Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Ranking the drivers of the Venusian bow shock and ion composition boundary locations

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Venus's bow shock is governed primarily by magnetic field intensity and shock angle, while the inner ion boundary responds mainly to solar extreme-ultraviolet flux.

desk verdict A careful reanalysis that gives a plausible Venus boundary driver ranking, but the heavily filtered dataset needs a representativeness check before I'd fully trust the rankings. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27866 v1 pith:PU2L36D2 submitted 2026-07-30 physics.space-ph astro-ph.EP

Philippe Garnier , Moa Persson , Sofia Bergman , Yoshifumi Futaana This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.EP
keywords VenusbowshockioncompositionboundaryIMFintensityMachnumberEUVfluxLASSOpartialcorrelation
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 settle a long-running disagreement about what controls the positions of the two main plasma boundaries at Venus: the bow shock and the ion composition boundary. Using a large Venus Express crossing catalogue and three complementary statistical methods—partial correlations, Akaike Information Criterion, and LASSO regression—the authors claim that earlier single-parameter studies were misled by cross-correlations between solar-wind drivers. They conclude that the bow shock's terminator distance responds most strongly to interplanetary magnetic field intensity (or, more probably, the magnetosonic Mach number it controls) and to the θbn angle separating quasi-perpendicular from quasi-parallel shocks, with solar EUV flux and solar-wind dynamic pressure as secondary drivers. The ion composition boundary, by contrast, is claimed to be dominated by solar EUV flux, with solar-wind parameters playing a weaker, entangled role. If correct, the ranking provides a concrete prescription for which variables future parametric models must include.

What carries the argument

The method is a three-way statistical cross-check on a common dataset. Partial correlations isolate the association between a candidate driver and boundary distance after controlling for all other drivers; the Akaike Information Criterion ranks how much information is lost if each driver is removed from a multivariable model; and LASSO regression shrinks standardized regression coefficients to identify the most robust predictors. Together they expose cross-correlations (e.g., between IMF intensity, Alfvén Mach number, dynamic pressure and EUV flux) that can inflate or mask apparent driver influences in simpler scatter plots.

What would settle it

A controlled simulation where the magnetosonic Mach number is held constant while the IMF intensity is varied across the observed range would settle the question: if the bow shock distance is unchanged, IMF is only a proxy for Mach and the paper's primary ranking is misattributed; if the shock expands, IMF is an independent driver.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a ranking, not a new physical mechanism. The authors argue that the extrapolated terminator distance of the Venusian bow shock is most strongly influenced by the interplanetary magnetic field intensity—or likely by the magnetosonic Mach number, which cannot be computed here because reliable solar-wind ion temperatures are unavailable—followed by the θbn angle (quasi-perpendicular shocks sit farther out), then solar EUV flux and solar-wind dynamic pressure. The ion composition boundary, they claim, is primarily controlled by EUV-driven ionization and thermal pressure, with IMF intensity, Alfvén Mach number and dynamic pressure playing smaller and mutually entangled roles,

Load-bearing premise

The rankings assume the reduced, upstream-stable subset of crossings (1604 of 5193 shock crossings, 916 of 2679 ICB crossings) is representative of the full population—if excluded events respond to drivers systematically differently, the ranking collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future parametric models of the Venus bow shock should include Mach number or IMF intensity, θbn, EUV flux, and solar-wind dynamic pressure; the paper shows each carries independent information.
  • Future ICB models should lead with solar EUV flux, with IMF/Mach/dynamic-pressure treated as secondary, strongly cross-correlated terms.
  • The convective electric field asymmetries (cone and clock angles) appear weaker drivers of the bow shock than earlier studies suggested.
  • Extreme bow-shock expansions typically arise when several drivers are simultaneously extreme, with IMF conditions playing a leading role; extreme ICB expansions are most often dominated by EUV.
  • The Venusian bow-shock driver ranking largely matches Mars, except EUV is relatively stronger at Mars and the relative clock angle (pole/equator asymmetry) stronger at Venus.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If reliable solar-wind ion temperatures become available, the ranking may shift: the paper's own reading is that magnetosonic Mach number would likely outrank IMF intensity once temperature is included, potentially demoting IMF to a correlated proxy.
  • The same multivariate framework could be applied to other induced magnetospheres (e.g., comets or Mars under extreme solar-wind conditions) or to the Venusian magnetosheath thickness, where the same driver cross-correlations operate.
  • A simulation study that independently varies IMF and magnetosonic Mach number could break the degeneracy the data cannot; the paper predicts Mach is the true physical driver.
  • Because only about 30% of shock crossings and 34% of ICB crossings survive the upstream-stability filter, a missed systematic difference between selected and excluded crossings would bias the rankings; this is testable by re-running the analysis on a sub-sample with relaxed stability criteria.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reanalyzes the Venus Express boundary-crossing catalog of Signoles et al. (2023) to rank the external drivers of the Venusian bow shock (BS) and ion composition boundary (ICB) locations. Using three statistical techniques—partial correlations, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) model selection, and LASSO regression, with ridge and power-law sensitivity checks—the authors assess the influence of sunspot number (EUV proxy), IMF intensity and orientation angles, Alfvén Mach number, and solar-wind dynamic pressure. They find that the BS location is primarily controlled by IMF intensity (or, more plausibly, the magnetosonic Mach number, which cannot be measured directly), the θbn shock-angle parameter, EUV flux, and SW dynamic pressure. The ICB is primarily controlled by EUV flux, with smaller contributions from SW/IMF parameters. The paper also compares the Venus results with Mars, analyzes extreme boundary excursions, and discusses implications for empirical models.

