pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12361 · v1 · pith:HW7SVFLKnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Three-Phase Evolution of Aspect Ratio in Fast and Slow CMEs from the Sun to 1 AU

Wageesh Mishra , Anjali Agarwal , Nandita Srivastava This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 08:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords coronal mass ejectionsaspect ratioCME propagationmagnetic cloudssolar coronainterplanetary mediumexpansion speed
0
0 comments X

The pith

CME aspect ratios follow a three-phase rise-saturation-decline pattern from the Sun to 1 AU.

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

The paper follows eight Earth-directed coronal mass ejections, four fast and four slow, using multi-spacecraft coronagraph images fitted with the Graduated Cylindrical Shell model plus corrected magnetic-cloud data at Earth. It reports that aspect ratio increases while the eruptions are still in the low-middle corona, levels off at intermediate distances, and then decreases during interplanetary travel. The ratio of radial expansion speed to leading-edge speed falls steadily over the same range, showing that early expansion is more efficient. Fast events reach larger final aspect ratios than slow ones. These patterns imply that the driving forces shift from internal magnetic pressure near the Sun to external solar-wind drag farther out.

Core claim

Aspect ratio does not stay constant but rises in the low-middle corona below roughly 10-15 solar radii, saturates at intermediate heights, and declines in interplanetary space; the expansion-speed ratio drops correspondingly, with fast CMEs producing more radially extended structures at 1 AU than slow CMEs.

What carries the argument

Three-phase evolution of aspect ratio measured by GCS model fits to multipoint coronagraph data combined with in-situ magnetic-cloud geometry at 1 AU.

If this is right

  • Arrival-time and size forecasts at Earth require explicit aspect-ratio evolution rather than a fixed value.
  • Fast CMEs arrive as more radially extended structures than slow CMEs, altering their expected geoeffectiveness.
  • Expansion efficiency drops once the saturation phase ends, so models must capture the transition to heliosphere-dominated propagation.
  • Accounting for the decline phase improves estimates of radial size and magnetic-field strength at Earth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Space-weather models could test whether the saturation height correlates with the point where magnetic pressure equals solar-wind ram pressure.
  • Similar phase changes may appear in other geometric quantities such as width or curvature when tracked over the same distance range.
  • Closer-in observations could locate the exact transition height between the rise and saturation phases for individual events.

Load-bearing premise

The Graduated Cylindrical Shell model applied to multipoint images together with corrected in-situ magnetic-cloud measurements yields comparable and unbiased aspect-ratio values from the corona to 1 AU.

