Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Evidence for Solar-Cycle Modulation of the Alpha-to-Proton Temperature Ratio in Solar Wind

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Using 30 years of Wind data, this paper shows that the balance between equal-temperature and mass-proportional alpha-proton populations tracks the solar cycle, rising with activity in slow wind and falling in fast wind.

desk verdict A plausible, genuinely new observational claim about solar-cycle modulation of alpha-proton temperature-ratio populations, but the headline correlations need autocorrelation-aware statistics before I'd trust them. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10819 v1 pith:JFZQEL5Q submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.SR

Aakash Gupta , Yogesh , Dibyendu Chakrabarty , Leon Ofman , Gregory G. Howes This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarwindalpha-to-protontemperatureratiocollisionalagecyclemass-proportionalheatingspacecraftspeedregimessunspotnumber
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

The paper sets out to determine whether the alpha-to-proton temperature ratio in the solar wind at 1 AU changes with the 11-year solar cycle, beyond its known dependence on wind speed and Coulomb collisions. Analyzing nearly three decades of Wind spacecraft measurements, the authors show that the observed distribution of this ratio is a mixture of two populations, one with nearly equal alpha and proton temperatures (ratio near 1) and one with mass-proportional temperatures (ratio near 4). The relative weight of these populations tracks solar activity, but in opposite directions depending on speed: positively in slow wind, negatively in intermediate and fast wind. The authors read this as evidence that mass-proportional heating at 1 AU is significantly modulated by the solar-cycle-dependent mix of solar wind source regions, not solely by local collisional physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the double-Gaussian decomposition of the observed $T_\alpha/T_p$ distribution in fixed solar-wind speed bins: one Gaussian component, $G_1$, centers near $T_\alpha/T_p\sim1$ (equal-temperature population), and the other, $G_2$, near $T_\alpha/T_p\sim4$ (mass-proportional population). The tracked quantity is the fractional-area ratio $A_2/A_1$ of the two components, which is correlated with monthly sunspot number and F10.7 radio flux as solar-activity proxies. The second load-bearing quantity is the proton collisional age $A_c$, the cumulative number of Coulomb collisions during solar-wind expansion, which separates collisionally old ($A_c>1$) from effectively collisionless ($A_c<1$) plasma. The authors verify that a two-component lognormal mixture gives the same qualitative behavior, so the bimodal population split itself, rather than the Gaussian shape, carries the argument.

