arxiv: 2604.21196 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · ⚛️ physics.space-ph · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.SR· physics.plasm-ph

Recognition: unknown

Properties and Radial Evolution of Solar Wind Turbulence Near Mercury's Orbit

Xinmin Li (1) , Chuanfei Dong (1 , 2) , Lina Z. Hadid (3) , Sae Aizawa (3) , Chi Zhang (1) , Hongyang Zhou (1) , Liang Wang (1)

show 26 more authors

Jiawei Gao (1) James A. Slavin (4) ((1) Center for Space Physics Department of Astronomy Boston University Boston MA 02215 USA (2) School of Natural Sciences Institute for Advanced Study Princeton NJ 08540 USA (3) Laboratoire de Physique des Plasmas (LPP) CNRS Observatoire de Paris Sorbonne Universit\'e Universit\'e Paris Saclay Ecole polytechnique Institut Polytechnique de Paris Palaiseau 91120 France (4) Department of Climate Space Sciences Engineering University of Michigan Ann Arbor MI 48109 USA)

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 12:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

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

keywords solar wind turbulenceradial evolutionMercury orbitinertial rangekinetic rangeAlfvenic cascademagnetic compressibilityion-scale break

0 comments

The pith

Solar wind turbulence maintains a stable Alfvenic inertial range with slopes near -3/2 from 0.31 to 0.47 AU.

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

The paper uses over 17,000 hours of MESSENGER magnetic field data to track solar wind turbulence across Mercury's elliptical orbit. Inertial-range spectral slopes stay close to -3/2 with no clear radial change and low magnetic compressibility, indicating an Alfvenic cascade is already in place at these distances. Kinetic-range slopes grow shallower as distance increases, and the ion-scale break shifts relative to the local proton cyclotron frequency. Autocorrelation times reveal strong anisotropy, with field-aligned fluctuations lengthening at greater distances while perpendicular ones stay short. The findings show scale-dependent evolution where inertial scales appear fixed early while kinetic scales respond to local conditions.

Core claim

Using long-term magnetic field measurements from the MESSENGER mission, the study shows that inertial-range spectral slopes remain close to -3/2 throughout Mercury's orbit, showing no significant radial evolution. Combined with low magnetic compressibility, this result indicates a stable, predominantly Alfvenic inertial-range cascade already established here. In contrast, kinetic-range spectral slopes exhibit clear radial evolution, becoming progressively shallower with increasing heliocentric distance. The ion-scale spectral break frequency decreases with distance in the spacecraft frame, while its normalized form increases relative to the local proton cyclotron frequency.

What carries the argument

Fourier spectral analysis of magnetic field fluctuations that separates inertial-range and kinetic-range power laws, together with measures of magnetic compressibility and autocorrelation times.

If this is right

Inertial-range turbulence is already established and Alfvenic by 0.3 AU.
Kinetic-scale turbulence remains sensitive to local plasma conditions and distance.
The ion-scale spectral break reflects evolving local conditions rather than a fixed scale.
Field-aligned magnetic fluctuations become less correlated at greater distances while perpendicular ones stay short.
These patterns constrain how kinetic processes develop in the inner heliosphere.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The fixed inertial-range properties may be set by conditions closer to the Sun or by the solar source itself.
Future closer-in observations could test whether the inertial range remains unchanged even nearer the corona.
Scale-dependent radial changes could influence models of how energy is transferred to particles at kinetic scales.

Load-bearing premise

The selected long-term intervals represent stationary homogeneous turbulence free of contamination from Mercury's bow shock, orbital effects, or instrumental artifacts, and standard Fourier methods cleanly separate inertial and kinetic ranges at every distance.

What would settle it

Observation of inertial-range spectral slopes that deviate markedly from -3/2 or display clear radial evolution in intervals confirmed free of bow-shock or orbital contamination would falsify the claim of stability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21196 by 2), 91120, Ann Arbor, Boston, Boston University, Chi Zhang (1), Chuanfei Dong (1, CNRS, Department of Astronomy, Ecole polytechnique, Engineering, France (4) Department of Climate, Hongyang Zhou (1), Institute for Advanced Study, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, James A. Slavin (4) ((1) Center for Space Physics, Jiawei Gao (1), Liang Wang (1), Lina Z. Hadid (3), MA 02215, MI 48109, NJ 08540, Observatoire de Paris, Palaiseau, Princeton, Sae Aizawa (3), Sorbonne Universit\'e, Space Sciences, Universit\'e Paris Saclay, University of Michigan, USA), USA (2) School of Natural Sciences, USA (3) Laboratoire de Physique des Plasmas (LPP), Xinmin Li (1).

