Basic plasma processes

Sladkov,1 Fuchs, Burdonov, Sladkov,2 Alexandrova, Chuvatin, Le Contel, Retino, Delahaye J. Larour, R. Smets,
P. Auvray, S. Pledel,3 Ciardi, Panis, Delahaye,4 Casner,5 Bouffetier,6, 7 and Goudal, Masse, Ripoll8
1) IAP
2) LULI
3) LPP
4) LERMA
5) CEA-CESTA, CS 60001, 33116 Le Barp Cedex, France
6) Université de Bordeaux-CNRS-CEA, Centre Lasers Intenses et Applications (CELIA), UMR 5107, F-33405 Talence,
France
7) Eu XFEL
8) CEA, DAM, DIF, F-91297 Arpajon, France

I. TURBULENCE complicated to disentangle the different processes that can be

simultaneously at play. To this end, it is crucial to first model
A. Building blocks of Alfvénic turbulence: from MHD to their signatures in phase space and to develop specific meth-
kinetic scales (Cerri) ods to detect such processes, as well as to verify them with
numerical simualtions30,44–51 and, possibly, with in-situ mea-
surements52,53 . In fact, the above studies can be used for the
Turbulence in collisionless, magnetized plasmas is an design of ad-hoc plasma experiments aimed at developing the
ubiquitous phenomenon in space and astrophysical environ- right plasma regimes in order to investigate a limited number
ments1–4 . The turbulent cascade transfers the energy injected of kinetic processes (if not just one at a time). Then, theo-
by large-scale plasma motions and/or instabilities towards retical models and numerical simulations will also guide the
smaller and smaller scales, where such energy is eventually choice of the most-adequate set of diagnostics for the kinetic
converted into heat and non-thermal particles: this process has process of interest.
a relevant role in regulating the (thermo)dynamics of a sys-
tem5–7 and its emission features8,9 . While at large scales the
cascade is described by magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) tur- B. Energy partition between ions and electrons in
bulence10–16 , once the small plasma micro-scales are reached, astrophysical plasmas (Sahraoui)
the dispersive nature of kinetic modes17–19 , as well as the role
of intermittency20 , magnetic reconnection21–24 and kinetic ef- Significant progress has been achieved over the past years
fects25? –31 , significantly complicate the picture. in investigating solar wind (SW) turbulence thanks to the
In this context, some relevant questions that need to be ad- availability of high quality in-situ data from several space
dressed at a fundamental level are: (i) what are the building missions (e.g., WIND, Cluster, MMS, PSP, SolO)54–57 . A
blocks of the turbulent cascade in plasmas? (ii) how mag- general consensus exists that SW turbulence in the inertial
netic reconnection and/or other instabilities enter this picture range is dominated by strongly interacting nonlinear incom-
by affecting the cascade process? (iii) under which conditions pressible Alfvén waves, yielding power-law spectra with the
certain kinetic processes become relevant along the cascade, Kolmogorov scaling f −5/3 (Fig. 1)57 .
and what are their peculiar signatures and feedback on the However, big gaps still exist in our understanding of the
cascade itself? fate of the energy as the cascade reaches the ion scale. In-
A way to address the above questions is to gradually sim- deed, one of the longstanding questions is how the energy
plify the problem under certain aspects, before putting the cascaded from large (MHD) scales is partitioned at the kinetic
pieces of the puzzle back together. This can be done, for scales between ions and electrons, and how that is controlled
instance, by studying the nonlinear interaction of two wave by the plasma parameters (e.g., the ion plasma βi , the ratio be-
packets, either via numerical simulations32–34 (e.g.,) or by ad- tween thermal and magnetic pressures, or the temperature ra-
hoc experimental setup35 . Such a simple setup would be use- tio Ti /Te ). In a collisional plasma, one would expect that par-
ful also to better pinpoint the role of magnetic reconnection, ticle collisions would smooth out any thermal disequilibrium
which naturally arises in turbulent environments and can be between the plasma species, thus making the plasma relaxing
characterized by different regimes21,36–42 . This problem was to (a global) thermal equilibrium. However, in a collisionless
indeed recently addressed at purely MHD scales thanks to the plasma, the answer is not trivial: would the turbulence feed
above-mentioned setup. By varying the level of nonlinear in- the coolest species and favour thermal equilibrium or would
teractions it has been shown that a process known as “dynamic it, on the contrary, reinforce thermal disequilibrium (Fig.2)?
alignment”14 occurs also at low nonlinearities: this process This fundamental question is relevant to many other astro-
actually combines with the increased lifetime of turbulent ed- physical plasmas such as matter accretion onto black holes:
dies in the weak-turbulence regime to allow tearing instability whether and to what degree plasma turbulence (thought to be
to onset and mediate the cascade at scales that can be larger generated by MRI) can be dissipated into ion or electron heat-
than those predicted for a critically balanced cascade43 . When ing? This has implications for the relative amount of energy
it comes to the study of kinetic effects, on the other hand, it is radiated out by electrons (and, thus, observed) vs. swallowed
 2

C. Anisotropic spectra of MHD turbulence (Albertazzi)

II. TRANSPORT

A. Heat flux in collisionless media (Pantellini)

As soon as in a plasma the ratio (known as the Knudsen

number) of the mean free path of an ion or an electron to tem-
perature gradient scale exceeds a value of the order of 10−3
(see 68 ), heat conduction can no longer be described by the
collisional expression 69 of Spitzer & Härm (1953). The main
reason is that in this case, a significant fraction of particles can
travel along the temperature gradient without collisions. As a
consequence, in a given place, the particles’ velocity distribu-
tion does not depend solely on the local plasma temperature
FIG. 1. Magnetic turbulent spectrum measured in the SW showing but also on the conditions in distant places from where the
the cascade from MHD ( 107km) to electron scales ( 1km)57 . Energy particles have been freely streaming. In addition, the mean
is expected to be partitioned at kinetic scales into ion and electron free path being proportional to the square of the energy of
heating.
the particles, the influence of distant places on the distribu-
tion of velocities is dominant for the fastest particles, which
are precisely the main carriers of the heat flux. Thus, where
the Knudsen number exceeds 10−3 , the heat flux is non lo-
cal and not governed by any universal law based on macro-
scopic quantities such as density and temperature. The heat
flux must then be inferred from the detailed measurements of
the particle velocity distribution. Statistical physics merely
predicts that the heat flux cannot exceed the saturation flux
q = pe ve (where pe and ve are the pressure and the thermal ve-
locity of the electrons which are the main carriers of the heat
flux) which does sometimes provide an order of magnitude
estimate of the actual flux (see 70 Hollweg 1976 concerning
the heat flux in the solar wind and 71 Morse & Nielson, 1973
concerning the heat flux in a laser-generated plasma). Effec-
tively, uncertainties are particularly serious when the mean
free path exceeds the plasma kinetic scales (in particular the
Debye length) as in this case the flux intensity does not depend
on collisions only but also on the exchange between particles
and the electromagnetic waves at kinetic scales.
Large-scale one-dimensional simulations which include the
role of collisions through a collision operator do allow some
qualitative and quantitative estimates of the heat flow in the
FIG. 2. Ratio of ion-to-electron heating rate estimated from gyroki- case of Knudsen numbers larger than 10−3 (see 72,73 ). How-
netic simulations58 as function of ion plasma beta for different Ti /Te ever, these simulations do not include the effect of waves
which could be essential in regulating the heat flux. The prob-
lem is that a numerical code including waves and collisions
should be capable of resolving at the same time the short spa-
by the black hole as ion mass, as well as for observational sig- tial scale associated with the waves and the long scale corre-
natures of disks and their jets 8,58–60 . While, spacecraft data in sponding to the mean free path of the particles. This is unfor-
the near-Earth space provide access to most of the parameter tunate as, for example in the solar wind which is a very tur-
space that can, in principle, be used to test theoretical pre- bulent plasma, the mean free path exceeds the kinetic scales
dictions such us those of Fig. 2 , direct (and unambiguous) (the scales of the dissipation) by a factor 1010 , clearly suggest-
measurement of ion and electron heating remains however ing that the contribution of waves could be more than decisive.
challenging because of various limitations (often, models of Collision operators mimicking the interaction of particles with
plasma heating are used–e.g., turbulent heating models61–67 ). plasma waves have been proposed in the literature (see for ex-
Laboratory experiments with fine-tuned setups might prove to ample the operator proposed by 74,75 ). They are often complex
be more suitable (i.e., with the least hypothesis on the plasma and only applicable to some specific and simple problems.
heating) to test existing theoretical predictions on this prob- Large toroidal plasma devices such as the ETPD at UCLA can
lem. produce several m3 plasmas sufficiently dense (∼ 1019 m−3 )
 3

and sufficiently cold (Te ∼ 5eV ) for the magnetic field aligned consin Plasma Physics Laboratory89 and provided an interpre-
mean free path of an electron to be of order cm, i.e. 10−2 tation of the solar phenomenon as resulting from a pressure-
smaller than the macroscopic scales of the system. Heat con- driven instability followed by the tearing of the current sheet
duction at Knudsen numbers of the order 10−2 or larger could (Réville et al. 2022). Laboratory experiments exploring the
thus be investigated in such devices or in possibly smaller ones twisting of magnetic flux tubes and the spontaneous devel-
such as the TORPEX device at EPF in Lausanne. The major opment of current sheets are needed to evaluate the condi-
obstacle is to maintain the field aligned temperature gradients tions favorable for nanoflaring to occur in open field geome-
against conduction. tries perhaps exploiting the heritage of past experiments on
magnetic reconnection90 that resolved processes at the elec-
tron scale91 or the associated generation of electromagnetic
B. Energy and momentum transport in solar corona fluctuations92 .
(Rouillard)

The physical mechanisms governing the formation and C. Fast plasma flows and jets in the solar system (Le Contel,
propagation of stellar winds and storms are still poorly un- Retino and Pariat)
derstood and debated. Decades of observations have shown
that the solar atmosphere is extremely dynamic at all observ- Collisionless fast plasma flows have been detected for a
able scales. This dynamism arises largely from plasma motion long time in the tail of the Earth’s magnetosphere93,94 . High-
in the photosphere which is transmitted through the different speed ion flows or “bursty bulk flow” (BBF) were measured
layers of the atmosphere by the magnetic field to influence up to 800 km/s with plasma densities not larger than 1 p.cm3
the corona and the whole heliosphere76 . Consequently nu- and a bursty nature lasting between 10 and 60 s. The mech-
merical modelling shows that the bulk properties of the so- anism of formation of these fast flows are still a matter of
lar wind can only be understood by considering the different debate but the most common models are: magnetic recon-
atmospheric layers (photosphere-chromosphere-corona-solar nection producingreconnection jets95,96 , drift kinetic balloon-
wind) as a coupled system77 in which each particle specie ing instability97 and low entropy magnetic flux tube98–100 . It
plays its role in regulating energy and mass exchanges through was suggested that these flows generated farther in the tail
its transport and interactions with the ambient magnetic and were stopped or braked between the region of dipolar field
electric fields78,79 . The continual reconfiguration of the coro- and the tail-like field, the so-called “transition region” of the
nal field in response to convection drives two key processes: magnetotail with important coupling with ionosphere101 . Fur-
the injection of a spectrum of waves propagating from the thermore, these flows were found to have a limited extension
photosphere to the corona and the development of magnetic in the cross-tail direction of about 3-4 Earth radii102 form-
reconnection at the base of the corona (/upper chromosphere) ing channels in which energy, plasma and magnetic flux are
through Parker’s proposed ‘nanoflaring’80 . Research in the transported from the tail to the region closer to the planet.
coming decade will have to evaluate the relative roles of both As they propagate toward the Earth, these flows generate a
processes in coronal heating that they may turn out to oper- sharp increase of the northward component of the magnetic
ate jointly. For instance, the chromosphere and corona heated field called “dipolarisation front” (DF), which are often pre-
by nanoflaring should produce a spectrum of waves that may ceded by a small decrease of the same component. These DFs
dissipate in the corona (through a yet debated mechanism) can be considered as tangential discontinuities103,104 between
and drive the solar wind81 . Nanoflaring will not only pro- a cold dense plasma at rest and a hot teneous fastly mov-
duce waves but also a pool of suprathermal particles82 and ing plasma. Their typical thickness is about few ion inertial
beams that are invoked as key contributors in a number of the- lengths. Associated with a strong density gradient, they host
ories to the acceleration of the fast solar wind83 as well as different kinetic processes leading to particle acceleration,105
solar energetic particles via Fermi-type processes84 . Clearly micro-instabilities,106 energy conversion.107–109 All these pro-
addressing theoretically such an intricate coupled system and cesses can contribute to the slow down of these flows as they
the interactions between particle populations and the electro- propagateearthward by converting the motional kinetic energy
magnetic field is a formidable task that must address energy to particle acceleration, wave emission or plasma heating. En-
transfers from the fluid to the kinetic scales. Testing these ergy partitioning between ions and electrons have been in-
theories and models will require the (concomitant) exploita- vestigated in particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations110 using re-
tion of remote-sensing observations of the low solar atmo- cent theoretical development in turbulence theory based on
sphere taken by future generations of spectral imagers (such the calculation of the pressure-strain.111 Ions are heated at
as NASA’s recently selected MUSE) with direct in situ mea- and ahead of DFs, whereas electrons are heated at and be-
surements of the corona by Parker Solar Probe85 and of the hind; both species thereforecontributing to significant energy
heliosphere by Solar Orbiter86 and HelioSwarm. Insights can dissipation. However, applications to in-situ space data were
also be gained from laboratory experiments as illustrated by a more difficult and did not provide clear results.112
recent theoretical study showing how the elongation and thin- Plasma jets, defined as transient increases in dynamic pres-
ning of the heliospheric current sheet87 can drive the release sure, are also detected in the region downstream of the Earth’s
of plasmoids in the solar wind88 . This process has been repro- bow shock and upstream of the magnetosphere called the
duced experimentally in the Big Red Ball (BRB) of the Wis- magnetosheath.113–116 Again, different mechanisms of forma-
 4

