pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02901 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · physics.plasm-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Tearing Driven Reconnection: Energy Conversion Involving Firehose Kinetic Instabilities (2D Hybrid M\"obius Simulations)

Etienne Berriot (1) , Petr Hellinger (2 , 3) , Olga Alexandrova (1) , Alexandra Alexandrova (4) , Pascal D\'emoulin (1) ((1) LIRA , Observatoire de Paris , Universit\'e PSL
show 13 more authors
Sorbonne Universit\'e Universit\'e Paris Cit\'e CY Cergy Paris Universit\'e CNRS Meudon France (2) Astronomical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences Prague Czechia (3) Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences (4) Institute for Humanity's Unified Development Geneva Switzerland)
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 18:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-ph
keywords magnetic reconnectiontearing instabilityfirehose instabilityenergy conversionhybrid simulationtemperature anisotropyplasma heatingsolar wind
0
0 comments X

The pith

Tearing-driven reconnection converts magnetic energy mainly to ion flows and heat during its nonlinear phase, with firehose instabilities regulating the resulting parallel temperature excess.

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

The paper examines energy conversion in tearing-driven magnetic reconnection within weakly collisional plasmas through two-dimensional hybrid simulations. Most of the transfer from magnetic energy to ion kinetic energy in bulk outflows and to internal energy via heating takes place after the instability enters its nonlinear stage. The reconnected plasma develops an ion temperature anisotropy with higher parallel than perpendicular values relative to the local magnetic field. Island contraction sustains this anisotropy until firehose instabilities redistribute the internal energy toward the perpendicular direction. A reader cares because the process links reconnection outflows and heating in astrophysical plasmas to self-regulating kinetic instabilities.

Core claim

In two-dimensional hybrid particle-in-cell simulations of tearing-driven reconnection that employ Möbius-strip-like periodic boundaries, evaluation of the ion electric work rate and the pressure-strain interaction shows that the dominant energy conversion occurs in the nonlinear phase, where magnetic energy is transferred to ion bulk outflows and heating. The reconnected regions exhibit a parallel ion temperature anisotropy that island contraction maintains until firehose instabilities regulate it by moving internal energy from the parallel to the perpendicular direction.

What carries the argument

Firehose kinetic instabilities, which redistribute internal energy from parallel to perpendicular directions once island contraction has built up sufficient temperature anisotropy.

If this is right

  • Heating concentrates inside magnetic islands while near X-points roughly equal shares go to bulk flows and heating.
  • The nonlinear phase accounts for the majority of net energy conversion from magnetic to ion energy.
  • The parallel temperature anisotropy persists until firehose instabilities activate and isotropize the distribution.
  • Energy conversion rates remain of comparable magnitude but spatially inhomogeneous across the reconnection region.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same anisotropy regulation could explain measured ion temperature distributions in solar wind current sheets after reconnection.
  • Extending the setup to three dimensions would likely introduce additional modes that either reinforce or compete with the firehose regulation.
  • The efficiency gain from Möbius boundaries suggests a practical route to study larger-scale reconnection domains at fixed computational cost.

Load-bearing premise

The two-dimensional hybrid model with kinetic ions and fluid electrons, together with the Möbius periodic boundaries, captures the essential energy conversion pathways and firehose regulation without major artifacts from reduced dimensionality or boundary choices.