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Overview of a complete MESSENGER orbit around Mercury. view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Radial dependence of spectral slopes and the spectral break frequency of solar wind view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Radial dependence of magnetic compressibility of magnetic field fluctuations near view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Radial dependence of autocorrelation properties and characteristic timescales of magnetic field fluctuations near Mercury’s orbit. (a)–(f) show the autocorrelation functions (ACFs) of magnetic field fluctuations for six heliocentric distance ranges from 0.31 to 0.47 au. The horizontal dashed line indicates the 1/e level used to define the correlation time. Blue curves denote fluctuations parallel to the ba… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive statistical study of the radial evolution of solar wind turbulence near Mercury's orbit using long-term magnetic field measurements from the MESSENGER mission. Owing to Mercury's highly elliptical orbit and the spacecraft's repeated, extended residence in the upstream solar wind, the data set provides more than 17,000 hours of observations, enabling robust statistics across well-defined heliocentric distance intervals (0.31-0.47 au). We find that inertial-range spectral slopes remain close to -3/2 throughout Mercury's orbit, showing no significant radial evolution. Combined with low magnetic compressibility, this result indicates a stable, predominantly Alfvenic inertial-range cascade already established here. In contrast, kinetic-range spectral slopes exhibit clear radial evolution, becoming progressively shallower with increasing heliocentric distance, highlighting the greater sensitivity of kinetic-scale turbulence to heliocentric conditions. The ion-scale spectral break frequency decreases with distance in the spacecraft frame, while its normalized form increases relative to the local proton cyclotron frequency, demonstrating that the break is not tied to a single ion scale but reflects evolving local plasma conditions. Magnetic compressibility shows a similar frequency dependence at all distances, with a subtle radial enhancement of compressive fluctuations at kinetic scales. Autocorrelation analysis reveals strong anisotropy, with the correlation times of field-aligned magnetic fluctuations increasing with heliocentric distance, while those of perpendicular fluctuations remain shorter and nearly invariant. Together, these results demonstrate a clear scale-dependent radial evolution of solar wind turbulence near Mercury's orbit, providing new constraints on the development of kinetic processes in the inner heliosphere.

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

This MESSENGER study gives the first solid statistical map of turbulence spectra from 0.31-0.47 AU, with inertial slopes holding near -3/2 while kinetic slopes shallow outward.

read the letter

The main point is that inertial-range magnetic spectra stay close to -3/2 across Mercury's orbit with low compressibility, pointing to an already-established Alfvenic cascade, while kinetic-range slopes get shallower with distance and the ion-scale break moves in a way that tracks local plasma conditions rather than a fixed frequency. Autocorrelation times also show clear anisotropy that evolves radially for parallel fluctuations but stays short for perpendicular ones. The dataset of over 17,000 hours from repeated upstream intervals is the real asset here; it supplies enough points to bin by heliocentric distance and pull out these trends where earlier coverage was thin. That supplies usable constraints for inner-heliosphere heating models and Mercury space-weather work. The abstract presents the trends cleanly and notes the normalized break frequency rising even as the spacecraft-frame value falls. The soft spots sit in the missing details. No error bars appear on the reported slopes, and the abstract gives no explicit account of how the inertial and kinetic fitting bands were chosen or whether they were rescaled to the local break at each distance. The stress-test concern therefore lands: if the windows stayed fixed in frequency while the break shifted, later bins could pull in more kinetic-range power and make the inertial slope look artificially constant. Stationarity checks, bow-shock avoidance criteria, and any automated break detection would need to be shown before the no-evolution claim is fully convincing. This is for people who model radial turbulence evolution or need inner-heliosphere benchmarks. It has enough new, testable empirical content to go to peer review so the methods can be examined and the numbers can be used.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a statistical study of solar wind magnetic turbulence using >17,000 hours of MESSENGER magnetic field data across 0.31–0.47 au. It reports that inertial-range spectral slopes remain near −3/2 with no significant radial evolution (indicating a stable, predominantly Alfvénic cascade), while kinetic-range slopes become shallower with distance; the ion-scale break frequency decreases in the spacecraft frame but increases when normalized to the local proton cyclotron frequency; magnetic compressibility shows mild radial enhancement at kinetic scales; and autocorrelation times reveal strong anisotropy with field-aligned times increasing with distance.