What would settle it

Recompute the Spearman and Pearson correlations between $A_2/A_1$ and the solar-activity proxies after removing the month-to-month persistence in the time series, for example by averaging data over Carrington rotations or using block bootstrap; if the positive slow-wind and negative intermediate/fast-wind correlations disappear, the central claim of solar-cycle modulation is refuted by the same data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the bimodal distribution of $T_\alpha/T_p$ at 1 AU is not static: the fitted area ratio $A_2/A_1$ between the mass-proportional population ($T_\alpha/T_p\sim4$) and the equal-temperature population ($T_\alpha/T_p\sim1$) rises with solar activity in wind slower than about 400 km s$^{-1}$, with full-interval Spearman coefficients around 0.56–0.75, and falls with solar activity in the 400–500 km s$^{-1}$ transition range and in fast wind, with the strongest negative correlation near $-0.7$. The same sign reversal appears in the monthly fractions of intervals with $A_c<1$ and with $T_\alpha/T_p>4$. The paper concludes that the $\alpha$-to-proton temperature ratio at 1 AU reflects the combined influence of preferential ion heating established near the Sun, Coulomb collisional relaxation during expansion, and the evolving mixture of coronal-hole, streamer-belt, and active-region wind sampled over the solar cycle.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that each month's measurement of the population ratio is an independent data point, even though consecutive months largely sample the same long-lived solar-wind streams; if that persistence is taken into account, the apparent link to the solar cycle could weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Statistical studies of ion heating at 1 AU should treat solar-cycle phase as a variable, since the same wind-speed bin samples a different mix of source populations at minimum than at maximum.
  • The 300–500 km s$^{-1}$ range, where the sign reversal sits, is the regime where source-region attribution matters most; cycle-averaged samples will blur the two opposite behaviors.
  • The persistence of $T_\alpha/T_p\sim4$ in the fastest wind across all cycle phases indicates that coronal-hole-origin wind is a stable reservoir of mass-proportional heating, while the slow-wind increase at maxima points to active-region or streamer contributions.
  • Comparisons of Solar Cycle 23 and 24 in the paper show the modulation repeats across cycles, so extending the method into Cycle 25 and beyond tests whether the effect scales with cycle strength.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A sharper test of the source-mixture interpretation would classify each interval by composition or proton specific entropy instead of speed alone; the paper itself notes that speed does not uniquely identify the source, so such classifications are the natural next step.
  • If the interpretation is correct, other collisional-age-sensitive signatures, such as the alpha-proton differential flow or the helium abundance ratio, should show the same sign reversal in the same speed bins across the solar cycle.
  • Applying the same double-Gaussian analysis to measurements at other heliocentric distances, from Parker Solar Probe or Solar Orbiter, would separate the radial evolution of the heating signature from the solar-cycle modulation in source populations.
  • The weak cycle dependence found in the fastest wind may be a consequence of ecliptic sampling, since fast wind near 1 AU is rare; high-latitude or multi-spacecraft sampling would test whether the effect strengthens off the ecliptic.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses Wind/SWE ion velocity-distribution-function fits from January 1995 to December 2024 to study the alpha-to-proton temperature ratio T_alpha/T_p in six solar wind speed bins. A double-Gaussian mixture is fitted to the T_alpha/T_p distributions, and the area ratio A2/A1 of the near-unity and near-four populations is tracked monthly and correlated with sunspot number and F10.7. The paper reports a positive correlation of A2/A1 with solar activity in slow wind, a negative correlation in the 400–500 km/s bin, and a weak negative correlation in the >500 km/s bin, alongside analogous behavior in the occurrence fractions of A_c<1 and T_alpha/T_p>4. It interprets these trends as solar-cycle-dependent changes in the mixture of solar wind source populations modulating the ion temperature ratio at 1 AU, with Coulomb collisions acting as a moderating factor.

