Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Simulations of self-accelerating electron phase space holes in an applied electric field

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read One-dimensional Vlasov simulations show that electron phase space holes, which normally accelerate on their own because of imbalanced ion reflections, can be held stationary by a sinusoidal applied electric field that flattens the ion…

desk verdict A plausible new mechanism for suppressing EH self-acceleration with sinusoidal fields, but the key plateau evidence is smoothed over a window several times wider than the reflected-ion range, so the central claim needs a closer look. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07961 v1 pith:3SUWTWQK submitted 2026-08-08 physics.plasm-ph

Ran Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords electronphasespaceholesself-accelerationVlasovsimulationappliedelectricfieldionreflectionvelocityplateauBGKequilibriumsecondary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Electron phase space holes are localized deficits of electrons that look like positive potential pulses, and they normally accelerate on their own because they reflect more ions from one side than the other. This paper uses one-dimensional Vlasov simulations to ask whether an externally applied electric field can control or stop that self-acceleration. It reports that a uniform field only delays the process and changes the final speed, while a sinusoidal field moving with the hole can freeze the hole in place. That works when the wave is strong enough and lasts long enough to flatten the ion velocity distribution into a plateau spanning the velocities of reflected ions, so the reflections balance. The same fields also shed secondary electron holes from the main structure.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the imbalance of ion reflections off the solitary potential. Ions reflected more often from one side exert a net force on the hole, and because the hole's effective mass is negative, this force accelerates it. The sinusoidal applied field acts as a moving wave that traps ions and flattens their velocity distribution locally; once the flattened plateau covers the velocities of reflected ions, the reflections become balanced and the net force vanishes. The numerical workhorse is the one-dimensional Vlasov-Poisson system, with the initial hole built from the BGK self-consistent scheme and the solitary potential of Eq. (1).

What would settle it

Take the benchmark sinusoidal case ($E_a = 0.3$, applied from $t = 5$ to $505\,\omega_{pe}^{-1}$) and rerun it with double the grid resolution in $x$ and $v$ and half the time step; if the plateau width, the final hole position, or the fitted amplitude $\psi_{fit}$ changes noticeably, the suppression is at least partly numerical. Alternatively, after the field is removed, check whether the plateau persists for another $1000\,\omega_{pe}^{-1}$ without the field; if it diffuses away and acceleration resumes, the claimed elimination is transient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the benchmark run with no applied field, the self-consistent electron hole accelerates to a final speed of $v_f = 0.0928\,v_{te}$. A uniform rightward field $\hat{E}_a = 0.0008\,k_BT_e/(e\lambda_{De})$ applied from $t = 5$ to $305\,\omega_{pe}^{-1}$ delays the onset and lowers the final speed to $0.0780\,v_{te}$, but the hole still accelerates after removal; at a stronger $0.0012\,k_BT_e/(e\lambda_{De})$ the final speed rises to $0.1006\,v_{te}$ because the hole is pushed to a steeper part of the ion distribution before the field is removed. A sinusoidal field $E_a\sin(kx)$ with $E_a = 0.3\,k_BT_e/(e\lambda_{De})$ and $k\lambda_{De} = 1$, applied from $t = 5$ to $505\,\omega_{pe}^{-1}$, leaves the main hole stationary after removal: at $t = 1500\,\omega_{pe}^{-1}$ the ion velocity distribution at $x = 0$ shows a plateau around $v = 0$ that spans the velocity range of ions reflected by the weakened hole, whose fitted amplitude is $\psi_{fit} = 0.0323\,k_BT_e/e$. With $E_a = 0.1$ or with a duration of only $200\,\omega_{pe}^{-1}$, no sufficient plateau forms and self-acceleration persists. The suppression also occurs for ion drift speeds from $-0.05$ to $-0.15\,v_{te}$ and for sinusoidal phase speeds between $-0.04$ and $0.04\,v_{te}$.