Significance. If the rankings are correct, the study reconciles contradictory earlier findings and provides a concrete predictor set for future parametric models of the Venusian BS and ICB. The methodological combination of partial correlations, AIC, and LASSO on the same dataset—with cross-correlation diagnostics, ridge-regularization checks, and power-law linearization tests—is a notable strength, as is the use of a manually validated crossing catalog and open data. The conclusions are nevertheless conditional on the representativeness of the reduced subset of crossings that survive the upstream-stability filters, which is the main concern addressed below.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 2.1] The stability filters discard 3589 of 5193 bow-shock crossings (69%) and 1763 of 2679 ICB crossings (66%). All rankings in Sections 3 and 4 are computed exclusively on the reduced subsample. The authors do not compare the included and excluded crossings (e.g., in boundary distance, solar-cycle phase, local time, or available upstream conditions). If unstable upstream intervals are physically different—for example, during ICMEs or stream interaction regions, where the boundary may respond more strongly to IMF/Mach changes—the reported rankings and the extreme-event analysis (§4.4) may not generalize. Please add a distributional comparison of selected vs. excluded crossings and/or a sensitivity analysis (e.g., using relaxed stability criteria or inverse-probability weighting).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] Please specify the R packages and versions used for partial correlations, AIC, and LASSO (e.g., ppcor, glmnet) to aid reproducibility.
  2. [Table 3] The meaning of the 'Constant' row is unclear, and the text refers to a significance threshold of −4344 while the table lists −4380 for the constant model. Please clarify whether this is the intercept-only model and how the threshold is defined.
  3. [Section 4.1] The citation list 'M. Wang (2024a), M. Wang (2024a)' contains a duplicate; if the second reference is meant to be M. Wang et al. (2024b), please correct it.
  4. [Section 4.4] It is worth stating explicitly that 68 (BS) and 36 (ICB) crossings beyond 3σ are far more than expected under normality (~0.3% of the reduced sample), consistent with the leptokurtic distributions discussed in §4.3.
  5. [Section 4.1] The single-eccentricity sensitivity test is described only qualitatively. Please provide the resulting rankings/coefficients (e.g., a table or appendix figure) to allow readers to evaluate the impact of this modeling choice.
  6. [Table 2] EUV and SW dynamic pressure are both assigned rank 3. Reporting coefficients to more decimal places would break the tie and avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: boundary distances and drivers are measured independently; the self-cited methodology is precedent, not a load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

The paper ranks drivers of the Venusian bow-shock terminator distance (R_TD) and ICB distance (ρ) using partial correlations, AIC, and LASSO. The targets to be explained are derived from measured crossing positions via the fixed conic formula in Eq. (1), with geometric parameters (focus X0 and eccentricities) taken from S23; the candidate drivers—sunspot number, IMF vector and derived angles, Alfvén Mach number, and SW dynamic pressure—are independently measured or computed upstream quantities. None of the ranking methods is constructed from the boundary distances in a way that makes the ranking equal to its input by definition. The self-citations to G22 are methodological precedent for using partial correlations/AIC/LASSO in a correlated multi-driver problem, and the statistical methods are also referenced to independent literature (e.g., Baba et al. 2004; Akaike 1974; Tibshirani 1996); the present results are recomputed on the Venus Express dataset rather than imported. The inherited S23 conic parameters are a possible source of systematic geometric bias, but the authors explicitly test sensitivity to them by using a single eccentricity and report unchanged rankings, so the central ranking does not reduce to these fitted inputs. The stated limitations—the reduced dataset of 1604 BS and 916 ICB crossings after upstream-stability filtering, and the unavailability of reliable ion temperature preventing inclusion of the magnetosonic Mach number—are legitimate data-quality and representativeness concerns that could bias the rankings, but they do not constitute a circular derivation. No step was found in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, a result is defined in terms of itself, or a load-bearing claim rests on an unverified self-citation. The correct non-circularity score is therefore low; the main residual risk is selection bias, not circularity.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claims rest on external data products (Persson et al. 2023 crossing catalog), S23's fitted conic parameters used to construct RTD, the sunspot-number/EUV proxy, and the linear/power-law statistical model class. The strongest additional assumption is that the filtered sample is representative.