Significance. If the central claims hold after methodological clarification, the work supplies new empirical constraints on the early establishment of inertial-range turbulence in the inner heliosphere and the greater radial sensitivity of kinetic-scale processes. The large, well-binned dataset from Mercury’s orbit is a clear strength and complements existing 1 au and outer-heliosphere studies.

major comments (2)

[§3 and §4.1] §3 (Spectral Analysis) and §4.1 (Inertial-range results): The headline finding that inertial-range slopes show no radial evolution assumes that the fitted frequency intervals remain strictly inside the inertial range at every heliocentric distance. Because the ion-scale break frequency decreases in the spacecraft frame (abstract and §4.2), any fixed-frequency fitting window will progressively encroach on the kinetic range at larger distances. The manuscript must demonstrate that fitting bands were either rescaled to the locally determined break or that an automated, uniform break-finding procedure was applied; otherwise the apparent constancy of the −3/2 slope is at risk of being an artifact of inconsistent scale separation.
[§2] §2 (Data selection): The criteria used to select the long-term intervals, including explicit stationarity tests, homogeneity checks, and exclusion of intervals contaminated by Mercury’s bow shock or orbital effects, are not described in sufficient detail. These choices are load-bearing for all reported radial trends; without them the robustness of the statistical sample cannot be verified.

minor comments (3)

[Figures 2–5 and §4] Figures 2–5 and §4: Spectral slopes, break frequencies, and compressibility values are plotted without error bars or uncertainty estimates, making it difficult to judge whether the reported “no significant evolution” in the inertial range is statistically supported.
[§4.3] §4.3 (Autocorrelation): The radial trends in correlation times would be strengthened by a direct quantitative comparison with existing 1 au results using the same analysis pipeline.
[§3.2] Notation: The normalized break frequency is introduced without a clear equation defining the normalization (proton cyclotron frequency in the spacecraft frame?); a short equation or footnote would remove ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. The comments identify important points that require clarification to ensure the robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the necessary improvements.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3 and §4.1] §3 (Spectral Analysis) and §4.1 (Inertial-range results): The headline finding that inertial-range slopes show no radial evolution assumes that the fitted frequency intervals remain strictly inside the inertial range at every heliocentric distance. Because the ion-scale break frequency decreases in the spacecraft frame (abstract and §4.2), any fixed-frequency fitting window will progressively encroach on the kinetic range at larger distances. The manuscript must demonstrate that fitting bands were either rescaled to the locally determined break or that an automated, uniform break-finding procedure was applied; otherwise the apparent constancy of the −3/2 slope is at risk of being an artifact of inconsistent scale separation.

Authors: We agree that the referee has identified a critical methodological point. The original manuscript did not explicitly describe how the inertial-range fitting intervals were chosen relative to the ion-scale break frequency, leaving open the possibility that fixed bands could encroach on the kinetic range at larger distances. To resolve this, we will revise §3 to include a detailed description of an automated break-finding procedure (based on identifying the frequency where the local spectral slope steepens beyond a threshold) and will rescale all inertial-range fits to a consistent normalized interval relative to the local break (e.g., 0.05–0.5 times the break frequency). We will also add a supplementary figure showing the break locations and fitting windows across radial bins to demonstrate that the reported −3/2 slopes remain within the inertial range at all distances. This will confirm that the lack of radial evolution is not an artifact. revision: yes
Referee: [§2] §2 (Data selection): The criteria used to select the long-term intervals, including explicit stationarity tests, homogeneity checks, and exclusion of intervals contaminated by Mercury’s bow shock or orbital effects, are not described in sufficient detail. These choices are load-bearing for all reported radial trends; without them the robustness of the statistical sample cannot be verified.

