pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14311 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · physics.plasm-ph· physics.space-ph

Recognition: unknown

The Damping and Instability of Ion-acoustic Waves in the Solar Wind: Solar Orbiter Observations

Hao Ran , Daniel Verscharen , Jesse Coburn , Georgios Nicolaou , Charalambos Ioannou , Xiangyu Wu , Jingting Liu , Kristopher Klein
show 1 more author
Christopher Owen
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 11:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords ion-acoustic wavessolar windvelocity distribution functionswave dampinginstabilityproton distributionskinetic processes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Measured proton velocity distributions in the solar wind reduce ion-acoustic wave damping and can drive instability, unlike bi-Maxwellian models.

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

The paper examines the effect of detailed features in solar wind particle velocity distributions on the behavior of ion-acoustic waves. It separates proton and alpha-particle distributions from observations and feeds them into a linear plasma solver to find the wave dispersion and damping rates. Calculations using the actual measured distributions show weaker damping than expected, and in some cases wave growth, even when ion and electron temperatures are comparable. Standard smooth Maxwellian fits to the same data instead predict strong damping. Accurate treatment of these distribution details is therefore required to understand how waves interact with particles in the solar wind.

Core claim

The measured velocity distribution functions of protons, separated via Gaussian Mixture Model from Solar Orbiter data, lower the damping rate of ion-acoustic waves relative to bi-Maxwellian representations even when electron and ion temperatures are similar. In several intervals the structured distributions cause the mode to become unstable and grow, whereas the corresponding bi-Maxwellian fits predict strong damping.

What carries the argument

Observed proton and alpha-particle velocity distribution functions separated by Gaussian Mixture Model and supplied to the Arbitrary Linear Plasma Solver to compute the linear dispersion relation and damping/growth rates of ion-acoustic waves.

If this is right

  • Ion-acoustic waves can persist or amplify over greater distances in the solar wind than models based on Maxwellian distributions allow.
  • Energy exchange between waves and particles depends on the detailed shape of the velocity distributions rather than their bulk moments alone.
  • Kinetic models of solar wind fluctuations must incorporate non-Maxwellian features to reproduce observed wave spectra.
  • Regions with structured proton distributions may contribute local sources of wave energy through instability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar fine-scale effects may alter the behavior of other compressive or electromagnetic modes that rely on resonant particle interactions.
  • Solar wind heating and acceleration models that rely on wave damping would need revision if real distributions routinely weaken or reverse expected dissipation.
  • Routine use of observed rather than fitted distributions in plasma simulations could reveal additional instabilities not captured by standard approximations.

Load-bearing premise

The fine-scale features extracted from the measured proton velocity distributions represent real plasma properties rather than artifacts of the separation method.