Significance. If the reported correlations are statistically robust, the result is a valuable new empirical constraint on the long-term solar-cycle variability of alpha-proton temperature balance and supports the idea that the ion temperature ratio at 1 AU is influenced by the evolving mixture of solar wind sources, not only by local collisional physics. The paper's strengths include its long homogeneous Wind dataset, explicit data selection criteria (ICME and bow-shock exclusion), the lognormal-mixture robustness check, and candid acknowledgment of the slow-wind instrumental caveat and the local-versus-preserved heating ambiguity. The analysis is reproducible in principle from public data, and the central claim is falsifiable. The main vulnerability is the statistical treatment of autocorrelated monthly time series, which currently lacks formal significance testing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Figure 2; Section 3.3, Figure 4] The Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients are reported without p-values, confidence intervals, or effective sample sizes. The monthly A2/A1 values are not independent: adjacent months sample the same slowly evolving source regions, and the solar cycle itself introduces strong autocorrelation in both the activity proxies and the solar wind properties. With only about 2.5 cycles in 1995–2024, the effective number of independent epochs is far smaller than the ~360 monthly points. Please add autocorrelation-robust inference (e.g., block bootstrap with block length of 12–24 months, or phase-randomized surrogates), report effective sample sizes, and apply the same treatment to the sign reversal between the 300–400 and 400–500 km/s bins. As written, the statement that the modulation is 'significant during Solar Cycle 23 and remains significant during Solar Cycle 24' is unsupported.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figure 2] The monthly fitting procedure that produces A2/A1 is not sufficiently documented. Please state the number of 92-s measurements per speed bin per month, the constraints imposed on the Gaussian parameters (for example, whether mu1 and sigma1 are fixed to the annual fit or free each month), the convergence criteria, and the treatment of months with sparse or non-converged fits. The propagated error bars in Figure 2 alone do not establish that the area ratio is stable; if sparse months or degenerate fits dominate the <300 km/s bin, the reported correlations may reflect fitting noise. Please include monthly sample-size and fit-quality statistics, or a supplementary figure showing the monthly fits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Section 5] The phrase 'nearly three solar cycles' overstates the interval; 1995–2024 contains two complete cycles (SC23 and SC24) plus part of SC25. Please use 'about two and a half cycles' or justify the description.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figure 2] The text says the 300–400 km/s bin 'consistently exceeds unity,' while Section 3 and Figure 1 state that distributions below 400 km/s are dominated by the equal-temperature component (A2/A1<1). Please reconcile this apparent contradiction in the data description.
  3. [Section 4] The lognormal-mixture robustness check is mentioned only qualitatively. Please show the lognormal version of the area-ratio time series or a table comparing the fitted fractions, so the claim that the conclusions are 'insensitive to the choice of mixture model' can be verified.
  4. [Equation (1)] The typeset equation for A_c appears garbled in the preprint, with the prefactor and Coulomb logarithm visually broken. Please check the equation against the original Kasper et al. (2008) definition.
  5. [Section 3.2, Figure 3] The percentages quoted in the text (for example, ~5.5% for A_c<1 in the <300 km/s bin) are given without uncertainties. Because these are fractions of classified intervals, binomial errors should be added or at least discussed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported solar-cycle modulation is an empirical correlation between measured T_alpha/T_p distributions and external solar activity indices; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

This paper is observational and self-contained. T_alpha/T_p is obtained directly from Wind SWE velocity-distribution-function fits, and Ac is computed from a published formula using measured np, vsw, and Tp. The double-Gaussian fit is a descriptive model of the observed T_alpha/T_p distribution; the area ratio A2/A1 and occurrence fractions (Ac<1, T_alpha/T_p>4) are then correlated with sunspot number and F10.7, which are external solar activity proxies. No equation in the paper defines the claimed solar-cycle modulation in terms of the fitted parameters, and no fitted parameter is subsequently relabeled as a prediction. The central claim is a statistical association between measured distributions and independent activity indices, so it does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Self-citations to the authors' prior work (e.g., Yogesh et al., Ofman et al.) appear only as background or supporting context and are not load-bearing for the new result; there is no imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the conclusion. The absence of autocorrelation-aware significance testing is a legitimate statistical robustness concern, but it is not a circularity issue. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on measured Wind SWE moments, the standard collisional-age formula, and a two-population mixture decomposition. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unfree inputs are the mixture model parameters, the speed binning, the analysis thresholds, and the statistical treatment of monthly samples as independent.