tion are invoked such as ripples of the bow shock117 or impacts to particle acceleration or energy dissipation, the large scale
of discontinuities of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). and temporal evolution of these fast fast flows during their
Their typical scale is about 1 RE and they can impact the mag- propagation is still difficult to address as it would require a
netosphere with a rate of 1 per 6 min generating surface wave constellation with a large number of satellites. Laboratory ex-
at the magnetosphere boundary called the magnetopause118 periences able to generate fast flows and to perform continu-
and/or local reconnection.119 Within the magnetosheath it- ous measurements all along their propagation are highly com-
self, these jets can enhance the turbulence by pushing the plementaty of in-situ space measurements, 3D global numeri-
slower plasma out of their way and generating return flows cal simulations and remote sensing observations. One of these
as shown by global 3D PIC-hybrid simulations120 and in-situ devices consists of using the Lorentz force to push the plasma
space observations.121 Impacts at the bowshock of interplan- after its formation by microsecond high-voltage discharge.132
etary current sheets transported by the solar wind also gen- Such devices have the advantage to be compact and versatile
erate the so-called hot flow anomalies (HFAs) in the solar allowing us to tackle fundamental physical processes for dif-
wind associated with fast flows transverse to the Sun–Earth ferent plasma conditions (jet propagation and dissipation) at
direction.122 As they can occur at a rate of several events per relatively moderate costs.
day, they may play a significant role in the solar-terrestrial dy-
namics.
In the solar system, DFs and fast plasma flows have
been also observed in other planetary magnetospheres: at III. RECONNECTION
Mercury,123 Saturn,124,125 and Jupiter126,127 and seem to be
ubiquituous in the solar system. The recent launches of the
European Space Agency’s BepiColombo and JUICE missions A. Overview (N. Aunai)
to study the environments of Mercury and Jupiter/Gaynmede,
respectively, will provide new information on plasma jets in The last two decades have revealed many unknown prop-
planetary environments. erties of how magnetic reconnection operates in collision-
Finally, solar coronal jets are also another type of acceler- less or weakly collisional plasmas. Enlightening the cru-
ated plasma flows. These jets could be an important source cial role of the Hall effect in enabling fast reconnection rates
of mass and energy transport to the upper solar atmosphere is probably the most important result of the period133,134 .
and solar wind. Although at much smaller scales and involv- An important step was also made when high resolution re-
ing less energy than Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) and solar sistive magnetohydrodynamics simulations revealed Sweet-
flares, they could play an important role in the heating of the Parker current sheets break into plasmoids at high Lundquist
corona and the acceleration of the solar wind.128 They are number,135,136 , thereby drastically increasing the reconnection
thought to be generated by a fast magnetic reconnection pro- rate and possibly facilitating the transition towards Hall medi-
cess between closed coronal loop systems and magnetic fields ated reconnection137 . Accounting for the possible asymmetry
open to the interplanetary medium.129,130 MHD simulations between the two upstream plasmas vastly improved the real-
using spherical geometry, including gravity and solar wind in ism of numerical models138 and was a decisive step in predict-
a nonuniform, coronal hole-like ambient atmosphere, suggest ing the signatures of the electron diffusion region in Particle-
that such “interchange reconnections” can generate helical jet In-Cell models139 , later observed by the Magnetospheric Mul-
and induce traveling nonlinear Alfvén wave front. Unlike tiScale (MMS) mission140 . Recently, the development of a
DF in the Earth’s magnetotail where the accelerated plasma scaling prediction of the reconnection rate from first princi-
comes from a region farther from the Earth and having lower ple has improved reconnection theoretical modeling141 . The
density, these solar jets front are followed by slower-moving last decade has also seen a more important exploration of the
plasma density enhancements that are compressed and accel- realm of 3D kinetic effects,142,143 .
erated by the wave. The physical mechanisms behind the process of magnetic
In order to understand in detail the dynamics of these differ- reconnection are now much better understood and the next
ent types of fast flows and the mechanisms of particle acceler- decades’ challenge probably lie in understanding how they
ation, of energy conversion or heating, it is necessary to inves- couple to the large scales of the system reconnection occurs
tigate the coupling between processes occurring at fluid scales in. Magnetized structures in the solar corona and through-
with those occurring at ion and sub-ion scales. Such an inves- out the heliosphere are very large scale reconnecting systems.
tigation is only possible in the near-Earth environment and is Numerical model will be challenged by the measurements of
one of the main objectives of the Plasma Observatory mission Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter missions. The Earth
which has been submitted to the ESA M7 call in 2022 and is Magnetopause is the closest example of a reconnecting sys-
currently competing for moving in Phase A. All anti-sunward tem for which we are relatively blind regarding how recon-
plasma flows in the near-Earth environment could be also in- nection is triggered, spreads and globally operates. Recent
vestigated by the HelioSwarm constellation of nine satellites efforts to develop multiscale kinetic models e.g.144–146 should
dedicated to the solar wind turbulence study and recently se- continue and be accompanied by efforts to develop comple-
lected by NASA for a launch in 2029.131 mentary global scale statistical representations of the system
However, while multi-points in-situ space measurements exploiting the unique and massive multi-mission database ac-
will allow us to scrutinize the fine cross-scale coupling leading quired over the years147 .
 5

B. Magnetic reconnection and particle acceleration in smaller than the global diffusion timescale150 . This provides
non-planar geometry (Fuchs) a constraint for the evolution of a magnetic field, that is use-
ful in, e.g., quantifying its dynamics. Investigating H how-
Magnetic reconnection (MR) is the subject of intense in- ever remains challenging. First, its computation involves the-
vestigations due to its suspected role in the sudden plasma oretical/numerical difficulties, which have been thoroughly
heating and particle energization observed in many space and investigated151–153 . Moreover, the relation between H and
astrophysical events. However, this phenomenon remains dif- other physical quantities, such as magnetic energy, is not
ficult to characterise and measure with sufficient resolution in straightforward. Another example is with the current helic-
all these distant events. As such, many complementary labo- ity (volume integral of ⃗j · ⃗B): while their definitions may
ratory experiments have been developed to investigate in de- appear close to each other, H only possesses the same sign
tail this process, using various experimental platforms. How- as the current helicity for a limited class of magnetic field
ever, despite such experimental effort and continuous theoreti- configurations154 . Despite the difficulties in apprehending H,
cal developments from many groups, persistent difficulties re- a large set of results have emerged in the last decades with an
main, including being able to accurately predict the fast onset interplay between theory/simulations/observations155–157 .
of magnetic reconnection. Aims of the research Placed in the The helicity conservation property is linked to the cascade
general frame of laboratory astrophysics, this proposal aims of H to large spatial scales where dissipative terms are small,
at continuing the effort our collaborative group has started a whereas magnetic energy cascade to small scales where it is
few years ago to characterise the microphysics of magnetic dissipated158,159 . This theoretical result was tested with nu-
reconnection, using laser-driven plasmas [Bolanos2019]. We merical simulations where numerical challenges, e.g. having
propose to pursue our endeavour in several directions: (1) in- precisely ⃗∇ · ⃗B = 0, are involved to compute precisely enough
vestigate the influence of the field topology on the dynamics various expressions of H and its associated fluxes129 .
of magnetic reconnection - indeed, deviating from the ide- The conservation of H can be used to constrain the mag-
alised picture of the canonical reconnection event where the netic field evolution in the solar convection zone. There, the
encountering magnetic fields are in the same plane, the mag- accumulation of H at large scales is responsible for the dy-
netic fields in natural events frequently involve twisting of the namo saturation, the so-called α-effect quenching160 . Next,
field structures and non-planar topologies, and (2) investigate the local conservation of H during magnetic reconnection
the stability of elongated current sheets - indeed, in natural constrains the properties of the reconnected flux tubes161–163 .
plasmas, e.g., in the Earth’s magnetotail and in solar erup- Moreover, a stressed magnetic field with finite H cannot relax
tions, MR does not always proceed in a single X-point, but to a potential field (H = 0), so this limits the amount of mag-
rather develops from an elongated current sheet that is sub- netic energy releasable (as the field can only relax, at most,
jected to instabilities. to a linear force free field with same H value.) Thus, mag-
We expect the research directions outlined above will allow netic helicity is at the heart of several Magneto-Hydrodynamic
us to quantify the dynamics of MR in realistic, i.e. non-planar (MHD) relaxation theories, e.g. coronal heating164,165 . Fur-
geometry, as well as in elongated current sheets, which are thermore, coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are likely needed to
both difficult to assert solely from observations. The analy- avoid the endless accumulation of H in the solar corona166,167 .
sis of the magnetic field annihilation time will give estimates Magnetic helicity can be directly probed in the solar con-
for how fast reconnection proceeds relative to the initially im- text. Observations provide maps (magnetograms) of the
posed parameters. We thus aim at obtaining a description of photospheric magnetic field evolution. During the last two
different reconnection regimes for a large range of possible decades, important achievements have been realised to derive
initial parameters, which we will combine with our knowl- the photospheric H flux from such data157,168 . The helicity
edge of MR in space plasmas. This will be directly used as flux produced by solar differential rotation169,170 and by mag-
a benchmark for numerical simulations, in order to reproduce netic emergence171–173 were estimated. Detailed maps of H
reconnection in the space context. In addition, we will be able flux density were derived by eliminating fake contributions
to test the existing theories of the tearing instability against due to the use of particular vector potentials174–176 . The most
the measured parameters. precise method includes field line coronal connectivities be-
Bolanos2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.01684 ???? Pas de tween photospheric magnetic polarities177,178 .
vraie référence biblio Eruptive flares are an example of the conversion of H
from shear to twist with magnetic reconnection converting a
sheared arcade to an ejected flux rope163,179 . 3D MHD nu-
C. Physical implications of magnetic helicity merical simulations have unraveled the large scale physics of
(Demoulin/Janvier) this 3D reconnection which forms both flare loops and a coro-
nal mass ejection180–182 . Both detailed studies of energy and
Magnetic helicity defines how much a set of magnetic helicity fluxes have been achieved in such simulations183,184 .
flux tubes are sheared, twisted and/or winding around each An important outcome is the finding of a critical threshold for
other148,149 . Its exact definition involves the vector poten- the onset of solar eruptions. It is based on a ratio involving
tial of a magnetic field and a reference magnetic field. This splitting H into two contributions185–187 .
defines a relative magnetic helicity, simply noted H here- In situ measurements of magnetic fields by interplanetary
after. A key property of H is its conservation on a timescale probes allow us to estimate the amount of H carried by flux
 6