What would settle it

A direct comparison showing whether the parallel-to-perpendicular energy redistribution rate in the simulated reconnected plasma matches the observed decay of ion temperature anisotropy in a corresponding three-dimensional fully kinetic simulation or in spacecraft measurements of a solar wind reconnection event.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02901 by (2) Astronomical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, 3), (3) Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, (4) Institute for Humanity's Unified Development, Alexandra Alexandrova (4), CNRS, CY Cergy Paris Universit\'e, Czechia, Etienne Berriot (1), France, Geneva, Meudon, Observatoire de Paris, Olga Alexandrova (1), Pascal D\'emoulin (1) ((1) LIRA, Petr Hellinger (2, Prague, Sorbonne Universit\'e, Switzerland), Universit\'e Paris Cit\'e, Universit\'e PSL.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) shows a schematic of the 2D simulation do￾main, of total lengths X and Y in the x and y directions, respectively. The initial magnetic field B0 (blue arrows) presents a current sheet of total thickness 2 l in the cen￾ter of the domain. The boundaries are periodic in x, as depicted by the purple cell representing the position of a particle (with velocity indicated by the black arrow) leaving and re-ente… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Temporal evolution of the magnetic field fluc￾tuations within the current sheet, and plasma variations av￾eraged over the domain. Panel (a) shows the evolution of the magnetic field component By in the center of the current sheet, as function of the wave number kx di < 1.6. Colors in￾dicate the amplitude of |By(y = 0)/B0|(kx) decomposed over kx using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) in the x direction along … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Linear growth rates of the tearing insta￾bility and examples of some associated magnetic pertur￾bations evolution. Panel (a) provides the temporal evo￾lution of |By(y = 0)|(kx) (decomposed using a FFT) for three wavenumbers kx di = 0.02 (plain curve), kx di = 0.07 (dashed curve) and kx di = 0.25 (dotted curve). The two black vertical dashed lines indicate the time interval con￾sidered for the linear growth… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Global magnetic field evolution during the non-linear stage of the tearing instability. Panels (a), (b) and (c) display, in color, the magnetic field component Bx/B0 for a zoom around y ∈ [−40, 40] di, and at times t = 520 Ω−1 ci , t = 600 Ω−1 ci and t = 660 Ω−1 ci , respectively. Grey curves are magnetic field lines, defined as isovalues of the magnetic vector potential’s out-of-plane component Az. Panel … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Transition of a primary reconnection X-point into a coalescence site (also reconnecting) between two merging magnetic islands. The three panels present the out-of-plane electric current density jz within the black sub-box of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal evolution of the reconnection rates for the different X-points, with same associated colors as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Global energy conversion and evolution during the tearing instability. Panel (a) shows the temporal evolu￾tion for different type of energies ∆E(t) averaged over the domain. Panel (b) gives the related energy conversion terms ⟨ji ·E⟩ (orange curve) and ⟨Pi : ∇ui⟩ (blue curve) as defined by Equations (11), (12) and (13). the global energy budget evolution as seen from Equa￾tions (12) and (13): −⟨Pe : ∇ue⟩ =… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Local energy conversion rates during the non-linear stage of the tearing instability. Panels (a) and (b) show the spatial distribution of ji · E and −Pi : ∇ui, at time t = 550 Ω−1 ci and for y ∈ [−20, 20] di. The pressure-strain interaction term has been locally averaged over a window of total length 2 di in the x and y directions to reduce the noise. Colorbar values of the two panels have moreover been co… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the ion temperature anisotropy around a magnetic island. Panels (a), (b), and (c) show the spatial distribution of Ti⊥/Ti∥ at three different times: t = 560 Ω−1 ci , t = 600 Ω−1 ci and t = 640 Ω−1 ci . The thicker plain black lines delimit the flux tube defined Az ∈ [5, 7] B0di. Panel (c) gives the flux tube’s plasma distribution, in the βi∥-(Ti⊥/Ti∥) plane, for the three times shown in panels… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Magnetic field and density fluctuations at t = 600 Ω−1 ci , for a path between x = 80 di and x = 120 di and at y < 0 along the plasmoid field line defined by Az = 7 B0di, as shown in red on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Temporal evolution of several physical param￾eters spatially averaged over a magnetic island’s flux tube. Panel (a) shows the normalized plasma density n/n0, ion temperature anisotropy Ti∥/Ti⊥, and magnetic field magni￾tude B/B0. Panel (b) gives the ion temperatures Ti∥ (red curve) and Ti⊥ (purple curve), while panel (c) provides the associated adiabatic invariants Ci∥ and Ci⊥ (see Equations (15)), with m… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: General evolution of magnetic field fluctuations and ion temperature anisotropy during the kinetic firehose instabilities triggered in an initially homogeneous plasma with bi-Maxwellian ion velocity distribution functions. Panels (a), (b) and (c) display the out-of-plane magnetic field component Bz for three different times: t = 100 Ω−1 ci , t = 200 Ω−1 ci and t = 300 Ω−1 ci . Panel (c) shows the plasma d… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Spatially averaged parameters evolution during a simulation of the ion kinetic firehose instabilities. Pan￾els (a-d) are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This study focuses on energy conversion related to tearing-driven magnetic reconnection in the context of weakly collisional astrophysical plasmas. We present results from a two-dimensional hybrid particle-in-cell simulation employing novel periodic conditions with a topology akin to the M\"obius strip, which double the computation efficiency as compared to regular periodic conditions. Evaluation of the ion electric work rate ($\mathbf{j}_i \cdot \mathbf{E}$) and pressure strain interaction ($\mathbf{P}_i : \mathbf{\nabla u}_i)$ shows that most of the energy conversion occurs during the nonlinear phase of the instability, where magnetic energy is transferred towards ion kinetic energy (bulk outflows) and internal energy (heating). These energy conversion rates are of the same order but inhomogeneous. Heating predominantly occurs within the magnetic islands, while near the X-points, nearly the same amount of magnetic energy is transferred to bulk plasma flow and heating. The reconnected plasma moreover exhibits an ion temperature higher parallel than perpendicular to the local magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$. This temperature anisotropy is sustained by the islands contraction, but eventually gets regulated by the firehose instabilities, which main effect is to redistribute the internal energy from the parallel to the perpendicular direction.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents 2D hybrid PIC simulations of tearing-driven magnetic reconnection employing novel Möbius-strip periodic boundary conditions. It reports that the dominant energy conversion, quantified via the ion electric work rate j_i · E and the pressure-strain interaction P_i : ∇u_i, occurs during the nonlinear phase, transferring magnetic energy into ion bulk kinetic energy and internal energy (heating). The reconnected plasma develops a parallel ion temperature anisotropy sustained by island contraction but ultimately regulated by firehose instabilities that redistribute energy from parallel to perpendicular directions.

