The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 957:L13 (5pp), 2023 November 10 https://doi.org/10.

3847/2041-8213/ad03f6
© 2023. The Author(s). Published by the American Astronomical Society.

Irregular Proton Injection to High Energies at Interplanetary Shocks

Domenico Trotta1 , Timothy S. Horbury1 , David Lario2 , Rami Vainio3 , Nina Dresing3 , Andrew Dimmock4 ,
Joe Giacalone5 , Heli Hietala6 , Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber7 , Lars Berger7 , and Liu Yang7
1
The Blackett Laboratory, Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK; d.trotta@imperial.ac.uk
2
Heliophysics Science Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
3
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland
4
Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden
5
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
6
School of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK
7
Institute of Experimental and Applied Physics, Kiel University, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
Received 2023 September 25; revised 2023 October 13; accepted 2023 October 17; published 2023 November 2

Abstract
How thermal particles are accelerated to suprathermal energies is an unsolved issue, crucial for many astrophysical
systems. We report novel observations of irregular, dispersive enhancements of the suprathermal particle
population upstream of a high-Mach-number interplanetary shock. We interpret the observed behavior as irregular
“injections” of suprathermal particles resulting from shock front irregularities. Our findings, directly compared to
self-consistent simulation results, provide important insights for the study of remote astrophysical systems where
shock structuring is often neglected.
Unified Astronomy Thesaurus concepts: Interplanetary particle acceleration (826); Space plasmas (1544);
Interplanetary shocks (829); Shocks (2086); Heliosphere (711)

1. Introduction Such a complex picture is not as well observed and

understood for shocks beyond the Earth’s bow shock. In
Collisionless shock waves are fundamental sources of
particular, shock structuring at interplanetary (IP) shocks,
energetic particles, which are ubiquitously present in our
generated as a consequence of phenomena such as coronal
Universe and pivotal to explain many of its features, such as the
mass ejections (Gosling et al. 1974) and its role in particle
nonthermal radiation emission common to many astrophysical
acceleration remains elusive (Blanco-Cano et al. 2016; Kajdič
sources, as revealed by decades of remote and direct
et al. 2019). IP shocks are generally weaker and have larger
observations (Reames 1999; Amato & Blasi 2018). Particle
radii of curvature with respect to Earth’s bow shock, allowing
acceleration to suprathermal energies from thermal plasma, less
for direct observations of collisionless shocks in profoundly
understood than particle acceleration starting from an already
energized population, remains a puzzle and has been the object different regimes (e.g., Kilpua et al. 2015; Yang et al. 2020),
of extensive theoretical and numerical and are more relevant to astrophysical environments such as
investigations (Drury 1983; Caprioli & Spitkovsky 2014; galaxy cluster shocks, where shock irregularities are not
Trotta et al. 2021). resolved, but they are likely to play a crucial role in efficient
Shocks in the heliosphere, unique as directly accessible by particle acceleration (Brunetti & Jones 2014). Therefore, the
spacecraft (Richter et al. 1985), provide the missing link to study of particle injection at IP shocks is fundamental to test
remote observations of astrophysical systems. Direct observa- our current understanding built on Earth’s bow shock, as well
tions of the Earth’s bow shock using single- and multi- for addressing shocks at objects currently beyond reach. This
spacecraft approaches (e.g., Johlander et al. 2016) reveal a paper demonstrates that, in order to address the suprathermal
complex scenario of energy conversion and particle accelera- particle production upstream of supercritical collisionless
tion at the shock transition (Amano et al. 2020; Schwartz et al. shocks, the inherent variability of the injection process in both
2022). The emerging picture, well supported by theory and time and space must be taken into account.
modeling, is that small-scale irregularities in the spatial and The Solar Orbiter (SolO; Müller et al. 2020) mission probes
temporal evolution of the shock environment (Greensadt et al. the inner heliosphere with unprecedented levels of time-energy
1980; Matsumoto et al. 2015) are fundamental for efficient ion resolution for energetic particles, thus opening a new observa-
injection to high energies (Dimmock et al. 2019). This idea of tional window for particle acceleration. In this work, we study
irregular particle injection has been investigated in the past for the acceleration of low-energy (∼1 keV) particles to suprather-
the Earth’s bow shock (Madanian et al. 2021) and in numerical mal energies (∼50 keV) at a strong IP shock observed by SolO
simulations (Guo & Giacalone 2013), thus suggesting that at a heliocentric distance of about 0.8 au on 2021 October 30 at
particle behavior at shocks is much more complex than what is 22:02:07 UT. We use the Suprathermal Electrons and Protons
expected, neglecting spacetime irregularities, as suggested by (STEP) sensor of the Energetic Particle Detector (EPD) suite
early theoretical and numerical works (Decker 1990; Ao et al. (Rodríguez-Pacheco et al. 2020), measuring particles in the
2008; Lu et al. 2009). 6–60 keV energy range (close to the injection range), at the
very high time resolution of 1 s, close to suprathermal particle
Original content from this work may be used under the terms
gyroscales. Our work exploits such novel, previously unavail-
of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further able data sets for suprathermal particles upstream of IP shocks.
distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title We resolve upstream enhancements in the suprathermal particle
of the work, journal citation and DOI. population with dispersive velocity signatures and link them to