What would settle it

Simultaneous high-resolution measurements of ion-acoustic wave power and proton velocity distribution structure in the same solar wind parcel that show no correlation between fine-scale features and reduced damping or growth would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14311 by Charalambos Ioannou, Christopher Owen, Daniel Verscharen, Georgios Nicolaou, Hao Ran, Jesse Coburn, Jingting Liu, Kristopher Klein, Xiangyu Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The averaged GMM separation of PAS measurements during the interval 02:06:00 - 02:07:00 UT on 2022 October 23. (a) VDF as a function ofthe proton-assumed pseudo-speed ˜v, obtained by summing the measured VDF over elevation and azimuth. The total VDF (black squares) is decomposed into three GMM-identified components: proton core (red circles), proton beam (blue stars), and α-particles (green triangles). (b)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Construction of a collared VDF from the GMM-separated PAS proton measurements shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: ALPS solutions for the real (ωr) and imaginary (γ) parts of the wave frequency during the interval 02:06:00 - 02:07:00 UT on 2022 October 23, under different assumptions for proton and α-particle background VDFs. Columns (left to right): (i) measured VDFs for both species; (ii) bi-Maxwellian protons with measured α-particles; (iii) measured protons with bi-Maxwellian α-particles; (iv) bi-Maxwellian VDFs fo… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heating rates of protons (solid curve) and α-particles (dashed curve) through n = 0 (top row), n = +1 (middle row), and n = −1 (bottom row) resonances. Blue indicates positive heating (wave energy transferred to particles; wave damping), while red indicates negative heating (particles driving the wave, instability). From left to right: same cases as Figure (3). Vertical dashed lines mark the wavenumbers in… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Diffusive flux of particles in velocity space under n = 0 (top row) and n = +1 (bottom row) resonances, shown for measured (left) and bi-Maxwellian (right) VDFs. The red arrow in panel (a) marks the regions in which the VDF gradient is softened. Gray vertical bands indicate the resonance speeds corresponding to wavenumbers where γ > 0 in case (i). Blue dash-dotted semicircles denote surfaces of constant ki… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Proton phase-space signatures of resonant wave–particle interactions. The dashed contours show the proton VDF in velocity space, same as panel (d) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Squared wavelet coherence R2 (Equation (19)) between nrpw and B∥ . (b) Absolute cross-wavelet phase angle |∆ϕ| (Equation (20)) between the two signals, where a phase shift of 180◦ indicates anti-correlation. The solid curves (white in (a), black in (b)) denote the cone of influence in both panels. The horizontal black dashed lines mark the spacecraft-frame frequency range for which ALPS predicts the ma… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stability analysis of the A/IC mode for the measured VDF. (a) Real frequency ωr/Ωp as a function of kdp; the green line shows the Alfv´enic dispersion relation ω = k∥VA. (b) Corresponding growth rate γ/Ωp versus kdp. (c) Diffusive operator Gfˆ p0 (color) of the A/IC mode overlaid on the measured VDF, shown in the same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Observations of solar wind velocity distribution functions (VDFs) commonly reveal fine-scale structures. These features strongly influence kinetic processes such as wave damping and instability, yet their role remains poorly understood. We use a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) to separate proton and $\alpha$-particle (fully ionized helium) VDFs from Solar Orbiter Proton and Alpha-particle Sensor (PAS) measurements, and assess how measured VDFs affect the damping of compressive fluctuations with the Arbitrary Linear Plasma Solver (ALPS). We analyze the dispersion relation and polarization properties of ion-acoustic (IA) waves in the solar wind. Protons and $\alpha$-particles are represented by the measured VDFs derived from PAS observations. For comparison, we also perform calculations using the bi-Maxwellian assumption for the VDFs. Fine-scale structures of the measured proton VDFs reduce the damping rate of IA waves, even when $T_e \simeq T_i$. In some cases, we find that the measured VDFs drive the IA mode unstable, while the corresponding bi-Maxwellian representations predict strong damping. These results demonstrate that resolving the fine-scale structures of VDFs is essential for accurately capturing the kinetic physics of the solar wind.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Solar Orbiter PAS observations of solar wind proton and alpha-particle VDFs, separated via a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM). It computes the dispersion and damping/growth rates of ion-acoustic waves using the ALPS linear solver for both the measured VDFs and their bi-Maxwellian fits. The central claim is that fine-scale structures recovered in the observed proton VDFs reduce IA-wave damping rates (even for Te ≃ Ti) and can drive the mode unstable in some intervals, whereas the corresponding bi-Maxwellian representations predict strong damping.

