pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03668 · v1 · pith:P5K46EU4new · submitted 2026-06-02 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.SR· physics.space-ph

Velocity space origins of pressure-strain interaction in multi-population distributions and its application to magnetic reconnection

M. Hasan Barbhuiya , Paul A.Cassak , Sarah Conley , Julia E. Stawarz , Emily Lichko , Jason TenBarge , James Juno , Jason R. Shuster
show 2 more authors
Gregory G. Howes Subash Adhikari
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 07:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords pressure-strain interactionmagnetic reconnectionparticle-in-cell simulationphase space diagnosticskinetic plasmaelectron diffusion regionvelocity spacemulti-population distributions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Phase-space diagnostics isolate the contributions of distinct particle populations to pressure-strain interaction near the electron diffusion region in magnetic reconnection.

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

The paper develops phase-space versions of pressure-strain diagnostics that retain velocity information lost in standard fluid metrics. These tools are used to examine composite electron distributions in particle-in-cell simulations of antiparallel magnetic reconnection. The diagnostics separate the roles played by different populations in driving the interaction. This separation helps clarify how internal energy evolves in weakly collisional plasmas where local thermodynamic equilibrium does not hold.

Core claim

The phase space-based diagnostics isolate the roles of distinct populations in contributing to pressure-strain interaction near the electron diffusion region in two-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations of antiparallel symmetric magnetic reconnection. The work introduces the kinetic strain-rate tensor as the phase-space analog of the strain-rate tensor and develops phase-space analogs of pressure-strain decompositions to identify origins of normal versus sheared flow.

What carries the argument

The kinetic pressure-strain, a phase-space diagnostic whose velocity-space integral recovers the fluid pressure-strain interaction, together with the newly introduced kinetic strain-rate tensor.

If this is right

  • The diagnostics disambiguate contributions to pressure-strain from disparate particle populations in any composite phase-space density.
  • Phase-space analogs distinguish the origins of normal versus sheared flow contributions.
  • The same quantities can be applied to processes beyond reconnection, including collisionless shocks and turbulence.
  • The approach supplies velocity-resolved information on internal energy density evolution in non-LTE plasmas.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method could be tested on one-dimensional analytic reconnection solutions to confirm population separation before full simulation use.
  • Extension to three-dimensional or asymmetric reconnection geometries would check whether the population isolation persists.
  • Linking the kinetic strain-rate tensor to observed velocity-space structures in spacecraft data could connect simulation diagnostics to measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The velocity-space decomposition developed for single populations remains valid and directly interpretable when applied to composite multi-population distributions.