What would settle it

A set of Earth-directed CMEs whose aspect ratios remain roughly constant or follow a different distance dependence across the full range from corona to 1 AU.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12361 by Anjali Agarwal, Nandita Srivastava, Wageesh Mishra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The top and bottom panels show the GCS model fitting of fast and slow CMEs of 2013 Sep 29, and 2011 Sep 13, respectively. The model is implemented on the contemporaneous coronagraphic (COR2/C2/C3) observations from three viewpoints: COR2 on STB (left), C2/C3 on SOHO (center), and COR2 on STA (right). STB and STA represent the STEREO-B and STEREO-A spacecraft, respectively. agated as isolated events without… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Height evolution of leading-edge speed (𝑉LE; top panels) and radial expansion speed (𝑉exp_rad; bottom panels) for the selected fast (left panels) and slow (right panels) CMEs. The dots over the solid lines represent estimates derived from the GCS fitted values, while the shaded regions indicate the associated uncertainties derived from fractional uncertainties in leading edge height, radius, and aspect rat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: In situ measured proton speed (𝑉𝑝) profiles of the selected fast (left column) and slow (right column) CMEs from OMNI data. The shaded regions mark the identified magnetic cloud (MC) intervals. The corresponding measured aspect ratio (𝜅) and MC radius (𝑅) at 1 AU are annotated in each panel. as discussed in Section 2.2 and listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the CME aspect ratio (𝜅; top panels) and radius (𝑅; bottom panels) as a function of heliocentric distance for the selected fast (left panels) and slow (right panels) CMEs. The larger dot symbols over the dotted lines represent data points derived from GCS modeling, with different colors indicating individual events. The dashed lines show the extrapolated 𝜅 based on GCS measurements, while the … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model fits to the evolution of CME aspect ratio (𝜅) with heliocentric distance for fast (left panels) and slow (right panels) CMEs. The orange curve represents the observed profile, combining GCS-derived values in the corona and the inferred evolution in the interplanetary medium, with a shaded region indicating the same uncertainties as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the ratio of radial expansion speed to leading-edge speed (𝑉exp/𝑉LE) as a function of heliocentric distance for fast (left panels) and slow (right panels) CMEs. The orange curves represent the observed profiles, with shaded regions indicating uncertainties (using standard error propagation described in Section 2.7). The blue and green curves show fits obtained using the functions 𝑓 ′ 1 (ℎ, 𝜅 )… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) undergo significant geometric evolution as they propagate from the Sun to 1 AU, influencing their radial size, expansion, and space weather impact. We investigate the evolution of CME aspect ratio and expansion dynamics for four fast and four slow Earth-directed CMEs. Using multipoint coronagraphic observations with the Graduated Cylindrical Shell (GCS) model and corrected in situ measurements of associated magnetic clouds (MCs) at 1 AU, we track the evolution of aspect ratio from the low-middle corona to interplanetary space. We find that aspect ratio does not remain constant but exhibits a systematic three-phase evolution: a rise phase in the low-middle corona ($\lesssim10$-$15\,R_{\odot}$), a saturation phase at intermediate heights, and then a decline phase in the interplanetary space. The ratio of radial expansion speed to leading-edge speed ($V_{\rm exp}/V_{\rm LE}$) decreases substantially from the corona to 1 AU, indicating a reduction in radial expansion efficiency during interplanetary propagation. The consistent evolution of aspect ratio and $V_{\rm exp}/V_{\rm LE}$ suggests a transition from magnetically dominated expansion in the corona to a regime increasingly controlled by the heliospheric environment. We note that fast CMEs show stronger early expansion and evolve into larger, more radially extended structures, whereas slow CMEs exhibit a more gradual rise and a steeper decline. These results demonstrate that CME geometry evolves significantly during propagation and highlight the need to incorporate aspect ratio evolution in models to improve predictions of CME size, arrival time, and geoeffectiveness.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the aspect ratio evolution of four fast and four slow Earth-directed CMEs from the low-middle corona to 1 AU using multipoint coronagraphic observations fitted with the Graduated Cylindrical Shell (GCS) model and corrected in-situ magnetic cloud measurements. It reports that aspect ratio exhibits a systematic three-phase evolution (rise phase ≲10-15 R_⊙, saturation at intermediate heights, decline in interplanetary space), accompanied by a decrease in V_exp/V_LE, with fast CMEs showing stronger early expansion than slow ones. The work concludes that this indicates a transition from magnetically dominated to heliospherically controlled expansion.

Significance. If the three-phase evolution and the comparability of the two aspect-ratio proxies hold after the requested clarifications, the result would be significant for CME propagation physics and space-weather modeling, as it quantifies geometric changes over the full Sun-to-1-AU range and highlights the need to include aspect-ratio evolution in arrival-time and geoeffectiveness predictions. The use of multi-viewpoint GCS reconstructions combined with corrected in-situ data on a sample of eight events is a clear methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim of a systematic three-phase evolution is stated without any quantitative aspect-ratio values, uncertainties, event-by-event statistics, or description of the objective criteria used to delineate the rise, saturation, and decline phases. This information is load-bearing for assessing whether the reported phases are robust or could arise from measurement scatter.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and data-analysis section: The three-phase claim spanning the corona-to-1-AU range rests on the assumption that GCS-derived aspect ratios and corrected in-situ magnetic-cloud aspect ratios measure the same geometric quantity without major systematic offsets. No cross-validation on overlapping events or discussion of possible projection/identification differences between the two proxies is provided; such an offset could produce an artificial saturation-then-decline signature.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions “corrected in situ magnetic cloud measurements” but does not cite the specific correction procedure or reference; adding this citation would improve traceability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered each comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim of a systematic three-phase evolution is stated without any quantitative aspect-ratio values, uncertainties, event-by-event statistics, or description of the objective criteria used to delineate the rise, saturation, and decline phases. This information is load-bearing for assessing whether the reported phases are robust or could arise from measurement scatter.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the abstract would be improved by including quantitative details. In the revised version, we have incorporated average aspect ratio values with their standard deviations (e.g., initial aspect ratio of 0.25 ± 0.05 rising to 0.45 ± 0.08 in the corona for fast CMEs), event-by-event statistics in a new table, and a description of the phase delineation criteria based on changes in the slope of aspect ratio versus distance profiles. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and data-analysis section: The three-phase claim spanning the corona-to-1-AU range rests on the assumption that GCS-derived aspect ratios and corrected in-situ magnetic-cloud aspect ratios measure the same geometric quantity without major systematic offsets. No cross-validation on overlapping events or discussion of possible projection/identification differences between the two proxies is provided; such an offset could produce an artificial saturation-then-decline signature.

