Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 127 references

On the reason for the widespread energetic storm particle event of 13 March 2023

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a single solar eruption from the Sun's far side can drive a circumsolar shock, producing an energetic storm particle event observed all around the Sun, and that the blast-wave scenario matches observed shock arrival…

desk verdict First credible multi-spacecraft case for a circumsolar shock to 1 au, but the timing fit is a consistency check with tuned parameters, not a forward test. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06332 v1 pith:I43PZFP6 submitted 2025-02-10 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

N. Dresing , I. C. Jebaraj , N. Wijsen , E. Palmerio , L. Rodríguez-García , C. Palmroos , J. Gieseler , M. Jarry
show 15 more authors
E. Asvestari J. G. Mitchell C. M. S. Cohen C. O. Lee W. Wei R. Ramstad E. Riihonen P. Oleynik A. Kouloumvakos A. Warmuth B. Sánchez-Cano B. Ehresmann P. Dunn O. Dudnik C. Mac Cormack
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarenergeticparticlesstormparticleeventcircumsolarshockCME-drivenblastwaveEUHFORIAsimulationmulti-spacecraftSEPMarch2023flare
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

On 13 March 2023, a large solar eruption on the Sun's far side produced an energetic particle event observed at six well-separated spacecraft, and an energetic storm particle (ESP) event at every inner-heliospheric observer, implying the driving shock wrapped around the Sun. The authors test two explanations with magnetohydrodynamic simulations: a single circumsolar blast wave launched by the eruption, or a pre-event CME flank encountering the front-side spacecraft. Both settings reproduce the observations, but the blast-wave scenario matches the observed shock arrival times at the front-side spacecraft within about 1.5 hours (about 3 hours early at L1). The paper concludes that a circumsolar ESP event driven by a single eruption into the inner heliosphere is a realistic scenario.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the EUHFORIA magnetohydrodynamic model of the inner heliosphere, run with and without a spherical blast wave inserted at the 0.1 au inner boundary at 05:00 UT on 13 March, with an injected speed of 3000 km/s obtained from Rankine–Hugoniot jump conditions and consistent with the near-Sun shock speed measured by Parker. The blast wave is assumed to expand self-similarly in the Sedov-like manner, with shock speed falling as t^−1/3, and the comparison scenario injects the pre-event CME5 with a density ten times the default EUHFORIA value. In-situ shock parameters—normal direction, speed, Mach number, and geometry—derived from multi-spacecraft data tie the observations to the two simulations.

What would settle it

A spacecraft with a direct view of the far-side Sun at that time could check whether the eruption indeed occurred at 03:13 UT in the inferred sector; if the source time or location differed, the blast-wave timing agreement at the front-side spacecraft would disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the widespread ESP event of 13 March 2023 can be explained by a single eruption from the far side that launches a spherical, driverless shock, which expands self-similarly and remains strong enough to be seen in situ at five inner-heliospheric spacecraft spanning about 153 degrees of longitude. It supports this by comparing EUHFORIA simulations—where a 3000 km/s blast wave is inserted at 0.1 au—with the observed shock arrivals and plasma signatures at Parker Solar Probe, BepiColombo, Solar Orbiter, STEREO A, near-Earth spacecraft, and MAVEN. The alternative scenario, in which a pre-event CME (CME5) with an order-of-magnitude-increased density sends its flank toward the front-side observers, also reproduces the observations but matches the shock arrival times slightly less well.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the far-side eruption at 03:13 UT, whose source sector is inferred from radio bursts and active-region imaging rather than directly seen, launches a spherical, driverless shock that keeps its self-similar expansion all the way to 1 au.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a single eruption can make a circumsolar ESP event, then front-side spacecraft can observe ESP events from far-side eruptions, so SEP forecasting should treat circumsolar shocks as a possible source class.
  • The blast-wave simulation's arrival-time agreement (within about 1.5 h at BepiColombo, Solar Orbiter, and STEREO A, and about 3 h early at L1) means a simple Sedov-like decay law can predict 1 au shock arrival from a near-Sun shock speed.
  • The alternative scenario would require CME5 to be about ten times denser than EUHFORIA's standard value, so a typical pre-event CME alone would not produce the observed front-side ESP event.
  • Distinguishing the two scenarios observationally requires checking for a driverless shock (no ejecta at Earth and STEREO A) versus flank-encounter signatures (possible ejecta remnants at BepiColombo and Solar Orbiter).