1
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 957:L13 (5pp), 2023 November 10 Trotta et al.

of being dispersive in energy and are the focus of this work.

The typical timescales at which the irregularities are observed
are of 10–20 s, corresponding to spatial scales of about 50 di.
Such signatures were previously inaccessible to observations,
as shown in Figure 1(c), where the time profile of ion
differential flux in the 0.012–0.015 MeV channel, rising
exponentially up to the shock (Giacalone 2012), is shown at
full resolution (blue) and averaged using a ∼1 minute window,
typical of previous IP shock measurements. Figure 1(d) shows
pitch-angle intensities for 0.011–0.019 MeV ions (i.e., energies
at which the irregular enhancements are observed). Pitch angles
are computed in the plasma rest frame assuming that all ions
are protons and performing a Compton–Getting
correction (Compton & Getting 1935), thereby combining
magnetic field data from the magnetometer (MAG; Horbury
et al. 2020), solar wind plasma data from the Proton and Alpha
Particle Sensor (PAS) on the Solar Wind Analyser (SWA)
instrument suite (Owen et al. 2020), and particle data from
EPD/STEP (Yang et al. 2023). For the interval studied, low
pitch angles are in the 30° field of view of STEP, relevant for
shock-reflected particles. The irregular enhancements of
energetic particles are field aligned, as is evident for the
strongest signal close to the shock transition. The flux
enhancement visible in PAS (Figure 1(e)) at lower energies
starting immediately before the shock (22:00 UT) also reveals a
field-aligned population. The study of the PAS low-energy
Figure 1. Event overview. (a) EPD-Electron Proton Telescope (EPT) particle
flux (sunward aperture). (b) EPD-STEP particle flux (magnet channel averaged population and the behavior very close to the shock transition is
over the entire field of view). (c) Pitch-angle distributions for ions with an the object of another investigation (Dimmock et al. 2023).
energy of 0.011–0.019 MeV in the spacecraft frame. (d) Time profile of the The magnetic field reveals a wave foreshock ∼2 minutes
STEP energy flux in the 0.012–0.015 MeV energy channel at full resolution upstream of the shock, in conjunction with a population of low-
(blue) and time-averaged using a 1 minute window. (e) SWA-PAS ion energy
flux (Owen et al. 2020). (f) SWA-PAS proton density. (g) MAG burst magnetic
energy (∼4 keV) reflected particles seen by SWA/PAS, visible
field data in Radial-tangential-normal (RTN) coordinates (Horbury et al. 2020). as the light blue enhancement in Figure 1(e) around 22:00 UT.
The magenta line marks the shock crossing, and the black rectangle in panel (b) Interestingly, the magnetic field is quieter where signals of
highlights the dispersive energetic particle enhancements observed by STEP. irregular injection are found, indicating that efficient particle
Differential fluxes are in E2 · cm−2 s−1 sr−1 MeV for the EPD instruments and
centimeters squared per second eV for PAS.
scattering may be reduced in this region (Lario et al. 2022). In
this “quiet” shock upstream, we found two structures
compatible with shocklets in the process of steepening