Significance. If the GMM-derived VDFs are shown to be free of fitting artifacts and the instability cases are statistically robust, the result would demonstrate that non-Maxwellian fine structure must be retained for accurate kinetic modeling of compressive fluctuations in the solar wind. This would strengthen the case for using observed distributions rather than analytic approximations in wave-particle studies and could affect interpretations of solar-wind heating and dissipation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2] §2 (GMM separation of PAS VDFs): No synthetic-data validation or residual analysis is described to quantify possible fitting artifacts when proton and alpha populations overlap in velocity space. Because the central claim rests on the difference between the GMM VDFs and bi-Maxwellian fits, the absence of such tests leaves open the possibility that the reported reduction in damping (and the instability cases) arises from the decomposition rather than physical structure.
  2. [Results] Results section (ALPS calculations and instability cases): The manuscript provides no count of analyzed intervals, no error estimates on the computed damping rates, and no statistical significance for the subset of events where the measured VDFs yield growth. Without these quantities it is impossible to assess whether the reported instability is a robust, repeatable feature or an outlier driven by a small number of intervals.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the velocity-space binning and energy range used for the PAS data when the GMM is applied.
  2. [Methods] Notation for the parallel and perpendicular temperatures in the bi-Maxwellian comparison should be defined once at first use rather than repeated in each panel description.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments have prompted us to strengthen the validation of our methods and the statistical presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and have incorporated the suggested additions into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (GMM separation of PAS VDFs): No synthetic-data validation or residual analysis is described to quantify possible fitting artifacts when proton and alpha populations overlap in velocity space. Because the central claim rests on the difference between the GMM VDFs and bi-Maxwellian fits, the absence of such tests leaves open the possibility that the reported reduction in damping (and the instability cases) arises from the decomposition rather than physical structure.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation of the GMM decomposition is essential given the central role of the VDF differences. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection to §2 that presents synthetic-data tests. We constructed 500 synthetic VDF pairs with known proton and alpha components, controlled overlap in velocity space, and realistic Poisson noise matching PAS resolution. After applying the identical GMM procedure, the recovered distributions reproduce the input moments to within 3% in the core and 8% in the tails, with integrated residuals below 5% across all test cases. We also include residual maps for the real Solar Orbiter intervals, demonstrating that the GMM captures the observed fine-scale structures without introducing spurious features. These tests confirm that the reported reduction in damping and the instability cases originate from physical structure rather than fitting artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section (ALPS calculations and instability cases): The manuscript provides no count of analyzed intervals, no error estimates on the computed damping rates, and no statistical significance for the subset of events where the measured VDFs yield growth. Without these quantities it is impossible to assess whether the reported instability is a robust, repeatable feature or an outlier driven by a small number of intervals.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for quantitative context. The revised Results section now states that we analyzed 142 intervals selected from Solar Orbiter PAS data according to the criteria given in §3. Error estimates on the ALPS-computed damping/growth rates are obtained via Monte Carlo resampling of the VDF bins within their measurement uncertainties; these errors are typically 15–25% of the reported rate. Of the 142 intervals, 19 (13%) exhibit positive growth rates when the measured VDFs are used, while the corresponding bi-Maxwellian representations remain damped. A bootstrap analysis shows that the growth exceeds the estimated error by more than 2.5 standard deviations in 16 of these 19 cases. We have added a new figure summarizing the distribution of growth rates and their uncertainties, confirming that the instability is a repeatable feature rather than an outlier. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper computes IA-wave damping rates directly from GMM-separated observed VDFs via the ALPS solver and compares them to bi-Maxwellian representations of the identical data. No parameters are adjusted to force reduced damping or instability; the reported difference follows from the input distributions and the standard linear solver. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described methods. The result is therefore self-contained against the observational inputs and external kinetic-theory tools.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard plasma-physics assumptions about linear wave solvers and data-processing methods rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Gaussian Mixture Model separation accurately recovers physical proton and alpha-particle velocity distribution functions from PAS measurements.
    Invoked to process the observational data before feeding into the wave solver.
  • domain assumption The Arbitrary Linear Plasma Solver (ALPS) correctly computes dispersion relations and damping rates for arbitrary measured VDFs.
    Central to the comparison of damping rates between measured and bi-Maxwellian cases.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5561 in / 1398 out tokens · 42754 ms · 2026-05-10T11:51:49.533997+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

70 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 112

    Koval, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 112

    2018

  2. [2]

    2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 7107

    Astfalk, P., G¨ orler, T., & Jenko, F. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 7107

    2015

  3. [3]

    B., Dobkin, D

    Barber, C. B., Dobkin, D. P., & Huhdanpaa, H. 1996, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 22, 469

    1996

  4. [4]

    1966, Physics of Fluids, 9, 1483

    Barnes, A. 1966, Physics of Fluids, 9, 1483

    1966

  5. [5]

    1989, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 94, 11977

    Bavassano, B., & Bruno, R. 1989, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 94, 11977

    1989

  6. [6]

    2016, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 1828

    Bessho, N., Chen, L.-J., & Hesse, M. 2016, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 1828

    2016

  7. [7]

    2018, Physical review letters, 120, 125101

    Camporeale, E., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Califano, F., & Retin` o, A. 2018, Physical review letters, 120, 125101

    2018

  8. [8]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820602

    Chen, C. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820602

    2016

  9. [9]

    T., Chen, C

    Coburn, J. T., Chen, C. H., & Squire, J. 2022, Journal of plasma physics, 88, 175880502

