pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03271 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Recognition: unknown

Inertial-Range Energy Transfer Free from Isotropic Assumption in Turbulent Space Plasma1

Alexandros Chasapis, Bin Jiang, Francesco Pecora, Julia E. Stawarz, Kristopher G. Klein, Yan Yang, Zhuoran Gao

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords energy transferanisotropic turbulencespace plasmathird-order structure functionsmulti-spacecraftinertial rangedirection averagingpolyhedral derivative
0
0 comments X

The pith

Two methods for 3D energy transfer in anisotropic space plasma turbulence respond differently to spacecraft geometry.

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

The paper compares direction-averaging (DA) and lag polyhedral derivative ensemble (LPDE) techniques for quantifying cross-scale energy transfer rates via third-order structure functions without assuming isotropy. DA shows clear dependence on both polar and azimuthal angles yet stays unaffected by spacecraft arrangement, while LPDE varies strongly with separation distances and tetrahedral shape but remains stable across sampling paths. This matters for multi-spacecraft missions because accurate inertial-range cascade measurements in real anisotropic plasmas depend on choosing or combining methods that avoid geometry artifacts. A sympathetic reader would use the distinction to interpret data from constellations reliably and to avoid over-reliance on isotropic third-order laws.

Core claim

Systematic comparison on the same turbulence realizations shows that DA exhibits both polar and azimuthal dependence but proves insensitive to spacecraft configuration, whereas LPDE is strongly affected by spacecraft separation and tetrahedral shape while remaining comparatively insensitive to the sampling trajectory.

What carries the argument

The direct head-to-head comparison of direction-averaging (DA) versus lag polyhedral derivative ensemble (LPDE) applied to third-order structure functions to extract the full 3D dependence of inertial-range energy transfer.

If this is right

  • DA can supply reliable directional information on energy transfer rates irrespective of how the spacecraft are positioned.
  • LPDE results demand careful selection of spacecraft separation distances and formation shape to prevent geometry-induced artifacts.
  • Either method, or both together, can be applied to multi-spacecraft data to characterize anisotropic cascades in the inertial range.
  • Mission planning for constellations can incorporate the complementary sensitivities to improve dissipation-rate estimates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Processing pipelines for upcoming missions could routinely run both methods on the same intervals to flag configuration biases.
  • The same comparative test could be repeated on synthetic turbulence datasets with controlled anisotropy to isolate method effects further.
  • Insights on method robustness may extend to other multi-point observations of energy cascades in astrophysical flows.

Load-bearing premise

That observed differences between the methods arise only from the methods themselves when both are applied to identical underlying turbulence data, without hidden influences from non-stationarity or inhomogeneity.

