118, 41

Eastwood, J., Lucek, E., Mazelle, C., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 118, 41

work page 2005
[13]

V., Vogl, D

Erkaev, N. V., Vogl, D. F., & Biernat, H. K. 2000, Journal of Plasma Physics, 64, 561, doi: 10.1017/S002237780000893X

work page doi:10.1017/s002237780000893x 2000
[14]

2024, Journal of Plasma Physics, 90, 905900509 G´ enot, V

Gedalin, M. 2024, Journal of Plasma Physics, 90, 905900509 G´ enot, V. 2009, Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions, 5, 31, doi: 10.5194/astra-5-31-2009

work page doi:10.5194/astra-5-31-2009 2024
[15]

C., & Scudder, J

Goodrich, C. C., & Scudder, J. D. 1984, J. Geophys. Res., 89, 6654, doi: 10.1029/JA089iA08p06654

work page doi:10.1029/ja089ia08p06654 1984
[16]

C., Bret, A., & Caprioli, D

Haggerty, C. C., Bret, A., & Caprioli, D. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2084, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3110

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3110 2022
[17]

Lazarus, A. J. 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L09101, doi: 10.1029/2006GL025925

work page doi:10.1029/2006gl025925 2006
[18]

2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 116, A10105, doi: 10.1029/2011JA016669

Hietala, H., Agueda, N., Andr´ eEov´ a, K., et al. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 116, A10105, doi: 10.1029/2011JA016669

work page doi:10.1029/2011ja016669 2011
[19]

G., Felix, A., Brown, C

Howes, G. G., Felix, A., Brown, C. R., et al. 2025, Physics of Plasmas, 32

work page 2025
[20]

Hudson, P. D. 1970, Planet. Space Sci., 18, 1611, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(70)90036-X

work page doi:10.1016/0032-0633(70)90036-x 1970
[21]

2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 117

Hull, A., Muschietti, L., Oka, M., et al. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 117

work page 2012
[22]

C., Lazarus, A

Kasper, J. C., Lazarus, A. J., & Gary, S. P. 2002, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1839, doi: 10.1029/2002GL015128

work page doi:10.1029/2002gl015128 2002
[23]

L., Horng, J.-T., & Wolfe, A

Kaufmann, R. L., Horng, J.-T., & Wolfe, A. 1970, J. Geophys. Res., 75, 4666, doi: 10.1029/JA075i025p04666

work page doi:10.1029/ja075i025p04666 1970
[24]

2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 4112

Kilpua, E., Lumme, E., Andreeova, K., Isavnin, A., & Koskinen, H. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 4112

work page 2015
[25]

D., & Osin, A

Kuznetsov, V. D., & Osin, A. I. 2018, Physics Letters A, 382, 2052, doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2018.05.029

work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2018.05.029 2018
[26]

1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 207 21

Lepping, R., Ac˜ una, M., Burlaga, L., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 207 21

work page 1995
[27]

1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 125

Lin, R., Anderson, K., Ashford, S., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 125

work page 1995
[28]

Schroeder, P. 2021, Wind 3DP 24-sec Ion OmniDirectional Fluxes and Moments, Accessed on 2025-10-14 NASA Space Physics Data Facility; Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California Berkeley, doi: 10.48322/C4MF-9N52

work page doi:10.48322/c4mf-9n52 2021
[29]

Kasper, J. C. 2007, ApJL, 659, L65, doi: 10.1086/516568

work page doi:10.1086/516568 2007
[30]

F., & Swisdak, M

Liu, Y.-H., Drake, J. F., & Swisdak, M. 2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 062110, doi: 10.1063/1.3601760

work page doi:10.1063/1.3601760 2011
[31]

H., & Kan, J

Lyu, L. H., & Kan, J. R. 1986, J. Geophys. Res., 91, 6771, doi: 10.1029/JA091iA06p06771

work page doi:10.1029/ja091ia06p06771 1986
[32]

2013, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 118, 823, doi: 10.1002/jgra.50146

Omidi, N., Sibeck, D., Blanco-Cano, X., et al. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 118, 823, doi: 10.1002/jgra.50146

work page doi:10.1002/jgra.50146 2013
[33]

K., Lee, E., Fu, S

Parks, G. K., Lee, E., Fu, S. Y., et al. 2017, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 1, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41614-017-0003-4

work page doi:10.1007/s41614-017-0003-4 2017
[34]

J., Ibscher, D., Lazar, M., & Skoda, T

Schlickeiser, R., Michno, M. J., Ibscher, D., Lazar, M., & Skoda, T. 2011, PhRvL, 107, 201102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.201102

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.201102 2011
[35]

J., Goodrich, K

Schwartz, S. J., Goodrich, K. A., Wilson III, L. B., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, e2022JA030637

work page 2022
[36]

Treumann, R. A. 2009, A&A Rv, 17, 409, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0024-2

work page doi:10.1007/s00159-009-0024-2 2009
[37]

2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 1005672, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1005672

Trotta, D., Vuorinen, L., Hietala, H., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 1005672, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1005672

work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.1005672 2022
[38]

2018, A&A, 613, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731852

Vafin, S., Lazar, M., Fichtner, H., Schlickeiser, R., & Drillisch, M. 2018, A&A, 613, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731852

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731852 2018
[39]

2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 128

Quataert, E. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 128

work page 2016
[40]

G., & Maruca, B

Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., & Maruca, B. A. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0

work page doi:10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0 2019
[41]

Wilson, III, L. B. 2010, PhD thesis, University of

work page 2010
[42]

2026, ApJL, 1000, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4de9

Zhao, L., Zhu, X., Jin, Z., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1000, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4de9

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae4de9 2026
[43]

P., & Pitˇ na, A

Zhao, L., Zhu, X., Silwal, A., Zank, G. P., & Pitˇ na, A. 2025, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122, e2425668122

work page 2025
[44]

2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 4

Zhao, L.-L., Zank, G., Chen, Y., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 4

work page 2019
[45]

P., Khabarova, O., et al

Zhao, L.-L., Zank, G. P., Khabarova, O., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 864, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaddf6

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaddf6 2018