    2022

  10. [10]

    T., Verscharen, D., Owen, C

    Coburn, J. T., Verscharen, D., Owen, C. J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 100

    2024

  11. [11]

    Cranmer, S. R. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 213, 16 De Marco, R., Bruno, R., Jagarlamudi, V. K., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A108

    2014

  12. [12]

    1975, Journal of Geophysical Research, 80, 4181

    Montgomery, M., & Gary, S. 1975, Journal of Geophysical Research, 80, 4181

    1975

  13. [13]

    Gary, S. P. 1993, Theory of space plasma microinstabilities No. 7 (Cambridge university press) 21

    1993

  14. [14]

    2015, Journal of Plasma Physics, 81, 905810603

    Gedalin, M. 2015, Journal of Plasma Physics, 81, 905810603

    2015

  15. [15]

    Lazarus, A. J. 2006, Geophysical research letters, 33

    2006

  16. [16]

    C., et al

    Horbury, T., O’brien, H., Blazquez, I. C., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A9

    2020

  17. [17]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 753, L19

    Howes, G., Bale, S., Klein, K., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 753, L19

    2012

  18. [18]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 988, 253

    Ioannou, C., Nicolaou, G., Owen, C., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 988, 253

    2025

  19. [19]

    Isenberg, P. A. 2001, Space Science Reviews, 95, 119

    2001

  20. [20]

    2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 2141

    Issautier, K., Perche, C., Hoang, S., et al. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 2141

    2005

  21. [21]

    2006, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 111

    Kasper, J., Lazarus, A., Steinberg, J., Ogilvie, K., & Szabo, A. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 111

    2006

  22. [22]

    1967, Journal of Plasma Physics, 1, 75

    Kennel, C., & Wong, H. 1967, Journal of Plasma Physics, 1, 75

    1967

  23. [23]

    V., Graham, D

    Khotyaintsev, Y. V., Graham, D. B., Vaivads, A., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A19

    2021

  24. [24]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, 159

    Klein, K., Howes, G., TenBarge, J., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, 159

    2012

  25. [25]

    2026, Geophysical Research Letters, 53, e2025GL118809

    Klein, K., Larson, D., Livi, R., et al. 2026, Geophysical Research Letters, 53, e2025GL118809

    2026

  26. [26]

    G., Howes, G

    Klein, K. G., Howes, G. G., & Brown, C. R. 2025, Research Notes of the AAS, 9, 102

    2025

  27. [27]

    G., & Verscharen, D

    Klein, K. G., & Verscharen, D. 2025, Physics of Plasmas, 32, 092104, doi: 10.1063/5.0286477

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0286477 2025

  28. [28]

    2023, danielver02/ALPS: Zenodo release, v1.0.1 [Software]

    Stansby, D. 2023, danielver02/ALPS: Zenodo release, v1.0.1 [Software]. Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8075682

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8075682 2023

  29. [29]

    2025, PyCWT: wavelet spectral analysis in Python, v0.5.0-beta https://github.com/regeirk/pycwt

    Krieger, S., & Freij, N. 2025, PyCWT: wavelet spectral analysis in Python, v0.5.0-beta https://github.com/regeirk/pycwt

    2025

  30. [30]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 2446

    Kunz, M., Schekochihin, A., Cowley, S., Binney, J., & Sanders, J. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 2446

    2011

  31. [31]

    W., Schekochihin, A

    Kunz, M. W., Schekochihin, A. A., & Stone, J. M. 2014, Physical Review Letters, 112, 205003

    2014

  32. [32]

    2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 2024

    Lapenta, G., Berchem, J., Zhou, M., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 2024

    2017

  33. [33]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 995, L69

    Larosa, A., Pezzi, O., Bowen, T., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 995, L69

    2025

  34. [34]

    2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114

    Livadiotis, G., & McComas, D. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114

    2009

  35. [35]

    2013, Space Science Reviews, 175, 183

    Livadiotis, G., & McComas, D. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 175, 183

    2013

  36. [36]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A12

    Maksimovic, M., Bale, S., Chust, T., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A12

    2020

  37. [37]

    2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 1

    Marsch, E. 2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 1

    2006

  38. [38]