Load-bearing premise

The key assumption is that the long-running computer simulations are numerically accurate, so the flat spot in the ion velocity distribution is a real physical effect and not an artifact of numerical smoothing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a background wave's electric field is strong enough and lasts long enough, it can eliminate electron-hole self-acceleration entirely, pinning the structure near its initial position.
  • A uniform ambient field, no matter how strong, cannot stop self-acceleration; it only shifts the ion distribution and adjusts the final hole speed.
  • The suppression is not fine-tuned to one hole speed: the same sinusoidal field flattens the ion distribution for a range of ion drift speeds and wave phase speeds.
  • The applied fields also tear secondary holes off the main hole, because near-separatrix trapped electrons escape along reshaped energy contours.
  • These findings give a mechanism by which slow solitary waves observed in space can persist without contradicting self-acceleration theory.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if the plateau condition is the real control, the threshold should be predictable from ion trapping in the wave field, and the plateau width should grow roughly as $\sqrt{E_a/k}$ in the wave amplitude; this relation could be tested by scanning $E_a$ and measuring the plateau extent.
  • Beyond the paper: this suggests that ambient electrostatic turbulence, not just a single phase-locked wave, could regulate hole speeds in space, so the observed population of slow holes might need no ad hoc double-humped ion distributions.
  • Beyond the paper: the secondary-hole production mechanism, in which trapped electrons escape along modified energy contours, might be a route to hole chains; comparing the simulated secondary-hole spacing with the thirty-wavelength period of the imposed wave could indicate whether real hole chains have a similar driver.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports one-dimensional electrostatic Vlasov simulations of electron phase space holes (EHs) initialized self-consistently with immobile ions, with ion response turned on at the start. A benchmark case reproduces the known self-acceleration of an EH. Uniform applied electric fields are shown to delay the onset of self-acceleration and to modify the final hole speed; the final speed decreases with applied field strength up to a point, then increases for stronger fields. Sinusoidal applied fields phase-locked to the initial hole position are claimed to suppress self-acceleration entirely when the field is strong and long-lived, by creating a plateau in the ion velocity distribution that covers the reflected-ion range. The paper also documents the generation of secondary EHs in both field configurations.