free parameters (6)
  • BS conic eccentricity e (solar min) = 1.042
    Taken from S23 and used in Eq. 1 to compute RTD for 2006-2010 crossings; not fitted here, but a fitted parameter from prior work that the target variable depends on.
  • BS conic eccentricity e (solar max) = 1.052
    Taken from S23 and used in Eq. 1 for 2011-2014 crossings; not fitted here, but a fitted parameter from prior work that the target variable depends on.
  • BS conic focus X0 = 0.688 RV
    From S23, used in Eq. 1 to compute RTD; not fitted here, but inherited from prior work.
  • Upstream stability thresholds = 10 cm^-3, 70 km/s, 40 min; IMF 20 min
    Manual thresholds defining the reduced dataset; not fitted to boundary distances but controls which crossings are analyzed.
  • LASSO penalty lambda = 8e-4 (BS), 9.4e-5 (ICB)
    Selected by 10-fold cross-validation; data-derived model-selection parameter, not a physical constant.
  • Extreme event threshold = 3 sigma
    Hand-chosen standardized-distance threshold defining 'extreme' excursions in Section 4.4.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Manually identified boundary crossings (Persson et al. 2023) are correct
    All downstream rankings inherit the crossing classifications; Section 2.1 describes visual inspection criteria.
  • domain assumption Sunspot number is a valid proxy for EUV flux at Venus over 2006-2014
    SSN from SILSO is used as the EUV driver; monthly/rotation timescales and the EUV-SSN correspondence at Venus are not validated here.
  • domain assumption Linear (or power-law-linearized) relationships between boundary location and drivers hold at first order
    Partial correlations, AIC, and LASSO all use linearized models; stated in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption RTD computed from Eq. 1 with S23 e and X0 is a faithful 1D summary of BS location; ICB is circular with radius ρ
    Section 2.1; the rankings depend on these geometric reductions.
  • domain assumption Alfven Mach number can stand in for unavailable magnetosonic Mach number; IMF and Alfven Mach are treated as separate candidate drivers despite definitional coupling
    Section 2.1 notes ion temperature is unavailable; strong cross-correlation (-0.62) between IMF and Alfven Mach creates an identifiability issue.
  • domain assumption Stable upstream conditions thresholds select a representative subset
    Section 2.1: reduced dataset is 1604 BS and 916 ICB crossings; no comparison of selected versus excluded crossings is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ranking the drivers of the Venusian bow shock and ion composition boundary locations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PU2L36D2

@misc{pith2026260727866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ranking the drivers of the Venusian bow shock and ion composition boundary locations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PU2L36D2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27866}
}
abstract