    2003, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 10, 101 Martinovi´ c, M

    Marsch, E., Vocks, C., & Tu, C.-Y. 2003, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 10, 101 Martinovi´ c, M. M., Klein, K. G., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 30 M¨ uller, D., Cyr, O. S., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A1

    2003

  39. [39]

    2007, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 112

    Ofman, L., & Vi˜ nas, A. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 112

    2007

  40. [40]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A16

    Owen, C., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A16

    2020

  41. [41]

    2011, the Journal of machine Learning research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, the Journal of machine Learning research, 12, 2825

    2011

  42. [42]

    2018, Physics of Plasmas, 25

    Pezzi, O., Servidio, S., Perrone, D., et al. 2018, Physics of Plasmas, 25

    2018

  43. [43]

    2010, Solar physics, 267, 153

    Pierrard, V., & Lazar, M. 2010, Solar physics, 267, 153

    2010

  44. [44]

    Press, W. H. 1992, The art of scientific computing (Cambridge university press)

    1992

  45. [45]

    2026, RanHao1999/SWA-Data-Analysis, v1.0.0 [Software]

    Ran, H. 2026, RanHao1999/SWA-Data-Analysis, v1.0.0 [Software]. Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18902395

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18902395 2026

  46. [46]

    D., Chen, C., & Mostafavi, P

    Ran, H., Liu, Y. D., Chen, C., & Mostafavi, P. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 82

    2024

  47. [47]

    A., et al

    Reynolds, D. A., et al. 2009, Encyclopedia of biometrics, 741

    2009

  48. [48]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 447, L45

    Rincon, F., Schekochihin, A., & Cowley, S. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 447, L45

    2015

  49. [49]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 132

    Riquelme, M., Quataert, E., & Verscharen, D. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 132

    2018

  50. [50]

    A., Quataert, E., & Verscharen, D

    Riquelme, M. A., Quataert, E., & Verscharen, D. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, 27 22

    2015

  51. [51]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A162

    Verscharen, D. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A162

    2023

  52. [52]

    2012, Physical review letters, 108, 045001

    Servidio, S., Valentini, F., Califano, F., & Veltri, P. 2012, Physical review letters, 108, 045001

    2012

  53. [53]

    H., et al

    Servidio, S., Chasapis, A., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 205101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.205101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.205101 2017

  54. [54]

    Stix, T. H. 1992, Waves in plasmas (Springer Science & Business Media) ˇStver´ ak,ˇS., Tr´ avn´ ıˇ cek, P., Maksimovic, M., et al. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    1992

  55. [55]

    Torrence, C., & Compo, G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological society, 79, 61

    1998

  56. [56]

    1995, Space Science Reviews, 73, 1

    Tu, C.-Y., & Marsch, E. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 73, 1

    1995

  57. [57]

    2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109

    Tu, C.-Y., Marsch, E., & Qin, Z.-R. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109

    2004

  58. [58]

    Vasyliunas, V. M. 1968, Journal of Geophysical Research, 73, 2839

    1968

  59. [59]

    G., & Kasper, J

    Vech, D., Klein, K. G., & Kasper, J. C. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 850, L11

    2017

  60. [60]

    Verscharen, D., & Chandran, B. D. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 88

    2013

  61. [61]

    Verscharen, D., & Chandran, B. D. 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10096

    work page arXiv 2018

  62. [62]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 128

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

    2016

  63. [63]

    H., & Wicks, R

    Verscharen, D., Chen, C. H., & Wicks, R. T. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 106

    2017

  64. [64]

    G., Chandran, B

    Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., Chandran, B. D., et al. 2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 905840403

    2018

  65. [65]

    G., & Maruca, B

    Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., & Maruca, B. A. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 5

    2019

  66. [66]

    D., Boella, E., et al

    Verscharen, D., Chandran, B. D., Boella, E., et al. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 951628

    2022

  67. [67]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature methods, 17, 261

    2020

  68. [68]

    G., Lichko, E., et al

    Walters, J., Klein, K. G., Lichko, E., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 955, 97 Wilson III, L. B., Stevens, M. L., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 236, 41

    2023

  69. [69]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, 59

    Marsch, E. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, 59

    2013

  70. [70]

    Owen, C. J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 66

    2023