free parameters (5)
  • Gaussian component means mu1, mu2 per speed bin = mu1 near 1, mu2 near 4; values listed in Figure 1 panels
    The population labels equal-temperature and mass-proportional come from these fitted means, and the area ratio A2/A1, the central solar-cycle metric, is derived from the fitted areas.
  • Gaussian component widths sigma1, sigma2 per speed bin = listed per bin in Figure 1
    Widths are fitted freely and affect the integrated areas used for A2/A1; no priors are stated and the stability of the widths is not separately analyzed.
  • Gaussian component areas A1, A2 per speed bin and month = derived from the fits; monthly values not tabulated in text
    The monthly A2/A1 time series is the quantity correlated with solar activity, and only the resulting correlation coefficients are reported.
  • Solar wind speed bin boundaries = less than 300, 300-400, 400-500, greater than 500 km/s for the solar-cycle analysis
    The sign reversal in the solar-cycle correlation occurs between the 300-400 and 400-500 bins, so the chosen bin edges affect the stated transition location.
  • Thresholds A_c = 1 and T_alpha/T_p = 4 = chosen thresholds
    These thresholds define the weakly collisional fraction and the enhanced-heating fraction in Figure 4; they are physically motivated but the quantitative fractions depend on them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The distribution of T_alpha/T_p within each speed bin is bimodal and adequately described by two Gaussian components.
    Section 3 and Figure 1 use a double-Gaussian fit as the main model; a lognormal robustness check is described in Section 4, but the reported correlations all use the Gaussian areas.
  • standard math The collisional age formula in Eq. (1), with constants from Kasper et al. 2008, correctly characterizes cumulative Coulomb collisions relevant to alpha-proton temperature relaxation.
    The formula uses measured proton density, speed, temperature, and heliocentric distance, and is taken from prior published work rather than derived here.
  • domain assumption Fixed solar wind speed bins, sunspot number, and F10.7 flux are adequate proxies for distinguishing solar wind source regions and solar activity level.
    The authors themselves note in Section 4 that solar wind speed does not uniquely identify source regions, and that source populations coexist especially in the intermediate speed range.
  • domain assumption Monthly binned A2/A1 values can be treated as independent samples for correlation with solar activity.
    Section 3.1 computes Spearman and Pearson correlations without autocorrelation correction or effective sample size, so this statistical independence assumption is load-bearing for the reported significance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence for Solar-Cycle Modulation of the Alpha-to-Proton Temperature Ratio in Solar Wind." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JFZQEL5Q

@misc{pith2026260810819,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence for Solar-Cycle Modulation of the Alpha-to-Proton Temperature Ratio in Solar Wind},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JFZQEL5Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10819}
}
abstract

The influence of collisional age $(A_c)$ on the alpha-to-proton temperature ratio $(T_\alpha/T_p)$ has been explored in the past. However, the modulation of this ratio with respect to the solar cycle has remained unexplored so far. We show solar-cycle modulation of $T_\alpha/T_p$ and $A_c$ using nearly three decades of in-situ observations from Wind spacecraft across distinct solar wind speed regimes and solar activity phases. Our results reveal that in the slow solar wind with velocity $<400$ km s$^{-1}$, where $A_c$ happens to be typically $>1$, the ratio $T_\alpha/T_p$ stays close to unity. This suggests frequent Coulomb collisions efficiently iron out temperature differences. In contrast, the fast wind with velocity $>500$ km s$^{-1}$, where $A_c$ happens to be typically $<1$, mass-proportional heating is most pronounced, with $T_\alpha/T_p$ often exceeding 4. The intermediate speed regime ($400$-$500$ km s$^{-1}$) represents a gradual transition between the slow and fast wind populations in terms of their solar-cycle dependence. This behavior reflects the changing dominance of high-speed streams from polar coronal holes during minima to denser slow wind during maxima. These results suggest that mass-proportional ion heating at 1 AU is not solely governed by local collisional physics but is significantly modulated by the solar cycle dependent variations in the solar wind sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10819 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of the alpha-to-proton temperature ratio (Tα/Tp) in different solar wind speed bins, fitted with a double-Gaussian model. Each panel corresponds to the speed range indicated at the top: < 300, 300–400, 400–500, 500–600, 600–700, and > 700 km s−1 . The black step histograms represent the observed relative frequency of Tα/Tp. The blue dashed curves show the total double-Gaussian fit to the data. The indiv… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Solar-cycle evolution of the ratio between the mass-proportional and equal-temperature populations, represented by the fitted double-Gaussian component area ratio A2/A1, for different solar wind speed regimes. Panel (a) shows the monthly averaged sunspot number (black) and F10.7 solar radio flux (blue) as proxies of solar activity. Panel (b) presents the solar cycle variation of A2/A1 for four solar wind speed bins:… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: This figure shows the variation of the temperature ratio Tα/Tp as a function of the Coulomb collisional age (Ac) for different solar wind speed bins: (a) < 300 km s−1 , (b) 300–400 km s−1 , (e) 400–500 km s−1 , and (f) > 500 km s−1 . The color scale represents the norm…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Solar cycle modulation of solar wind collisionality and mass-proportional alpha particle heating across different wind speed regimes. The panel (a) presents the monthly sunspot number (black) and F10.7 solar radio flux (blue) as indicators of solar activity from 1995 t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., et al