Significance. If the suppression mechanism is correct, the paper offers a concrete, falsifiable scenario for preventing EH self-acceleration, relevant to the slow EHs observed in space plasmas. The paper's strengths are the self-consistent initialization, the benchmark against a known result, the explicit parameter trends in the uniform-field case, and the honest final remark that a dedicated parameter scan is needed. The main weakness is that the load-bearing plateau is inferred from a heavily smoothed ion velocity distribution without a convergence study or a flatness test on the raw data. The numerical long-time robustness is also not demonstrated. Consequently, the significance is conditional on the plateau being a physical, numerical-convergence-free feature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III C, Fig. 10(a)] The suppression mechanism in Sec. IV is supported by a plateau in the ion velocity distribution that is shown only after Savitzky-Golay smoothing with a window size of 80 and polynomial degree 7. With the given velocity grid (Nv=2000 over [-10vti,10vti], vti≈0.0522vte), the filter full width is about 4.2e-2 vte, while the reflected-ion velocity range derived from ψ_fit=0.0323 is only ±0.0059 vte (full width ≈1.2e-2 vte). The smoothing window is thus ~3.5 times wider than the physically relevant velocity range, and can flatten a non-uniform distribution into a plateau. Please show the raw unsmoothed distribution over the green region (e.g., a zoomed inset) and quantify its flatness (e.g., maximum slope of fi over the reflected-ion range, or the difference between fi at the edges and center). Without this, the balance-of-reflections argument is not established.
  2. [Sec. II, Sec. III (all simulations)] The simulations are run to 1500 ω_pe^{-1} with a single resolution (Nx=4000, Nv=2000, dt=0.05) and periodic boundaries. The validation cited (Landau damping, two-stream instability) does not cover the present long-time regime with applied fields and mobile ions. Numerical diffusion over 1500 ω_pe^{-1} could artificially broaden the ion distribution and create or enhance the plateau that is later attributed to the sinusoidal field. Please report a convergence study (e.g., Nv=1000, 2000, 4000 with correspondingly refined dt) comparing the final ion distribution at x=0 and the EH trajectory, and show that the plateau width and the absence of self-acceleration are robust to resolution. This also addresses the absence of uncertainty estimates for the fitted final speeds.
  3. [Sec. III C (phase speed and ion drift variations)] The paper claims that suppression works for a range of ion drift speeds (ui = -0.05, -0.075, -0.125, -0.15 vte) and for sinusoidal wave phase speeds ω/k = ±0.02, ±0.04 vte, but these runs are not documented with figures, tables, or quantitative measures. The only statement is that 'none of these simulations exhibit significant self-acceleration' and that the EH is trapped by the wave. This is a key extension of the central result. Please provide the final EH positions (or a table of final speeds) and the final ion distributions for at least a subset of these runs, so the reader can assess the claim. Also, please specify the full form of the applied field E_a(x,t) for the non-zero phase-speed cases, since Eq. (11) gives only a time-independent profile.
  4. [Sec. III B, Fig. 4] The final EH speeds are reported as single fitted values without any estimate of uncertainty (e.g., standard error of the linear fit to the hole position, or sensitivity to the fitting interval). The non-monotonic behavior at Ea=0.0012 and the slope-based explanation (|∂v fi| comparison) would be more convincing if the error bars were shown. This is less critical than the plateau issue, but it affects the interpretation of the uniform-field trends.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III C] The phrase 'propagating with the same speed as the EH' is potentially misleading because the EH self-accelerates; the wave is phase-locked to the initial EH frame (ω/k=0). Please rephrase to 'phase-locked to the initial EH position/speed'.
  2. [Fig. 9(b)] The ion phase-space panel is not legible; the axis labels and color scale are unclear. Please improve the figure quality.
  3. [Eq. (8) and Fig. 1] The smooth ramp function is illustrated, but the text does not explain how the square bracket term interpolates between 0 and 1 during the ramp intervals; a brief sentence would help.
  4. [Data availability] The data availability statement says data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request; making the simulation input files publicly available would allow others to reproduce the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central results are direct simulation outputs; self-citations are only code validation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—uniform E-field delays self-acceleration and modifies final speed, sinusoidal E-field suppresses self-acceleration via ion-distribution plateau formation—are direct simulation outputs, not quantities fitted into the model. Final EH speeds are measured by linear fits of trajectories (Figs. 2–5), and the plateau mechanism is read off the final ion distribution (Figs. 9–10). No parameter is fitted to the target result: the reflected-ion velocity range is computed from the independently fitted final potential amplitude psi_fit, and the plateau is observed (via smoothed distribution) rather than imposed. The only self-citations (Refs. 28, 44) validate the Vlasov solver against standard Landau damping and two-stream instability benchmarks; they support the numerical tool, not the physical conclusion, and are independent evidence under the stated criteria. The comparison runs with weaker/shorter fields (Fig. 11) provide falsifying contrasts consistent with the proposed necessary condition. The Savitzky-Golay smoothing window in Fig. 10(a) is wider than the reflected-ion range, which is a legitimate numerical-visualization concern, but it does not make the derivation circular: the suppression itself is evidenced by the absence of acceleration in the space-time plots (Figs. 8, 11), independent of the smoothed plateau. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on hand-chosen simulation parameters and on numerical reliability of a previously validated Vlasov code; no new free parameter is fitted to data and no new entity is introduced. The sine-field result also depends on modeling the applied field as a wave stationary in the simulation frame, phase-locked to the initial hole speed.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial hole amplitude psi = 0.1 kBTe/e
    Hand-picked to match observed EH parameter ranges (Sec. II, Ref. 26); sets the reflected-ion velocity range and the self-acceleration strength.
  • Initial hole width Delta = 5.0 lambda_De
    Hand-picked with psi; affects the trapped-electron population and the secondary-hole splitting.
  • Ion drift speed ui = -0.1 vte
    Sets the ion distribution slope at the hole speed, which controls the direction and rate of self-acceleration; a free input, not a fitted output.
  • Applied field amplitude Ea = 0.0004-0.0012 kBTe/(e lambda_De) uniform; 0.1 and 0.3 kBTe/(e lambda_De) sine
    Scanned to map the effect; the sine-field suppression requires Ea large enough to form a plateau covering the reflected-ion range.
  • Applied field duration Delta t = 100 to 500 omega_pe^-1 (tend from 105 to 505)
    Longer durations reduce the uniform-field final speed and are required in the sine case to form the plateau.
  • Mass ratio mu and temperature ratio Ti/Te = 1836 and 5
    Standard proton/electron parameters; the author notes final EH speeds depend on these ratios even without applied fields.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Vlasov-Poisson system with the Turikov BGK equilibrium (Eq. 3) provides a valid self-consistent initial EH.
    The initial electron phase-space hole is constructed from Bernstein-Greene-Kruskal theory (Ref. 13); this is an unproved background result the paper relies on.
  • domain assumption The time-splitting cubic-spline Vlasov solver and tridiagonal Poisson solver are accurate for EH evolution over t up to 1500 omega_pe^-1.
    The code is validated only for Landau damping and two-stream ion-ion instability (Sec. II, Refs. 28,44); no convergence study is presented for the long EH runs.
  • domain assumption Periodic boundary conditions over L=60*pi*lambda_De and velocity truncation at +/-10 vte do not materially alter the results.
    Chosen in Sec. II; the applied uniform potential is non-periodic, so the decomposition into phi0 and phia and the finite box could influence long-time evolution.
  • domain assumption The sigmoid adiabatic ramping of the applied field (Eq. 8, tau=0.1) introduces no unphysical perturbations.
    The paper states the ramping is adiabatic to avoid unphysical perturbations but provides no convergence or sensitivity test on tau.
  • standard math Electron holes can be treated as quasi-particles with negative effective mass, so a rightward force on the hole opposes leftward self-acceleration.
    Taken from Hutchinson (Ref. 21) and used in Sec. III B to interpret the uniform-field delay; this is a prior theoretical result, not derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper The sinusoidal applied field is modeled as stationary in the simulation frame (omega/k=0), i.e., phase-locked to the initial hole speed.
    This modeling choice (Sec. III C) makes the wave and hole co-moving initially; the suppression mechanism depends on this phase-locking and may not transfer to arbitrary fluctuating fields.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulations of self-accelerating electron phase space holes in an applied electric field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3SUWTWQK