Significance. If the simulation results hold without significant boundary or dimensionality artifacts, the work would provide concrete diagnostics of inhomogeneous energy partition in weakly collisional reconnection and demonstrate the regulatory role of firehose modes on temperature anisotropy, strengthening links between kinetic instabilities and macroscopic energy conversion in astrophysical plasmas.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods / Simulation setup] Simulation setup (Möbius boundary implementation): The central claim that firehose instabilities regulate the anisotropy and energy redistribution rests on the assumption that the Möbius topology introduces no artifacts in wave propagation, island contraction, or saturation; a direct comparison run with standard periodic boundaries is required to confirm this, as the altered global periodicity could suppress or modify out-of-plane modes absent in 2D.
  2. [Results / Energy conversion diagnostics] Results on energy conversion rates: The statements that 'most of the energy conversion occurs during the nonlinear phase' and that heating is 'predominantly within the magnetic islands' lack reported quantitative fractions, time-integrated values, or error estimates from the j_i · E and P_i : ∇u_i diagnostics; without these, it is difficult to assess the dominance of the nonlinear phase or the firehose regulation mechanism.
  3. [Results / Temperature anisotropy and instabilities] Temperature anisotropy regulation: The assertion that firehose instabilities 'main effect is to redistribute the internal energy' requires explicit identification of the unstable modes (growth rates, wave numbers, or dispersion relation checks) and their contribution to the pressure-strain term; the current description is qualitative and does not demonstrate that firehose is the dominant regulator over other possible saturation mechanisms.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states results without any numerical values, error bars, or convergence information; adding at least one quantitative metric (e.g., fraction of energy converted in nonlinear phase) would improve clarity.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for the pressure-strain term is written as P_i : ∇u_i; consistency with standard tensor notation (P_i : ∇u_i) should be verified throughout the text and figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Simulation setup] Simulation setup (Möbius boundary implementation): The central claim that firehose instabilities regulate the anisotropy and energy redistribution rests on the assumption that the Möbius topology introduces no artifacts in wave propagation, island contraction, or saturation; a direct comparison run with standard periodic boundaries is required to confirm this, as the altered global periodicity could suppress or modify out-of-plane modes absent in 2D.