    Abbo, L., Ofman, L., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2016, SSRv, 201, 55, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0264-1 Acu˜ na, M., Ogilvie, K., Baker, D., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 5, doi: 10.1007/BF00751323

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0264-1 2016

  2. [2]

    R., Lazarus, A

    Aellig, M. R., Lazarus, A. J., & Steinberg, J. T. 2001, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2767, doi: 10.1029/2000GL012771

    doi:10.1029/2000gl012771 2001

  3. [3]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 982, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb48e

    Alterman, B., & D’Amicis, R. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 982, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb48e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb48e 2025

  4. [4]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 996, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae002f

    Alterman, B., & D’Amicis, R. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 996, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae002f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae002f 2026

  5. [5]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 700, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554299

    Alterman, B., Rivera, Y., Lepri, S., Raines, J., & D’Amicis, R. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 700, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554299

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554299 2025

  6. [6]

    Alterman, B. L. 2019, Ph. D. Thesis

    2019

  7. [7]

    L., & Kasper, J

    Alterman, B. L., & Kasper, J. C. 2019, ApJL, 879, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2391

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2391 2019

  8. [8]

    L., Kasper, J

    Alterman, B. L., Kasper, J. C., Leamon, R. J., & McIntosh, S. W. 2021, SoPh, 296, 67, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01801-9

    doi:10.1007/s11207-021-01801-9 2021

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    L., Kasper, J

    Alterman, B. L., Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M. L., & Koval, A. 2018, ApJ, 864, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad23f

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    L., Rivera, Y

    Alterman, B. L., Rivera, Y. J., Lepri, S. T., & Raines, J. M. 2025, A&A, 694, A265, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451550

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    B., & Vaivads, A

    Amaro, M. B., & Vaivads, A. 2024, ApJL, 964, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2ded

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Linker, J. A. 2011, ApJ, 731, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/112

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    2014, A&A, 562, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322462

    Fujimoto, M. 2014, A&A, 562, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322462

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Bame, S. J. 1972, Spacecraft Observations of the Solar Wind Composition, ed. C. P. Sonett, P. J. Coleman, & J. M. Wilcox, Vol. 308, 535 19

    1972

  7. [15]

    A., Ervin, T., Mallet, A., et al

    Bowen, T. A., Ervin, T., Mallet, A., et al. 2025, PhRvL, 135, 255201, doi: 10.1103/rxd8-22m9

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & Klimchuk, J

    Cargill, P. J., & Klimchuk, J. A. 2004, ApJ, 605, 911, doi: 10.1086/382526

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    Chandran, B. D. G. 2010, ApJ, 720, 548, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/548

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    2010, ApJ, 720, 503, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/503

    Germaschewski, K. 2010, ApJ, 720, 503, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/503

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    Chandran, B. D. G., Verscharen, D., Quataert, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/45

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    2015, SILSO Sunspot Number V2.0,, https://doi.org/10.24414/qnza-ac80

    Clette, F., & Lef` evre, L. 2015, SILSO Sunspot Number V2.0,, https://doi.org/10.24414/qnza-ac80

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Cranmer, S. R. 2012, SSRv, 172, 145, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9674-7

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Kasper, J. C. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1604, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1604

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    2009, ApJL, 700, L16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/L16

    Quataert, E. 2009, ApJL, 700, L16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/L16

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, ApJL, 942, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acac2b Durovcov´ a, T.,ˇSafr´ ankov´ a, J., & Nˇ emeˇ cek, Z