@misc{pith2026260807961,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulations of self-accelerating electron phase space holes in an applied electric field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3SUWTWQK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07961}
}
read the original abstract

The self-acceleration of electron phase space holes in an applied electric field is investigated via one-dimensional electrostatic Vlasov simulations. The electron holes (EHs) are initialized in a self-consistent manner with immobile ions, and the ion response is enabled at the beginning of simulations. A benchmark simulation is conducted to confirm the EH self-acceleration in the absence of the external electric field. Then, we investigate the EH behaviors by applying the uniform and sinusoidal electric fields, respectively. The effects of different strengths and durations of these external electric fields are studied. It is found that the uniform electric field applied in the direction of the self-acceleration can delay the onset of this process and change the final speed of EHs. The applied sinusoidal electric field can fix the EHs at their initial positions and suppress the self-acceleration if the electric field amplitude and duration are appropriate. In addition, it is observed that these external electric fields can induce the splitting of EHs and the generation of secondary EHs. The physical mechanisms of these phenomena are discussed in detail.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07961 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the term in the square bracket of Eq. (8). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The potential evolution in the benchmark simulation of self-acceleration, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The potential evolution for the case of applying the uniform electric field with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The final EH speeds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The potential evolution for the case of applying the uniform electric field with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The time evolution of the electron phase space with the applied uniform electric field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The electron phase space at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The potential evolution for the case of applying the sinusoidal electric field with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The final state of the EH at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The (a) ion and (b) electron velocity distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The comparisons by applying the sinusoidal electric field with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The time evolution of the electron phase space at (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Norgren , author M

    author author C. Norgren , author M. Andr \' e , author A. Vaivads , \ and\ author Y. V. \ Khotyaintsev ,\ 10.1002/2015gl063218 journal journal Geophys. Res. Lett. \ volume 42 ,\ pages 1654 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1002/2015gl063218 2015