ropes ejected from the Sun (e.g. by magnetic clouds). The shear flow (as in the case of planetary magnetopauses): at
data are complemented by flux rope models188,189 . The most least for large-scale (MHD) KH billows, plasma mixing be-
advanced estimation uses the axis shape derived from a statis- tween the different plasmas on both sides of the shear layer
tical analysis of magnetic clouds190,191 . A comparable mag- is negligible in the absence of magnetic reconnection, while
nitude of H was found in magnetic clouds and their solar this latter is able to magnetically connect the two plasmas
source192–194 . Next, an H budget can be estimated for indi- and thus speeding-up the transport. Lots of numerical stud-
vidual active regions by studying both their eruptive flares, ies have investigated this dynamics and have put in evidence
CMEs, and their photospheric H flux195–197 . Finally, on the different kind of interaction between the KHI and magnetic
time scale of the solar cycle, CMEs carry away an amount of reconnection. Dubbed Type I and Type II Vortex Induced Re-
H comparable to the amount generated by the solar dynamo connection216–219 , Mid-Latitude Reconnection220,221 , or KH
(with opposite sign in each solar hemisphere) to the one mea- Trigger for Southward reconnection222,223 , depending on the
sured in emerging active regions191 . initial magnetic configuration, these mechanisms have been
In conclusion, magnetic helicity is such a versatile quantity, observed in satellite data of the Earth’s magnetopause224–231 .
which can be expressed/split in different ways, that future the- One of the main difficulties for numerical simulations, it is
oretical developments are to be expected. This is the case for exploring the shear flow conditions of smaller-scale systems
example for the field line helicity162,165,198 , which provides a with respect to the Earth one, where the KH billows develop
more local view of the helicity behaviour during magnetic re- at kinetic scales, e.g. at Mercury’s magnetopause232 . In fact,
connection. With the previous large efforts, and the next antic- given the difficulties of finding exact kinetic Vlasov equilibria
ipated ones, to derive H from various data sets, the present So- for the shear flow configuration, the initial evolution of sim-
lar Orbiter and Parker Solar Probe missions are well equipped ulations, initialized using a simplified shifted-Maxwellians
to derive more precise H budgets, then to further constrain for the particle distribution functions, undergoes strong relax-
physical processes such as magnetic reconnection, solar erup- ations that render a proper investigation quite difficult233–235 .
tions as well as the transport/transformation of their ejecta in On that point, the recent advances of Laser-plasma interac-
the interplanetary space. tion experiments, gradually reaching a collisionless plasma
regime, are very encouraging since they could allow for a
self-consistent investigation of the magnetized KHI at kinetic
IV. INSTABILITIES scales.
In the laboratory, shear flows can be generated by lasers, in
A. Shear flow instabilities (Faganello) the form of counterpropagating HDE plasmas, either gener-
ated by a single laser pulse hitting multiple targets236 , or by
Shear flows are ubiquitous in the Universe and are prone opposite directed pulses along parallel channels237 . Another
to the classical Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (KHI). KH bil- interesting technique is using a single target with inhomoge-
lows have been observed in solar corona199–202 , in the flow- neous density, where the vorticity of the shear is created by
ing solar wind203 , around planetary magnetospheres204–209 , the baroclinic effect at the density interface238,239 . Playing
and are expected to play a role in strongly inhomogeneous with the solid-state target configuration, allows for investigat-
accretion disks210,211 , in astrophysical jets212,213 and at the ing the role of the thickness of the shear layer, of the initial
heliopause214 . The large majority of these systems is com- perturbations to the shear and even the non-linear dynamics
posed by magnetized plasmas, with an Alfvénic Mach number of a single, dominant initial wavelength238,240 .
MA = |∆V|/VA of order one or smaller (here ∆V is the typical Up to now, the role of the magnetic field has been barely
velocity variation across the shear layer, and VA = |B|2 /4πρ tackled. A magnetic field, perpendicular to the velocity di-
is the Alfvén velocity associated to the background magnetic rection and to the normal direction n̂ of the layer interface,
field B and plasma density ρ. is naturally generated by the Biermann battery effect241 at
The presence of the magnetic field has two important con- the interface (that can be seen as the magnetic counterpart
sequences on the system dynamics. First, depending on the of the baroclinic effect). For present experiments, its inten-
MA value, on the relative orientation between ∆V and B, and sity is too low for playing an important role in the KH dy-
on the magnetic shear across the layer, the KHI can be sup- namics242 , since MA is of order ten, or even higher. Tentative
pressed or simply reduced, with respect to its unmagnetized experiments243,244 , including an external field larger than the
counterpart. Excluding the rare case of ∆V and B aligned, the self-generated one, has been conducted but choosing a config-
KHI develops as a flute mode, with a wavevector perpendicu- uration with a field along n̂, a configuration that is far from the
lar to the local direction of B at the center of shear layer, cre- one expected for the KHI. It would be very interesting to add
ating billows with symmetry axes roughly aligned with this a magnetic field perpendicular to n̂, and exploring the differ-
local field (for further details, please see 215 , and references ent magnetic configuration (B ⊥ ∆V, oblique B, sheared B),
therein). Second, once the instability conditions are fulfilled, leading to the different kinds of magnetic reconnection. A 3D
the KH vortices fed by the flow energy, are able to convert behaviour for the KH and reconnection dynamics, as in Mid-
it to magnetic energy, and create local, strong magnetic in- Latitude Reconnection, could be obtained either preparing the
homogeneities where magnetic reconnection can occur. The target configuration with a 2D modulation, including a domi-
interplay between the KHI and magnetic reconnection is of nant wavevector along the flow, plus a modulation of the per-
paramount importance for the transport properties across the turbation amplitude in the direction perpendicular to both the
 7

flow and n̂, leading to a localized development of KH billows, brodzka, C. Mul¨ler, H. Nagai, N. M. Nagar, M. Nakamura, R. Narayan,
with respect to the axis direction (as in 220,221 ). It is worth G. Narayanan, I. Natarajan, R. Neri, C. Ni, A. Noutsos, H. Okino, H. Oli-
noticing that such localization could be also induced by the vares, T. Oyama, F. Özel, D. C. M. Palumbo, N. Patel, U.-L. Pen, D. W.
Pesce, V. Piétu, R. Plambeck, A. PopStefanija, O. Porth, B. Prather,
finite width of the target245 . Depending on the plasma prop- J. A. Preciado-López, D. Psaltis, H.-Y. Pu, V. Ramakrishnan, R. Rao,
erties, a wise combination of different diagnostics based on M. G. Rawlings, A. W. Raymond, L. Rezzolla, B. Ripperda, F. Roelofs,
Thomson scattering, optical emission, polarimetry, laser in- A. Rogers, E. Ros, M. Rose, A. Roshanineshat, H. Rottmann, A. L. Roy,
terferometry, X-ray radiography, or shadowgraphy with probe C. Ruszczyk, B. R. Ryan, K. L. J. Rygl, S. Sánchez, D. Sánchez-Arguelles,
M. Sasada, T. Savolainen, F. P. Schloerb, K.-F. Schuster, L. Shao, Z. Shen,
lasers, could provide a complete view of the plasma and field D. Small, B. W. Sohn, J. SooHoo, F. Tazaki, P. Tiede, R. P. J. Tilanus,
dynamics236,238,246–248 . M. Titus, K. Toma, P. Torne, T. Trent, S. Trippe, S. Tsuda, I. van Bemmel,
The great advantage of the laser-plasma approach is ob- H. J. van Langevelde, D. R. van Rossum, J. Wagner, J. Wardle, J. Wein-
taining experimental measurements in plasma and magnetic troub, N. Wex, R. Wharton, M. Wielgus, G. N. Wong, Q. Wu, A. Young,
conditions similar to those of far astrophysical objects, where K. Young, Z. Younsi, F. Yuan, Y.-F. Yuan, J. A. Zensus, G. Zhao, S.-S.
Zhao, Z. Zhu, J. Anczarski, F. K. Baganoff, A. Eckart, J. R. Farah, D. Hag-
the evolution of shear flows could be very different from the gard, Z. Meyer-Zhao, D. Michalik, A. Nadolski, J. Neilsen, H. Nishioka,
well-documented Earth’s magnetospheric case. In particular, M. A. Nowak, N. Pradel, R. A. Primiani, K. Souccar, L. Vertatschitsch,
varying the plasma magnetization via MA , its compressibility P. Yamaguchi, and S. Zhang, “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Re-
via Ms/ f = |∆V|/cs/ f 249,250 (where cs/ f is the sound/fast mag- sults. V. Physical Origin of the Asymmetric Ring,” Astrophys. J. Lett.
netosonic velocity, for unmagnetized and magnetized plasmas 875, L5 (2019), arXiv:1906.11242 [astro-ph.GA].
10 P. S. Iroshnikov, “Turbulence of a Conducting Fluid in a Strong Magnetic
respectively), and exploring relativistic plasma flows251 . Field,” Astron. Zh. 40, 742 (1963).
11 R. H. Kraichnan, “Inertial-Range Spectrum of Hydromagnetic Turbu-
1 A. A. Schekochihin and S. C. Cowley, “Turbulence, magnetic fields, and lence,” Physics of Fluids 8, 1385–1387 (1965).
plasma physics in clusters of galaxies,” Phys. Plasmas 13, 056501–056501 12 P. Goldreich and S. Sridhar, “Toward a theory of interstellar turbulence.
(2006), astro-ph/0601246. 2: Strong alfvenic turbulence,” The Astrophysical Journal 438, 763–775
2 R. Bruno and V. Carbone, “The Solar Wind as a Turbulence Laboratory,”
(1995).
LRSP 10 (2013), 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2. 13 J. Cho and A. Lazarian, “Compressible Sub-Alfvénic MHD Turbulence
3 F. Yuan and R. Narayan, “Hot Accretion Flows Around Black Holes,”
in Low- β Plasmas,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 245001 (2002), arXiv:astro-
Annual Review Astron. Astrophys. 52, 529–588 (2014), arXiv:1401.0586 ph/0205282 [astro-ph].
[astro-ph.HE]. 14 S. Boldyrev, “Spectrum of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence,” Phys.
4 F. Sahraoui, L. Hadid, and S. Huang, “Magnetohydrodynamic and kinetic
Rev. Lett. 96, 115002 (2006), astro-ph/0511290.
scale turbulence in the near-Earth space plasmas: a (short) biased review,” 15 G. G. Howes and K. D. Nielson, “Alfvén wave collisions, the fundamen-
Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics 4, 4 (2020). tal building block of plasma turbulence. I. Asymptotic solution,” Phys.
5 E. Quataert and A. Gruzinov, “Turbulence and Particle Heating in
Plasmas 20, 072302 (2013), arXiv:1306.1455 [astro-ph.SR].
Advection-dominated Accretion Flows,” Astrophys. J. 520, 248–255 16 S. Oughton and W. H. Matthaeus, “Critical Balance and the Physics
(1999), astro-ph/9803112. of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence,” Astrophys. J. 897, 37 (2020),
6 M. W. Kunz, A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, J. J. Binney, and
arXiv:2006.04677 [physics.plasm-ph].
J. S. Sanders, “A thermally stable heating mechanism for the intraclus- 17 A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, W. Dorland, G. W. Hammett, G. G.
ter medium: turbulence, magnetic fields and plasma instabilities,” Mon. Howes, E. Quataert, and T. Tatsuno, “Astrophysical gyrokinetics: kinetic
Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 410, 2446–2457 (2011), arXiv:1003.2719. and fluid turbulent cascades in magnetized weakly collisional plasmas.”
7 K. H. Kiyani, K. T. Osman, and S. C. Chapman, “Dissipation and heating
Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 182, 310–377 (2009).
in solar wind turbulence: from the macro to the micro and back again,” 18 S. Boldyrev, K. Horaites, Q. Xia, and J. C. Perez, “Toward a Theory of
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A 373, Astrophysical Plasma Turbulence at Subproton Scales,” Astrophys. J. 777,
20140155–20140155 (2015). 41 (2013).
8 A. Chael, M. Rowan, R. Narayan, M. Johnson, and L. Sironi, “The role of
19 T. Passot and P. L. Sulem, “Imbalanced kinetic Alfvén wave turbu-
electron heating physics in images and variability of the Galactic Centre lence: from weak turbulence theory to nonlinear diffusion models for the
black hole Sagittarius A*,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 5209–5229 strong regime,” J. Phys. (Paris) 85, 905850301 (2019), arXiv:1902.04295
(2018), arXiv:1804.06416 [astro-ph.HE]. [physics.plasm-ph].
9 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama, A. Alberdi, W. Alef,
20 S. Boldyrev and J. C. Perez, “Spectrum of Kinetic-Alfvén Turbulence,”
K. Asada, R. Azulay, A.-K. Baczko, D. Ball, M. Baloković, J. Bar- Astrophys. J. Lett. 758, L44 (2012), arXiv:1204.5809 [astro-ph.SR].
rett, D. Bintley, L. Blackburn, W. Boland, K. L. Bouman, G. C. Bower, 21 S. S. Cerri and F. Califano, “Reconnection and small-scale fields in 2D-3V
M. Bremer, C. D. Brinkerink, R. Brissenden, S. Britzen, A. E. Broder- hybrid-kinetic driven turbulence simulations,” New J. Phys. 19, 025007
ick, D. Broguiere, T. Bronzwaer, D.-Y. Byun, J. E. Carlstrom, A. Chael, (2017).
C.-k. Chan, S. Chatterjee, K. Chatterjee, M.-T. Chen, Y. Chen, I. Cho, 22 L. Franci, S. S. Cerri, F. Califano, S. Landi, E. Papini, A. Verdini, L. Mat-
P. Christian, J. E. Conway, J. M. Cordes, G. B. Crew, Y. Cui, J. Davelaar, teini, F. Jenko, and P. Hellinger, “Magnetic Reconnection as a Driver for
M. De Laurentis, R. Deane, J. Dempsey, G. Desvignes, J. Dexter, S. S. a Sub-ion-scale Cascade in Plasma Turbulence,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 850,
Doeleman, R. P. Eatough, H. Falcke, V. L. Fish, E. Fomalont, R. Fraga- L16 (2017), arXiv:1707.06548 [physics.space-ph].
Encinas, P. Friberg, C. M. Fromm, J. L. Gómez, P. Galison, C. F. Gammie, 23 N. L. Loureiro and S. Boldyrev, “Collisionless reconnection in magneto-
R. García, O. Gentaz, B. Georgiev, C. Goddi, R. Gold, M. Gu, M. Gur- hydrodynamic and kinetic turbulence,” Astrophys. J. 850, 182 (2017).
well, K. Hada, M. H. Hecht, R. Hesper, L. C. Ho, P. Ho, M. Honma, 24 A. Mallet, A. A. Schekochihin, and B. D. G. Chandran, “Disruption of
C.-W. L. Huang, L. Huang, D. H. Hughes, S. Ikeda, M. Inoue, S. Issaoun, alfvénic turbulence by magnetic reconnection in a collisionless plasma,”
D. J. James, B. T. Jannuzi, M. Janssen, B. Jeter, W. Jiang, M. D. Johnson, Journal of Plasma Physics 83 (2017), 10.1017/S0022377817000812.
S. Jorstad, T. Jung, M. Karami, R. Karuppusamy, T. Kawashima, G. K. 25 G. G. Howes, S. C. Cowley, W. Dorland, G. W. Hammett, E. Quataert, and
Keating, M. Kettenis, J.-Y. Kim, J. Kim, J. Kim, M. Kino, J. Y. Koay, A. A. Schekochihin, “A model of turbulence in magnetized plasmas: Im-
P. M. Koch, S. Koyama, M. Kramer, C. Kramer, T. P. Krichbaum, C.- plications for the dissipation range in the solar wind,” JGRA 113, A05103
Y. Kuo, T. R. Lauer, S.-S. Lee, Y.-R. Li, Z. Li, M. Lindqvist, K. Liu, (2008), arXiv:0707.3147.
E. Liuzzo, W.-P. Lo, A. P. Lobanov, L. Loinard, C. Lonsdale, R.-S. Lu, 26 A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, W. Dorland, G. W. Hammett, G. G.
N. R. MacDonald, J. Mao, S. Markoff, D. P. Marrone, A. P. Marscher, Howes, G. G. Plunk, E. Quataert, and T. Tatsuno, “Gyrokinetic turbulence:
I. Martí-Vidal, S. Matsushita, L. D. Matthews, L. Medeiros, K. M. a nonlinear route to dissipation through phase space,” Plasma Physics and
Menten, Y. Mizuno, I. Mizuno, J. M. Moran, K. Moriyama, M. Mosci-
 8