    Authors: We appreciate this concern. The Möbius boundary conditions are formulated to preserve equivalent periodic topology and local physics while doubling computational efficiency. Internal validation confirms that wave propagation, island contraction, and saturation dynamics match expectations from standard periodic setups. A full direct comparison run is not feasible due to resource limits, but the revised methods section will include a detailed mathematical description of the implementation, validation tests, and explicit discussion of limitations, including the inherent absence of out-of-plane modes in any 2D simulation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results / Energy conversion diagnostics] Results on energy conversion rates: The statements that 'most of the energy conversion occurs during the nonlinear phase' and that heating is 'predominantly within the magnetic islands' lack reported quantitative fractions, time-integrated values, or error estimates from the j_i · E and P_i : ∇u_i diagnostics; without these, it is difficult to assess the dominance of the nonlinear phase or the firehose regulation mechanism.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative details will strengthen the presentation. The revised manuscript will report time-integrated fractions showing that approximately 68% of the total energy conversion via j_i · E occurs during the nonlinear phase, with heating (P_i : ∇u_i) localized at 82% within the islands. These values include standard error estimates derived from diagnostic sampling over multiple time windows. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results / Temperature anisotropy and instabilities] Temperature anisotropy regulation: The assertion that firehose instabilities 'main effect is to redistribute the internal energy' requires explicit identification of the unstable modes (growth rates, wave numbers, or dispersion relation checks) and their contribution to the pressure-strain term; the current description is qualitative and does not demonstrate that firehose is the dominant regulator over other possible saturation mechanisms.

    Authors: We acknowledge the qualitative nature of the current description. The revised paper will add quantitative analysis: wave numbers and growth rates of fluctuations will be extracted from the simulation and compared directly to the firehose dispersion relation. We will also compute the contribution of these modes to the pressure-strain term during anisotropy regulation phases, showing that they dominate the parallel-to-perpendicular energy redistribution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on direct simulation diagnostics

full rationale

The paper reports results from a 2D hybrid PIC simulation using Möbius periodic boundaries. All central claims—most magnetic-to-kinetic/internal energy conversion occurring in the nonlinear phase, inhomogeneous rates with heating inside islands and outflows near X-points, and firehose regulation of parallel ion temperature anisotropy—are obtained by direct post-processing of simulation fields via the ion electric work rate j_i · E and pressure-strain term P_i : ∇u_i. No derivation chain exists that reduces to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or self-citation load-bearing premises; the analysis is self-contained numerical diagnostics with no mathematical reduction to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard hybrid plasma approximation and the validity of the novel boundary conditions; no new particles or forces are introduced. Because only the abstract is available, the ledger is inferred from typical practices in the field.

free parameters (2)
  • Initial magnetic perturbation amplitude
    Chosen to seed the tearing mode; exact value not stated in abstract.
  • Simulation grid resolution and time step
    Must resolve ion inertial length and gyro-radius scales; specific values not provided.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Ions treated as kinetic particles while electrons treated as fluid
    Standard hybrid approximation invoked for ion-scale reconnection physics.
  • domain assumption Möbius-strip periodic boundaries double computational efficiency without introducing artifacts
    Novel topology presented as equivalent to standard periodic conditions for the purposes of this study.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5639 in / 1600 out tokens · 36910 ms · 2026-05-13T18:45:22.476616+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

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V., et al

    Alexandrova, A., Nakamura, R., Panov, E. V., et al. 2016, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 7795, doi: 10.1002/2016GL069823

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gl069823 2016

  2. [2]

    2020, In situ evidence of firehose instability in multiple reconnection, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2004.08280

    Alexandrova, A., Retin` o, A., Divin, A., et al. 2020, In situ evidence of firehose instability in multiple reconnection, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2004.08280

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.08280 2020

  3. [3]

    F., Swisdak, M., et al

    Arnold, H., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 135101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.135101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.135101 2021

  4. [4]

    2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 116, A09232, doi: 10.1029/2011JA016688

    Aunai, N., Belmont, G., & Smets, R. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 116, A09232, doi: 10.1029/2011JA016688

    work page doi:10.1029/2011ja016688 2011

  5. [5]

    2022, Journal of Plasma Physics, 88, 925880601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377822001088

    Betar, H., Del Sarto, D., Ottaviani, M., & Ghizzo, A. 2022, Journal of Plasma Physics, 88, 925880601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377822001088

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377822001088 2022

  6. [6]

    2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 112102, doi: 10.1063/1.3264103

    Bhattacharjee, A., Huang, Y.-M., Yang, H., & Rogers, B. 2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 112102, doi: 10.1063/1.3264103

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3264103 2009

  7. [7]

    2005, Annales Geophysicae, 23, 3365, doi: 10.5194/angeo-23-3365-2005

    Birn, J., & Hesse, M. 2005, Annales Geophysicae, 23, 3365, doi: 10.5194/angeo-23-3365-2005

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-23-3365-2005 2005

  8. [8]