    Duan, Y., Shen, Y., Chen, H., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acac2b Durovcov´ a, T.,ˇSafr´ ankov´ a, J., & Nˇ emeˇ cek, Z. 2019, SoPh, 294, 97, doi: 10.1007/s11207-019-1490-y d’Amicis, R., Bruno, R., Panasenco, O., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A21

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Asbridge, J

    Feldman, W. C., Asbridge, J. R., & Bame, S. J. 1974, J. Geophys. Res., 79, 2319, doi: 10.1029/JA079i016p02319

    1974 doi

  18. [26]

    S., Li, B., Xia, L., & Huang, Z

    Fu, H., Madjarska, M. S., Li, B., Xia, L., & Huang, Z. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1211

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    K., Tiwari, N

    Goyal, S. K., Tiwari, N. K., Patel, A. R., et al. 2025, SoPh, 300, 35, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02441-z

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a46

    Gupta, A., Chakrabarty, D., Vadawale, S., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a46

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 636, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937378

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Hernandez, R., & Marsch, E. 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 11062, doi: 10.1029/JA090iA11p11062

    1985 doi

  23. [31]

    A., & Vasquez, B

    Isenberg, P. A., & Vasquez, B. J. 2009, ApJ, 696, 591, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/591

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    K., Mostafavi, P., Palacios, J

    Jagarlamudi, V. K., Mostafavi, P., Palacios, J. C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L68, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2792

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    K., Russell, C

    Jian, L. K., Russell, C. T., Luhmann, J. G., et al. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 115, A12115, doi: 10.1029/2010JA015737

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 12, 1586421

    Johnson, E., & Maruca, B. 2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 12, 1586421

    2025

  27. [35]

    A., McManus, M., et al

    Johnson, E., Maruca, B. A., McManus, M., et al. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1284913, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1284913

    2024

  28. [36]

    A., McManus, M., et al

    Johnson, E., Maruca, B. A., McManus, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accc32

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    C., & Klein, K

    Kasper, J. C., & Klein, K. G. 2019, ApJL, 877, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1de5

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Lazarus, A

    Kasper, J. C., Lazarus, A. J., & Gary, S. P. 2008, PhRvL, 101, 261103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.261103

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Maruca, B

    Kasper, J. C., Maruca, B. A., Stevens, M. L., & Zaslavsky, A. 2013, PhRvL, 110, 091102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.091102

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Stevens, M

    Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M. L., Korreck, K. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/162

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    C., Stevens, M

    Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M. L., Lazarus, A. J., Steinberg, J. T., & Ogilvie, K. W. 2007, ApJ, 660, 901, doi: 10.1086/510842

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    C., Klein, K

    Kasper, J. C., Klein, K. G., Weber, T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84b1

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Ogilvie, K

    Klein, L. W., Ogilvie, K. W., & Burlaga, L. F. 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 7389, doi: 10.1029/JA090iA08p07389

    1985 doi

  36. [44]

    L., Noci, G., Antonucci, E., et al

    Kohl, J. L., Noci, G., Antonucci, E., et al. 1998, ApJL, 501, L127, doi: 10.1086/311434

    1998 doi

  37. [45]

    S., et al

    Kumar, P., Bapat, B., Shah, M. S., et al. 2025, SoPh, 300, 37, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02443-x

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    Landi, E., & Cranmer, S. R. 2009, ApJ, 691, 794, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/794

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    Livi, S., Marsch, E., & Rosenbauer, H. 1986, J. Geophys. Res., 91, 8045, doi: 10.1029/JA091iA07p08045

    1986 doi

  40. [48]

    G., Vi˜ nAs, A

    Maneva, Y. G., Vi˜ nAs, A. F., & Ofman, L. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 118, 2842, doi: 10.1002/jgra.50363

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2006-1

    Marsch, E. 2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2006-1

    2006 doi

  42. [50]