Controlled Fusion 50, 124024 (2008), arXiv:0806.1069 [physics.plasm- 42 J. A. Agudelo Rueda, D. Verscharen, R. T. Wicks, C. J. Owen, G. Nico-
ph]. laou, A. P. Walsh, I. Zouganelis, K. Germaschewski, and S. Vargas
27 J. He, L. Wang, C. Tu, E. Marsch, and Q. Zong, “Evidence of Landau and Domínguez, “Three-dimensional magnetic reconnection in particle-in-cell
Cyclotron Resonance between Protons and Kinetic Waves in Solar Wind simulations of anisotropic plasma turbulence,” Journal of Plasma Physics
Turbulence,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 800, L31 (2015). 87, 905870228 (2021), arXiv:2103.13232 [physics.space-ph].
28 T. Passot and P. L. Sulem, “A Model for the Non-universal Power Law of 43 S. S. Cerri, T. Passot, D. Laveder, P. L. Sulem, and M. W. Kunz, “Tur-

the Solar Wind Sub-ion-scale Magnetic Spectrum,” Astrophys. J. Lett. bulent Regimes in Collisions of 3D Alfvén-wave Packets,” Astrophys. J.
812, L37 (2015), arXiv:1509.02839 [physics.plasm-ph]. 939, 36 (2022), arXiv:2207.04301 [astro-ph.SR].
29 D. Grošelj, S. S. Cerri, A. Bañón Navarro, C. Willmott, D. Told, N. F. 44 K. G. Klein, G. G. Howes, and J. M. Tenbarge, “Diagnosing collisionless

Loureiro, F. Califano, and F. Jenko, “Fully Kinetic versus Reduced- energy transfer using field-particle correlations: gyrokinetic turbulence,”
kinetic Modeling of Collisionless Plasma Turbulence,” Astrophys. J. 847, J. Phys. (Paris) 83, 535830401 (2017), arXiv:1705.06385 [physics.plasm-
28 (2017), arXiv:1706.02652 [physics.plasm-ph]. ph].
30 S. S. Cerri, M. W. Kunz, and F. Califano, “Dual Phase-space Cascades 45 L. Arzamasskiy, M. W. Kunz, B. D. G. Chandran, and E. Quataert,

in 3D Hybrid-Vlasov-Maxwell Turbulence,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 856, L13 “Hybrid-kinetic Simulations of Ion Heating in Alfvénic Turbulence,” The
(2018), arXiv:1802.06133 [physics.plasm-ph]. Astrophysical Journal 879, 53 (2019), arXiv:1901.11028 [astro-ph.HE].
31 Y. Kawazura, A. A. Schekochihin, M. Barnes, J. M. TenBarge, Y. Tong, 46 Y. Kawazura, M. Barnes, and A. A. Schekochihin, “Thermal
K. G. Klein, and W. Dorland, “Ion versus Electron Heating in Compres- disequilibration of ions and electrons by collisionless plasma
sively Driven Astrophysical Gyrokinetic Turbulence,” ***** to define turbulence,” ***** to define **** 116, 771–776 (2019),
**** 10, 041050 (2020), arXiv:2004.04922 [physics.plasm-ph]. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/3/771.full.pdf.
32 O. Pezzi, T. N. Parashar, S. Servidio, F. Valentini, C. L. Vásconez, Y. Yang, 47 C. A. González, A. Tenerani, M. Velli, and P. Hellinger, “The Role

F. Malara, W. H. Matthaeus, and P. Veltri, “Colliding Alfvénic wave of Parametric Instabilities in Turbulence Generation and Proton Heating:
packets in magnetohydrodynamics, Hall and kinetic simulations,” J. Phys. Hybrid Simulations of Parallel-propagating Alfvén Waves,” Astrophys. J.
(Paris) 83, 705830108 (2017), arXiv:1702.01030 [physics.space-ph]. 904, 81 (2020).
33 J. L. Verniero, G. G. Howes, and K. G. Klein, “Nonlinear energy trans- 48 C. A. González, A. Tenerani, L. Matteini, P. Hellinger, and M. Velli, “Pro-

fer and current sheet development in localized Alfvén wavepacket colli- ton Energization by Phase Steepening of Parallel-propagating Alfvénic
sions in the strong turbulence limit,” J. Phys. (Paris) 84, 905840103 (2018), Fluctuations,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 914, L36 (2021).
arXiv:1705.07046 [physics.plasm-ph]. 49 K. G. Klein, G. G. Howes, J. M. TenBarge, and F. Valentini, “Di-
34 B. Ripperda, J. F. Mahlmann, A. Chernoglazov, J. M. TenBarge, E. R. agnosing collisionless energy transfer using field-particle correlations:
Most, J. Juno, Y. Yuan, A. A. Philippov, and A. Bhattacharjee, “Weak Alfvén-ion cyclotron turbulence,” J. Phys. (Paris) 86, 905860402 (2020),
Alfvénic turbulence in relativistic plasmas II: current sheets and dissipa- arXiv:2006.02563 [physics.plasm-ph].
tion,” Journal of Plasma Physics 87, 905870512 (2021), arXiv:2105.01145 50 B. J. Vasquez, P. A. Isenberg, and S. A. Markovskii, “Proton Perpendic-

[astro-ph.HE]. ular Heating in Turbulence Simulations: Determination of the Velocity

35 D. J. Drake, J. W. R. Schroeder, G. G. Howes, C. A. Kletzing, F. Skiff, Diffusion Coefficient,” Astrophys. J. 893, 71 (2020).
T. A. Carter, and D. W. Auerbach, “Alfvén wave collisions, the funda- 51 S. S. Cerri, L. Arzamasskiy, and M. W. Kunz, “On Stochastic Heating and

mental building block of plasma turbulence. IV. Laboratory experiment,” Its Phase-space Signatures in Low-beta Kinetic Turbulence,” Astrophys. J.
Physics of Plasmas 20, 072901 (2013), arXiv:1306.1130 [astro-ph.SR]. 916, 120 (2021), arXiv:2102.09654 [astro-ph.SR].
36 A. Retinò, D. Sundkvist, A. Vaivads, F. Mozer, M. André, and C. J. Owen, 52 S. Servidio, A. Chasapis, W. H. Matthaeus, D. Perrone, F. Valentini, T. N.

“In situ evidence of magnetic reconnection in turbulent plasma,” ***** Parashar, P. Veltri, D. Gershman, C. T. Russell, B. Giles, S. A. Fuse-
to define **** 3, 236–238 (2007). lier, T. D. Phan, and J. Burch, “Magnetospheric Multiscale Observation
37 T. D. Phan, J. P. Eastwood, M. A. Shay, J. F. Drake, B. U. Ö. Sonnerup, of Plasma Velocity-Space Cascade: Hermite Representation and Theory,”
M. Fujimoto, P. A. Cassak, M. Øieroset, J. L. Burch, R. B. Torbert, A. C. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 205101 (2017), arXiv:1707.08180 [physics.plasm-
Rager, J. C. Dorelli, D. J. Gershman, C. Pollock, P. S. Pyakurel, C. C. ph].
Haggerty, Y. Khotyaintsev, B. Lavraud, Y. Saito, M. Oka, R. E. Ergun, 53 C. H. K. Chen, K. G. Klein, and G. G. Howes, “Evidence for elec-

A. Retino, O. Le Contel, M. R. Argall, B. L. Giles, T. E. Moore, F. D. tron Landau damping in space plasma turbulence,” NatCo 10, 740 (2019),
Wilder, R. J. Strangeway, C. T. Russell, P. A. Lindqvist, and W. Magnes, arXiv:1902.05785 [physics.space-ph].
“Electron magnetic reconnection without ion coupling in Earth’s turbulent 54 R. Bruno and V. Carbone, “The Solar Wind as a Turbulence Laboratory,”

magnetosheath,” Nature (London) 557, 202–206 (2018). Living Rev. Solar Phys. 10 (2013), 10.12942/lrsp-2013-2.
38 Z. Vörös, E. Yordanova, A. Varsani, K. J. Genestreti, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, 55 T. Horbury, M. Forman, and S. Oughton, “Spacecraft observations of solar

W. Li, D. B. Graham, C. Norgren, R. Nakamura, Y. Narita, F. Plaschke, wind turbulence: An overview,” Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 47, 703–
W. Magnes, W. Baumjohann, D. Fischer, A. Vaivads, E. Eriksson, P.-A. 717 (2005).
Lindqvist, G. Marklund, R. E. Ergun, M. Leitner, M. P. Leubner, R. J. 56 W. H. Matthaeus and M. Velli, “Who Needs Turbulence?” Space Sci Rev

Strangeway, O. Le Contel, C. Pollock, B. J. Giles, R. B. Torbert, J. L. 160, 145 (2011).

Burch, L. A. Avanov, J. C. Dorelli, D. J. Gershman, W. R. Paterson, 57 F. Sahraoui, L. Hadid, and S. Huang, “Magnetohydrodynamic and kinetic

B. Lavraud, and Y. Saito, “MMS Observation of Magnetic Reconnection scale turbulence in the near-Earth space plasmas: a (short) biased review,”
in the Turbulent Magnetosheath,” J. Geophys. Res. 122, 11 (2017). Rev. Mod. Plasma Phys. 4, 4 (2020).
39 P. Sharma Pyakurel, M. A. Shay, T. D. Phan, W. H. Matthaeus, J. F. Drake, 58 Y. Kawazura, M. Barnes, and A. A. Schekochihin, “Thermal disequili-

J. M. TenBarge, C. C. Haggerty, K. G. Klein, P. A. Cassak, T. N. Parashar, bration of ions and electrons by collisionless plasma turbulence,” PNAS
M. Swisdak, and A. Chasapis, “Transition from ion-coupled to electron- 116, 771–776 (2019), publisher: National Academy of Sciences Section:
only reconnection: Basic physics and implications for plasma turbulence,” Physical Sciences.
Physics of Plasmas 26, 082307 (2019), arXiv:1901.09484 [physics.space- 59 S. M. Ressler, A. Tchekhovskoy, E. Quataert, and C. F. Gammie, “The

ph]. disc-jet symbiosis emerges: modelling the emission of Sagittarius A* with

40 J. E. Stawarz, J. P. Eastwood, T. D. Phan, I. L. Gingell, M. A. Shay, J. L. electron thermodynamics,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 467, 3604–3619
Burch, R. E. Ergun, B. L. Giles, D. J. Gershman, O. Le Contel, P. A. (2017), arXiv:1611.09365 [astro-ph.HE].
Lindqvist, C. T. Russell, R. J. Strangeway, R. B. Torbert, M. R. Argall, 60 A. A. Schekochihin, Y. Kawazura, and M. A. Barnes, “Constraints on ion

D. Fischer, W. Magnes, and L. Franci, “Properties of the Turbulence versus electron heating by plasma turbulence at low beta,” J. Plasma Phys.
Associated with Electron-only Magnetic Reconnection in Earth’s Magne- 85 (2019), 10.1017/s0022377819000345.
tosheath,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 877, L37 (2019). 61 H. Politano and A. Pouquet, “von KarmanandHowarth equation for mag-
41 F. Califano, S. S. Cerri, M. Faganello, D. Laveder, M. Sisti, and M. W. netohydrodynamics and its consequences on third-order longitudinal struc-
Kunz, “Electron-only reconnection in plasma turbulence,” ***** to de- ture and correlation functions,” Phys. Rev. E 57, R21–R24 (1998).
fine **** 8, 317 (2020). 62 L. Sorriso-Valvo, R. Marino, V. Carbone, A. Noullez, F. Lepreti, P. Veltri,
 9