  2. [2]

    author author D. B. \ Graham , author Y. V. \ Khotyaintsev , author A. Vaivads , \ and\ author M. Andr \' e ,\ 10.1002/2015ja021527 journal journal J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. \ volume 121 ,\ pages 3069 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1002/2015ja021527 2016

  3. [3]

    Mozer , author O

    author author F. Mozer , author O. Agapitov , author B. Giles , \ and\ author I. Vasko ,\ 10.1103/physrevlett.121.135102 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 121 ,\ pages 135102 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.135102 2018

  4. [4]

    author author I. Y. \ Vasko , author R. Wang , author F. S. \ Mozer , author S. D. \ Bale , \ and\ author A. V. \ Artemyev ,\ 10.3389/fphy.2020.00156 journal journal Frontiers in Physics \ volume 8 ,\ pages 156 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    author author S. R. \ Kamaletdinov , author I. H. \ Hutchinson , author I. Y. \ Vasko , author A. V. \ Artemyev , author A. Lotekar , \ and\ author F. Mozer ,\ 10.1103/physrevlett.127.165101 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 127 ,\ pages 165101 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.165101

  6. [6]

    Norgren , author D

    author author C. Norgren , author D. B. \ Graham , author M. R. \ Argall , author K. Steinvall , author M. Hesse , author Y. V. \ Khotyaintsev , author A. Vaivads , author P. Tenfjord , author D. J. \ Gershman , author P.-A. \ Lindqvist , author J. L. \ Burch , \ and\ author F. Plaschke ,\ 10.1063/5.0073097 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 29 ,\ pag...

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0073097

  7. [7]

    author author Z. I. \ Shaikh \ and\ author I. Y. \ Vasko ,\ 10.1029/2025gl114677 journal journal Geophys. Res. Lett. \ volume 52 ,\ pages e2025GL114677 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1029/2025gl114677 2025

  8. [8]

    Sarri , author M

    author author G. Sarri , author M. E. \ Dieckmann , author C. R. D. \ Brown , author C. A. \ Cecchetti , author D. J. \ Hoarty , author S. F. \ James , author R. Jung , author I. Kourakis , author H. Schamel , author O. Willi , \ and\ author M. Borghesi ,\ 10.1063/1.3286438 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 17 ,\ pages 010701 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3286438

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Lefebvre , author L.-J

    author author B. Lefebvre , author L.-J. \ Chen , author W. Gekelman , author P. Kintner , author J. Pickett , author P. Pribyl , author S. Vincena , author F. Chiang , \ and\ author J. Judy ,\ 10.1103/physrevlett.105.115001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 105 ,\ pag...

    doi

  2. [10]

    author author R. E. \ Ergun , author C. W. \ Carlson , author J. P. \ McFadden , author F. S. \ Mozer , author G. T. \ Delory , author W. Peria , author C. C. \ Chaston , author M. Temerin , author I. Roth , author L. Muschietti , author R. Elphic , author R. Strangeway , auth...

    doi

  3. [11]

    author author I. B. \ Bernstein , author J. M. \ Greene , \ and\ author M. D. \ Kruskal ,\ 10.1103/physrev.108.546 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 108 ,\ pages 546 ( year 1957 ) NoStop

    1957 doi

  4. [12]

    Schamel ,\ 10.1088/0032-1028/13/6/005 journal journal Plasma Physics \ volume 13 ,\ pages 491 ( year 1971 ) NoStop

    author author H. Schamel ,\ 10.1088/0032-1028/13/6/005 journal journal Plasma Physics \ volume 13 ,\ pages 491 ( year 1971 ) NoStop