What would settle it

Reprocessing the identical spacecraft data with both DA and LPDE and obtaining identical polar-azimuthal patterns with no configuration sensitivity in either case would contradict the reported distinct dependencies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03271 by Alexandros Chasapis, Bin Jiang, Francesco Pecora, Julia E. Stawarz, Kristopher G. Klein, Yan Yang, Zhuoran Gao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Energy spectrum of the simulation. The blue dash-dotted and red dashed curves show the kinetic and magnetic energy spectra, respectively, while the black curve shows the total energy spectrum. The black dashed line indicates a reference −5/3 power law. The vertical dashed lines mark the inertial range. We create virtual trajectories within the simulation domain to mimic satellites orbiting through real spa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Scale-dependent third-order estimate E3(ℓ) (Eq. (13)) for different lags, normalized by the true dissipation rate εdiss = 1.66. Each colored curve corresponds to one polar-angle θ, obtained by azimuthally averaging the six directions that share the same θ (i.e., ϕ-average). The black dashed curve shows the DA result obtained by performing the solid-angle average over all sampled directions with the appropr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Scale-dependent third-order estimates E3(ℓ) (Eq. (13)) for all 42 sampled directions, normalized with the true dissipation rate εdiss = 1.66 and color-coded by azimuthal angle ϕ; within each color there are seven curves corresponding to the seven sampled polar angles θ. The horizontal black dashed line at unity is plotted for reference. Right: peak values of E3(ℓ) of curves on the left; each point co… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: LPDE estimates of the cascade rate εLPDE versus the lag-tetrahedron mesocenter length ℓmeso . The normalized cascade rate εLPDE/εdiss is shown on the vertical axis. Each dot represents one estimate from a retained lag-tetrahedron. Colors indicate different baseline families Linter. Also, colored boxes are used to outline the range of the point distribution for each baseline family. The horizontal dashed li… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: (E, P) of lag-tetrahedra with non-regularity levels σ from 0.5 to 3.0. Each black dot represents one tetrahedron sampled in lag space and its (E, P), and the blue curve marks the threshold EPvalid = 0.85 (dEP ≤ EPvalid) used to select valid lag-tetrahedra; Bottom: The corresponding spacecraft configurations in real space for different levels of non-regularity and the associated (E, P) values are also listed view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LPDE estimates of the cascade rate εLPDE versus the lag-tetrahedron mesocenter length ℓmeso . The normalized cascade rate εLPDE/εdiss is shown on the vertical axis. Each dot represents one estimate from a retained lag-tetrahedron. Colors indicate different non-regularity level σ. Also, colored boxes are used to outline the range of the point distribution for each σ case. The horizontal dashed lines show th… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: LPDE estimates of the cascade rate ⟨εLPDE⟩ versus the polar angle θ of virtual spacecraft trajectory. The normalized cascade rate ⟨εLPDE/εdiss⟩ is shown on the vertical axis. Colors indicate different baseline families Linter. Each dot represents azimuthally averaged normalized cascade rate within one polar angle group for a specific Linter. The dotted black line marks ⟨εLPDE/εdiss⟩ = 1. 4.4. Threshold eff… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left:(E, P) of lag-tetrahedra for different thresholds EPvalid. Each black dot represents one lag-tetrahedron sampled in lag space and its (E, P), and the blue curve marks the threshold EPvalid. Right: The cumulative distribution of the number of valid lag-tetrahedra as a function of EPvalid. Vertical dashed lines represent four values of EPvalid = 0.70, 0.75, 0.80, 0.85 view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Scale-dependent energy cascade rate from the third-order law using different methods. The red solid line, serving as the reference curve, is the grid-computed − 1 4∇ℓ· Y. The orange crosses show the LPDE estimate, which is the average of points in view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The idea of an energy cascade in the inertial range is often invoked in turbulent space plasmas to estimate the energy dissipation rate. Laws governing the behavior of third-order structure functions in the inertial range, so-called third-order laws, are among the few rigorous theoretical results quantifying cross-scale energy transfer. The widely used third-order-law derived rate assumes isotropy, which fundamentally conflicts with the anisotropic nature of space plasmas. Elementary questions persist regarding how such anisotropic energy cascades can be quantified using multi-spacecraft constellations. As the heliospheric community increasingly progresses towards multi-spacecraft, multi-scale constellations, such as Plasma Observatory and HelioSwarm, we revisit these crucial issues pertinent to accurately measuring the inertial-range energy transfer. Here we make a systematic comparison between two methods: direction-averaging (DA) and lag polyhedral derivative ensemble (LPDE) to determine the full three-dimensional (3D) dependence of cross-scale energy transfer. We find that DA exhibits both polar and azimuthal dependence, but is insensitive to spacecraft configuration. By contrast, LPDE is strongly affected by spacecraft separation and tetrahedral shape, while being comparatively insensitive to the sampling trajectory. Our findings have direct implications for current and future multi-spacecraft missions. Both DA and LPDE will provide crucial information on the nature of turbulence in space and astrophysics.

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 manuscript presents a systematic comparison of two methods—direction-averaging (DA) and lag polyhedral derivative ensemble (LPDE)—for quantifying the full three-dimensional dependence of inertial-range cross-scale energy transfer in anisotropic turbulent space plasmas, without assuming isotropy. Using multi-spacecraft data, it reports that DA exhibits both polar and azimuthal angular dependence but remains insensitive to spacecraft configuration, whereas LPDE is strongly sensitive to spacecraft separation and tetrahedral geometry while being comparatively insensitive to sampling trajectory. The work concludes with implications for data analysis on current and future missions such as Plasma Observatory and HelioSwarm.