R. Bruno, B. Bavassano, and E. Pietropaolo, “Observation of Inertial En- trophys. 324, 725–734 (1997).
ergy Cascade in Interplanetary Space Plasma,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 115001 84 M. Battarbee, R. Vainio, T. Laitinen, and H. Hietala, “Injection of thermal
(2007), publisher: American Physical Society. and suprathermal seed particles into coronal shocks of varying obliquity,”
63 J. T. Coburn, M. A. Forman, C. W. Smith, B. J. Vasquez, and J. E. Stawarz, Astron. Astrophys. 558, A110 (2013), arXiv:1309.2062 [astro-ph.SR].
“Third-moment descriptions of the interplanetary turbulent cascade, inter- 85 N. J. Fox, M. C. Velli, S. D. Bale, R. Decker, A. Driesman, R. A. Howard,

mittency and back transfer,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 373, 20140150 (2015). J. C. Kasper, J. Kinnison, M. Kusterer, D. Lario, M. K. Lockwood, D. J.
64 S. Banerjee, L. Z. Hadid, F. Sahraoui, and S. Galtier, “Scaling of com- McComas, N. E. Raouafi, and A. Szabo, “The Solar Probe Plus Mission:
pressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in the fast solar wind,” ApJL Humanity’s First Visit to Our Star,” Space Sci. Rev. 204, 7–48 (2016).
829, L27 (2016), publisher: American Astronomical Society. 86 D. Müller, O. C. St. Cyr, I. Zouganelis, H. R. Gilbert, R. Marsden,
65 L. Z. Hadid, F. Sahraoui, and S. Galtier, “Energy Cascade Rate In Com- T. Nieves-Chinchilla, E. Antonucci, F. Auchère, D. Berghmans, T. S. Hor-
pressible Fast And Slow Solar Wind Turbulence,” ApJ 838, 9 (2017), bury, R. A. Howard, S. Krucker, M. Maksimovic, C. J. Owen, P. Rochus,
arXiv: 1612.02150. J. Rodriguez-Pacheco, M. Romoli, S. K. Solanki, R. Bruno, M. Carls-
66 N. Andrés, F. Sahraoui, L. Z. Hadid, S. Y. Huang, N. Romanelli, S. Galtier, son, A. Fludra, L. Harra, D. M. Hassler, S. Livi, P. Louarn, H. Pe-
G. DiBraccio, and J. Halekas, “The evolution of compressible solar wind ter, U. Schühle, L. Teriaca, J. C. del Toro Iniesta, R. F. Wimmer-
turbulence in the inner heliosphere: PSP, THEMIS and MAVEN observa- Schweingruber, E. Marsch, M. Velli, A. De Groof, A. Walsh, and
tions,” arXiv e-prints 2102, arXiv:2102.11781 (2021). D. Williams, “The Solar Orbiter mission. Science overview,” Astron.
67 R. Ferrand, F. Sahraoui, D. Laveder, T. Passot, P. L. Sulem, and S. Galtier, Astrophys. 642, A1 (2020), arXiv:2009.00861 [astro-ph.SR].
“Fluid energy cascade rate and kinetic damping: new insight from 3D 87 V. Réville, N. Fargette, A. P. Rouillard, B. Lavraud, M. Velli, A. Strugarek,

Landau-fluid simulations,” arXiv:2109.03123 [astro-ph, physics:physics] S. Parenti, A. S. Brun, C. Shi, A. Kouloumvakos, N. Poirier, R. F. Pinto,
(2021), arXiv: 2109.03123. P. Louarn, A. Fedorov, C. J. Owen, V. Génot, T. S. Horbury, R. Laker,
68 E. C. Shoub, “Invalidity of local thermodynamic equilibrium for electrons H. O’Brien, V. Angelini, E. Fauchon-Jones, and J. C. Kasper, “Flux rope
in the solar transition region. I - Fokker-Planck results,” Astrophys. J. 266, and dynamics of the heliospheric current sheet. Study of the Parker Solar
339–369 (1983). Probe and Solar Orbiter conjunction of June 2020,” Astron. Astrophys.
69 L. Spitzer and R. Härm, “Transport phenomena in a completely ionized 659, A110 (2022), arXiv:2112.07445 [astro-ph.SR].
gas,” Phys. Rev. 89, 977–981 (1953). 88 A. P. Rouillard, J. Sheeley, N. R., T. J. Cooper, J. A. Davies, B. Lavraud,
70 J. V. Hollweg, “Collisionless electron heat conduction in the solar wind,” E. K. J. Kilpua, R. M. Skoug, J. T. Steinberg, A. Szabo, A. Opitz, and
Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977) 81, 1649–1658 (1976), J. A. Sauvaud, “The Solar Origin of Small Interplanetary Transients,” As-
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JA081i010p01649. trophys. J. 734, 7 (2011).
71 R. L. Morse and C. W. Nielson, “Occurrence of high energy electrons and 89 E. E. Peterson, D. A. Endrizzi, M. Clark, J. Egedal, K. Flanagan, N. F.

surface expansion in laser heated target plasmas,” The Physics of Fluids Loureiro, J. Milhone, J. Olson, C. R. Sovinec, J. Wallace, and C. B.
16, 909–920 (1973), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1694445. Forest, “Laminar and turbulent plasmoid ejection in a laboratory Parker
72 V. Pierrard, M. Maksimovic, and J. Lemaire, “Self- Spiral current sheet,” Journal of Plasma Physics 87, 905870410 (2021),
consistent model of solar wind electrons,” Journal of Geo- arXiv:2104.06207 [physics.plasm-ph].
physical Research: Space Physics 106, 29305–29312 (2001), 90 J. Egedal, W. Fox, N. Katz, M. Porkolab, K. Reim, and E. Zhang, “Lab-

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JA900133. oratory observations of spontaneous magnetic reconnection,” Phys. Rev.

73 S. Landi, L. Matteini, and F. Pantellini, “electron heat flux in the solar Lett. 98, 015003 (2007).
wind: are we observing the collisional limit in the 1 au data ?” The Astro- 91 W. Fox, F. Sciortino, A. v. Stechow, J. Jara-Almonte, J. Yoo, H. Ji, and

physical Journal 790, L12 (2014). M. Yamada, “Experimental verification of the role of electron pressure
74 I. G. Abel, M. Barnes, S. C. Cowley, W. Dorland, and A. A. Schekochi- in fast magnetic reconnection with a guide field,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118,
hin, “Linearized model fokker-planck collision operators for gyrokinetic 125002 (2017).
simulations. i. theory,” Physics of Plasmas 15, 122509 (2008). 92 A. v. Stechow, W. Fox, J. Jara-Almonte, J. Yoo, H. Ji, and
75 M. Barnes, I. G. Abel, W. Dorland, D. R. Ernst, G. W. Hammett, P. Ricci, M. Yamada, “Electromagnetic fluctuations during guide field reconnec-
B. N. Rogers, A. A. Schekochihin, and T. Tatsuno, “Linearized model tion in a laboratory plasma,” Physics of Plasmas 25, 052120 (2018),
fokker-planck collision operators for gyrokinetic simulations. ii. numer- https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5025827.
ical implementation and tests,” Physics of Plasmas 16, 072107 (2009), 93 W. Baumjohann, G. Paschmann, and H. Luehr, “Characteristics of high-

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3155085. speed ion flows in the plasma sheet,” J. Geophys. Res. 95, 3801–3809
76 R. B. Dahlburg, G. Einaudi, A. F. Rappazzo, and M. Velli, “Turbulent (1990).
coronal heating mechanisms: coupling of dynamics and thermodynamics,” 94 V. Angelopoulos, W. Baumjohann, C. F. Kennel, F. V. Coronti, M. G.

Astron. Astrophys. 544, L20 (2012), arXiv:1208.2459 [astro-ph.SR]. Kivelson, R. Pellat, R. J. Walker, H. Luehr, and G. Paschmann, “Bursty
77 V. H. Hansteen and E. Leer, “Coronal heating, densities, and temperatures Bulk Flows in the Inner Central Plasma Sheet,” J. Geophys. Res. 97,
and solar wind acceleration,” J. Geophys. Res. 100, 21577–21594 (1995). 4027–4039 (1992).
78 S. R. Cranmer and A. A. van Ballegooijen, “Proton, Electron, and 95 M. I. Sitnov, M. Swisdak, and A. V. Divin, “Dipolarization fronts as a

Ion Heating in the Fast Solar Wind from Nonlinear Coupling between signature of transient reconnection in the magnetotail,” Journal of Geo-
Alfvénic and Fast-mode Turbulence,” Astrophys. J. 754, 92 (2012), physical Research (Space Physics) 114, A04202 (2009).
arXiv:1205.4613 [astro-ph.SR]. 96 J. F. Drake, M. Swisdak, P. A. Cassak, and T. D. Phan, “On the 3-D
79 C. Vocks, “Kinetic Models of Wave-Electron Interaction in the Solar structure and dissipation of reconnection-driven flow bursts,” Geophys.
Corona and Wind,” in Kappa Distributions; From Observational Evi- Res. Lett. 41, 3710–3716 (2014), arXiv:1401.7056 [physics.plasm-ph].
dences via Controversial Predictions to a Consistent Theory of Nonequi- 97 P. L. Pritchett and F. V. Coroniti, “A kinetic ballooning/interchange in-

librium Plasmas, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 464, edited stability in the magnetotail,” Journal of Geophysical Research (Space
by M. Lazar and H. Fichtner (2021) pp. 125–143. Physics) 115, A06301 (2010).
80 E. N. Parker, “Nanoflares and the Solar X-Ray Corona,” Astrophys. J. 330, 98 J. Pontius, D. H. and R. A. Wolf, “Transient flux tubes in the terrestrial

474 (1988). magnetosphere,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 49–52 (1990).

81 M. Velli, F. Pucci, F. Rappazzo, and A. Tenerani, “Models of coronal 99 C. X. Chen and R. A. Wolf, “Theory of thin-filament motion in Earth’s

heating, turbulence and fast reconnection,” Philosophical Transactions of magnetotail and its application to bursty bulk flows,” J. Geophys. Res.
the Royal Society of London Series A 373, 20140262–20140262 (2015). 104, 14613–14626 (1999).
82 H. Bakke, L. Frogner, and B. V. Gudiksen, “Non-thermal electrons from 100 J. Birn, J. Raeder, Y. Wang, R. Wolf, and M. Hesse, “On the propagation

solar nanoflares. In a 3D radiative MHD simulation,” Astron. Astrophys. of bubbles in the geomagnetic tail,” Annales Geophysicae 22, 1773–1786
620, L5 (2018). (2004).
83 M. Maksimovic, V. Pierrard, and J. F. Lemaire, “A kinetic model of the 101 K. Shiokawa, W. Baumjohann, and G. Haerendel, “Braking of high-speed

solar wind with Kappa distribution functions in the corona.” Astron. As- flows in the near-Earth tail,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 1179–1182 (1997).
 10

102 R. Nakamura, W. Baumjohann, C. Mouikis, L. M. Kistler, A. Runov, 119 H. Hietala, N. Partamies, T. V. Laitinen, L. B. N. Clausen, G. Facskó,
M. Volwerk, Y. Asano, Z. Vörös, T. L. Zhang, B. Klecker, H. Rème, and A. Vaivads, H. E. J. Koskinen, I. Dandouras, H. Rème, and E. A. Lucek,
A. Balogh, “Spatial scale of high-speed flows in the plasma sheet observed “Supermagnetosonic subsolar magnetosheath jets and their effects: from
by Cluster,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L09804 (2004). the solar wind to the ionospheric convection,” Annales Geophysicae 30,
103 V. Sergeev, V. Angelopoulos, S. Apatenkov, J. Bonnell, R. Ergun, R. Naka- 33–48 (2012).
mura, J. McFadden, D. Larson, and A. Runov, “Kinetic structure of the 120 H. Karimabadi, V. Roytershteyn, H. X. Vu, Y. A. Omelchenko, J. Scudder,

sharp injection/dipolarization front in the flow-braking region,” Geophys. W. Daughton, A. Dimmock, K. Nykyri, M. Wan, D. Sibeck, M. Tatineni,
Res. Lett. 36, L21105 (2009). A. Majumdar, B. Loring, and B. Geveci, “The link between shocks, tur-
104 H. S. Fu, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, A. Vaivads, M. André, and S. Y. Huang, bulence, and magnetic reconnection in collisionless plasmas,” Physics of
“Electric structure of dipolarization front at sub-proton scale,” Geophys. Plasmas 21, 062308 (2014).
Res. Lett. 39, L06105 (2012). 121 F. Plaschke and H. Hietala, “Plasma flow patterns in and around magne-
105 H. Fu, E. E. Grigorenko, C. Gabrielse, C. Liu, S. Lu, K. J. Hwang, tosheath jets,” Annales Geophysicae 36, 695–703 (2018).
X. Zhou, Z. Wang, and F. Chen, “Magnetotail dipolarization fronts and 122 S. J. Schwartz, G. Paschmann, N. Sckopke, T. M. Bauer, M. Dunlop, A. N.

particle acceleration: A review,” Science China Earth Sciences 63, 235– Fazakerley, and M. F. Thomsen, “Conditions for the formation of hot flow
256 (2020). anomalies at Earth’s bow shock,” J. Geophys. Res. 105, 12639–12650
106 Y. V. Khotyaintsev, C. M. Cully, A. Vaivads, M. André, and C. J. Owen, (2000).
“Plasma Jet Braking: Energy Dissipation and Nonadiabatic Electrons,” 123 R. M. Dewey, J. M. Raines, W. Sun, J. A. Slavin, and G. Poh, “MES-

Physical Review Letters 106, 165001 (2011). SENGER Observations of Fast Plasma Flows in Mercury’s Magnetotail,”
107 M. Hamrin, T. Pitkänen, P. Norqvist, T. Karlsson, H. Nilsson, M. An- Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 10,110–10,118 (2018).
dré, S. Buchert, A. Vaivads, O. Marghitu, B. Klecker, L. M. Kistler, and 124 S. B. Xu, S. Y. Huang, Z. G. Yuan, X. H. Deng, K. Jiang, Y. Y. Wei,

I. Dandouras, “Evidence for the braking of flow bursts as they propagate J. Zhang, Z. H. Zhang, Q. Y. Xiong, L. Yu, R. T. Lin, and J. H. Waite,
toward the Earth,” Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 119, “Global Spatial Distribution of Dipolarization Fronts in the Saturn’s Mag-
9004–9018 (2014). netosphere: Cassini Observations,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e92701
108 S. Y. Huang, H. S. Fu, Z. G. Yuan, M. Zhou, S. Fu, X. H. Deng, W. J. Sun, (2021).
Y. Pang, D. D. Wang, H. M. Li, H. M. Li, and X. D. Yu, “Electromag- 125 A. W. Smith, C. M. Jackman, M. F. Thomsen, N. Sergis, D. G. Mitchell,

netic energy conversion at dipolarization fronts: Multispacecraft results,” and E. Roussos, “Dipolarization Fronts With Associated Energized Elec-
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 120, 4496–4502 (2015). trons in Saturn’s Magnetotail,” Journal of Geophysical Research (Space
109 S. W. Alqeeq, O. Le Contel, P. Canu, A. Retinò, T. Chust, L. Mirioni, Physics) 123, 2714–2735 (2018).
L. Richard, Y. Aït-Si-Ahmed, A. Alexandrova, A. Chuvatin, N. Ahmadi, 126 A. V. Artemyev, S. Kasahara, A. Y. Ukhorskiy, and M. Fujimoto, “Ac-