irregular proton injection along the shock front. Our findings
(∼21:57 UT), very rarely observed at IP shocks (Wilson
are corroborated by kinetic simulations showing similar
et al. 2009; Trotta et al. 2023a).
irregular proton energization upstream close to the shock, thus
The shock parameters were estimated using upstream/
elucidating the mechanisms responsible for this behavior. This
Letter is organized as follows: results are presented in downstream averaging windows varied systematically between
Section 2. SolO observations are shown and discussed in 1 and 8 minutes (Trotta et al. 2022a). The shock was oblique,
Section 2.1, while modeling results are reported in 2.2. The with a normal angle θBn = 44 ± 1°. 5 (obtained with the Mixed
conclusions are in Section 3. Mode 3 technique, MX3; Paschmann & Schwartz 2000),
compatible with MX1,2 and magnetic coplanarity). The shock
speed in the spacecraft frame and along the shock normal is
2. Results Vshock = 400 ± 5 km s−1. The shock Alfvénic and fast
magnetosonic Mach numbers are MA ∼ 7.6 and Mfms ∼ 4.6,
2.1. Solar Orbiter Observations respectively. Thus, the event provides us with the opportunity
Figure 1 shows a 30 minute overview across the shock to study a shock with particularly high Mach number in
transition. Panels (a)–(b) reveal the presence of shock- comparison with other IP shocks, while the shock speed is
accelerated particles at energies of up to 100 keV, while moderate with respect to typical IP shocks (Kilpua et al. 2015).
particle fluxes at higher energies do not respond to the shock The shock is supercritical and therefore expected to have a
passage. At these high energies, the fluxes were enhanced corrugated, rippled front (Trotta & Burgess 2019; Kajdic et al.
following a large solar energetic particle (SEP) event (see Klein 2021). The presence of reflected particles, enhanced wave
et al. 2022). activity in close proximity (1 minute) to the shock transition,
The most striking feature of the period prior to the shock and upstream shocklets in the process of steepening is
arrival at SolO is the irregular energetic particle enhancements consistent with the local shock parameters (Blanco-Cano
particularly evident at 10–30 keV energies (Figure 1(b), black et al. 2016).
box), found in the time interval ∼15 minutes before the shock To further elucidate the dispersive nature of the suprathermal
crossing, corresponding to 2 × 105 km or 2500 ion inertial particles, we show the STEP energy spectrogram in 1/v versus
lengths, di. These particle enhancements have the novel feature t space (Figure 2). Here, particle speeds are referred to the

2
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 957:L13 (5pp), 2023 November 10 Trotta et al.

Figure 2. Left: spectrogram of the irregular signal in seconds from shock vs. 1/v axes, with the velocity dispersion shown by the solid magenta line (top). Time series
showing the local θBn(t) angle. The red and gray dashed lines represent the average θBn and a 90° angle, respectively (bottom). Right: cartoon showing the corrugated
shock front with local shock normal, trajectory of a reflected particle ,and the SoLO trajectory (SolO model: esa.com).1