The Venusian interaction with the solar wind leads to the formation of an induced magnetosphere structured by plasma boundaries. Their dynamics is complex, due to the combined influence of external (solar photons, solar wind plasma and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF)) and internal (ionized atmosphere) drivers. Studying these drivers helps understanding the transfer of energy and momentum throughout the Venusian system, and has thus implications for the erosion of the atmosphere through its coupling with the solar wind. We here analyze and rank the influence of the main drivers of the Venusian bow shock and ion composition boundary locations. We revisit the results by Signoles et al. (2023) based on Venus Express measurements by combining several methods such as the Akaike Information Criterion, Least Absolute Shrinkage Selection Operator regression, and partial correlations. These methods allow to investigate cross correlations that appear and can bias the interpretation, and allow to rank drivers with robust approaches. The bow shock appears primarily driven by the IMF intensity or Mach number, the IMF $\theta_{bn}$ angle separating quasi-perpendicular vs quasi-parallel shocks, and then the solar extreme ultraviolet fluxes and solar wind dynamic pressure (with little influence of the convective electric field induced asymmetries). The Ion Composition Boundary is primarily driven by extreme ultraviolet fluxes, with a more reduced influence of several solar wind parameters and IMF induced magnetic pileup asymmetries. We also compare the behaviors of both boundaries and then compare the bow shock driver rankings at Mars and Venus. Finally we propose an analysis of the drivers of the extreme bow shock and ion composition boundary excursions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27866 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Logarithmic occurrence frequency of the extrapolated terminator distances of the Venus bow shock crossings as a function of several possible drivers: extreme ultraviolet fluxes (via sunspot number), IMF Alfven Mach number, IMF cone angle, IMF relative clock angle (see text), IMF magnitude, SW dynamic pressure, IMF clock angle, IMF θbn angle. Thick lines show the sliding median profiles with one standard deviation er… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic showing the complex inter-correlations of the possible drivers between themselves and with the Venus bow shock terminator distance. Blue and red lines correspond respectively to negative and positive Pearson linear correlation factors, while the thickness of the lines is proportional to the correlation factor. Dashed lines represent non-significant (p-value above 5%) correlations. The background figure was… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LASSO coefficients as a function of the penalty term λ for the bow shock possible drivers. (2024b) at Venus. The above conclusions based on partial correlations are also true with the AIC or LASSO methods, where this ”winner takes all” effect will be observed for Alfven Mach vs IMF magnitude. Partial correlations thus suggest the following ranking of the Venus BS RTD drivers: 1) and 2) IMF intensity or (most probabl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same figure as fig. 1 for the dayside Ion Composition Boundary distance vs possible drivers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same figure as fig. 2 for the possible ICB drivers. the IMF parameters as in the BS dataset due to shared components in angle definitions, though with slight differences (e.g. no correlation observed for clock angle) due probably to the different (reduced in particular…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same figure as fig. 3 with ICB drivers LASSO coefficients as a function of the penalty term. coefficients that decrease together, while Alfven Mach number and IMF intensity coefficients start from higher values but decrease rapidly. The SW dynamic pressure shows a more…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    1974

  2. [2]

    J., Luhmann, J

    Alexander, C. J., Luhmann, J. G., & Russell, C. T. 1986, Geophysical Research Letters, 13, 917, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/GL013i009p00917

    work page doi:10.1029/gl013i009p00917 1986

  3. [3]

    J., & Russell, C

    Alexander, C. J., & Russell, C. T. 1985, Geophysical Research Letters, 12, 369, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/GL012i006p00369

    work page doi:10.1029/gl012i006p00369 1985

  4. [4]

    2011, Planetary and Space Science, 59, 327, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2010.12.004 22

    Angsmann, A., Fr¨ anz, M., Dubinin, E., et al. 2011, Planetary and Space Science, 59, 327, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2010.12.004 22

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2010.12.004 2011

  5. [5]

    2004, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics, 46, 657, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2004.00360.x

    Baba, K., Shibata, R., & Sibuya, M. 2004, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics, 46, 657, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2004.00360.x

    arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    2006, Space Science Reviews, 126, 113, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9124-8

    Barabash, S., Lundin, R., Andersson, H., et al. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 126, 113, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9124-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-9124-8 2006

  7. [7]

    2007, Planetary and Space Science, 55, 1772, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2007.01.014

    Barabash, S., Sauvaud, J.-A., Gunell, H., et al. 2007, Planetary and Space Science, 55, 1772, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2007.01.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2007.01.014 2007

  8. [8]

    2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 129, e2023JA032343, doi: 10.1029/2023JA032343

    Byrd, S., Girazian, Z., & Ruhunusiri, S. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 129, e2023JA032343, doi: 10.1029/2023JA032343

    work page doi:10.1029/2023ja032343 2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    2014, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 9464, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA019878

    Chai, L., Fraenz, M., Wan, W., et al. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 9464, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA019878

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 4446, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021221

    Chai, L., Wan, W., Fraenz, M., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 4446, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021221

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba62a

    Chang, Xu, Xu, Q., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba62a

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

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

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

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    1980, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 85, 7575, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JA085iA13p07575

    Colin, L. 1980, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 85, 7575, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JA085iA13p07575

    1980 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Luhmann, J., Ma, Y., et al

    Curry, S. M., Luhmann, J., Ma, Y., et al. 2015, Planetary and Space Science, 115, 35, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2015.03.026

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Edberg, N. J. T., Brain, D. A., Lester, M., et al. 2009, Annales Geophysicae, 27, 3537, doi: 10.5194/angeo-27-3537-2009

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Luhmann, J. G. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 212, 1453, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0362-8

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    2022a, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, e2021JA030146, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA030146

    Garnier, P., Jacquey, C., Gendre, X., et al. 2022a, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, e2021JA030146, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA030146

    doi

  10. [18]

