Mirror Modes (MMs) are often observed in the magnetosheath of many solar system objects, like Earth, Venus, Mars and comets. This paper presents the statistical maps of mirror mode-like (MM) structures in the magnetosheath of Mars based on the magnetometer data only of MAVEN from November 2014 to February 2021 (MY32-MY35). Based on the magnetic field-only criteria and two mitigation strategies, 176,041 MM-like structures are detected in their final database. Then, they analyze the characteristics and calculate the detection probabilities of MM-like structures with respect to several controlling parameters (including Mars Years, EUV flux and Mars season, Ls) and map them in the magnetosheath of Mars. The results indicate MM-like structures appear in two main regions: behind the shock and close to the induced magnetospheric boundary. And the detection probabilities are higher with low solar EUV flux, which contradicts the prospect, explained by two combining effects: plasma beta effects and non-gyrotropy of pickup ion distributions. The detection method and mitigation strategies are well described and the properties of MMs are well shown by plenty of figures. Before I recommend accepting to publication in AG, below comments/suggests needs to address.

As shown in the introduction, MMs likely share a common ancestor with magnetic holes (MHs); statistical characteristics of magnetic holes have already been analyzed in the Martain magnetosheath. For instance, Huang et al. (2021, ApJ, 922:107) analyzed the distribution and parameter characteristics of kinetic-size magnetic holes (KSMHs) in the Martain magnetosheath using MAVEN’s data and tries to explain the mechanism of KSMHs as electron vortex. These results may also shed light on the mechanism of MMs. The authors should try to compare the properties between MMs and MHs to figure out the relationship between these structures and their mechanisms and their differences.

Line 185-186: “moreover this ensures that rotations could be calculated for trains of MM-like structures for which the 2-min windowed background magnetic field values would be representative.” This sentence is complicated and vague.

Line 245-250: “Conversely, we also expect the method to keep structures that are likely not MMs but situated in the magnetosheath (with B and N in phase).” What do the authors want to express by this sentence? Besides, the authors try to keep the isolated structures out of the final database to make the results accurate. Now that, what does this sentence “As a consequence, on this criterion only (isolated structure), the frequency of MM-like detections in our final database could be underestimated by at least 10%.” mean? Should the isolated structures be included in the database or not?

Line 277-278: “…, which we expect to be about 25%, as evaluated from visual comparisons in a subset of events (see Figs. 1 and 2).” How do the authors evaluate the extent of the underestimation and from which subsets of events?

Line 392-396: “Secondly, the two detection methods differ significantly: our B-field-only criteria detection permits us to capture trains of short events with 1-s resolution at the expense of an ambiguity in the nature of the detected structure, whereas Ruhunusiri et al. (2015) used wave analysis techniques based on transport ratios with a cruder time resolution (4–8 s with a Fourier transform on consecutive 128 s intervals).” The authors try to compare the detection probabilities between this work and Ruhunusiri et al. (2015) and explain the lower estimate due to the detection method. However, the lower resolution in Ruhunusiri et al. (2015) could also lead to the omission of smaller structures, resulting in a lower estimate for their results. It’s hard to make a comparison and draw a conclusion in this way.

Line 427-428: “…, we cannot compare absolute detection numbers with the other MYs without first normalising to the spacecraft’s residence time during that period.” The authors could try to calculate the detection probabilities of each Mars year, so far as the absolute detection numbers and the spacecraft’s residence time can be obtained, as shown in Fig. 8.

Table3: "N_MM represents the total number of MM-like events found (equivalent to a duration in s because of the magnetometer resolution of 1 s)”.

Line 419-421: “On average throughout MY32 to MY35 with MAVEN, we find ⟨N⟩ = 68±43 structures per day (ignoring single isolated 1-s events, see Sect. 2.2.2) fulfilling the criteria of Table 1.”

Line 429-430: “Finally, if we assume that most structures last 5–10s on average, we end up with 68/10–68/5 ≈ 7–14 MMs/day in Mars’ magnetosheath.”

What’s the definition of an MM-like event, a structure and a MM? Are they the same or not? What is the relationship between them?

Line 445: “… , with the threshold ⟨I⟩ just above the irradiance local peaks during MY34 and MY35.” The authors should define the threshold ⟨I⟩ when introducing the EUV flux levels in Line 316-322.

Line 537-540: “As the exosphere expands with increasing EUV flux, the obstacle to the solar wind flow grows in size, with the bow shock and IMB both swelling up. This is illustrated in Fig. 9 by the dashed bow shock curves of Simon Wedlund et al. (2022b) and how they compare to the fixed curves of Hall et al. (2019).” The bow shock and IMB will both swell up with increased EUV flux. However, in Fig. 9, the dashed lines only show the expanding bow shock, but the modeled boundary of IMB is fixed. The authors should describe it more clearer.

Figs. 8, 9 & 11: As we can see from those figures, the detection probability P may reach artificially low values, especially in the region in front of the modeled bow shock and in the tail. However, when calculating the difference from the total detection probability ∆P/P_tot, the data coverage is quite different among these figures. Do the authors remove the small value when plotting the ∆P panels? What is the criteria the authors chose to remove these data points? Why not discard the data points with low P since they make little sense?

Minor Issues:

Line 8-9: I suppose that the time range of the dataset should be corrected from “February 2020” to “February 2021”.

Line 314-315: “For reference, MY32 = [] … .” There is an error in the representation of parentheses.

Line 602: “… (see also Fig. 7g and Table 3).” There is no Fig. 7g. Please check it.

Line 628-629: Add “are used” at the end of the sentence.