center of the relative energy bin and computed in the spacecraft magenta line in Figure 2):
rest frame, assuming that all particles detected are protons (see
s
Wimmer-Schweingruber & Pacheco 2021 for further details). tO (v) = ti + , (1 )
During the period of irregular particle enhancements, we also v
combined magnetic field and plasma data to compute the
particle pitch angles in the solar wind frame (Compton & where tO represents the time at which the flux enhancement is
Getting 1935), revealing that the particles detected by STEP are observed for a certain speed v, ti is the time of injection at the
closely aligned with the field (not shown here). Interestingly, source, and s is the distance traveled by the particles from the
by visual inspection, it can be seen that these dispersive signals source to the spacecraft. Thus, the argument is that the
are shallower going far upstream, consistent with the fact that dispersive signals are due to accelerated particles produced by
they are injected from more distant regions of the shock. different portions of the shock front temporarily connected with
The dispersive flux enhancements are associated with the spacecraft, as sketched in Figure 2 (right). We note that, due
irregular acceleration of protons along the shock front. Indeed, to the very high energy-time resolution of STEP, it was
due to their dispersive nature, the particles detected by STEP possible to perform the VDA on such small (∼seconds)
cannot be continuously produced at the shock and propagated timescales. Determining ti based on the time when the highest
upstream, but they must come from a source that is only energy particles are observed (ti ∼ − 130 s), the source distance
temporarily magnetically connected to the spacecraft due to that we obtain through Equation (1) is s ≈ 4 × 104 km
time and/or space irregularities. Then, the fastest particles (∼500di), compatible with their generation at the approaching
produced at the irregular source are detected first by the shock, for which we would expect s ~ Vshock Dt sin (q Bn ),
spacecraft, followed by the slower ones, yielding the observed where Vshock is the average shock speed and Δt is the time
dispersive behavior. Given the short timescales at which delay between the observation of the dispersive signal and the
energetic particle enhancements are observed with respect to shock passage. This is also compatible with the fact that the
the shock and the quiet behavior of upstream magnetic field in other dispersive signals observed farther upstream, such as the
the 10 minutes upstream of the shock, we assume that particles one before 21:54, about 500 s upstream of the shock (see
do not undergo significant scattering from their (irregular) Figure 2), show a shallower inclination though a more precise,
production to the detection at SolO. It is then natural to quantitative analysis of this behavior is complicated by the high
investigate the connection with the shock. The bottom left
noise levels of the observation and will be the object of later
panel of Figure 2 shows the local
statistical investigation employing more shock
q Bn (t ) º cos-1 (B (t ) · nˆ shock ∣B (t )∣) changing significantly
candidates (Yang et al. 2023).
when the dispersive signals are observed, indicating that the
spacecraft was indeed connected to different portions of the
(corrugated) shock front, which in turn is expected to respond 2.2. Shock Modeling
rapidly to upstream changes, as recent simulation work
elucidated (e.g., Trotta et al. 2023b). Note that, given the Further insights about shock front irregularities are limited
by the single-spacecraft nature of these observations. There-
single-spacecraft nature of the observations, the average shock
fore, we employ 2.5-dimensional kinetic simulations, with
normal computed with MX3 for both local and average θBn parameters compatible with the observed ones, to model the
estimation was used. details of the shock transition, where proton injection to
To further support this idea, similarly to velocity dispersion suprathermal energies takes place, relevant to our interpretation
analyses (VDAs) used to determine the injection time of SEP of the dispersive signals and enabling us to see how the shock
events (e.g., Lintunen 2004; Dresing et al. 2023), we chose the surface and normal behave at small scales (see Figure 2). In the
clearest dispersive signal (∼100 s upstream of the shock), and simulations, protons are modeled as macroparticles and
we superimpose the following relation (indicated by the advanced with the particle-in-cell method, while the electrons

3
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 957:L13 (5pp), 2023 November 10 Trotta et al.