    2022b, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, e2021JA030147, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA030147

    Garnier, P., Jacquey, C., Gendre, X., et al. 2022b, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, e2021JA030147, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA030147

    doi

  11. [19]

    2017, submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research

    Holmberg, M., Gurnett, D., Santolik, O., et al. 2017, submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research

    2017

  12. [20]

    K., & Kivelson, M

    Khurana, K. K., & Kivelson, M. G. 1994, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 99, 8505, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/93JA03527

    1994 doi

  13. [21]

    Luhmann, J. G. 1986, Space Science Reviews, 44, 241, doi: 10.1007/BF00200818

    1986 doi

  14. [22]

    2008, Planetary and Space Science, 56, 780, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2007.07.007

    Martinecz, C., Fr¨ anz, M., Woch, J., et al. 2008, Planetary and Space Science, 56, 780, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2007.07.007

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    Michel, F. C. 1965, Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977), 70, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ070i001p00001

    1965 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, Venusian bow shock crossings manually identified from measurements by the ASPERA-4 and MAG instruments onboard Venus Express, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679678

    Persson, M., Bergman, S., Signoles, C., et al. 2023, Venusian bow shock crossings manually identified from measurements by the ASPERA-4 and MAG instruments onboard Venus Express, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679678

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2020GL091213, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091213

    Persson, M., Futaana, Y., Ramstad, R., et al. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2020GL091213, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091213

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2025, Icarus, 432, 116469, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116469

    Peter, K., P¨ atzold, M., Withers, P., et al. 2025, Icarus, 432, 116469, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116469

    2025

  19. [27]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add14d

    Rollero, U., Rojas Mata, S., Zhang, T., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add14d

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    T., Chou, E., Luhmann, J

    Russell, C. T., Chou, E., Luhmann, J. G., et al. 1988, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 93, 5461, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JA093iA06p05461

    1988 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace7b1

    Signoles, C., Persson, M., Futaana, Y., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace7b1

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Elphic, R

    Slavin, J. A., Elphic, R. C., Russell, C. T., et al. 1980, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 85, 7625, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JA085iA13p07625

    1980 doi

  23. [31]

    1995, Advances in Space Research, 15, 433, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1177(94)00128-N

    Spreiter, J., & Stahara, S. 1995, Advances in Space Research, 15, 433, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1177(94)00128-N

    1995 doi

  24. [32]

    V., McCoy, D., et al

    Svedhem, H., Titov, D. V., McCoy, D., et al. 2007, 55, 1636, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2007.01.013

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    1996, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 58, 267, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x

    Tibshirani, R. 1996, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 58, 267, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x

    1996

  26. [34]

    H., Connerney, J

    Vignes, D., Acuna, M. H., Connerney, J. E. P., et al. 2002, Geophysical Research Letters, 29, 42, doi: 10.1029/2001GL014513

    2002 doi

  27. [35]

    2024a, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad192d

    Wang, M. 2024a, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad192d

    doi

  28. [36]

    Y., Kabin, K., et al

    Wang, M., Lu, J. Y., Kabin, K., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab86a7

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    2024b, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129, e2024JA032741, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JA032741 23

    Wang, M., Xu, Q., Xie, L., et al. 2024b, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 129, e2024JA032741, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JA032741 23

    doi

  30. [38]

    2012, Planetary and Space Science, 73, 254, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2012.08.024 Xiao, & Zhang

    Wei, Y., Fraenz, M., Dubinin, E., et al. 2012, Planetary and Space Science, 73, 254, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2012.08.024 Xiao, & Zhang. 2018, Planetary and Space Science, 158, 53, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2018.05.006

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 652, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141391

    Xu, Xu, Zhang, et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 652, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141391

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ac5

    Xu, Xu, Zuo, P., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ac5

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, e2022GL102401, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL102401

    Xu, Q., Xu, X., Zuo, P., et al. 2023, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, e2022GL102401, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL102401

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    L., Khurana, K

    Zhang, T. L., Khurana, K. K., Russell, C. T., et al. 2004, Advances in Space Research, 33, 1920, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2003.05.038

    2004 doi

  35. [43]

    G., & Russell, C

    Zhang, T.-L., Luhmann, J. G., & Russell, C. T. 1990, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 95, 14961, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JA095iA09p14961

    1990 doi

  36. [44]

    L., Baumjohann, W., Delva, M., et al

    Zhang, T. L., Baumjohann, W., Delva, M., et al. 2006, Planetary and Space Science, 54, 1336, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2006.04.018

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.