What would settle it

A direct numerical check in which the velocity-space integral of the new diagnostics fails to recover the known fluid pressure-strain value for an analytic multi-population distribution would show the decomposition does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03668 by Emily Lichko, Gregory G. Howes, James Juno, Jason R. Shuster, Jason Tenbarge, Julia E. Stawarz, M. Hasan Barbhuiya, Paul A.Cassak, Sarah Conley, Subash Adhikari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Electron VDF fe, (b) KePS, (c) kinetic PDU KePDU, and (d) kinetic Pi − Dshear KePiDS near the upstream edge of the EDR at (x − x0, y − y0) = (0, −0.3). Each is reduced to the vx − vz plane. The gray and gold ovals highlight the upstream electrons drifting towards the EDR and the demagnetized electrons undergoing Speiser motion, respectively. length λDe = 0.0176. Similarly, we use a particle time step ∆… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two strain-rate tensor elements centered at the X-line (x0, y0). (a) ∂yuz, and (b) ∂xux. Colored boxes denote the spatial regions from which particles are collected and binned to produce 3-D VDFs as detailed in Sec. 3. Representative in-plane magnetic field lines are shown in black. interaction and its decompositions. At the time of interest t = 13, the electron diffusion region (EDR) extends from approxim… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Electron VDF near the upstream edge of the EDR, reduced in the vx −vz plane at (a) (x−x0, y−y0) = (0, −0.2375), (b) (x − x0, y − y0) = (0, −0.3), and (c) (x − x0, y − y0) = (0, −0.3625). (d) Reduced kinetic strain-rate tensor element KSR,yz in the vx − vz plane. (b) (c) min=-0.0029,max=0.0049 0.0000 0.0025 0.0049 -0.0025 -0.0049 (d) 0.0000 2.1e-5 4.2e-5 -2.1e-5 -4.2e-5 0.0000 0.0025 0.0049 -0.0025 -0.0049 … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reduced electron VDFs at three locations, with dark sky blue dashed lines denoting the bulk flow velocity components, uex, uey, and uez. (a)-(c) (x − x0, y − y0) = (0, −0.3), near the upstream edge of the EDR, with (uex, uey, uez) = (0.00039, 0.23, 0.51). (d)-(f) (x − x0, y − y0) = (0, 0), surrounding the X-line, with (uex, uey, uez) = (−0.00026, 0.0059, 1.9). (g)-(i) (x − x0, y − y0) = (−1.4, 0), near the… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A forefront research question is how energy evolves in weakly collisional plasmas for which departures from local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) are significant. The standard approach is studying the terms in the non-LTE energy evolution equation derived by taking the second moment of the Boltzmann equation, but the resultant fluid metrics do not retain information about which particles at which velocities drive energy evolution. A widely studied channel for internal energy density evolution is the pressure-strain interaction. Here we employ the kinetic pressure-strain [S. A. Conley et al., ${\it Phys. Plasmas,} {\bf 31}$, 122117 (2024)], a phase space diagnostic whose velocity-space integral recovers the pressure-strain interaction to disambiguate the contributions to pressure-strain interaction from disparate particle populations in composite phase-space densities. We develop phase-space analogs of the pressure-strain interaction decompositions to provide the phase-space origins of normal vs. sheared flow. We introduce the "kinetic strain-rate" tensor, the phase-space analog of strain-rate tensor, which we argue is needed to interpret phase-space origins of pressure-strain interaction. To demonstrate the utility of these quantities, we investigate them for composite electron distributions near the electron diffusion region in two-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations of antiparallel symmetric magnetic reconnection. We find that the phase space-based diagnostics isolate the roles of distinct populations. These results contribute to a growing body of work providing new methods for quantifying phase space energy evolution for a broad array of processes, from magnetic reconnection to collisionless shocks and turbulence, opening new pathways for answering longstanding problems of particle energization in weakly collisional plasmas.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces phase-space diagnostics derived from the kinetic pressure-strain interaction (building on Conley et al. 2024) to isolate contributions from distinct particle populations within composite velocity distributions. It develops phase-space analogs of normal vs. sheared flow decompositions, introduces a 'kinetic strain-rate' tensor, and applies these to electron distributions near the electron diffusion region in 2D PIC simulations of antiparallel symmetric magnetic reconnection, claiming that the diagnostics successfully disambiguate population roles in pressure-strain interaction.