Simulation results are shown in Figure 3. In the top panel,

we present the proton density for a simulation snapshot where
the shock transition is well developed, showing the strongly
perturbed character of the shock front. In such an irregular
shock transition, particle dynamics become extremely
complex (e.g., Lembege & Savoini 1992). To further elucidate
the irregularities of the shock front, we computed the shock
position in the simulation domain (with the criterion B > 3B0,
as in Trotta et al. 2023b) and evaluated the local θBn along it
(Figure 3(a), inset), showing high variability (see the cartoon in
Figure 2).
In the bottom panel of Figure 3, we study the self-
consistently shock-accelerated protons. The upstream energy
spectrum is shown in the inset, with a peak at the inflow
population energies and a suprathermal tail due to the
accelerated protons. To address particle injection, we analyze
the upstream spatial distribution of such suprathermal protons
(Figure 3(b)) at the energies highlighted in the inset, which are
a factor of 10 larger than the typical energies of particles in the
upstream inflow population, in a similar fashion as the energy
separation between the STEP energies at which the irregular
enhancements are observed (∼10 keV) and the solar wind
population energies measured by PAS (∼1 keV). It can be seen
that suprathermal particles are not distributed uniformly, and
their spatial distribution varies with their locations along the
shock front, another indication of irregular injection. Further-
more, we observed that the length scale of the irregularities is
of 50 di, directly comparable with the irregularities seen in the
STEP fluxes (see Figure 1). Higher energy particles also show
irregularities.
Figure 3. (a) Simulation snapshot of proton density (color map). The inset
shows a zoom around the shock transition (gray), and the local shock position 3. Conclusions
is superimposed, with a color map corresponding to the local θBn. (b) Density
map of upstream suprathermal protons (color map) and magnetic field lines We studied irregular particle acceleration from the thermal
(magenta) computed at the same simulation time as (a). The inset shows the plasma using novel SolO observations. Particle injection to
upstream particle energy spectrum, with the dashed blue lines indicating the
suprathermal energy range considered.
high energies is an extremely important issue for a large
collection of astrophysical systems, making the SolO shock on
2021 October 30 an excellent event to tackle this interesting
are modeled as a massless, charge-neutralizing fluid (Trotta problem. The capabilities of the SolO EPD suite were exploited
et al. 2020). to probe the complex shock front behavior in the poorly
In the model, distances are normalized to the ion inertial investigated IP shock case. From this point of view, in situ
length di, times to the upstream inverse cyclotron frequency observations of irregular particle enhancements have been used
Wci-1, velocity to the Alfvén speed vA, and the magnetic field as a tool to address the (remote) structuring of the shock,
and density to their upstream values B0 and n0. The shock is information not available by simply looking at the spacecraft
launched with the injection method (Quest 1985) where an shock crossing at one point in space and time. Such an
upstream flow speed Vin = 4.5vA was chosen, corresponding to approach is reminiscent to the ones used to reconstruct the
MA ∼ 6. The shock nominal θBn is 45°. The simulation domain properties of SEP events (Krucker et al. 1999) and even to the
is 512 di ×512 di, with resolution Δx = Δy = 0.5 di and a ones looking at the properties of the heliospheric termination
particle time step Δtpa=0.01 W- 1
ci . The number of particles per shock with the Interstellar Boundary Explorer mission
cell used is always greater than 300. This choice of parameters (McComas et al. 2009), where particles produced at different
is compatible with the local properties of the IP shock as portions of the shock are used to understand its
estimated from the SolO measurements. However, inherent dynamics (Zirnstein et al. 2022).
variability routinely found in the simulations at small scales The hybrid kinetic simulations are consistent with this
and in the observations at larger scales must be considered complex scenario of proton acceleration, with irregularly
when comparing numerical and observational results. We note distributed suprathermal particles along the shock front, an
invaluable tool to elucidate the small-scale behavior of this IP
that these simulations are initialized with a laminar upstream,
shock and of shock transitions in a variety of astrophysical
and therefore, the fluctuations that impact the shock are self-
systems. Our model highlights the very small-scale behavior of
generated (due to particle reflection and subsequent upstream the shock but neglects other effects like preexisting turbulence
propagation). An exhaustive characterization of these self- and IP disturbances that may be important (Lario &
induced fluctuations is discussed in Kajdic et al. (2021). Decker 2002; Trotta et al. 2022b; Nakanotani et al. 2022;
Trotta et al. 2023b). The direct investigation of shock
1
http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Solar_Orbiter acceleration in systems other than the Earth’s bow shock

4
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 957:L13 (5pp), 2023 November 10 Trotta et al.