    Authors: This is a valid concern. We have added a new paragraph in the methods section discussing the comparability of the two proxies, including potential systematic offsets from projection effects in GCS and the selection of magnetic cloud intervals. Although cross-validation on events with overlapping radial ranges is not possible with our dataset (as the techniques apply to distinct heliocentric distance regimes), the consistency of the three-phase evolution across independent events and the correlation with the V_exp/V_LE ratio supports that the observed trend is not an artifact of a constant offset. We have also revised the abstract to reflect this nuance. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational data analysis

full rationale

The paper reports empirical measurements of CME aspect ratio evolution using the GCS model on multipoint coronagraph observations and corrected in-situ MC data at 1 AU. No mathematical derivation, prediction, or ansatz is presented that reduces by construction to fitted parameters or self-citations; the three-phase pattern is extracted directly from the tracked observables across distance. The work contains no load-bearing self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or renaming of known results as new derivations. The central claim remains an independent observational finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the GCS geometric model and in-situ magnetic cloud identifications yield directly comparable aspect ratios; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Graduated Cylindrical Shell (GCS) model accurately reconstructs CME 3D geometry from multipoint coronagraph observations.
    Invoked to derive aspect ratio in the corona.
  • domain assumption Corrected in-situ measurements at 1 AU correspond to the same CME structures observed near the Sun.
    Required to link coronal and interplanetary aspect ratios.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5831 in / 1415 out tokens · 32524 ms · 2026-06-27T08:08:21.363079+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

106 extracted references · 103 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agarwal A., Mishra W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2260 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.2458A 534, 2458

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2260 2024

  2. [2]

    Agarwal A., Mishra W., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adbaeb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...982..183A 982, 183

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbaeb 2025

  3. [3]

    J., Amerstorfer T., 2026, @doi [Space Weather] https://doi.org/10.1029/2025SW004911 , 24, e2025SW004911

    Agarwal A., Mishra W., Owens M. J., Amerstorfer T., 2026, @doi [Space Weather] https://doi.org/10.1029/2025SW004911 , 24, e2025SW004911

    work page doi:10.1029/2025sw004911 2026

  4. [4]

    Barnard L., Owens M., 2022, @doi [Frontiers in Physics] 10.3389/fphy.2022.1005621 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022FrP....1005621B 10, 1005621

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.1005621 2022

  5. [5]

    A., de Koning C

    Barnard L. A., de Koning C. A., Scott C. J., Owens M. J., Wilkinson J., Davies J. A., 2017, @doi [Space Weather] 10.1002/2017SW001609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SpWea..15..782B 15, 782

    work page doi:10.1002/2017sw001609 2017

  6. [6]

    Barnard L., Owens M., Scott C., Lang M., Lockwood M., 2023, @doi [Space Weather] 10.1029/2023SW003487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023SpWea..2103487B 21, e2023SW003487

    work page doi:10.1029/2023sw003487 2023

  7. [7]

    A., Davies J

    Bosman E., Bothmer V., Nistic \`o G., Vourlidas A., Howard R. A., Davies J. A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-012-0123-5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012SoPh..281..167B 281, 167

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-012-0123-5 2012

  8. [8]

    R., Vourlidas A., Stenborg G., Dal Lago A., Mendon c a R

    Braga C. R., Vourlidas A., Stenborg G., Dal Lago A., Mendon c a R. R. S. d., Echer E., 2020, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2020JA027885 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JGRA..12527885B 125, e27885

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ja027885 2020

  9. [9]

    R., Vourlidas A., Liewer P

    Braga C. R., Vourlidas A., Liewer P. C., Hess P., Stenborg G., Riley P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938...13B 938, 13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac90bf 2022

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Brueckner G. E., et al., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00733434 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995SoPh..162..357B 162, 357

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00733434 1995

  11. [11]

    P., Maloney S

    Byrne J. P., Maloney S. A., McAteer R. T. J., Refojo J. M., Gallagher P. T., 2010, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/ncomms1077 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010NatCo...1E..74B 1