S. M. Baraka, R. Nakamura, F. D. Wilder, D. J. Gershman, P. A. Lindqvist, celeration of ions in the Jupiter magnetotail: Particle resonant interaction
Y. V. Khotyaintsev, R. E. Ergun, J. L. Burch, R. B. Torbert, C. T. Russell, with dipolarization fronts,” Planetary Spa. Sci. 82, 134–148 (2013).
W. Magnes, R. J. Strangeway, K. R. Bromund, H. Wei, F. Plaschke, B. J. 127 A. V. Artemyev, G. Clark, B. Mauk, M. F. Vogt, and X. J. Zhang, “Juno

Anderson, B. L. Giles, S. A. Fuselier, Y. Saito, and B. Lavraud, “Investi- Observations of Heavy Ion Energization During Transient Dipolarizations
gation of the homogeneity of energy conversion processes at dipolarization in Jupiter Magnetotail,” Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)
fronts from MMS measurements,” Physics of Plasmas 29, 012906 (2022). 125, e27933 (2020).
110 M. I. Sitnov, V. G. Merkin, V. Roytershteyn, and M. Swisdak, “Kinetic 128 N. E. Raouafi, S. Patsourakos, E. Pariat, P. R. Young, A. C. Sterling,

Dissipation Around a Dipolarization Front,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, A. Savcheva, M. Shimojo, F. Moreno-Insertis, C. R. DeVore, V. Archontis,
4639–4647 (2018). T. Török, H. Mason, W. Curdt, K. Meyer, K. Dalmasse, and Y. Matsui,
111 Y. Yang, W. H. Matthaeus, T. N. Parashar, C. C. Haggerty, V. Royter- “Solar Coronal Jets: Observations, Theory, and Modeling,” Space Sci.
shteyn, W. Daughton, M. Wan, Y. Shi, and S. Chen, “Energy transfer, Rev. 201, 1–53 (2016), arXiv:1607.02108 [astro-ph.SR].
pressure tensor, and heating of kinetic plasma,” Physics of Plasmas 24, 129 E. Pariat, G. Valori, P. Démoulin, and K. Dalmasse, “Testing magnetic

072306 (2017), arXiv:1705.02054 [physics.plasm-ph]. helicity conservation in a solar-like active event,” Astron. Astrophys. 580,
112 Z. H. Zhong, X. H. Deng, M. Zhou, W. Q. Ma, R. X. Tang, Y. V. Khotyaint- A128 (2015), arXiv:1506.09013 [astro-ph.SR].
sev, B. L. Giles, C. T. Russell, and J. L. Burch, “Energy Conversion and 130 J. T. Karpen, C. R. DeVore, S. K. Antiochos, and E. Pariat, “Reconnection-

Dissipation at Dipolarization Fronts: A Statistical Overview,” Geophys. Driven Coronal-Hole Jets with Gravity and Solar Wind,” Astrophys. J. 834,
Res. Lett. 46, 12,693–12,701 (2019). 62 (2017), arXiv:1606.09201 [astro-ph.SR].
113 Z. Němeček, J. Šafránková, L. Přech, D. G. Sibeck, S. Kokubun, and 131 e. a. Klein, K. G., “HelioSwarm: A Multipoint, Multiscale Mission to

T. Mukai, “Transient flux enhancements in the magnetosheath,” Geophys. CharacterizeTurbulence,” Space Science Review (2023).
Res. Lett. 25, 1273–1276 (1998). 132 J. Larour, R. L. Singh, C. Stehlé, A. Ciardi, U. Chaulagain, and F. Suzuki-
114 S. Savin, E. Amata, L. Zelenyi, V. Budaev, G. Consolini, R. Treumann, Vidal, “Optimization of an electromagnetic generator for strong shocks in
E. Lucek, J. Safrankova, Z. Nemecek, Y. Khotyaintsev, M. Andre, low pressure gas,” High Energy Density Physics 17, 129–134 (2015).
J. Buechner, H. Alleyne, P. Song, J. Blecki, J. L. Rauch, S. Romanov, 133 J. Birn, J. F. Drake, M. A. Shay, B. N. Rogers, R. E. Denton, M. Hesse,

S. Klimov, and A. Skalsky, “High energy jets in the Earth’s magne- M. Kuznetsova, Z. W. Ma, A. Bhattacharjee, A. Otto, and P. L. Pritchett,
tosheath: Implications for plasma dynamics and anomalous transport,” So- “Geospace Environmental Modeling (GEM) magnetic reconnection chal-
viet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 87, 593–599 lenge,” Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 3715 – 3720 (2001).
(2008). 134 M. Øieroset, T. D. Phan, M. Fujimoto, R. P. Lin, and R. P. Lepping, “In situ
115 T. Karlsson, N. Brenning, H. Nilsson, J. G. Trotignon, X. Vallières, and detection of collisionless reconnection in the Earth’s magnetotail,” Nature
G. Facsko, “Localized density enhancements in the magnetosheath: Three- 412, 414 – 417 (2001).
dimensional morphology and possible importance for impulsive pene- 135 N. F. Loureiro, A. A. Schekochihin, and S. C. Cowley, “Instability of

tration,” Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 117, A03227 current sheets and formation of plasmoid chains,” Physics of Plasmas 14,
(2012). 100703–100703 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0703631 [astro-ph].
116 F. Plaschke, H. Hietala, V. Angelopoulos, and R. Nakamura, “Geoeffec- 136 A. Bhattacharjee, Y.-M. Huang, H. Yang, and B. Rogers, “Fast reconnec-

tive jets impacting the magnetopause are very common,” Journal of Geo- tion in high-Lundquist-number plasmas due to the plasmoid Instability,”
physical Research (Space Physics) 121, 3240–3253 (2016). Physics of Plasmas 16, 2102 (2009).
117 H. Hietala and F. Plaschke, “On the generation of magnetosheath 137 W. Daughton, V. Roytershteyn, B. J. Albright, H. Karimabadi, L. Yin, and

high−speed jets by bow shock ripples,” Journal of Geophysical Research K. J. Bowers, “Transition from collisional to kinetic regimes in large-scale
(Space Physics) 118, 7237–7245 (2013). reconnection layers,” Physical Review Letters 103, 65004 (2009).
118 F. Plaschke and K.-H. Glassmeier, “Properties of standing kruskal- 138 P. L. Pritchett, “Collisionless magnetic reconnection in an asymmetric cur-

schwarzschild-modes at the magnetopause,” Annales Geophysicae 29, rent sheet,” Journal of Geophysical Research 113, 06210 (2008).
1793–1807 (2011). 139 M. Hesse, N. Aunai, D. Sibeck, and J. Birn, “On the electron diffusion
 11

region in planar, asymmetric, systems,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 8673– 160 A. Brandenburg and K. Subramanian, “Astrophysical magnetic fields
8680 (2014). and nonlinear dynamo theory,” Physics Reports 417, 1–209 (2005),
140 J. L. Burch, R. B. Torbert, T. D. Phan, L.-J. Chen, T. E. Moore, R. E. Er- arXiv:astro-ph/0405052 [astro-ph].
gun, J. P. Eastwood, D. J. Gershman, P. A. Cassak, M. R. Argall, S. Wang, 161 A. R. Yeates and G. Hornig, “Unique topological characterization

M. Hesse, C. J. Pollock, B. L. Giles, R. Nakamura, B. H. Mauk, S. A. of braided magnetic fields,” Physics of Plasmas 20, 012102 (2013),
Fuselier, C. T. Russell, R. J. Strangeway, J. F. Drake, M. A. Shay, Y. V. arXiv:1208.2286 [physics.plasm-ph].
Khotyaintsev, P.-A. Lindqvist, G. Marklund, F. D. Wilder, D. T. Young, 162 A. J. B. Russell, A. R. Yeates, G. Hornig, and A. L. Wilmot-Smith, “Evo-

K. Torkar, J. Goldstein, J. C. Dorelli, L. A. Avanov, M. Oka, D. N. Baker, lution of field line helicity during magnetic reconnection,” Physics of Plas-
A. N. Jaynes, K. A. Goodrich, I. J. Cohen, D. L. Turner, J. F. Fennell, mas 22, 032106 (2015), arXiv:1501.04856 [physics.plasm-ph].
J. B. Blake, J. Clemmons, M. Goldman, D. Newman, S. M. Petrinec, K. J. 163 E. R. Priest, D. W. Longcope, and M. Janvier, “Evolution of Magnetic

Trattner, B. Lavraud, P. H. Reiff, W. Baumjohann, W. Magnes, M. Steller, Helicity During Eruptive Flares and Coronal Mass Ejections,” Solar Phys.
W. Lewis, Y. Saito, V. Coffey, and M. Chandler, “Electron-scale measure- 291, 2017–2036 (2016), arXiv:1607.03874 [astro-ph.SR].
ments of magnetic reconnection in space,” Science 352, aaf2939 (2016). 164 J. Heyvaerts and E. R. Priest, “Coronal heating by reconnection in DC cur-
141 Y.-H. Liu, P. Cassak, X. Li, M. Hesse, S.-C. Lin, and K. Genestreti, “First- rent systems - A theory based on Taylor’s hypothesis,” Astron. Astrophys.
principles theory of the rate of magnetic reconnection in magnetospheric 137, 63–78 (1984).
and solar plasmas,” Communications Physics 5, 97 (2022), 2203.14268. 165 A. R. Yeates, A. J. B. Russell, and G. Hornig, “Evolution of field line
142 W. Daughton, V. Roytershteyn, H. Karimabadi, L. Yin, B. J. Albright, helicity in magnetic relaxation,” Physics of Plasmas 28, 082904 (2021),
B. Bergen, and K. J. Bowers, “Role of electron physics in the develop- arXiv:2108.01346 [astro-ph.SR].
ment of turbulent magnetic reconnection in collisionless plasmas,” Nature 166 B. C. Low, “Solar Activity and the Corona,” Solar Phys. 167, 217–265

Physics 7, 539 – 542 (2011). (1996).

143 Y.-H. Liu, M. Hesse, and M. Kuznetsova, “Orientation of X lines 167 M. Zhang, N. Flyer, and B. C. Low, “Magnetic Field Confinement in the

in asymmetric magnetic reconnection—Mass ratio dependency,” Jour- Corona: The Role of Magnetic Helicity Accumulation,” Astrophys. J. 644,
nal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 120, 7331–7341 (2015), 575–586 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603011 [astro-ph].
arXiv:1504.03300 [physics.space-ph]. 168 P. Démoulin and E. Pariat, “Modelling and observations of photospheric
144 L. K. S. Daldorff, G. Tóth, T. I. Gombosi, G. Lapenta, J. Amaya, magnetic helicity,” Advances in Space Research 43, 1013–1031 (2009).
S. Markidis, and J. U. Brackbill, “Two-way coupling of a global Hall mag- 169 M. A. Berger and A. Ruzmaikin, “Rate of helicity production by solar

netohydrodynamics model with a local implicit particle-in-cell model,” rotation,” J. Geophys. Res. 105, 10481–10490 (2000).
Journal of Computational Physics 268, 236–254 (2014). 170 P. Démoulin, C. H. Mandrini, L. Van Driel-Gesztelyi, M. C. Lopez
145 M. Palmroth, U. Ganse, Y. Pfau-Kempf, M. Battarbee, L. Turc, T. Brito, Fuentes, and G. Aulanier, “The Magnetic Helicity Injected by Shearing
M. Grandin, S. Hoilijoki, A. Sandroos, and S. v. Alfthan, “Vlasov meth- Motions,” Solar Phys. 207, 87–110 (2002).
ods in space physics and astrophysics,” Living Reviews in Computational 171 J. Chae, “Observational Determination of the Rate of Magnetic Helicity

Astrophysics , 1 – 54 (2018). Transport through the Solar Surface via the Horizontal Motion of Field
146 N. Aunai, R. Smet, C. Andrea, D. Philip, P. Thibault, and J. Alexis, Line Footpoints,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 560, L95–L98 (2001).
“PHARE: Parallel Hybrid particle-in-cell code with Adaptive mesh RE- 172 P. Démoulin and M. A. Berger, “Magnetic Energy and Helicity Fluxes at

finement,” Computer Physics Communications (to be submitted). the Photospheric Level,” Solar Phys. 215, 203–215 (2003).
147 B. Michotte de Welle, N. Aunai, G. Nguyen, B. Lavraud, V. Génot, A. Je- 173 A. Nindos, J. Zhang, and H. Zhang, “The Magnetic Helicity Budget of So-

andet, and R. Smets, “Global three-dimensional draping of magnetic field lar Active Regions and Coronal Mass Ejections,” Astrophys. J. 594, 1033–
lines in Earth’s magnetosheath from in-situ spacecraft measurements,” (in 1048 (2003).
prep). 174 E. Pariat, P. Démoulin, and M. A. Berger, “Photospheric flux density of
148 M. A. Berger and G. B. Field, “The topological properties of magnetic magnetic helicity,” Astron. Astrophys. 439, 1191–1203 (2005).
helicity,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 147, 133–148 (1984). 175 E. Pariat, A. Nindos, P. Démoulin, and M. A. Berger, “What is the spatial
149 M. A. Berger, “Introduction to magnetic helicity.” Plasma Physics and distribution of magnetic helicity injected in a solar active region?” As-
Controlled Fusion 41, B167–B175 (1999). tron. Astrophys. 452, 623–630 (2006).
150 M. A. Berger, “Rigorous new limits on magnetic helicity dissipation in the 176 K. Dalmasse, E. Pariat, G. Valori, P. Démoulin, and L. M. Green, “First

solar corona,” Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics 30, 79–104 observational application of a connectivity-based helicity flux density,”
(1984). Astron. Astrophys. 555, L6 (2013), arXiv:1307.2838 [astro-ph.SR].
151 G. Valori, P. Démoulin, and E. Pariat, “Comparing Values of the Relative 177 K. Dalmasse, E. Pariat, P. Démoulin, and G. Aulanier, “Photospheric In-