    1971 doi

  5. [13]

    author author V. A. \ Turikov ,\ 10.1088/0031-8949/30/1/015 journal journal Phys. Scripta \ volume 30 ,\ pages 73 ( year 1984 ) NoStop

    1984 doi

  6. [14]

    author author M. V. \ Goldman , author D. L. \ Newman , \ and\ author A. Mangeney ,\ 10.1103/physrevlett.99.145002 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 99 ,\ pages 145002 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    Schamel , author E

    author author H. Schamel , author E. Pelinovsky , \ and\ author M. V. \ Flamarion ,\ 10.1007/s41614-025-00208-4 journal journal Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics \ volume 9 ,\ pages 33 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    author author I. H. \ Hutchinson ,\ 10.1063/1.4976854 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 24 ,\ pages 055601 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Hutchinson ,\ 10.1103/revmodphys.96.045007 journal journal Rev

    author author I. Hutchinson ,\ 10.1103/revmodphys.96.045007 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 96 ,\ pages 045007 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Ghizzo , author B

    author author A. Ghizzo , author B. Izrar , author P. Bertrand , author E. Fijalkow , author M. R. \ Feix , \ and\ author M. Shoucri ,\ 10.1063/1.866579 journal journal Phys. Fluids \ volume 31 ,\ pages 72 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

    1988 doi

  11. [19]

    Saeki \ and\ author H

    author author K. Saeki \ and\ author H. Genma ,\ 10.1103/physrevlett.80.1224 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 80 ,\ pages 1224 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    Eliasson \ and\ author P

    author author B. Eliasson \ and\ author P. K. \ Shukla ,\ 10.1103/physrevlett.93.045001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 93 ,\ pages 045001 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    author author I. H. \ Hutchinson ,\ 10.1103/physreve.104.015208 journal journal Phys. Rev. E \ volume 104 ,\ pages 015208 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    author author I. H. \ Hutchinson \ and\ author C. Zhou ,\ 10.1063/1.4959870 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 23 ,\ pages 082101 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Zhou \ and\ author I

    author author C. Zhou \ and\ author I. H. \ Hutchinson ,\ 10.1063/1.4959871 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 23 ,\ pages 082102 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Dong , author Z

    author author Y. Dong , author Z. Yuan , author S. Huang , author Z. Xue , author X. Yu , author C. J. \ Pollock , author R. B. \ Torbert , \ and\ author J. L. \ Burch ,\ 10.1038/s41467-023-43033-4 journal journal Nat. Commun. \ volume 14 ,\ pages 7276 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi

  17. [25]

    author author Y. V. \ Khotyaintsev , author A. Vaivads , author M. Andr \' e , author M. Fujimoto , author A. Retin \` o , \ and\ author C. J. \ Owen ,\ 10.1103/physrevlett.105.165002 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 105 ,\ pages 165002 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    doi

  18. [26]

    Lotekar , author I

    author author A. Lotekar , author I. Y. \ Vasko , author F. S. \ Mozer , author I. Hutchinson , author A. V. \ Artemyev , author S. D. \ Bale , author J. W. \ Bonnell , author R. Ergun , author B. Giles , author Y. V. \ Khotyaintsev , author P.-A. \ Lindqvist , author C. T. \ ...

    doi

  19. [27]

    author author G. S. \ Lakhina \ and\ author S. Singh ,\ 10.3390/plasma7040050 journal journal Plasma \ volume 7 ,\ pages 904 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Guo ,\ 10.1063/5.0281052 journal journal Phys

    author author R. Guo ,\ 10.1063/5.0281052 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 32 ,\ pages 082301 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Foukal \ and\ author S

    author author P. Foukal \ and\ author S. Hinata ,\ 10.1007/bf00152291 journal journal Sol. Phys. \ volume 132 ,\ pages 307 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    1991 doi