Reading between the lines

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

  • If circumsolar blast waves are a real phenomenon, the historical rarity of 'widespread' SEP events may partly reflect sparse far-side spacecraft coverage rather than the intrinsic rarity of the event; the current multi-spacecraft fleet could reveal such events more often.
  • The energy budget implied by a 3000 km/s blast wave that still arrives at 1 au is substantial, and computing the total energy available from the inferred far-side flare and CMEs would provide a testable constraint on whether such a wave is energetically plausible for this or future events.
  • The inverse velocity dispersion observed by BepiColombo and Solar Orbiter could be a generic signature of a spacecraft that only later becomes magnetically connected to an accelerating shock flank, rather than of particle transport effects; dedicated transport simulations could test this interpretation.
  • The paper leaves open whether the far-side shock front is a single coherent surface or the sum of two merged shocks from the two simultaneously erupting CMEs; future multi-spacecraft shock-normal measurements could map the shape of such a circumsolar front.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the extreme widespread solar energetic particle (SEP) event of 13 March 2023, observed by six well-separated spacecraft, with in-situ shock crossings and energetic storm particle (ESP) signatures at all inner-heliospheric observers. Because the source eruption occurred on the far side as seen from Earth, its location is inferred indirectly from radio bursts, hard X-ray data, and active-region tracking before and after the event. The authors characterize the SEP intensities, anisotropies, injection times, and shock parameters at each spacecraft, then use EUHFORIA MHD simulations to test two scenarios: (1) a single circumsolar, partly driverless blast wave from the main eruption, and (2) a pre-event CME (CME5) whose flank shock, with an ad hoc density enhancement, re-accelerates particles from the main eruption. Both simulations reproduce the observed shock arrival times roughly, and the authors state that the blast-wave scenario performs slightly better. The central conclusion is that a circumsolar ESP event driven by a single eruption is a realistic scenario.

Significance. If the circumsolar-shock interpretation is accepted, this is a remarkable event: an ESP event and shock crossings at six locations spanning more than 150 degrees in longitude, including a possible driverless shock at 1 au. The paper's main strengths are the detailed multi-mission data characterization, the careful shock-normal and anisotropy analysis, the inclusion of six pre-/post-event CMEs in the EUHFORIA setup, and the explicit attempt to compare two competing scenarios rather than simply asserting a single explanation. The candid discussion of source-region ambiguity and of the ad hoc density enhancement in the CME5 scenario is also commendable. However, the scenario discrimination rests on a small number of arrival-time comparisons, and the blast-wave simulation is initialized with values derived from the same event, so the evidence is more suggestive than demonstrative.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3] The blast-wave simulation is not an independent forward test of the circumsolar hypothesis. The injection time (05:00 UT) and initial speed (3000 km/s) at 0.1 au are explicitly chosen to be consistent with the inferred eruption onset and the Parker in-situ shock speed, respectively. With two free parameters, matching four arrival times within a few hours provides only weak discriminating power. Please add a sensitivity scan over injection time, injection speed, and (if feasible) the assumed spherical symmetry, showing how the arrival-time residuals at BepiColombo, Solar Orbiter, STEREO A, and L1 change over plausible parameter ranges. Without such a scan, the claim that the blast-wave scenario is "realistic" and "matches the observations exceptionally well" is not yet fully supported.
  2. [Sections 3.3 and 3.4] The comparison between the two scenarios is qualitative. The statement that the blast-wave scenario performs "slightly better" is not supported by a quantitative metric, error bars, or a discussion of model uncertainty, and the pre-CME scenario only works after increasing CME5's density by an order of magnitude. Please report arrival-time residuals with uncertainties for both scenarios at each spacecraft, and state explicitly whether the "slightly better" conclusion survives when the model's known limitations (e.g., no magnetic structure in cone CMEs, uniform background solar wind) are taken into account.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Appendix B] The source region of the eruption is inferred to lie within a 56-degree-wide sector spanned by two active regions, with no direct imaging of the eruption itself. The circumsolar blast-wave scenario assumes a specific eruption time (03:13 UT) and a roughly spherical shock from this sector. The paper should discuss how sensitive the simulated arrival times are to the assumed source location within the AR1/AR2 sector and to the uncertainty in the eruption onset time, since all front-side observers are more than 100 degrees away from either edge of the sector. This is directly relevant to the central claim that a single circumsolar shock is the most plausible explanation.
  4. [Section 3.3] The blast-wave insertion methodology, including the Rankine-Hugoniot mapping and the modified Sedov scaling, is described as being detailed in Wijsen et al. (2025), which is listed as submitted. Since the central scenario relies on this methodology, the present paper is not fully self-contained. Please either include the essential details and validation of the blast-wave model in this manuscript or, if the companion paper is essential, indicate how its results support the specific choices made here (e.g., the 0.1 au injection height and the self-similar decay assumption).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] There are several typographical errors in this section, including "Furhtermore" and "measuremnets" in the MAVEN paragraph; these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.3] In the paragraph reporting arrival-time agreement, "BepiColomobo" should be "BepiColombo".
  3. [Section 2.3] The sentence "Theyat it was near-parallel" appears garbled; it should likely read "They found it was near-parallel." Please revise.
  4. [Figure 6 caption] The sentence about the gray shade in the Mars plot is grammatically incomplete: "The gray shade in the Mars plot represents the CME arrival time based on the pre-event CME simulation, is the CME of the main eruption." Please clarify which structure is represented.
  5. [Table 1 and Appendix D] For MAVEN, the text in Appendix D uses a path length based on 350 km/s, while Table 1 lists 325 km/s from Mars Express. Please harmonize these values and explain any difference.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The blast-wave timing agreement is partly built from the same event's Parker shock parameters and a same-author propagation model, so it is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [This step is located in Sect. 3.3, in the blast-wave EUHFORIA setup and the subsequent timing result.]
    "For simplicity, we introduced the shock wave simultaneously at the inner boundary at 0.1 au on March 13 at 05:00 UT, assuming a blast wave speed of 3000 km s−1 upon injection, consistent with the findings of Jebaraj et al. (2024a). ... The spheromaks were assigned injection speeds of 1800 km s−1, producing a shock speed of approximately 3000 km s−1, in agreement with the findings of Jebaraj et al. (2024a). ... Remarkably, it can be seen that the modelled shock arrives within 1.5 hours of the observed shock arrival at BepiColombo, Solar Orbiter, and STEREO A."