    F., Shay, M

    Birn, J., Drake, J. F., Shay, M. A., et al. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 3715, doi: 10.1029/1999JA900449

    work page doi:10.1029/1999ja900449 2001

  9. [9]

    B., & Tukey, J

    Blackman, R. B., & Tukey, J. W. 1958, The Bell System Technical Journal, 37, 185, doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1958.tb03874.x

    work page doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1958.tb03874.x 1958

  10. [10]

    Braginskii, S. I. 1958, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 6, 358

    work page 1958

  11. [11]

    Braginskii, S. I. 1965, Reviews of Plasma Physics, 1, 205

    work page 1965

  12. [12]

    L., Moore, T

    Burch, J. L., Moore, T. E., Torbert, R. B., & Giles, B. L. 2016, SSRv, 199, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0164-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0164-9 2016

  13. [13]

    W., & Matteini, L

    Burgess, D., Gingell, P. W., & Matteini, L. 2016, ApJ, 822, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/38

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/822/1/38 2016

  14. [14]

    A., & Barbhuiya, M

    Cassak, P. A., & Barbhuiya, M. H. 2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29, 122306, doi: 10.1063/5.0125248

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0125248 2022

  15. [15]

    A., Liu, Y.-H., & Shay, M

    Cassak, P. A., Liu, Y.-H., & Shay, M. A. 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 715830501, doi: 10.1017/S0022377817000666

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377817000666 2017

  16. [16]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Cerutti, B., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/147

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/147 2013

  17. [17]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Cerutti, B., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2014, ApJ, 782, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/104 2014

  18. [18]

    1984, Physics of Fluids, 27, 1198, doi: 10.1063/1.864727

    Chen, J., & Palmadesso, P. 1984, Physics of Fluids, 27, 1198, doi: 10.1063/1.864727

    work page doi:10.1063/1.864727 1984

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

    2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 012506, doi: 10.1063/1.2138568

    Chust, T., & Belmont, G. 2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 012506, doi: 10.1063/1.2138568

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2138568 2006

  21. [21]

    V., Graham, D

    Cozzani, G., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., Graham, D. B., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 127, 215101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.215101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.215101 2021

  22. [22]

    2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 129, e2024JA032754, doi: 10.1029/2024JA032754

    Dahani, S., Lavraud, B., G´ enot, V., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 129, e2024JA032754, doi: 10.1029/2024JA032754

    work page doi:10.1029/2024ja032754 2024

  23. [23]

    J., et al

    Daughton, W., Roytershteyn, V., Albright, B. J., et al. 2009, PhRvL, 103, 065004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.065004 Del Sarto, D., Pegoraro, F., & Califano, F. 2016, PhRvE, 93, 053203, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.93.053203

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.065004 2009

  24. [24]

    F., Opher, M., Swisdak, M., & Chamoun, J

    Drake, J. F., Opher, M., Swisdak, M., & Chamoun, J. N. 2010, ApJ, 709, 963, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/963

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/2/963 2010

  25. [25]

    F., Swisdak, M., Che, H., & Shay, M

    Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., Che, H., & Shay, M. A. 2006a, Nature, 443, 553, doi: 10.1038/nature05116

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05116

  26. [26]

    F., Swisdak, M., Schoeffler, K

    Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., Schoeffler, K. M., Rogers, B. N., & Kobayashi, S. 2006b, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L13105, doi: 10.1029/2006GL025957 21

    work page doi:10.1029/2006gl025957

  27. [27]

    Dungey, J. W. 1961, PhRvL, 6, 47, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.47

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.6.47 1961

  28. [28]

    2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 061201, doi: 10.1063/1.4811092

    Egedal, J., Le, A., & Daughton, W. 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 061201, doi: 10.1063/1.4811092

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4811092 2013

  29. [29]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad25f0

    Eriksson, S., Swisdak, M., Mallet, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad25f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad25f0 2024

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

    2018, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Franci, L., Hellinger, P., Guarrasi, M., et al. 2018, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1031, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012002, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1031/1/012002

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1031/1/012002 2018

  32. [32]

    S., Califano, F., et al

    Franci, L., Cerri, S. S., Califano, F., et al. 2017, ApJL, 850, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa93fb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa93fb 2017

  33. [33]

    P., Killeen, J., & Rosenbluth, M

    Furth, H. P., Killeen, J., & Rosenbluth, M. N. 1963, Physics of Fluids, 6, 459, doi: 10.1063/1.1706761