  22. [30]

    author author G. T. \ Marklund ,\ 10.1007/s11214-008-9373-9 journal journal Space Sci. Rev. \ volume 142 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    author author I. Y. \ Vasko , author O. V. \ Agapitov , author F. S. \ Mozer , author A. V. \ Artemyev , \ and\ author J. F. \ Drake ,\ 10.1063/1.4950834 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 23 ,\ pages 052306 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    author author I. V. \ Kuzichev , author I. Y. \ Vasko , author O. V. \ Agapitov , author F. S. \ Mozer , \ and\ author A. V. \ Artemyev ,\ 10.1002/2017gl072536 journal journal Geophys. Res. Lett. \ volume 44 ,\ pages 2105 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi

  25. [33]

    author author S. M. \ Hamberger \ and\ author J. Jancarik ,\ 10.1063/1.1693991 journal journal The Physics of Fluids \ volume 15 ,\ pages 825 ( year 1972 ) NoStop

    1972 doi

  26. [34]

    author author G. F. \ Reiter ,\ 10.1063/1.1762178 journal journal The Physics of Fluids \ volume 10 ,\ pages 703 ( year 1967 ) NoStop

    1967 doi

  27. [35]

    author author L. P. \ Beving , author M. M. \ Hopkins , \ and\ author S. D. \ Baalrud ,\ 10.1063/5.0156041 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 30 ,\ pages 112105 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Vranjes \ and\ author S

    author author J. Vranjes \ and\ author S. Poedts ,\ 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15612.x journal journal Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. \ volume 400 ,\ pages 2147 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  29. [37]

    author author D. G. \ Swanson ,\ @noop title Plasma Waves ,\ edition 2nd \ ed.,\ Series in Plasma Physics\ ( publisher Taylor & Francis Group ,\ address London ,\ year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003

  30. [38]

    Anderegg , author C

    author author F. Anderegg , author C. F. \ Driscoll , author D. H. E. \ Dubin , author T. M. \ O'Neil , \ and\ author F. Valentini ,\ 10.1063/1.3099646 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 16 ,\ pages 055705 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    Zanelli , author S

    author author S. Zanelli , author S. Perri , author M. Condoluci , author P. Veltri , author F. Pegoraro , author O. Pezzi , author D. Perrone , author D. Trotta , \ and\ author F. Valentini ,\ 10.1063/5.0259317 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 32 ,\ pages 042108 ( year ...

    doi

  32. [40]

    author author I. Y. \ Vasko , author I. V. \ Kuzichev , author O. V. \ Agapitov , author F. S. \ Mozer , author A. V. \ Artemyev , \ and\ author I. Roth ,\ 10.1063/1.4989717 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 24 ,\ pages 062311 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi

  33. [41]

    author author F. W. \ Olver , author D. W. \ Lozier , author R. F. \ Boisvert , \ and\ author C. W. \ Clark ,\ www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521192255 title NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  34. [42]

    Cheng \ and\ author G

    author author C. Cheng \ and\ author G. Knorr ,\ 10.1016/0021-9991(76)90053-x journal journal J. Comput. Phys. \ volume 22 ,\ pages 330 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

    1976 doi

  35. [43]

    Press , author S

    author author W. Press , author S. A. \ Teukolsky , author W. T. \ Vetterling , \ and\ author B. P. \ Flannery ,\ @noop title Numerical recipes : the art of scientific computing \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ address Cambridge, UK New York ,\ year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007

  36. [44]

    Guo ,\ 10.1063/5.0057693 journal journal Phys

    author author R. Guo ,\ 10.1063/5.0057693 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 28 ,\ pages 082105 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Guillevic , author M

    author author A. Guillevic , author M. Lesur , author D. Mandal , author X. Garbet , author E. Gravier , author G. Lo-Cascio , author A. Ghizzo , \ and\ author T. R \' e veill \' e ,\ 10.1063/5.0246056 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 32 ,\ pages 022117 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    doi

  38. [46]

    Zhou \ and\ author I

    author author C. Zhou \ and\ author I. H. \ Hutchinson ,\ 10.1063/1.5033859 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 25 ,\ pages 082303 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Mandal , author D

    author author D. Mandal , author D. Sharma , \ and\ author H. Schamel ,\ 10.1063/1.5121530 journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 27 ,\ pages 022102 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.