Significance. If the decomposition remains valid and interpretable for composite distributions, the work provides a valuable extension of fluid energy evolution metrics into velocity space, enabling more precise identification of energization mechanisms in weakly collisional plasmas. This could impact studies of reconnection, shocks, and turbulence by linking phase-space features directly to pressure-strain without additional fitting parameters. The application to established PIC setups offers a concrete demonstration, though the strength depends on validation of the core decomposition property.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: the central claim that the velocity-space decomposition of kinetic pressure-strain interaction remains additive and unambiguous when applied to composite multi-population f(v) lacks any derivation, analytic test case, or validation against known superpositions. The abstract notes only that the integral recovers the fluid pressure-strain, but does not demonstrate that the phase-space partitioning (or the introduced kinetic strain-rate tensor) inherits this property without ambiguity for overlapping distributions, which is load-bearing for the claimed isolation of distinct populations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review. The major comment correctly notes that the manuscript does not explicitly derive or validate additivity of the kinetic pressure-strain decomposition (and the kinetic strain-rate tensor) for composite distributions. We address this below and will revise the manuscript to include the requested derivation and test case.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: the central claim that the velocity-space decomposition of kinetic pressure-strain interaction remains additive and unambiguous when applied to composite multi-population f(v) lacks any derivation, analytic test case, or validation against known superpositions. The abstract notes only that the integral recovers the fluid pressure-strain, but does not demonstrate that the phase-space partitioning (or the introduced kinetic strain-rate tensor) inherits this property without ambiguity for overlapping distributions, which is load-bearing for the claimed isolation of distinct populations.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation is needed. The kinetic pressure-strain interaction is constructed so that its velocity integral recovers the fluid pressure-strain (Conley et al. 2024). For a composite distribution f = Σ f_i the definition is linear in f, so ∫ KPS(f) dv = Σ ∫ KPS(f_i) dv holds by direct substitution regardless of velocity-space overlap; the populations are isolated by partitioning f into the f_i before evaluating the diagnostic. The same linearity applies to the kinetic strain-rate tensor. We will add this derivation to Section 2 and include an analytic test case (superposed Maxwellians) in a new appendix to demonstrate the property for overlapping distributions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper applies the kinetic pressure-strain diagnostic introduced in the cited Conley et al. (2024) work to multi-population distributions in PIC reconnection simulations, then defines phase-space analogs and a new 'kinetic strain-rate' tensor to interpret contributions. No equations or steps reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the central results are obtained by direct application of the prior diagnostic to simulation data without statistical forcing or renaming of known results. The 2024 reference provides independent kinetic-theory grounding, and the present work adds no circular closure in its decomposition or application.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The work rests on the validity of the kinetic pressure-strain definition from the 2024 reference and on standard assumptions of collisionless plasma kinetics and PIC simulation fidelity. No free parameters are introduced in the abstract. One invented entity (kinetic strain-rate tensor) is defined to interpret the diagnostics.

axioms (2)
  • standard math The second moment of the Boltzmann equation yields the fluid pressure-strain interaction whose kinetic analog is given by Conley et al. 2024.
    Invoked in the opening paragraphs to motivate the phase-space extension.
  • domain assumption Composite phase-space densities can be decomposed into distinct populations whose separate contributions to pressure-strain remain physically meaningful.
    Central to the claim that the diagnostics isolate roles of distinct populations.
invented entities (1)
  • kinetic strain-rate tensor no independent evidence
    purpose: Phase-space analog of the strain-rate tensor needed to interpret normal versus sheared contributions to pressure-strain at the velocity level.
    Introduced explicitly as a new diagnostic quantity; no independent evidence outside the paper is provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5880 in / 1408 out tokens · 11223 ms · 2026-06-28T07:56:29.707070+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

66 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adhikari, S., Yang, Y., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2025, Physics of Plasmas, 32, 124502, doi: 10.1063/5.0295281

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0295281 2025

  2. [2]

    S., Howes, G

    Afshari, A. S., Howes, G. G., Kletzing, C. A., Hartley, D. P., & Boardsen, S. A. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2021JA029578, doi: 10.1029/2021JA029578

    work page doi:10.1029/2021ja029578 2021

  3. [3]

    S., Howes, G

    Afshari, A. S., Howes, G. G., Shuster, J. R., et al. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 7870, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52125-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52125-8 2024

  4. [4]

    H., et al

    Bandyopadhyay, R., Chasapis, A., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2021, Physics of Plasmas, 28, 112305, doi: 10.1063/5.0071015

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0071015 2021

  5. [5]

    H., Cassak, P., Shay, M., et al

    Barbhuiya, M. H., Cassak, P., Shay, M., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, e2022JA030610, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030610

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ja030610 2022

  6. [6]

    H., & Cassak, P

    Barbhuiya, M. H., & Cassak, P. A. 2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29, 122308, doi: 10.1063/5.0125256