Authors: We acknowledge that §2 does not provide sufficient detail on the data selection criteria. We will expand this section to include explicit descriptions of the stationarity tests (e.g., variance thresholds on magnetic field components over sub-intervals and checks for consistent mean values), homogeneity requirements (e.g., limits on variations in plasma beta or density within each interval), and the quantitative criteria used to exclude intervals affected by Mercury’s bow shock or orbital effects. We will also add a summary of the data rejection statistics (e.g., fraction of intervals removed at each step) and, if space permits, a brief flowchart of the selection pipeline. These revisions will allow independent verification of the sample robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical statistical summaries of observed spectra

full rationale

The paper performs a statistical analysis of MESSENGER magnetic field data across heliocentric distances, reporting measured spectral slopes, break frequencies, compressibility, and correlation times. No derivations, predictions, or fitted parameters are claimed to follow from first-principles equations within the paper; all results are direct data products. The skeptic concern about fixed fitting bands potentially mixing inertial and kinetic ranges is a methodological question of scale separation, not a reduction of any claimed result to its own inputs by construction. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text as load-bearing steps. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study relies on standard space-plasma assumptions for spectral analysis rather than new postulates. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Magnetic field fluctuations can be decomposed into inertial and kinetic ranges using power spectral density in the spacecraft frame.
Standard approach in solar wind turbulence studies; invoked implicitly when reporting spectral slopes and breaks.
domain assumption Selected intervals represent undisturbed solar wind turbulence without significant planetary or instrumental contamination.
Required for attributing observed radial trends to heliocentric distance rather than local effects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5763 in / 1372 out tokens · 50399 ms · 2026-05-08T12:56:24.317938+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references

[1]

2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 121

Alexandrova, O., Lacombe, C., Mangeney, A., Grappin, R., & Maksimovic, M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 121

2012
[2]

J., & Robert, P

Alexandrova, O., Saur, J., Lacombe, C., Mangeney, A., Mitchell, J., Schwartz, S. J., & Robert, P. 2009, Phys Rev Lett, 103, 165003

2009
[3]

J., Acuña, M

Anderson, B. J., Acuña, M. H., Lohr, D. A., Scheifele, J., Raval, A., Korth, H., & Slavin, J. A. 2007, in The MESSENGER mission to Mercury (Springer), 417

2007
[4]

2005, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 626, L37 ---

Boldyrev, S. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 626, L37 ---. 2006, Phys Rev Lett, 96, 115002

2005
[5]

2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 749, 102

Bourouaine, S., Alexandrova, O., Marsch, E., & Maksimovic, M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 749, 102

2012
[6]

2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 2

Bruno, R., & Carbone, V . 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 2

2013
[7]

2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 787, L24

Bruno, R., & Trenchi, L. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 787, L24

2014
[8]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 53

Chen, C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 53

2020
[9]

2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 125

Chen, C., Bale, S., Salem, C., & Maruca, B. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 125

2013
[10]

2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 737, L41

Chen, C., Bale, S., Salem, C., & Mozer, F. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 737, L41

2011
[11]

2010, arXiv preprint arXiv:10022539

Chen, C., Horbury, T., Schekochihin, A., Wicks, R., Alexandrova, O., & Mitchell, J. 2010, arXiv preprint arXiv:10022539

2010
[12]

2014, Geophys Res Lett, 41, 8081

Chen, C., Leung, L., Boldyrev, S., Maruca, B., & Bale, S. 2014, Geophys Res Lett, 41, 8081

2014
[13]

2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 635, L181

Dasso, S., Milano, L., Matthaeus, W., & Smith, C. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 635, L181

2005
[14]

2019, Geophys Res Lett, 46, 11584

Germaschewski, K. 2019, Geophys Res Lett, 46, 11584

2019
[15]

2018, Phys Rev Lett, 121, 165101

Dong, C., Wang, L., Huang, Y .-M., Comisso, L., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2018, Phys Rev Lett, 121, 165101

2018
[16]

A., & Bhattacharjee, A

Dong, C., Wang, L., Huang, Y .-M., Comisso, L., Sandstrom, T. A., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2022, Science Advances, 8, eabn7627

2022
[17]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 55

Duan, D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 55

2020
[18]

P., & Smith, C

Gary, S. P., & Smith, C. W. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114

2009
[19]

2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373, 20140147

Goldstein, M., Wicks, R., Perri, S., & Sahraoui, F. 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373, 20140147

2015
[20]

L., Roberts, D

Goldstein, M. L., Roberts, D. A., & Matthaeus, W. 1995, Annu Rev Astron Astr, 33, 283

1995
[21]

2015, The Astrophysical journal letters, 813, L29

Hadid, L., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical journal letters, 813, L29

2015
[22]