    2012, SSRv, 172, 23, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9734-z

    Marsch, E. 2012, SSRv, 172, 23, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9734-z

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    K., & Richter, K

    Marsch, E., Goertz, C. K., & Richter, K. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 5030, doi: 10.1029/JA087iA07p05030

    1982 doi

  44. [52]

    Marsch, E., & Goldstein, H. 1983, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 9933, doi: 10.1029/JA088iA12p09933 Martinovi´ c, M. M., Klein, K. G., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab527f

    1983 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Klein, K

    Martinovic, M. M., Klein, K. G., Ofman, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.18485, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.18485 20A. Gupta et al. Martinovi´ c, M. M., Klein, K. G., Ofman, L., et al. 2026, Phys. Rev. Lett., 136, 255201, doi: 10.1103/nlq9-2g37

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Bale, S

    Maruca, B. A., Bale, S. D., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Kasper, J. C., & Stevens, M. L. 2013, PhRvL, 111, 241101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.241101

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Ebert, R

    McComas, D. J., Ebert, R. W., Elliott, H. A., et al. 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L18103, doi: 10.1029/2008GL034896

    2008 doi

  48. [56]

    J., Elliott, H

    McComas, D. J., Elliott, H. A., Schwadron, N. A., et al. 2003, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1517, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017136

    2003 doi

  49. [57]

    W., de Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M., et al

    McIntosh, S. W., de Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M., et al. 2011, Nature, 475, 477, doi: 10.1038/nature10235

    2011 doi

  50. [58]

    C., McManus, M

    Mostafavi, P., Allen, R. C., McManus, M. D., et al. 2022, ApJL, 926, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac51e1

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    K., Raouafi, N

    Mostafavi, P., Jagarlamudi, V. K., Raouafi, N. E., et al. 2025, ApJL, 991, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0732

    2025 doi

  52. [61]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 682, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347134

    Mostafavi, P., Allen, R., Jagarlamudi, V., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 682, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347134

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    E., Mu˜ noz, V., Valdivia, J

    Navarro, R. E., Mu˜ noz, V., Valdivia, J. A., & Moya, P. S. 2020, ApJL, 898, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba0ae

    2020 doi

  54. [63]

    Neugebauer, M. 1976, J. Geophys. Res., 81, 78, doi: 10.1029/JA081i001p00078

    1976 doi

  55. [64]

    2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010221

    Ofman, L. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010221

    2004 doi

  56. [65]

    2010, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 7, 4, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2010-4

    Ofman, L. 2010, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 7, 4, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2010-4

    2010 doi

  57. [66]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac402c

    Larson, D. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac402c

    2022 doi

  58. [67]

    A., et al

    Ofman, L., Yogesh, Boardsen, S. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 174, doi: https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/adc812

    2025 doi

  59. [68]

    2024, ApJL, 970, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e7e

    Ofman, L., Yogesh, & Giordano, S. 2024, ApJL, 970, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e7e

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    A., Jian, L

    Ofman, L., Boardsen, S. A., Jian, L. K., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acea7e

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    1974, Journal of Geophysical Research, 79, 4595

    Ogilvie, K., & Hirshberg, J. 1974, Journal of Geophysical Research, 79, 4595

    1974

  62. [71]

    W., Chornay, D

    Ogilvie, K. W., Chornay, D. J., Fritzenreiter, R. J., et al. 1995, SSRv, 71, 55, doi: 10.1007/BF00751326

    1995 doi

  63. [72]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 996, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2ac9

    Parashar, S., Chakrabarty, D., Kumar, P., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 996, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2ac9

    2026 doi

  64. [73]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, ApJ, 128, 664, doi: 10.1086/146579

    1958 doi

  65. [74]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad79fa

    Peng, J., He, J., Duan, D., & Verscharen, D. 2024, ApJ, 977, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad79fa