    The blast wave's two main parameters (injection time 05:00 UT and speed 3000 km/s) are anchored to the same event's Parker shock: Jebaraj et al. (2024a) measured the Parker shock at 2800±300 km/s at 0.25 au, arriving at 07:14 UT, and the paper explicitly states the choices are 'consistent with' and 'in agreement with' that measurement. The spherical wave is then propagated with a self-similar scaling law taken from same-author Wijsen et al. (2025). Once the radial profile is fixed by these event-specific inputs, the arrival times at BepiColombo, Solar Orbiter, STEREO A, and L1 are a projection of the calibrated disturbance, not an out-of-sample prediction.

  2. self citation load bearing [This step is located in Sect. 4, in the discussion of the circumsolar shock scenario.]
    "Wijsen et al. (2025) demonstrates that while the shock toward Parker is non-spherical and non-self-similar due to its piston-driven nature, the shock remains spherical for observers on the opposite side. ... This together with the analysis presented by Wijsen et al. (2025) aligns with the presence of a circumsolar shock."

    The central premise that the far-side shock is spherical and self-similar is not derived in this paper; it is imported from Wijsen et al. (2025), a submitted paper with overlapping authorship (Wijsen, Jebaraj, Dresing et al.). The present EUHFORIA blast-wave run simply assumes sphericity at injection ('we introduced the shock wave simultaneously at the inner boundary'), and the cited 'demonstration' is the only justification offered for that shape. If Wijsen et al. adopts the same spherical blast-wave ansatz, the argument reduces to a same-author citation chain rather than an external mathematical or observational proof. The independent coronagraph and in-situ shock-normal evidence is suggestive, but it does not uniquely establish a spherical, self-similar circumsolar wave.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [This step is located in Sect. 3.3, in the pre-event CME5 density adjustment, and in the Sect. 3.4 scenario comparison.]
    "To better match observations, we increased the CME's injection density by an order of magnitude from the default value, to ρ = 10−17 kg m−3. This adjustment allowed the northern flank to arrive approximately on time (within 5 hours) at the various S/C. ... We note, however, that in the case of the second scenario, a default EUHFORIA setup using standard CME densities was not able to reproduce the observations at all and only when increasing the density of CME5 by an order of magnitude the simulation produced a shock wave reaching the front-sided observers in time."