Z., Sahraoui, F., Galtier, S., & Huang, S

Hadid, L. Z., Sahraoui, F., Galtier, S., & Huang, S. 2018, Phys Rev Lett, 120, 055102

2018
[23]

2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 773, 72

He, J., Tu, C., Marsch, E., Bourouaine, S., & Pei, Z. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 773, 72

2013
[24]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 159

Huang, S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 159

2020
[25]

1963, Astronomicheskii Zhurnal, 40, 742

Iroshnikov, P. 1963, Astronomicheskii Zhurnal, 40, 742

1963
[26]

H., Chapman, S

Kiyani, K. H., Chapman, S. C., Sahraoui, F., Hnat, B., Fauvarque, O., & Khotyaintsev, Y . V . 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 763, 10

2013
[27]

H., Osman, K

Kiyani, K. H., Osman, K. T., & Chapman, S. C. 2015, in (The Royal Society Publishing), 20140155

2015
[28]

1941, Cr Acad Sci Urss, 30, 301

Kolmogoroff, A. 1941, Cr Acad Sci Urss, 30, 301

1941
[29]

Kraichnan, R. H. 1965, Phys Fluids, 8, 1385

1965
[30]

2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:260102393

Li, X., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:260102393

2025
[31]

2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 93

Lotz, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 93

2023
[32]

H., Goldstein, M

Matthaeus, W. H., Goldstein, M. L., & Roberts, D. A. 1990, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 95, 20673

1990
[33]

McGregor, S., Hughes, W., Arge, C., Odstrcil, D., & Schwadron, N. A. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116

2011
[34]

2007, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 654, L103

Osman, K., & Horbury, T. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 654, L103

2007
[35]

2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 725, L52

Perri, S., Carbone, V ., & Veltri, P. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 725, L52

2010
[36]

E., Dasso, S., Matthaeus, W., & Weygand, J

Ruiz, M. E., Dasso, S., Matthaeus, W., & Weygand, J. 2014, Sol Phys, 289, 3917

2014
[37]

2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 15

Sahraoui, F., Huang, S., Belmont, G., Goldstein, M., Retinò, A., Robert, P., & De Patoul, J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 15

2013
[38]

S., Howes, G., Sundkvist, D., Bale, S., Chaston, C., Chen, C., & Mozer, F

Salem, C. S., Howes, G., Sundkvist, D., Bale, S., Chaston, C., Chen, C., & Mozer, F. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 745, L9

2012
[39]

Schekochihin, A. A. 2022, J Plasma Phys, 88, 155880501

2022
[40]

2021, Astron Astrophys, 650, A21

Shi, C., et al. 2021, Astron Astrophys, 650, A21

2021
[41]

A., et al

Slavin, J. A., et al. 2008, Science, 321, 85

2008
[42]

W., Hamilton, K., Vasquez, B

Smith, C. W., Hamilton, K., Vasquez, B. J., & Leamon, R. J. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 645, L85

2006
[43]

2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 53

Terres, M., & Li, G. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 53

2022
[44]

1995, Space Sci Rev, 73, 1

Tu, C.-Y ., & Marsch, E. 1995, Space Sci Rev, 73, 1

1995
[45]

G., & Kasper, J

Vech, D., Mallet, A., Klein, K. G., & Kasper, J. C. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 855, L27

2018
[46]

2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 93

Wang, X., Tu, C., & He, J. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 93

2019
[47]

1967, IEEE Transactions on audio and electroacoustics, 15, 70

Welch, P. 1967, IEEE Transactions on audio and electroacoustics, 15, 70

1967
[48]

T., Forman, M

Wicks, R. T., Forman, M. A., Horbury, T. S., & Oughton, S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 103

2012
[49]

M., et al

Winslow, R. M., et al. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 2213

2013
[50]

D., Wicks, R

Woodham, L. D., Wicks, R. T., V erscharen, D., & Owen, C. J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 49

2018
[51]

2021, Phys Plasmas, 28

Zank, G., Zhao, L.-L., Adhikari, L., Telloni, D., Kasper, J., & Bale, S. 2021, Phys Plasmas, 28

2021
[52]

2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 924, L5

Zhao, L.-L., Zank, G., Adhikari, L., & Nakanotani, M. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 924, L5

2022
[53]

P., Zhao, L., & Silwal, A

Zhu, X., Zank, G. P., Zhao, L., & Silwal, A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 978, L34

2025