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    J., Badman, S

    Rivera, Y. J., Badman, S. T., Stevens, M. L., et al. 2024, Science, 385, 962, doi: 10.1126/science.adk6953

    2024 doi

  67. [76]

    J., Badman, S

    Rivera, Y. J., Badman, S. T., Verniero, J., et al. 2025a, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada699

    doi

  68. [77]

    J., Klein, K

    Rivera, Y. J., Klein, K. G., Wang, J. H., et al. 2025b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 990, L60, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa97

    doi

  69. [78]

    M., & Axford, W

    Ryan, J. M., & Axford, W. I. 1975, Journal of Geophysics Zeitschrift Geophysik, 41, 221

    1975

  70. [79]

    Scudder, J. D. 1992, in Solar Wind Seven Colloquium, ed. E. Marsch & R. Schwenn, 103–112

    1992

  71. [80]

    2025, GSICS Quarterly, 18, doi: 10.25923/gmzc-9a28

    Sebastian, J., Kumar, A., Chakrabarty, D., et al. 2025, GSICS Quarterly, 18, doi: 10.25923/gmzc-9a28

    2025 doi

  72. [81]

    2026, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 47, 21, doi: 10.1007/s12036-026-10134-7

    Sebastian, J., Dalal, B., Gupta, A., et al. 2026, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 47, 21, doi: 10.1007/s12036-026-10134-7

    2026 doi

  73. [82]

    J., Kasper, J

    Tracy, P. J., Kasper, J. C., Raines, J. M., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 255101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.255101

    2016 doi

  74. [83]

    J., Kasper, J

    Tracy, P. J., Kasper, J. C., Zurbuchen, T. H., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 170, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/170 ˇDurovcov´ a, T.,ˇSafr´ ankov´ a, J., & Nˇ emeˇ cek, Z. 2021, ApJ, 923, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c03

    2015 doi

  75. [84]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36d5

    Verniero, J., Chandran, B., Larson, D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36d5

    2022 doi

  76. [85]

    Verscharen, D., Bourouaine, S., & Chandran, B. D. G. 2013, ApJ, 773, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/163

    2013 doi

  77. [86]

    G., & Maruca, B

    Verscharen, D., Klein, K. G., & Maruca, B. A. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0 von Steiger, R., Schwadron, N. A., Fisk, L. A., et al. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 27217, doi: 10.1029/1999JA000358

    2019 doi

  78. [87]

    1995, Solar wind ion composition and charge states, Tech

    Vonsteiger, R. 1995, Solar wind ion composition and charge states, Tech. rep., California Institute of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States

    1995

  79. [88]

    2009, ApJ, 691, 760, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/760

    Wang, Y.-M., Ko, Y.-K., & Grappin, R. 2009, ApJ, 691, 760, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/760

    2009 doi

  80. [89]

    Xu, F., & Borovsky, J. E. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 70, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020412

    2015 doi

  81. [90]

    L., Brooks, D

    Yardley, S. L., Brooks, D. H., D’Amicis, R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 953, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02278-9

    2024 doi

  82. [91]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, L17, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab016

    Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N. 2021, MNRAS, 503, L17, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab016

    2021 doi

  83. [92]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 513, L106, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac044 21

    Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 513, L106, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac044 21

    2022 doi

  84. [93]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 526, L13, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad112

    Yogesh, Chakrabarty, D., & Srivastava, N. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 526, L13, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad112

    2023 doi

  85. [94]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84d6

    Yogesh, Gopalswamy, N., Chakrabarty, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84d6

    2024 doi

  86. [95]

    A., et al

    Yogesh, Ofman, L., Boardsen, S. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add467

    2025 doi

  87. [96]

    G., et al

    Yogesh, Ofman, L., Klein, K. G., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 999, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4582

    2026 doi

  88. [97]

    Zerbo, J.-L., & Richardson, J. D. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 10,250, doi: 10.1002/2015JA021407

    2015 doi

Pith tools

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