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0125256 2022

  7. [7]

    H., Cassak, P

    Barbhuiya, M. H., Cassak, P. A., Adhikari, S., et al. 2024, Physical Review E, 109, 015205, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.109.015205

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.109.015205 2024

  8. [8]

    H., Cassak, P

    Barbhuiya, M. H., Cassak, P. A., Chasapis, A., et al. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 130, e2024JA033446, doi: 10.1029/2024JA033446

    work page doi:10.1029/2024ja033446 2025

  9. [9]

    R., & Wang, S

    Bessho, N., Chen, L.-J., Shuster, J. R., & Wang, S. 2014, Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 8688, doi: 10.1002/2014GL062034

    work page doi:10.1002/2014gl062034 2014

  10. [10]

    2018, Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 12,142, doi: 10.1029/2018GL081216 Bharati Das, S., & Terres, M

    Bessho, N., Chen, L.-J., Wang, S., & Hesse, M. 2018, Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 12,142, doi: 10.1029/2018GL081216 Bharati Das, S., & Terres, M. 2025a, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb6a0 Bharati Das, S., & Terres, M. 2025b, The Astrophysical Journal, 996, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d71

    work page doi:10.1029/2018gl081216 2018

  11. [11]

    K., & Langdon, A

    Birdsall, C. K., & Langdon, A. B. 1991, Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation (Philadelphia: Institute of Physics Publishing) 19

    1991

  12. [12]

    2023, Journal of Plasma Physics, 89, 905890308, doi: 10.1017/S0022377823000478

    Constantinou, S. 2023, Journal of Plasma Physics, 89, 905890308, doi: 10.1017/S0022377823000478

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377823000478 2023

  13. [13]

    L., Torbert, R

    Burch, J. L., Torbert, R. B., Phan, T. D., et al. 2016, Science, 352, 6290, doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2939

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaf2939 2016

  14. [14]

    L., Genestreti, K

    Burch, J. L., Genestreti, K. J., Heuer, S. V., et al. 2023, Physics of Plasmas, 30, 082903, doi: 10.1063/5.0153628

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0153628 2023

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    H., et al

    Chasapis, A., Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac775

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac775 2018

  17. [17]

    Chen, C. H. K., Klein, K. G., & Howes, G. G. 2019, Nature Communications, 10, 740, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08435-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08435-3 2019

  18. [18]

    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 Del Sarto, D., Pegoraro, F., & Califano, F. 2016, Physical Review E, 93, 053203, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.93.053203

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0231200 2024

  19. [19]

    P., Li, X., & Stanier, A

    Du, S., Guo, F., Zank, G. P., Li, X., & Stanier, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae30e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae30e 2018

  20. [20]

    P., Li, X., & Guo, F

    Du, S., Zank, G. P., Li, X., & Guo, F. 2020, Phys. Rev. E, 101, 033208, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.101.033208

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.101.033208 2020

  21. [21]

    M., Crabtree, C., Ganguli, G., Malaspina, D

    DuBois, A. M., Crabtree, C., Ganguli, G., Malaspina, D. M., & Amatucci, W. E. 2022, Physical Review Letters, 129, 105101, doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.105101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.105101 2022

  22. [22]

    M., Crabtree, C., Lichko, E., & Ganguli, G

    DuBois, A. M., Crabtree, C., Lichko, E., & Ganguli, G. 2026, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 131, e2025JA034543, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2025JA034543

    work page doi:10.1029/2025ja034543 2026

  23. [23]

    W., Balogh, A., Glassmeier, K

    Dunlop, M. W., Balogh, A., Glassmeier, K. H., & Robert, P. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1384, doi: 10.1029/2001JA005088

    work page doi:10.1029/2001ja005088 2002

  24. [24]

    N., Simpson, T., et al

    Edyvean, J., Parashar, T. N., Simpson, T., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 173, doi: https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cf5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cf5 2024

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

    1964, Elements of plasma physics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York)