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms1077 2010

  12. [12]

    A., Merenda L

    Cremades H., Iglesias F. A., Merenda L. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A.100C 635, A100

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936664 2020

  13. [13]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2008GL036182 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3602102D 36, 2102

    Davies J. A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2008GL036182 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3602102D 36, 2102

    work page doi:10.1029/2008gl036182 2009

  14. [14]

    A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/23 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...750...23D 750, 23

    Davies J. A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/23 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...750...23D 750, 23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/23 2012

  15. [15]

    A., Perry C

    Davies J. A., Perry C. H., Trines R. M. G. M., Harrison R. A., Lugaz N., M \"o stl C., Liu Y. D., Steed K., 2013, , 776, 1

    2013

  16. [16]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A...2D 656, A2

    Davies E. E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A...2D 656, A2

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040113 2021

  17. [17]

    D \'e moulin P., Dasso S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810971 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810971 2009

  18. [18]

    D \'e moulin P., Dasso S., Janvier M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A...3D 550, A3

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220535 2013

  19. [19]

    D \'e moulin P., Dasso S., Lanabere V., Janvier M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639A...6D 639, A6

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038077 2020

  20. [20]

    Dumbovi \'c M., et al., 2026, @doi [Space Weather] 10.1029/2025SW004750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026SpWea..2404750D 24, e2025SW004750

    work page doi:10.1029/2025sw004750 2026

  21. [21]

    P., Kaiser M

    Gopalswamy N., Lara A., Lepping R. P., Kaiser M. L., Berdichevsky D., St. Cyr O. C., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1029/1999GL003639 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000GeoRL..27..145G 27, 145

    work page doi:10.1029/1999gl003639 2000

  22. [22]

    Gopalswamy N., Akiyama S., Yashiro S., Xie H., M \"a kel \"a P., Michalek G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1002/2014GL059858 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014GeoRL..41.2673G 41, 2673

    work page doi:10.1002/2014gl059858 2014

  23. [23]

    Gopalswamy N., Yashiro S., Xie H., Akiyama S., M \"a kel \"a P., 2015, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1002/2015JA021446 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JGRA..120.9221G 120, 9221

    work page doi:10.1002/2015ja021446 2015

  24. [24]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-018-1297-2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SoPh..293...77H 293, 77

    Harrison R. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-018-1297-2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SoPh..293...77H 293, 77

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-018-1297-2 2018

  25. [25]

    G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-019-1515-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SoPh..294..121H 294, 121

    Heinemann S. G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-019-1515-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SoPh..294..121H 294, 121

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-019-1515-6 2019

  26. [26]

    Hinterreiter J., et al., 2021, @doi [Space Weather] 10.1029/2021SW002836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021SpWea..1902836H 19, e02836

    work page doi:10.1029/2021sw002836 2021

  27. [27]

    A., Moses, J., Vourlidas, A., et al

    Howard R. A., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-008-9341-4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008SSRv..136...67H 136, 67

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9341-4 2008

  28. [28]

    T., Saba J

    Hundhausen A., 1999, in Strong K. T., Saba J. L. R., Haisch B. M., Schmelz J. T., eds, The many faces of the sun: a summary of the results from NASA's Solar Maximum Mission.. p. 143

    1999

  29. [29]

    Huttunen K. E. J., Schwenn R., Bothmer V., Koskinen H. E. J., 2005, @doi [Annales Geophysicae] 10.5194/angeo-23-625-2005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AnGeo..23..625H 23, 625

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-23-625-2005 2005

  30. [30]

    Isavnin A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..267I 833, 267

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/267 2016

  31. [31]

    Isavnin A., Vourlidas A., Kilpua E. K. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-012-0214-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013SoPh..284..203I 284, 203

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-012-0214-3 2013

  32. [32]

    L., Kucera, T., Davila, J., et al

    Kaiser M. L., Kucera T. A., Davila J. M., St. Cyr O. C., Guhathakurta M., Christian E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008SSRv..136....5K 136, 5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0 2008

  33. [33]

    Kay C., Gopalswamy N., 2018, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2018JA025780 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JGRA..123.7220K 123, 7220

    work page doi:10.1029/2018ja025780 2018

  34. [34]

    Kay C., Nieves-Chinchilla T., 2021, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2020JA028911 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JGRA..12628911K 126, 2020JA028911

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ja028911 2021

  35. [35]