(having a small radius of curvature and many other properties Amato, E., & Blasi, P. 2018, AdSpR, 62, 2731
important for planetary bow shocks) is important to build a Ao, X., Zank, G. P., Pogorelov, N. V., & Shaikh, D. 2008, PhFl, 20, 127102
comprehensive understanding of collisionless shocks ener- Blanco-Cano, X., Kajdič, P., Aguilar-Rodríguez, E., et al. 2016, JGRA,
121, 992
getics. This work significantly strengthens an evolving theory Botteon, Brunetti, G., Ryu, D., & Roh, S. 2020, A&A, 634, A64
of collisionless shock acceleration. Combining high-resolution Brunetti, G., & Jones, T. W. 2014, IJMPD, 23, 1430007
energetic particle data upstream of heliospheric shocks with Caprioli, D., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 783, 91
hybrid simulations, we have shown, for IP shocks, that the Compton, A. H., & Getting, I. A. 1935, PhRv, 47, 817
Decker, R. B. 1990, JGRA, 95, 11993
inherent variability of the injection process in both time and Dimmock, Gedalin, M., Lalti, A., et al. 2023, A&A, submitted
space must be considered to solve the problem of how Dimmock, A. P., Russell, C. T., Sagdeev, R. Z., et al. 2019, SciA, 5, eaau9926
suprathermal particle injection occurs in astrophysical systems. Dresing, N., Rodríguez-García, L., Jebaraj, I. C., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A105
The process analyzed here is general, as it does not depend on Drury, L. O. 1983, RPPh, 46, 973
how shock irregularities are generated. Indeed, this study is Giacalone, J. 2012, ApJ, 761, 28
Gosling, J. T., Hildner, E., MacQueen, R. M., et al. 1974, JGR, 79, 4581
relevant for astrophysical systems where shock front irregula- Greensadt, E. W., Russell, C., Gosling, J., et al. 1980, JGRA, 85, 2124
rities cannot be resolved but are likely to play an important role Guo, F., & Giacalone, J. 2013, ApJ, 773, 158
for particle acceleration from the thermal distribution, such as Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A9
galaxy cluster shocks, where efficient particle acceleration, Johlander, A., Vaivads, A., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., Retinó, A., & Dandouras, I.
2016, ApJL, 817, L4
which is inferred to happen at very large, ∼Mpc scales, remains Kajdic, P., Pfau-Kempf, Y., Turc, L., et al. 2021, JGRA, 126, e2021JA029283
a puzzle, particularly in the absence of preexisting cosmic Kajdič, P., Preisser, L., Blanco-Cano, X., Burgess, D., & Trotta, D. 2019,
rays (Botteon et al. 2020). ApJL, 874, L13
Kilpua, E. K., Lumme, E., Andreeova, K., Isavnin, A., & Koskinen, H. E.
2015, JGRA, 120, 4112
Acknowledgments
Klein, K.-L., Musset, S., Vilmer, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A173
This study has received funding from the European Unions Krucker, S., Larson, D. E., Lin, R. P., & Thompson, B. J. 1999, ApJ, 519, 864
Lario, D., & Decker, R. B. 2002, GeoRL, 29, 31
Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant Lario, D., Richardson, I. G., Wilson, L. B. I., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 198
agreement No. 101004159 (SERPENTINE, www.serpentine- Lembege, B., & Savoini, P. 1992, PhFlB, 4, 3533
h2020.eu). Part of this work was performed using the DiRAC Lintunen, Vainio, R. 2004, A&A, 420, 343
Data Intensive service at Leicester, operated by the University Lu, Q., Hu, Q., & Zank, G. P. 2009, ApJ, 706, 687
of Leicester IT Services, which forms part of the STFC DiRAC Madanian, H., Schwartz, S. J., Fuselier, S. A., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L19
Matsumoto, Y., Amano, T., Kato, T. N., & Hoshino, M. 2015, Sci, 347, 974