    Gartenhaus, S. 1964, Elements of plasma physics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York)

    1964

  27. [27]

    V., Newman, D

    Goldman, M. V., Newman, D. L., Eastwood, J. P., et al. 2021, Physics of Plasmas, 28, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0063431

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0063431 2021

  28. [28]

    2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2021JA029316, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA029316

    Greess, S., Egedal, J., Stanier, A., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2021JA029316, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA029316

    work page doi:10.1029/2021ja029316 2021

  29. [29]

    N., Drake, J

    Guzdar, P. N., Drake, J. F., McCarthy, D., Hassam, A. B., & Liu, C. S. 1993, Phys. Fluids B, 5, 3712, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.860842

    work page doi:10.1063/1.860842 1993

  30. [30]

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

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02733547 1962

  31. [31]

    1998, in ISSI Scientific Report Series, Vol

    Harvey, C. 1998, in ISSI Scientific Report Series, Vol. SR1, Analysis Methods for Multi-Spacecraft Data, ed. G. Paschmann & P. W. Daly, 307–321

    1998

  32. [32]

    Howes, G. G. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 055907, doi: 10.1063/1.4983993

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4983993 2017

  33. [33]

    R., Howes, G

    Juno, J., Brown, C. R., Howes, G. G., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf53

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf53 2023

  34. [34]

    G., TenBarge, J

    Juno, J., Howes, G. G., TenBarge, J. M., et al. 2021, Journal of Plasma Physics, 87, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022377821000623

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377821000623 2021

  35. [35]

    G., & Howes, G

    Klein, K. G., & Howes, G. G. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 826, L30, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/L30

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/l30 2016

  36. [36]

    G., Howes, G

    Klein, K. G., Howes, G. G., & TenBarge, J. M. 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022377817000563

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377817000563 2017

  37. [37]

    G., Howes, G

    Klein, K. G., Howes, G. G., TenBarge, J. M., & Valentini, F. 2020, Journal of Plasma Physics, 86, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022377820000689

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377820000689 2020

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    2018, in , Copernicus GmbH, 1607–1630, doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-36-1607-2018

    Marsch, E. 2018, in , Copernicus GmbH, 1607–1630, doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-36-1607-2018

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-36-1607-2018 2018

  40. [40]

    H., Yang, Y., Wan, M., et al

    Matthaeus, W. H., Yang, Y., Wan, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d6a 2020

  41. [41]

    J., Howes, G

    McCubbin, A. J., Howes, G. G., & TenBarge, J. M. 2022, Physics of plasmas, 29, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0082213

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0082213 2022

  42. [42]

    Montag, P., & Howes, G. G. 2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29, 032901, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0036825

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0036825 2022

  43. [43]

    G., McGinnis, D., et al

    Montag, P., Howes, G. G., McGinnis, D., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 980, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb0b2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb0b2 2025

  44. [44]

    2012, Physics of Plasmas, 19, 112108, doi: 10.1063/1.4766895

    Ng, J., Egedal, J., Le, A., & Daughton, W. 2012, Physics of Plasmas, 19, 112108, doi: 10.1063/1.4766895

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4766895 2012

  45. [45]

    2011, Physical Review Letters, 106, 065002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.065002

    Ng, J., Egedal, J., Le, A., Daughton, W., & Chen, L.-J. 2011, Physical Review Letters, 106, 065002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.065002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.065002 2011

  46. [46]

    2025, Physics of Plasmas, 32, 052109, doi: 10.1063/5.0246402 20

    Norgren, C., Hesse, M., Phan, T., et al. 2025, Physics of Plasmas, 32, 052109, doi: 10.1063/5.0246402 20

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0246402 2025

  47. [47]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 331, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0245-4

    Pollock, C., Moore, T., Jacques, A., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 331, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0245-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0245-4 2016

  48. [48]

    2024, Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2024GL112074, doi: 10.1029/2024GL112074 Retin` o, A., Khotyaintsev, Y., Le Contel, O., et al