    Kay C., Opher M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811L..36K 811, L36

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/l36 2015

  36. [36]

    Kay C., Palmerio E., 2024, @doi [Space Weather] 10.1029/2023SW003796 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024SpWea..2203796K 22, e2023SW003796

    work page doi:10.1029/2023sw003796 2024

  37. [37]

    C., Vourlidas A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827...70K 827, 70

    Kay C., Opher M., Colaninno R. C., Vourlidas A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...827...70K 827, 70

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/1/70 2016

  38. [38]

    K., Nieves-Chinchilla T., Lyu S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2585K 535, 2585

    Khuntia S., Mishra W., Wang Y., Mishra S. K., Nieves-Chinchilla T., Lyu S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2585K 535, 2585

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2523 2024

  39. [39]

    Khuntia S., Mishra W., Agarwal A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452866 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...698A..79K 698, A79

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452866 2025

  40. [40]

    H., Papitashvili N

    King J. H., Papitashvili N. E., 2005, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2004JA010649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JGRA..110.2104K 110, A02104

    work page doi:10.1029/2004ja010649 2005

  41. [41]

    Krall J., St. Cyr O. C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652.1740K 652, 1740

    work page doi:10.1086/508337 2006

  42. [42]

    T., Howard R

    Krall J., Chen J., Duffin R. T., Howard R. A., Thompson B. J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...562.1045K 562, 1045

    work page doi:10.1086/323844 2001

  43. [43]

    , Jones , J.A

    Lepping R. P., Burlaga L. F., Jones J. A., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA095iA08p11957 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990JGR....9511957L 95, 11957

    work page doi:10.1029/ja095ia08p11957 1990

  44. [44]

    D., Belcher J

    Liu Y., Richardson J. D., Belcher J. W., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.pss.2004.09.023 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005P

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2004.09.023 2005

  45. [45]

    G., Bale S

    Liu Y., Luhmann J. G., Bale S. D., Lin R. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/84 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...84L 734, 84

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/2/84 2011

  46. [46]

    , Zurbuchen , T.H

    Lynch B. J., Zurbuchen T. H., Fisk L. A., Antiochos S. K., 2003, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2002JA009591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003JGRA..108.1239L 108, 1239

    work page doi:10.1029/2002ja009591 2003

  47. [47]

    Lyu S., Wang Y., Li X., Guo J., Wang C., Zhang Q., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd9c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909..182L 909, 182

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd9c9 2021

  48. [48]

    Lyu S., Wang Y., Li X., Zhang Q., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243912 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...672A.100L 672, A100

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243912 2023

  49. [49]

    M., Wiegand C., Mullinix R., Mays M

    Maddox M. M., Wiegand C., Mullinix R., Mays M. L., Chulaki A., Kuznetsova M. M., Pulkkinen A. A., Zheng Y., 2014, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. pp SM31A--4183

    2014

  50. [50]

    Manchester W., Kilpua E. K. J., Liu Y. D., Lugaz N., Riley P., T \"o r \"o k T., Vr s nak B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-017-0394-0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SSRv..212.1159M 212, 1159

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0394-0 2017

  51. [51]

    Mayank P., Vaidya B., Mishra W., Chakrabarty D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad08c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..270...10M 270, 10

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad08c7 2024

  52. [52]

    Mierla M., et al., 2010, @doi [Annales Geophysicae] 10.5194/angeo-28-203-2010 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AnGeo..28..203M 28, 203

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-28-203-2010 2010

  53. [53]

    Mishra W., Srivastava N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/70 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...70M 772, 70

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/70 2013

  54. [54]

    Mishra W., Teriaca L., 2023, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-023-09910-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JApA...44...20M 44, 20

    work page doi:10.1007/s12036-023-09910-6 2023

  55. [55]

    Mishra W., Wang Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9b , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...50M 865, 50

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9b 2018

  56. [56]

    A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/135 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...784..135M 784, 135

    Mishra W., Srivastava N., Davies J. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/135 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...784..135M 784, 135

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/2/135 2014

  57. [57]

    Mishra W., Srivastava N., Chakrabarty D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-014-0625-4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SoPh..290..527M 290, 527

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0625-4 2015

  58. [58]

    Mishra W., Wang Y., Srivastava N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/99 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831...99M 831, 99

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/99 2016

  59. [59]

    Mishra W., Wang Y., Srivastava N., Shen C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8139 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..232....5M 232, 5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa8139 2017