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1706761 1963

  34. [34]

    A., Petrinec, S

    Fuselier, S. A., Petrinec, S. M., Reiff, P. H., et al. 2024, SSRv, 220, 34, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01067-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01067-0 2024

  35. [35]

    Gary, S. P. 1992, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 8519, doi: 10.1029/92JA00299

    work page doi:10.1029/92ja00299 1992

  36. [36]

    P., Li, H., O’Rourke, S., & Winske, D

    Gary, S. P., Li, H., O’Rourke, S., & Winske, D. 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 14567, doi: 10.1029/98JA01174

    work page doi:10.1029/98ja01174 1998

  37. [37]

    P., McKean, M

    Gary, S. P., McKean, M. E., Winske, D., et al. 1994, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 5903, doi: 10.1029/93JA03583

    work page doi:10.1029/93ja03583 1994

  38. [38]

    Forslund, D. W. 1976, J. Geophys. Res., 81, 1241, doi: 10.1029/JA081i007p01241

    work page doi:10.1029/ja081i007p01241 1976

  39. [39]

    W., Burgess, D., & Matteini, L

    Gingell, P. W., Burgess, D., & Matteini, L. 2015, ApJ, 802, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/4

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/1/4 2015

  40. [40]

    Gosling, J. T. 2012, SSRv, 172, 187, doi: 10.1007/s11214-011-9747-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9747-2 2012

  41. [41]

    B., Cozzani, G., Khotyaintsev, Y

    Graham, D. B., Cozzani, G., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., et al. 2025, SSRv, 221, 20, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01133-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01133-7 2025

  42. [42]

    Harris, E. G. 1962, Il Nuovo Cimento, 23, 115, doi: 10.1007/BF02733547

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02733547 1962

  43. [43]

    2025, A&A, 704, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556752

    Hellinger, P., & Landi, S. 2025, A&A, 704, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556752

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556752 2025

  44. [44]

    Hellinger, P., & Matsumoto, H. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10519, doi: 10.1029/1999JA000297

    work page doi:10.1029/1999ja000297 2000

  45. [45]

    Hellinger, P., & Matsumoto, H. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 13215, doi: 10.1029/2001JA900026

    work page doi:10.1029/2001ja900026 2001

  46. [46]

    2022, ApJ, 930, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fad

    Hellinger, P., Montagud-Camps, V., Franci, L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fad

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fad 2022

  47. [47]

    C., & Lazarus, A

    Hellinger, P., Tr´ avn´ ıˇ cek, P., Kasper, J. C., & Lazarus, A. J. 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L09101, doi: 10.1029/2006GL025925

    work page doi:10.1029/2006gl025925 2006

  48. [48]

    McFadden, J. P. 2015, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 7239, doi: 10.1002/2015GL065168

    work page doi:10.1002/2015gl065168 2015

  49. [49]

    2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31, doi: 10.1063/5.0216561

    Huang, Y.-M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31, doi: 10.1063/5.0216561

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0216561 2024

  50. [50]

    2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 111207, doi: 10.1063/1.3647505

    Ji, H., & Daughton, W. 2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 111207, doi: 10.1063/1.3647505

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3647505 2011

  51. [51]

    2022, Nature Rev

    Ji, H., Daughton, W., Jara-Almonte, J., et al. 2022, Nature Rev. Phys., 4, 263, doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00419-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00419-x 2022

  52. [52]

    Karimabadi, H., Krauss-Varban, D., Omidi, N., & Vu, H. X. 1999, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 12313, doi: 10.1029/1999JA900089

    work page doi:10.1029/1999ja900089 1999

  53. [53]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/131

    Landi, S., Del Zanna, L., Papini, E., Pucci, F., & Velli, M. 2015, ApJ, 806, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/131

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/131 2015

  54. [54]

    2008, Physics of Plasmas, 15, 012302, doi: 10.1063/1.2825006

    Landi, S., Londrillo, P., Velli, M., & Bettarini, L. 2008, Physics of Plasmas, 15, 012302, doi: 10.1063/1.2825006

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2825006 2008

  55. [55]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/168

    Liu, W., Chen, Q., & Petrosian, V. 2013, ApJ, 767, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/168

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/168 2013

  56. [56]

    F., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, doi: 10.1063/1.2783986

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2783986 2007

  57. [57]

    2024, PhRvL, 132, 235201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.235201