    Ren, Y., Dai, L., Wang, C., et al. 2024, Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2024GL112074, doi: 10.1029/2024GL112074 Retin` o, A., Khotyaintsev, Y., Le Contel, O., et al. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 54, 427, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-021-09797-7 San` o, B., Maes Anno, N. N., Newman, D. L., et al. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Machine L...

    work page doi:10.1029/2024gl112074 2024

  49. [49]

    H., et al

    Shi, P., Srivastav, P., Barbhuiya, M. H., et al. 2022, Physical Review Letters, 128, 025002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.025002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.025002 2022

  50. [50]

    R., Bessho, N., Wang, S., & Ng, J

    Shuster, J. R., Bessho, N., Wang, S., & Ng, J. 2021a, Physics of Plasmas, 28, 122902, doi: 10.1063/5.0069559

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0069559

  51. [51]

    R., Chen, L.-J., Hesse, M., et al

    Shuster, J. R., Chen, L.-J., Hesse, M., et al. 2015, Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 2586, doi: 10.1002/2015GL063601

    work page doi:10.1002/2015gl063601 2015

  52. [52]

    R., Chen, L.-J., Daughton, W

    Shuster, J. R., Chen, L.-J., Daughton, W. S., et al. 2014, Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 5389, doi: 10.1002/2014gl060608

    work page doi:10.1002/2014gl060608 2014

  53. [53]

    R., Gershman, D

    Shuster, J. R., Gershman, D. J., Chen, L.-J., et al. 2019, Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 7862, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083549

    work page doi:10.1029/2019gl083549 2019

  54. [54]

    R., Gershman, D

    Shuster, J. R., Gershman, D. J., Dorelli, J. C., et al. 2021b, Nature Phys., 17, 1056, doi: 10.1038/s41567-021-01280-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01280-6

  55. [55]

    R., Gershman, D

    Shuster, J. R., Gershman, D. J., Giles, B. L., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 128, e2022JA030949, doi: 10.1029/2022JA030949

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ja030949 2023

  56. [56]

    R., Bessho, N., Dorelli, J

    Shuster, J. R., Bessho, N., Dorelli, J. C., et al. 2026, Communications Physics, doi: 10.1038/s42005-026-02489-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-026-02489-8 2026

  57. [57]

    2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05426

    Singh, R., Banerjee, S., & Halder, A. 2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05426

    arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2020JA028278, doi: 10.1029/2020JA028278

    Song, L., Zhou, M., Yi, Y., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2020JA028278, doi: 10.1029/2020JA028278

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ja028278 2020

  59. [59]

    Speiser, T. W. 1965, Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977), 70, 4219, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ070i017p04219

    work page doi:10.1029/jz070i017p04219 1965

  60. [60]

    W., & Schuller, A

    Trottenberg, U., Oosterlee, C. W., & Schuller, A. 2000, Multigrid (Academic Press, San Diego)

    2000

  61. [61]

    2019, Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 562, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080944

    Wang, S., Chen, L.-J., Bessho, N., et al. 2019, Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 562, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080944

    work page doi:10.1029/2018gl080944 2019

  62. [62]

    H., Roy, S., et al

    Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., Roy, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d3e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d3e 2022

  63. [63]

    H., Parashar, T

    Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., Parashar, T. N., et al. 2017a, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 072306, doi: 10.1063/1.4990421

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4990421

  64. [64]

    H., Parashar, T

    Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., Parashar, T. N., et al. 2017b, Physical Review E, 95, 061201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.061201

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.95.061201

  65. [65]

    F., et al

    Zeiler, A., Biskamp, D., Drake, J. F., et al. 2002, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 1230, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000287

    work page doi:10.1029/2001ja000287 2002

  66. [66]

    2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL096372, doi: 10.1029/2021GL096372

    Zhou, M., Man, H., Yang, Y., Zhong, Z., & Deng, X. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL096372, doi: 10.1029/2021GL096372

    work page doi:10.1029/2021gl096372 2021