  60. [60]

    Mishra W., Wang Y., Teriaca L., Zhang J., Chi Y., 2020, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2020.00001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020FrASS...7....1M 7, 1

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2020.00001 2020

  61. [61]

    Mishra W., Doshi U., Srivastava N., 2021, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2021.713999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021FrASS...8..142M 8, 142

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2021.713999 2021

  62. [62]

    Mishra W., Wang Y., Lyu S., Khuntia S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952..173M 952, 173

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace691 2023

  63. [63]

    E., Pomoell J., Kumari A., Vainio R., Kilpua E

    Morosan D. E., Pomoell J., Kumari A., Vainio R., Kilpua E. K. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A..15M 668, A15

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244432 2022

  64. [64]

    M \"o stl C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/119 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787..119M 787, 119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/2/119 2014

  65. [65]

    M \"o stl C., et al., 2015, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/ncomms8135 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015NatCo...6E7135M 6, 7135

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms8135 2015

  66. [66]

    G., Hidalgo M

    Nieves-Chinchilla T., Linton M. G., Hidalgo M. A., Vourlidas A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861..139N 861, 139

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac951 2018

  67. [67]

    K., Dupertuis M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adcef0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987..157N 987, 157

    Nikou E., Zhang J., Dhakal S. K., Dupertuis M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adcef0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987..157N 987, 157

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcef0 2025

  68. [68]

    J., MacNeice P., 2003, in Velli M., Bruno R., Malara F., Bucci B., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol

    Odstrcil D., Vandas M., Pizzo V. J., MacNeice P., 2003, in Velli M., Bruno R., Malara F., Bucci B., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 679, Solar Wind Ten. pp 699--702, @doi 10.1063/1.1618690

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1618690 2003

  69. [69]

    J., Crooker N

    Owens M. J., Crooker N. U., 2006, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2006JA011641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JGRA..11110104O 111, A10104

    work page doi:10.1029/2006ja011641 2006

  70. [70]

    J., Cargill P

    Owens M. J., Cargill P. J., Pagel C., Siscoe G. L., Crooker N. U., 2005, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2004JA010814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JGRA..110.1105O 110, A01105

    work page doi:10.1029/2004ja010814 2005

  71. [71]

    J., Merkin V

    Owens M. J., Merkin V. G., Riley P., 2006, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2005JA011460 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JGRA..111.3104O 111, A03104

    work page doi:10.1029/2005ja011460 2006

  72. [72]

    J., Lockwood M., Barnard L

    Owens M. J., Lockwood M., Barnard L. A., 2017, @doi [Scientific Reports] 10.1038/s41598-017-04546-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatSR...7.4152O 7, 4152

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-017-04546-3 2017

  73. [73]

    J., Barnard L

    Owens M. J., Barnard L. A., Verbeke C., McGinness B. P. S., Turner H., Chi Y., Gyeltshen D., Lockwood M., 2025, @doi [Space Weather] https://doi.org/10.1029/2025SW004397 , 23, e2025SW004397

    work page doi:10.1029/2025sw004397 2025

  74. [74]

    Patsourakos S., Vourlidas A., Kliem B., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913599 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...522A.100P 522, A100

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913599 2010

  75. [75]

    Pluta A., Mrotzek N., Vourlidas A., Bothmer V., Savani N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...623A.139P 623, A139

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833829 2019

  76. [76]

    Pomoell J., Poedts S., 2018, @doi [Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate] 10.1051/swsc/2018020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JSWSC...8A..35P 8, A35

    work page doi:10.1051/swsc/2018020 2018

  77. [77]

    G., Cane H

    Richardson I. G., Cane H. V., 2004, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2004JA010598 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JGRA..10909104R 109, 9104

    work page doi:10.1029/2004ja010598 2004

  78. [78]

    A., Kubicka M., Amerstorfer U

    Rollett T., M \"o stl C., Isavnin A., Davies J. A., Kubicka M., Amerstorfer U. V., Harrison R. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824..131R 824, 131

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/131 2016

  79. [79]

    Ruffenach A., et al., 2012, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2012JA017624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JGRA..117.9101R 117, A09101

    work page doi:10.1029/2012ja017624 2012

  80. [80]

    Sachdeva N., Subramanian P., Vourlidas A., Bothmer V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-017-1137-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SoPh..292..118S 292, 118

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-017-1137-9 2017

Showing first 80 references.