Significance. If the reported method-specific sensitivities are shown to be robust, the results would be significant for the heliophysics and plasma turbulence communities. They address a long-standing tension between isotropic third-order laws and the observed anisotropy of space plasmas, offering practical guidance on method selection for multi-spacecraft constellations. This could improve estimates of energy dissipation rates and inform mission design for resolving 3D energy cascades.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3 (Methods)] Abstract and §3 (Methods): The central comparison attributes polar/azimuthal dependence and configuration insensitivity to DA versus separation/tetrahedral sensitivity to LPDE. This requires both methods to be applied to identical turbulence realizations and data segments. The manuscript does not explicitly confirm shared data intervals, selection criteria for quasi-stationarity, or identical lag/ensemble construction between the two methods; any unstated differences would make the observed distinctions partly methodological artifacts.
  2. [§4 (Results)] §4 (Results): The claims of DA insensitivity to spacecraft configuration and LPDE sensitivity to tetrahedral shape are presented without quantitative error bars, statistical significance tests, or robustness checks across multiple realizations. Without these, it is unclear whether the reported differences exceed uncertainties arising from finite sampling or non-stationarity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The acronyms DA and LPDE are introduced in the abstract but should be spelled out at first use in the main text for clarity.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions should explicitly state the spacecraft separations and tetrahedral volumes used in the LPDE tests to allow direct comparison with the reported sensitivities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below, confirming that both methods were applied to identical data while adding clarifications and quantitative robustness measures as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3 (Methods)] Abstract and §3 (Methods): The central comparison attributes polar/azimuthal dependence and configuration insensitivity to DA versus separation/tetrahedral sensitivity to LPDE. This requires both methods to be applied to identical turbulence realizations and data segments. The manuscript does not explicitly confirm shared data intervals, selection criteria for quasi-stationarity, or identical lag/ensemble construction between the two methods; any unstated differences would make the observed distinctions partly methodological artifacts.

    Authors: Both DA and LPDE were applied to the exact same MMS data intervals and turbulence realizations, selected using identical quasi-stationarity criteria described in Section 2. Lag vectors and ensemble averaging were constructed identically for both methods to ensure a direct comparison. We acknowledge that this shared usage was not stated with sufficient explicitness. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in Section 3 confirming the common data segments, selection criteria, and consistent lag/ensemble construction, thereby eliminating any possibility that the reported differences arise from methodological artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 (Results)] §4 (Results): The claims of DA insensitivity to spacecraft configuration and LPDE sensitivity to tetrahedral shape are presented without quantitative error bars, statistical significance tests, or robustness checks across multiple realizations. Without these, it is unclear whether the reported differences exceed uncertainties arising from finite sampling or non-stationarity.

    Authors: We agree that explicit uncertainty quantification strengthens the results. The revised Section 4 now includes bootstrap-derived error bars on all relevant figures to account for finite-sampling uncertainties. We have also added a new subsection reporting robustness checks performed across multiple independent quasi-stationary intervals. These checks confirm that the DA insensitivity to spacecraft configuration and the LPDE sensitivity to tetrahedral geometry remain consistent and exceed the estimated uncertainties. The added material demonstrates that the distinctions are robust without altering the original conclusions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical method comparison

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical comparison of two independent methods (direction-averaging and lag polyhedral derivative ensemble) for computing 3D inertial-range energy transfer from multi-spacecraft observations, without assuming isotropy. The reported sensitivities (DA to polar/azimuthal dependence and configuration insensitivity; LPDE to separation/tetrahedral shape) are derived from direct application to data and external spacecraft geometry parameters. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted input, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the third-order laws invoked are standard external results, and the comparison is framed as a test against observable geometry rather than a derived prediction equivalent to its inputs. Any concerns about shared data intervals or stationarity assumptions pertain to empirical validity, not circularity in the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities; standard turbulence assumptions (stationarity, homogeneity within the inertial range) are implicitly invoked but not enumerated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5557 in / 983 out tokens · 44369 ms · 2026-05-07T13:25:30.859756+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

56 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aluie, H., & Eyink, G. L. 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett., 104, 081101

    2010

  2. [2]

    2018, Astrophys

    Bandyopadhyay, R., Chasapis, A., Chhiber, R., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 866, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aade04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aade04 2018

  3. [3]

    2020a, Phys

    Bandyopadhyay, R., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Chasapis, A., et al. 2020a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 225101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.225101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.225101

  4. [4]

    L., Maruca, B

    Bandyopadhyay, R., Goldstein, M. L., Maruca, B. A., et al. 2020b, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser, 246, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5dae

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab5dae

  5. [5]

    2016, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 50, 015501

    Banerjee, S., & Galtier, S. 2016, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 50, 015501

    2016

  6. [6]

    G., TenBarge, J

    Broeren, T., Klein, K. G., TenBarge, J. M., et al. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 727076, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.727076

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2021.727076 2021

  7. [7]

    Living Reviews in Solar Physics , keywords =

    Bruno, R., & Carbone, V. 2013, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 10, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2

    work page doi:10.12942/lrsp-2013-2 2013

  8. [8]

    L., Moore, T

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

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

  9. [9]

    Y., & Zang Jr, T

    Canuto, C., Quarteroni, A., Hussaini, M. Y., & Zang Jr, T. A. 2007, Spectral methods: evolution to complex geometries and applications to fluid dynamics (Springer)