HPC Facility (www.dirac.ac.uk; under the project “dp031 McComas, D. J., Allegrini, F., Bochsler, P., et al. 2009, SSRv, 146, 11
Turbulence, Shocks and Dissipation in Space Plasmas.” N.D. Müller, St Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1
acknowledges the support of the Academy of Finland Nakanotani, M., Zank, G. P., & Zhao, L.-L. 2022, ApJ, 926, 109
(SHOCKSEE, grant nr. 346902). H.H. is supported by the Owen, C. J., Bruno, R., Livi, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A16
Paschmann, G., & Schwartz, S. J. 2000, in ESA Special Publication, ISSI Book
Royal Society University Research Fellowship on Analysis Methods for Multi-Spacecraft Data, ed. R. A. Harris, Vol. 449
URFR1180671. D.L. acknowledges support from NASA (Paris: European Space Agency (ESA)), 99
Living With a Star (LWS) program NNH19ZDA001N-LWS, Quest, K. B. 1985, PhRvL, 54, 1872
and the Goddard Space Flight Center Heliophysics Innovation Reames, D. V. 1999, SSRv, 90, 413
Fund (HIF) program. Richter, A. K., Hsieh, K. C., Luttrell, A. H., Marsch, E., & Schwenn, R. 1985,
Review of Interplanetary Shock Phenomena Near and within 1 AU, IN:
Collisionless shocks in the heliosphere: Reviews of current research
ORCID iDs (Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union (AGU)), 33
Rodríguez-Pacheco, Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F, Mason, G. M., et al. 2020,
Domenico Trotta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0608-8897 A&A, 642, A7
Timothy S. Horbury https://orcid.org/0000-0002- Schwartz, S. J., Goodrich, K. A., Wilson, L. B., III, et al. 2022, JGRA, 127,
7572-4690 e2022JA030637
David Lario https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3176-8704 Trotta, D., & Burgess, D. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1154
Trotta, D., Burgess, D., Prete, G., Perri, S., & Zimbardo, G. 2020, MNRAS,
Rami Vainio https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3298-2067 491, 580
Nina Dresing https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3903-4649 Trotta, D., Hietala, H., Horbury, T., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 520, 437
Andrew Dimmock https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1589-6711 Trotta, D., Pezzi, O., Burgess, D., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 525, 1856
Joe Giacalone https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0850-4233 Trotta, D., Valentini, F., Burgess, D., & Servidio, S. 2021, PNAS, 118,
Heli Hietala https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3039-1255 e2026764118
Trotta, D., Vuorinen, L., Hietala, H., et al. 2022a, FrASS, 9, 1005672
Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber https://orcid.org/0000- Trotta, D., Pecora, F., Settino, A., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 933, 167
0002-7388-173X Wilson, L. B. I., Cattell, C. A., Kellogg, P. J., et al. 2009, JGRA, 114, A10106
Lars Berger https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7846-804X Wimmer-Schweingruber, Janitzek, N. P., Pacheco, D., et al. 2021, A&A,
Liu Yang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6416-1538 656, A22
Yang, L., Berger, L., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., et al. 2020, ApJL,
888, L22
References Yang, L., Heidrich-Meisner, V., Berger, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A73
Zirnstein, E. J., Shrestha, B. L., McComas, D. J., et al. 2022, NatAs, 6, 1398
Amano, T., Katou, T., Kitamura, N., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 124, 065101