Magnetic Helicity in Finite Volumes,” Solar Phys. 278, 347–366 (2012). jection of Magnetic Helicity: Connectivity-Based Flux Density Method,”
152 G. Valori, P. Démoulin, E. Pariat, A. Yeates, K. Moraitis, and L. Linan, Solar Phys. 289, 107–136 (2014), arXiv:1307.2829 [astro-ph.SR].
“Additivity of relative magnetic helicity in finite volumes,” Astron. As- 178 K. Dalmasse, É. Pariat, G. Valori, J. Jing, and P. Démoulin, “Study-

trophys. 643, A26 (2020), arXiv:2008.00968 [astro-ph.SR]. ing the Transfer of Magnetic Helicity in Solar Active Regions with the
153 J. K. Thalmann, L. Linan, E. Pariat, and G. Valori, “On the Reliability of Connectivity-based Helicity Flux Density Method,” Astrophys. J. 852, 141
Magnetic Energy and Helicity Computations Based on Nonlinear Force- (2018), arXiv:1712.04691 [astro-ph.SR].
free Coronal Magnetic Field Models,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 880, L6 (2019), 179 M. Janvier, “Three-dimensional magnetic reconnection and its applica-

arXiv:1907.01179 [astro-ph.SR]. tion to solar flares,” Journal of Plasma Physics 83, 535830101 (2017),
154 A. J. B. Russell, P. Demoulin, G. Hornig, D. I. Pontin, and S. Candelaresi, arXiv:1612.06513 [astro-ph.SR].
“Do Current and Magnetic Helicities Have the Same Sign?” Astrophys. J. 180 G. Aulanier, T. Török, P. Démoulin, and E. E. DeLuca, “Formation of

884, 55 (2019). Torus-Unstable Flux Ropes and Electric Currents in Erupting Sigmoids,”
155 P. Démoulin, “Recent theoretical and observational developments in mag- Astrophys. J. 708, 314–333 (2010).
netic helicity studies,” Advances in Space Research 39, 1674–1693 (2007). 181 G. Aulanier, M. Janvier, and B. Schmieder, “The standard flare model in
156 A. A. Pevtsov, M. A. Berger, A. Nindos, A. A. Norton, and L. van Driel- three dimensions. I. Strong-to-weak shear transition in post-flare loops,”
Gesztelyi, “Magnetic Helicity, Tilt, and Twist,” Space Sci. Rev. 186, Astron. Astrophys. 543, A110 (2012).
285–324 (2014). 182 M. Janvier, G. Aulanier, and P. Démoulin, “From Coronal Observations
157 S. Toriumi and S.-H. Park, “Solar Flares and Magnetic Helicity,” arXiv to MHD Simulations, the Building Blocks for 3D Models of Solar Flares
e-prints , arXiv:2204.06010 (2022), arXiv:2204.06010 [astro-ph.SR]. (Invited Review),” Solar Phys. 290, 3425–3456 (2015), arXiv:1505.05299
158 M. A. Berger, “Inverse Cascades in a Periodic Domain,” Astrophysical [astro-ph.SR].
Letters and Communications 34, 225 (1996). 183 L. Linan, É. Pariat, K. Moraitis, G. Valori, and J. Leake, “Time Varia-
159 A. Alexakis, P. D. Mininni, and A. Pouquet, “On the Inverse tions of the Nonpotential and Volume-threading Magnetic Helicities,” As-
Cascade of Magnetic Helicity,” Astrophys. J. 640, 335–343 (2006), trophys. J. 865, 52 (2018), arXiv:1809.03765 [astro-ph.SR].
arXiv:physics/0509069 [physics.plasm-ph]. 184 L. Linan, É. Pariat, G. Aulanier, K. Moraitis, and G. Valori, “Energy and
 12

helicity fluxes in line-tied eruptive simulations,” Astron. Astrophys. 636, earth’s magnetosphere through rolled-up kelvin-helmholtz vortices,” Na-
A41 (2020), arXiv:2003.01698 [astro-ph.SR]. ture 430, 755–758 (2004).
185 E. Pariat, J. E. Leake, G. Valori, M. G. Linton, F. P. Zuccarello, and K. Dal- 205 T. Sundberg, S. A. Boardsen, J. A. Slavin, B. J. Ander-
masse, “Relative magnetic helicity as a diagnostic of solar eruptivity,” As- son, H. Korth, T. H. Zurbuchen, J. M. Raines, and S. C.
tron. Astrophys. 601, A125 (2017), arXiv:1703.10562 [astro-ph.SR]. Solomon, “Messenger orbital observations of large-amplitude
186 F. P. Zuccarello, E. Pariat, G. Valori, and L. Linan, “Threshold of Non- kelvin-helmholtz waves at mercury’s magnetopause,” Journal
potential Magnetic Helicity Ratios at the Onset of Solar Eruptions,” Astro- of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 117, A04216 (2012),
phys. J. 863, 41 (2018), arXiv:1807.00532 [astro-ph.SR]. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011JA017268.
187 K. Moraitis, X. Sun, É. Pariat, and L. Linan, “Magnetic helicity and 206 E. Liljeblad, T. Karlsson, T. Sundberg, and A. Kullen, “Ob-
eruptivity in active region 12673,” Astron. Astrophys. 628, A50 (2019), servations of magnetospheric ulf waves in connection with
arXiv:1907.06365 [astro-ph.SR]. the kelvin-helmholtz instability at mercury,” Journal of Geo-
188 S. Dasso, C. H. Mandrini, P. Démoulin, and M. L. Luoni, “A new model- physical Research: Space Physics 121, 8576–8588 (2016),
independent method to compute magnetic helicity in magnetic clouds,” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016JA023015.
Astron. Astrophys. 455, 349–359 (2006). 207 A. Masters, N. Achilleos, M. G. Kivelson, N. Sergis, M. K. Dougherty,
189 S. Dasso, M. S. Nakwacki, P. Démoulin, and C. H. Mandrini, “Progres- M. F. Thomsen, C. S. Arridge, S. M. Krimigis, H. J. McAndrews,
sive Transformation of a Flux Rope to an ICME. Comparative Analysis S. J. Kanani, N. Krupp, and A. J. Coates, “Cassini observations
Using the Direct and Fitted Expansion Methods,” Solar Phys. 244, 115– of a kelvin-helmholtz vortex in saturn’s outer magnetosphere,” Jour-
137 (2007), arXiv:0706.2889 [astro-ph]. nal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 115, A07225 (2010),
190 M. Janvier, S. Dasso, P. Démoulin, J. J. Masías-Meza, and N. Lugaz, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2010JA015351.
“Comparing generic models for interplanetary shocks and magnetic clouds 208 M. G. Kivelson, J. Warnecke, L. Bennett, S. Joy, K. K. Khurana,

axis configurations at 1 AU,” Journal of Geophysical Research (Space J. A. Linker, C. T. Russell, R. J. Walker, and C. Polanskey,
Physics) 120, 3328–3349 (2015), arXiv:1503.06128 [astro-ph.SR]. “Ganymede’s magnetosphere: Magnetometer overview,” Jour-
191 P. Démoulin, M. Janvier, and S. Dasso, “Magnetic Flux and Helicity of nal of Geophysical Research: Planets 103, 19963–19972 (1998),
Magnetic Clouds,” Solar Phys. 291, 531–557 (2016), arXiv:1509.01068 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/98JE00227.
[astro-ph.SR]. 209 J. C. Dorelli, A. Glocer, G. Collinson, and G. Tóth, “The
192 M. L. Luoni, C. H. Mandrini, S. Dasso, L. van Driel-Gesztelyi, and role of the hall effect in the global structure and dynamics of
P. Démoulin, “Tracing magnetic helicity from the solar corona to the in- planetary magnetospheres: Ganymede as a case study,” Journal
terplanetary space,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 120, 5377–5392 (2015),
67, 1734–1743 (2005). https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2014JA020951.
193 M. S. Nakwacki, S. Dasso, P. Démoulin, C. H. Mandrini, and A. M. 210 R. V. E. Lovelace, M. M. Romanova, and W. I. Newman,
Gulisano, “Dynamical evolution of a magnetic cloud from the Sun to “Kelvin-Helmholtz instability of the magnetopause of disc-accreting
5.4 AU,” Astron. Astrophys. 535, A52 (2011), arXiv:1108.0951 [astro- stars,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
ph.SR]. 402, 2575–2582 (2010), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-
194 Q. Hu, J. Qiu, B. Dasgupta, A. Khare, and G. M. Webb, “Structures pdf/402/4/2575/4902702/mnras0402-2575.pdf.
of Interplanetary Magnetic Flux Ropes and Comparison with Their Solar 211 N. J. Turner, S. Fromang, C. Gammie, H. Klahr, G. Lesur, M. Wardle, and

Sources,” Astrophys. J. 793, 53 (2014), arXiv:1408.1470 [astro-ph.SR]. X. N. Bai, “Transport and Accretion in Planet-Forming Disks,” in Proto-
195 P. Démoulin, C. H. Mandrini, L. van Driel-Gesztelyi, B. J. Thompson, stars and Planets VI, edited by H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond,
S. Plunkett, Z. Kovári, G. Aulanier, and A. Young, “What is the source and T. Henning (2014) p. 411, arXiv:1401.7306 [astro-ph.EP].
of the magnetic helicity shed by CMEs? The long-term helicity budget of 212 E. P. Alves, T. Grismayer, S. F. Martins, F. Fiúza, R. A. Fonseca, and

AR 7978,” Astron. Astrophys. 382, 650–665 (2002). L. O. Silva, “LARGE-SCALE MAGNETIC FIELD GENERATION VIA
196 L. M. Green, M. C. López fuentes, C. H. Mandrini, P. Démoulin, L. Van THE KINETIC KELVIN-HELMHOLTZ INSTABILITY IN UNMAGNE-
Driel-Gesztelyi, and J. L. Culhane, “The Magnetic Helicity Budget of a TIZED SCENARIOS,” The Astrophysical Journal 746, L14 (2012).
cme-Prolific Active Region,” Solar Phys. 208, 43–68 (2002). 213 N. D. Hamlin and W. I. Newman, “Role of the kelvin-helmholtz instability
197 J. K. Thalmann, K. Moraitis, L. Linan, E. Pariat, G. Valori, and in the evolution of magnetized relativistic sheared plasma flows,” Phys.
K. Dalmasse, “Magnetic Helicity Budget of Solar Active Regions Pro- Rev. E 87, 043101 (2013).
lific of Eruptive and Confined Flares,” Astrophys. J. 887, 64 (2019), 214 S. N. Borovikov, N. V. Pogorelov, G. P. Zank, and I. A. Kryukov, “Con-

arXiv:1910.06563 [astro-ph.SR]. sequences of the heliopause instability caused by charge exchange,” The
198 K. Moraitis, E. Pariat, G. Valori, and K. Dalmasse, “Relative mag- Astrophysical Journal 682, 1404–1415 (2008).
netic field line helicity,” Astron. Astrophys. 624, A51 (2019), 215 M. Faganello and F. Califano, “Magnetized kelvin-helmholtz instability:

arXiv:1902.10410 [astro-ph.SR]. theory and simulations in the earth’s magnetosphere context,” Journal of
199 C. Foullon, E. Verwichte, V. M. Nakariakov, K. Nykyri, and C. J. Farrugia, Plasma Physics 83, 535830601 (2017).
“MAGNETIC KELVIN-HELMHOLTZ INSTABILITY AT THE SUN,” 216 D. A. Knoll and L. Chacón, “Magnetic Reconnection in the Two-

The Astrophysical Journal 729, L8 (2011). Dimensional Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability,” Physical Review Letters 88,
200 D. Kuridze, T. V. Zaqarashvili, V. Henriques, M. Mathioudakis, F. P. 215003 (2002).
Keenan, and A. Hanslmeier, “KELVIN–HELMHOLTZ INSTABILITY 217 T. Nakamura and M. Fujimoto, “Magnetic reconnection within mhd-scale

IN SOLAR CHROMOSPHERIC JETS: THEORY AND OBSERVA- kelvin-helmholtz vortices triggered by electron inertial effects,” Advances
TION,” The Astrophysical Journal 830, 133 (2016). in Space Research 37, 522–526 (2006), boundary Layers, Waves and Non-
201 X. Li, J. Zhang, S. Yang, Y. Hou, and R. Erdélyi, “Observing kelvin- Linear Dynamical Processes.
helmholtz instability in solar blowout jet,” Scientific Reports 8, 8136 218 A. Otto and D. H. Fairfield, “Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at the magne-

(2018). totail boundary: MHD simulation and comparison with Geotail observa-
202 D. Yuan, Y. Shen, Y. Liu, H. Li, X. Feng, and R. Keppens, “Multilay- tions,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 105, 21 (2000).
ered kelvin–helmholtz instability in the solar corona,” The Astrophysical 219 M. Faganello, F. Califano, and F. Pegoraro, “Time window for magnetic