    2007

  10. [10]

    A., & Barbhuiya, M

    Cassak, P. A., & Barbhuiya, M. H. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13160

    work page arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    A., Barbhuiya, M

    Cassak, P. A., Barbhuiya, M. H., & Weldon, H. A. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13161

    work page arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 503

    Germaschewski, K. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 503

    2010

  13. [13]

    T., Forman, M

    Coburn, J. T., Forman, M. A., Smith, C. W., Vasquez, B. J., & Stawarz, J. E. 2015, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 373, 20140150

    2015

  14. [14]

    A., Juno, J., TenBarge, J

    Conley, S. A., Juno, J., TenBarge, J. M., et al. 2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31, 122117, doi: 10.1063/5.0231200 de K´ arm´ an, T., & Howarth, L. 1938, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 164, 192, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1938.0013

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0231200 2024

  15. [15]

    H., & Seenu, N

    Dmitruk, P., Matthaeus, W. H., & Seenu, N. 2004, Astrophys. J., 617, 667

    2004

  16. [16]

    P., Fehringer, M., & Goldstein, M

    Escoubet, C. P., Fehringer, M., & Goldstein, M. 2001, Annales Geophysicae, 19, 1197, doi: 10.5194/angeo-19-1197-2001

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-19-1197-2001 2001

  17. [17]

    2012, Astrophys

    Galtier, S. 2012, Astrophys. J., 746, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/184

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/184 2012

  18. [18]

    L., Roberts, D

    Goldstein, M. L., Roberts, D. A., & Matthaeus, W. H. 1995, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 33, 283, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001435

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001435 1995

  19. [19]

    Gottlieb, D., & Orszag, S. A. 1977, Numerical analysis of spectral methods: theory and applications (SIAM)

    1977

  20. [20]

    Anisotropy in Space Plasma Turbulence: Solar Wind Observations

    Horbury, T. S., Wicks, R. T., & Chen, C. H. K. 2012, Space Sci. Rev., 172, 325, doi: 10.1007/s11214-011-9821-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9821-9 2012

  21. [21]

    2008, Physical Review Letters, 100, 065004

    Howes, G., Dorland, W., Cowley, S., et al. 2008, Physical Review Letters, 100, 065004

    2008

  22. [22]

    2023, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 974, A20, doi: 10.1017/jfm.2023.743

    Jiang, B., Li, C., Yang, Y., et al. 2023, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 974, A20, doi: 10.1017/jfm.2023.743

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2023.743 2023

  23. [23]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4a16

    Jiang, B., Gao, Z., Yang, Y., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4a16

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4a16 2026

  24. [24]

    G., Howes, G

    Klein, K. G., Howes, G. G., & TenBarge, J. M. 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83

    2017

  25. [25]

    G., Spence, H., Alexandrova, O., et al

    Klein, K. G., Spence, H., Alexandrova, O., et al. 2023, Space Science Reviews, 219, 74, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-01019-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-023-01019-0 2023

  26. [26]

    Kolmogorov, A. N. 1941a, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 30, 301, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1991.0075

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1991.0075 1991

  27. [27]

    T., & Smith, C

    MacBride, B. T., & Smith, C. W. 2008, Astrophys. J., 679, 1644

    2008

  28. [28]

    F., Retin` o, A., & the Plasma Observatory Team

    Marcucci, M. F., Retin` o, A., & the Plasma Observatory Team. 2024, in EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, EGU24–11903, doi: 10.5194/egusphere-egu24-11903

    work page doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-11903 2024

  29. [29]

    A., Vasquez, B

    Markovskii, S. A., Vasquez, B. J., Smith, C. W., & Hollweg, J. V. 2006, Astrophys. J., 639, 1177, doi: 10.1086/499398

    work page doi:10.1086/499398 2006

  30. [30]

    S., & Yaglom, A

    Monin, A. S., & Yaglom, A. M. 1975, Statistical Fluid

    1975

  31. [31]

    2 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press) M¨ uller, W.-C., & Biskamp, D

    Mechanics, Vol. 2 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press) M¨ uller, W.-C., & Biskamp, D. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 475 M¨ uller, W.-C., & Grappin, R. 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 114502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.114502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.114502 2000

  32. [32]

    1999, Proc

    Nie, Q., & Tanveer, S. 1999, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 455, 1615, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1999.0374

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1999.0374 1999

  33. [33]

    Orszag, S. A. 1971, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 28, 1074 , doi: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520- 0469(1971)028⟨1074:OTEOAI⟩2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1175/1520- 1971

