4.5 Article

Identification of Electron Diffusion Regions with a Machine Learning Approach on MMS Data at the Earth's Magnetopause

期刊

EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2020EA001530

关键词

EDR; machine learning; magnetic reconnection; magnetopause; MMS; neural network

资金

  1. French space agency CNES
  2. Ministry of Economy and Competitiviness (MINECO), Spain [FIS2017-90102-R]
  3. ISSI international team Cold plasma of ionospheric origin in the Earth's magnetosphere
  4. ISSI international team Study of the Physical Processes in Magnetopause and Magnetosheath Current Sheets Using a Large MMS Database
  5. MMS instrument and science teams

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article identifies 18 magnetic reconnection electron diffusion region (EDR) candidates at the Earth's dayside magnetopause using a neural network algorithm, comparing them with previously reported EDRs and discussing the energy dissipation during the reconnection process as well as the distinction between inner and outer EDRs.
This article presents 18 magnetic reconnection electron diffusion region (EDR) candidates found using a neural network algorithm with the Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission phase 1a data at the Earth's dayside magnetopause. These new candidates are compared to the 32 previously reported dayside EDRs listed in Webster et al. (2018), , which constitute the training database of our algorithm. One of the main parameters used is a scalar quantity called MeanRL which is based on the asymmetry of the electron velocity distribution function and better identifies electron agyrotropy in the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field. In the light of the new EDR candidates found, we discuss and analyze the sign of the energy dissipation during the reconnection process and the distinction between the inner and outer EDRs, with 40% of the candidates showing negative or oscillating dissipation. We also present in details one of the new identified EDR candidates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据