Journal 884, L51 (2019). reconnection in plasma configurations with velocity shear,” Physical Re-
203 Kieokaew, R., Lavraud, B., Yang, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., Ruffolo, D., view Letters 101, 175003 (2008).
Stawarz, J. E., Aizawa, S., Foullon, C., Génot, V., Pinto, R. F., Fargette, N., 220 M. Faganello, F. Califano, F. Pegoraro, and T. Andreussi, “Double mid-

Louarn, P., Rouillard, A., Fedorov, A., Penou, E., Owen, C. J., Horbury, T. latitude dynamical reconnection at the magnetopause: An efficient mech-
S., O´Brien, H., Evans, V., and Angelini, V., “Solar orbiter observations anism allowing solar wind to enter the earth's magnetosphere,” EPL (Eu-
of the kelvin-helmholtz waves in the solar wind,” A&A 656, A12 (2021). rophysics Letters) 100, 69001 (2012).
204 H. Hasegawa, M. Fujimoto, T.-D. Phan, H. Rème, A. Balogh, M. W. Dun- 221 M. Sisti, M. Faganello, F. Califano, and B. Lavraud, “Satellite data-based

lop, C. Hashimoto, and R. TanDokoro, “Transport of solar wind into 3-d simulation of kelvin-helmholtz instability and induced magnetic re-
 13

connection at the earth’s magnetopause,” Geophysical Research Letters 235 P. Henri, S. S. Cerri, F. Califano, F. Pegoraro, C. Rossi, M. Faganello,
46, 11597–11605 (2019). O. Šebek, P. M. Trávníček, P. Hellinger, J. T. Frederiksen, A. Nordlund,
222 J. U. Brackbill and D. A. Knoll, “Transient magnetic reconnection and S. Markidis, R. Keppens, and G. Lapenta, “Nonlinear evolution of the
unstable shear layers,” Physical Review Letters 86, 2329–2332 (2001). magnetized Kelvin-Helmholtz instability: From fluid to kinetic modeling,”
223 X. Ma, A. Otto, and P. A. Delamere, “Interaction of mag- Physics of Plasmas 20, 102118 (2013), arXiv:1310.7707 [physics.space-
netic reconnection and kelvin-helmholtz modes for large mag- ph].
netic shear: 1. kelvin-helmholtz trigger,” Journal of Geo- 236 Y. Kuramitsu, A. Mizuta, Y. Sakawa, H. Tanji, T. Ide, T. Sano, M. Koenig,

physical Research: Space Physics 119, 781–797 (2014), A. Ravasio, A. Pelka, H. Takabe, C. D. Gregory, N. Woolsey, T. Mori-
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2013JA019224. taka, S. Matsukiyo, Y. Matsumoto, and N. Ohnishi, “TIME EVOLUTION
224 B. Nikutowski, J. Büchner, A. Otto, L. Kistler, A. Korth, C. Moukis, OF KELVIN–HELMHOLTZ VORTICES ASSOCIATED WITH COLLI-
G. Haerendel, and W. Baumjohann, “Equator-s observation of reconnec- SIONLESS SHOCKS IN LASER-PRODUCED PLASMAS,” The Astro-
tion coupled to surface waves,” Advances in Space Research 29, 1129– physical Journal 828, 93 (2016).
1134 (2002). 237 F. W. Doss, J. R. Fincke, E. N. Loomis, L. Welser-Sherrill, and
225 S. Eriksson, H. Hasegawa, W.-L. Teh, B. U. O. Sonnerup, J. P. McFad- K. A. Flippo, “The high-energy-density counterpropagating shear exper-
den, K.-H. Glassmeier, O. Le Contel, V. Angelopoulos, C. M. Cully, iment and turbulent self-heating,” Physics of Plasmas 20, 122704 (2013),
D. E. Larson, R. E. Ergun, A. Roux, and C. W. Carlson, “Mag- https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4839115.
netic island formation between large-scale flow vortices at an undulat- 238 E. C. Harding, J. F. Hansen, O. A. Hurricane, R. P. Drake, H. F. Robey,

ing postnoon magnetopause for northward interplanetary magnetic field,” C. C. Kuranz, B. A. Remington, M. J. Bono, M. J. Grosskopf, and R. S.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 114, A00C17 (2009), Gillespie, “Observation of a kelvin-helmholtz instability in a high-energy-
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008JA013505. density plasma on the omega laser,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 045005 (2009).
226 H. Hasegawa, A. Retinò, A. Vaivads, Y. Khotyaintsev, M. André, T. K. M. 239 O. A. Hurricane, J. F. Hansen, E. C. Harding, V. A. Smalyuk, B. A.

Nakamura, W.-L. Teh, B. U. Ö. Sonnerup, S. J. Schwartz, Y. Seki, M. Fu- Remington, G. Langstaff, H.-S. Park, H. F. Robey, C. C. Kuranz, M. J.
jimoto, Y. Saito, H. Rème, and P. Canu, “Kelvin-Helmholtz waves at Grosskopf, and R. S. Gillespie, “Blast-wave driven kelvin-helmholtz shear
the Earth’s magnetopause: Multiscale development and associated recon- layers in a laser driven high-energy-density plasma,” Astrophysics and
nection,” Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 114, A12207 Space Science 336, 139–143 (2011).
(2009). 240 E. C. Merritt, F. W. Doss, E. N. Loomis, K. A. Flippo, and J. L.
227 M. Faganello, F. Califano, F. Pegoraro, and A. Retinò, “Kelvin-Helmholtz Kline, “Modifying mixing and instability growth through the adjust-
vortices and double mid-latitude reconnection at the Earth’s magne- ment of initial conditions in a high-energy-density counter-propagating
topause: Comparison between observations and simulations,” EPL (Eu- shear experiment on omega,” Physics of Plasmas 22, 062306 (2015),
rophysics Letters) 107, 19001 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4922910.
228 S. Eriksson, B. Lavraud, F. D. Wilder, J. E. Stawarz, B. L. Giles, J. L. 241 L. Biermann, “über den ursprung der magnetfelder auf sternen und im in-

Burch, W. Baumjohann, R. E. Ergun, P.-A. Lindqvist, W. Magnes, C. J. terstellaren raum,” Zeitschrift Für Naturforschung 5a, 65 (1950).
Pollock, C. T. Russell, Y. Saito, R. J. Strangeway, R. B. Torbert, D. J. 242 O. A. Hurricane, “Design for a high energy density kelvin-helmholtz ex-

Gershman, Y. V. Khotyaintsev, J. C. Dorelli, S. J. Schwartz, L. Avanov, periment,” High Energy Density Physics 4, 97–102 (2008).
E. Grimes, Y. Vernisse, A. P. Sturner, T. D. Phan, G. T. Marklund, T. E. 243 W. Sun, J. Zhong, S. Zhang, B. Tong, L. Wang, K. Zhao, J. Liu, B. Han,

Moore, W. R. Paterson, and K. A. Goodrich, “Magnetospheric multiscale B. Zhu, D. Yuan, X. Yuan, Z. Zhang, Y. Li, Q. Zhang, J. Peng, J. Wang,
observations of magnetic reconnection associated with kelvin-helmholtz Y. Ping, C. Xing, H. Wei, G. Liang, Z. Xie, C. Wang, G. Zhao, and
waves,” Geophysical Research Letters 43, 5606–5615 (2016). J. Zhang, “The effect of external magnetic field on the linear stage evo-
229 Y. Vernisse, B. Lavraud, S. Eriksson, D. J. Gershman, J. Dorelli, C. Pol- lution of kelvin-helmholtz instability in laser driven plasma,” High Energy
lock, B. Giles, N. Aunai, L. Avanov, J. Burch, M. Chandler, V. Cof- Density Physics 31, 47–51 (2019).
fey, J. Dargent, R. E. Ergun, C. J. Farrugia, V. Génot, D. B. Graham, 244 W. Sun, J. Zhong, Z. Lei, S. Zhang, L. Wang, K. Zhao, W. An, Y. Ping,

H. Hasegawa, C. Jacquey, I. Kacem, Y. Khotyaintsev, W. Li, W. Magnes, B. Han, D. Yuan, B. Tong, Q. Zhang, X. Yuan, B. Zhu, Z. Zhang, Y. Li,
A. Marchaudon, T. Moore, W. Paterson, E. Penou, T. D. Phan, A. Retino, B. Qiao, L. Cheng, J. Wang, C. Xing, W. Jiang, H. Wei, G. Liang, Z. Xie,
C. T. Russell, Y. Saito, J.-A. Sauvaud, R. Torbert, F. D. Wilder, and C. Wang, M. Jin, G. Zhao, and J. Zhang, “Suppressing kelvin–helmholtz
S. Yokota, “Signatures of complex magnetic topologies from multiple re- instability with an external magnetic field,” Plasma Physics and Controlled
connection sites induced by kelvin-helmholtz instability,” Journal of Geo- Fusion 62, 065007 (2020).
physical Research: Space Physics 121, 9926–9939 (2016). 245 K. S. Raman, O. A. Hurricane, H.-S. Park, B. A. Remington, H. Robey,
230 Y. Vernisse, B. Lavraud, M. Faganello, S. Fadanelli, M. Sisti, F. Califano, V. A. Smalyuk, R. P. Drake, C. M. Krauland, C. C. Kuranz, J. F. Hansen,
S. Eriksson, D. J. Gershman, J. Dorelli, C. Pollock, B. Giles, L. Avanov, and E. C. Harding, “Three-dimensional modeling and analysis of a high
J. Burch, J. Dargent, R. E. Ergun, C. J. Farrugia, V. Génot, H. Hasegawa, energy density kelvin-helmholtz experiment,” Physics of Plasmas 19,
C. Jacquey, I. Kacem, R. Kieokaew, M. Kuznetsova, T. Moore, T. Naka- 092112 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4752018.
mura, W. Paterson, E. Penou, T. D. Phan, C. T. Russell, Y. Saito, J.-A. 246 L. G. Suttle, J. D. Hare, S. V. Lebedev, G. F. Swadling, G. C. Burdiak,

Sauvaud, and S. Toledo-Redondo, “Latitudinal dependence of the kelvin- A. Ciardi, J. P. Chittenden, N. F. Loureiro, N. Niasse, F. Suzuki-Vidal,
helmholtz instability and beta dependence of vortex-induced high-guide J. Wu, Q. Yang, T. Clayson, A. Frank, T. S. Robinson, R. A. Smith, and
field magnetic reconnection,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Space N. Stuart, “Structure of a magnetic flux annihilation layer formed by the
Physics 125, e2019JA027333 (2020), e2019JA027333 2019JA027333, collision of supersonic, magnetized plasma flows,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2019JA027333. 225001 (2016).
231 S. Eriksson, X. Ma, J. L. Burch, A. Otto, S. Elkington, and P. A. Delamere, 247 J. D. Hare, L. Suttle, S. V. Lebedev, N. F. Loureiro, A. Ciardi, G. C. Bur-

“Mms observations of double mid-latitude reconnection ion beams in the diak, J. P. Chittenden, T. Clayson, C. Garcia, N. Niasse, T. Robinson, R. A.
early non-linear phase of the kelvin-helmholtz instability,” Frontiers in As- Smith, N. Stuart, F. Suzuki-Vidal, G. F. Swadling, J. Ma, J. Wu, and
tronomy and Space Sciences 8, 760885 (2021). Q. Yang, “Anomalous heating and plasmoid formation in a driven mag-
232 J. Paral and R. Rankin, “Dawn-dusk asymmetry in the kelvin-helmholtz netic reconnection experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 085001 (2017).
instability at mercury,” Nature Communications 4, 1645 (2013). 248 A. E. Raymond, C. F. Dong, A. McKelvey, C. Zulick, N. Alexander,
233 T. K. M. Nakamura, H. Hasegawa, and I. Shinohara, “Kinetic effects A. Bhattacharjee, P. T. Campbell, H. Chen, V. Chvykov, E. Del Rio,
on the kelvin-helmholtz instability in ion-to-magnetohydrodynamic scale P. Fitzsimmons, W. Fox, B. Hou, A. Maksimchuk, C. Mileham, J. Nees,
transverse velocity shear layers: Particle simulations,” Physics of Plasmas P. M. Nilson, C. Stoeckl, A. G. R. Thomas, M. S. Wei, V. Yanovsky,
17, 042119 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3385445. K. Krushelnick, and L. Willingale, “Relativistic-electron-driven magnetic
234 S. S. Cerri, P. Henri, F. Califano, D. Del Sarto, M. Faganello, and F. Pe- reconnection in the laboratory,” Phys. Rev. E 98, 043207 (2018).
goraro, “Extended fluid models: Pressure tensor effects and equilibria,” 249 Y. Kobayashi, M. Kato, K. Nakamura, T. Nakamura, and M. Fujimoto,

Physics of Plasmas 20, 112112 (2013). “The structure of kelvin-helmholtz vortices with super-sonic flow,” Ad-
 14

vances in Space Research 41, 1325–1330 (2008). and A. Debus, “Identifying the linear phase of the relativistic kelvin-
250 F. Palermo, M. Faganello, F. Califano, and F. Pegoraro, “Kelvin-helmholtz helmholtz instability and measuring its growth rate via radiation,” Phys.
vortices and secondary instabilities in super-magnetosonic regimes,” An- Rev. E 96, 013316 (2017).
nales Geophysicae 29, 1169–1178 (2011).
251 R. Pausch, M. Bussmann, A. Huebl, U. Schramm, K. Steiniger, R. Widera,