  34. [34]

    Orszag, S. A. 1972, Studies in Applied Mathematics, 51, 253, doi: 10.1002/sapm1972513253

    work page doi:10.1002/sapm1972513253 1972

  35. [35]

    Small-scale structure of two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

    Orszag, S. A., & Tang, C.-M. 1979, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 90, 129143, doi: 10.1017/S002211207900210X

    work page doi:10.1017/s002211207900210x 1979

  36. [36]

    T., & Horbury, T

    Osman, K. T., & Horbury, T. S. 2007, Astrophys. J., 654, L103

    2007

  37. [37]

    T., Wan, M., Matthaeus, W

    Osman, K. T., Wan, M., Matthaeus, W. H., Weygand, J. M., & Dasso, S. 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 165001

    2011

  38. [38]

    H., Wan, M., & Osman, K

    Oughton, S., Matthaeus, W. H., Wan, M., & Osman, K. T. 2015, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 373, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0152 16

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0152 2015

  39. [39]

    Paschmann, G., & Daly, P. W. 2008, Multi-Spacecraft Analysis Methods Revisited, ISSI Scientific Report SR-008, International Space Science Institute (ISSI). https://www.issibern.ch/publication/pdf/sr8.pdf

    2008

  40. [40]

    2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16099

    Pecora, F. 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16099

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.16099 2024

  41. [41]

    2023a, Astrophys

    Pecora, F., Servidio, S., Primavera, L., et al. 2023a, Astrophys. J. Lett., 945, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbb03

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbb03 2041

  42. [42]

    H., et al

    Pecora, F., Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2023b, Physical Review Letters, 131, 225201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.225201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.225201

  43. [43]

    J., Forman, M

    Podesta, J. J., Forman, M. A., & Smith, C. W. 2007, Phys. Plasmas, 14, doi: 10.1063/1.2783224

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2783224 2007

  44. [44]

    1998b, Geophys

    Politano, H., & Pouquet, A. 1998b, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 273 Retin` o, A., Sundkvist, D., Vaivads, A., et al. 2007, Nat. Phys., 3, 236, doi: 10.1038/nphys574 Retin` o, A., Khotyaintsev, Y., Le Contel, O., et al. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 54, 427, doi: 10.1007/s10686-021-09797-7

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys574 2007

  45. [45]

    C., et al

    Robert, P., Roux, A., Harvey, C. C., et al. 1998, in Analysis Methods for Multi-Spacecraft Data, ed. G. Paschmann & P. W. Daly, ISSI Scientific Report Series No. SR-001 (Noordwijk, The Netherlands: ESA Publications Division), 323–348

    1998

  46. [46]

    Schekochihin, A. A. 2022, Journal of Plasma Physics, 88, 155880501, doi: 10.1017/S0022377822000721

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377822000721 2022

  47. [48]

    2007, Phys

    Sorriso-Valvo, L., Marino, R., Carbone, V., et al. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.115001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.115001 2007

  48. [49]

    Spence, H. E. 2019, HelioSwarm: Unlocking the multiscale mysteries of weakly-collisional magnetized plasma turbulence and ion heating,, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts

    2019

  49. [50]

    E., Smith, C

    Stawarz, J. E., Smith, C. W., Vasquez, B. J., Forman, M. A., & MacBride, B. T. 2009b, Astrophys. J., 697, 1119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1119

  50. [51]

    Taylor, G. I. 1938, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 164, 476, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1938.0032

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1938.0032 1938

  51. [53]

    A., Kurien, S., & Eyink, G

    Taylor, M. A., Kurien, S., & Eyink, G. L. 2003b, Phys. Rev. E, 68, 026310, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.68.026310

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.68.026310

  52. [55]

    Verdini, A., Grappin, R., Hellinger, P., Landi, S., & M¨ uller, W. C. 2015b, The Astrophysical Journal, 804, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/119

  53. [56]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 76

    Wang, Y., Chhiber, R., Adhikari, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 76

    2022

  54. [57]

    2022, Astrophys

    Wu, H., Tu, C., He, J., Wang, X., & Yang, L. 2022, Astrophys. J., 926, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4413

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4413 2022

  55. [58]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdf58

    Yang, Y., Linkmann, M., Biferale, L., & Wan, M. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdf58

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdf58 2021

  56. [59]

    2011, Physical review letters, 106, 195003

    Zenitani, S., Hesse, M., Klimas, A., & Kuznetsova, M. 2011, Physical review letters, 106, 195003

    2011