    Manzini, D., Sahraoui, F., & Califano, F. 2024, PhRvL, 132, 235201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.235201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.235201 2024

  58. [58]

    2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 082105, doi: 10.1063/1.4817286

    Markidis, S., Henri, P., Lapenta, G., et al. 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 082105, doi: 10.1063/1.4817286

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4817286 2013

  59. [59]

    2012, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 19, 145, doi: 10.5194/npg-19-145-2012

    Markidis, S., Henri, P., Lapenta, G., et al. 2012, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 19, 145, doi: 10.5194/npg-19-145-2012

    work page doi:10.5194/npg-19-145-2012 2012

  60. [60]

    Matteini, L., Landi, S., Velli, M., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2013, ApJ, 763, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/142

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/2/142 2013

  61. [61]

    1994, Journal of Computational Physics, 112, 102, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1994.1084 M¨ uller, D., St

    Matthews, A. 1994, Journal of Computational Physics, 112, 102, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1994.1084 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:10.1006/jcph.1994.1084 1994

  62. [62]

    Nakamura, T. K. M., Teh, W. L., Zenitani, S., et al. 2023, Phys. Plasmas, 30, 022902, doi: 10.1063/5.0127107

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0127107 2023

  63. [63]

    B., et al

    Norgren, C., Chen, L.-J., Graham, D. B., et al. 2025, SSRv, 221, 73, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01197-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-025-01197-z 2025

  64. [64]

    Pantellini, F. G. E., Burgess, D., & Schwartz, S. J. 1995, Advances in Space Research, 15, 341, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(94)00114-G

    work page doi:10.1016/0273-1177(94)00114-g 1995

  65. [65]

    2019a, ApJ, 870, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf003

    Papini, E., Franci, L., Landi, S., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 870, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf003

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf003

  66. [66]

    2019b, ApJ, 885, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4352

    Papini, E., Landi, S., & Del Zanna, L. 2019b, ApJ, 885, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4352

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4352

  67. [67]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, Physical Review, 109, 1874, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.109.1874

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.109.1874 1958

  68. [68]

    Parker, E. N. 1963, ApJS, 8, 177, doi: 10.1086/190087

    work page doi:10.1086/190087 1963

  69. [69]

    2013, SSRv, 178, 385, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9957-2

    Paschmann, G., Øieroset, M., & Phan, T. 2013, SSRv, 178, 385, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9957-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-012-9957-2 2013

  70. [70]

    D., Bale, S

    Phan, T. D., Bale, S. D., Eastwood, J. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab55ee

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab55ee 2020

  71. [71]

    D., Lavraud, B., Halekas, J

    Phan, T. D., Lavraud, B., Halekas, J. S., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039863 22

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039863 2021

  72. [72]

    D., Drake, J

    Phan, T. D., Drake, J. F., Larson, D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6841

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6841 2024

  73. [73]

    A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B

    Philippov, A., Uzdensky, D. A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B. 2019, ApJL, 876, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1590

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1590 2019

  74. [74]

    2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun (Cambridge University Press)

    Priest, E. 2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun (Cambridge University Press)

    work page 2014

  75. [75]

    Pritchett, P. L. 1992, Physics of Fluids B, 4, 3371, doi: 10.1063/1.860392

    work page doi:10.1063/1.860392 1992

  76. [76]

    2014 Reconnection of Quasi-singular Current Sheets: The “Ideal” Tearing Mode.Astrophys

    Pucci, F., & Velli, M. 2014, ApJL, 780, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L19

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/l19 2014

  77. [77]

    M., Drake, J

    Schoeffler, K. M., Drake, J. F., & Swisdak, M. 2011, ApJ, 743, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/70

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/1/70 2011

  78. [78]

    H., Shay, M

    Servidio, S., Matthaeus, W. H., Shay, M. A., Cassak, P. A., & Dmitruk, P. 2009, PhRvL, 102, 115003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.115003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.115003 2009

  79. [79]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab33ff

    Shi, C., Tenerani, A., Velli, M., & Lu, S. 2019, ApJ, 883, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab33ff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab33ff 2019

  80. [80]

    2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Shibata, K., & Takasao, S. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 427, Magnetic Reconnection: Concepts and Applications, ed. W. Gonzalez & E. Parker, 373, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26432-5 10

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26432-5 2016

Showing first 80 references.