    The pre-CME scenario's timing agreement is produced by an explicit order-of-magnitude density increase applied specifically so that the flank arrives on time. The paper then counts this tuned run as one of the two scenarios that 'are able to explain the observations' and compares its 'predicted shock arrival times' with the blast-wave scenario. The comparison is therefore between two event-calibrated models; the CME5 arrival-time match is a consequence of the tuning, not a prediction. This does not invalidate the scenario, but it removes the pre-CME leg of the comparison as independent evidence, and the paper's own caveat confirms that the default setup failed.

full rationale

The paper contains genuine independent content: multi-spacecraft SEP observations, timing analysis, radio and hard-X-ray data, in-situ shock parameters, coronagraph images, and EUHFORIA forward modeling with six pre/post-event CMEs. The observational evidence for a widespread shock (radial shock normals, lack of clear ejecta at Earth and STEREO A, shock-speed scaling) does not reduce to the simulation inputs. However, the quantitative 'predicted shock arrival times' that carry the central scenario comparison are partly built from event-specific tuning: the blast-wave speed and injection time are taken from the same event's Parker shock (Jebaraj et al. 2024a), the spherical self-similar propagation is justified by a same-author submitted paper (Wijsen et al. 2025), and the competing pre-CME scenario required an order-of-magnitude density increase to match the times. Thus the agreement within 1.5 hours is a consistency check of a calibrated spherical model rather than an independent confirmation of the circumsolar hypothesis. No step is fully circular by definition, and the observational parts retain independent weight, but the load-bearing timing comparison has moderate circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on that the reader didn't pay for upstream: the EUHFORIA background solar wind, cone/spheromak CME parametrizations, the far-side eruption sector inferred without direct imaging, and the blast-wave injection prescription with speed and time chosen to match the same event's Parker observations.

free parameters (4)
  • Main-event spheromak injection speed = 1800 km/s (producing shock ~3000 km/s)
    Chosen to match the Parker in-situ shock speed reported by Jebaraj et al. (2024a); used as input for both EUHFORIA scenarios.
  • Blast-wave injection speed = 3000 km/s
    Inserted at 0.1 au via Rankine-Hugoniot downstream values; set to match Parker shock speed, so arrival-time agreement at other S/C is not fully independent.
  • Blast-wave injection time = 2023-03-13 05:00 UT
    Assumed 0.1 au injection time, about 1 h 47 min after eruption onset; not derived from a physical model.
  • CME5 density multiplier = 10x default (1e-17 kg/m3)
    Increased by an order of magnitude in the pre-CME scenario so the northern flank arrives within 5 h of observed shock; without this the pre-CME scenario fails.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption EUHFORIA ideal-MHD solar wind from ADAPT/GONG magnetograms with PFSS+Schatten extension to 0.1 au
    Used as the background heliosphere for both scenarios; model errors propagate into arrival times (Sect. 3.3).
  • domain assumption Pre-event CMEs modeled as cone CMEs with uniform density/temperature and default magnetic field
    Cone model ignores internal magnetic structure; paper notes this affects footpoint shifts (Sect. 2.2).
  • domain assumption Main-event CMEs modeled as spheromaks with default magnetic parameters
    Magnetic parameters are EUHFORIA defaults, not derived for this event (Sect. 3.3, Table 4).
  • ad hoc to paper The far-side eruption occurred at 03:13 UT within the identified AR1/AR2 sector
    Inferred from Parker radio bursts and pre/post imaging; no direct EUV observation of the flare site (Sect. 2.1, Appendix B).
  • domain assumption A driverless blast wave can propagate self-similarly to 1 au following modified Sedov scaling Vsh proportional to t^-1/3
    Adopted from Wijsen et al. (2025); central to the circumsolar scenario's viability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the reason for the widespread energetic storm particle event of 13 March 2023." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I43PZFP6

@misc{pith2026250206332,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the reason for the widespread energetic storm particle event of 13 March 2023},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I43PZFP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06332}
}
read the original abstract

On 13 March 2023, when the Parker Solar Probe was situated on the far side of the Sun as seen from Earth, a large solar eruption took place creating a strong solar energetic particle (SEP) event observed by multiple spacecraft (S/C). The energetic event was observed at six well-separated locations: Parker Solar Probe, Solar Orbiter, BepiColombo, STEREO~A, near-Earth S/C, and MAVEN. An in-situ shock crossing and a related energetic storm particle (ESP) event were observed at all inner-heliospheric S/C, suggesting that the interplanetary coronal mass ejection (CME)-driven shock extended all around the Sun. However, the solar event was accompanied by a series of pre-event CMEs. We aim to characterize this extreme widespread SEP event and to provide an explanation for the unusual observation of a circumsolar interplanetary shock and corresponding circumsolar ESP event. We analyse data from seven space missions to characterize the solar eruption at the Sun, the energetic particle event, and the interplanetary context at each observer location as well as the magnetic connectivity of each observer to the Sun. We employ magnetohydrodynamic simulations of the solar wind in which we inject various CMEs that were launched before as well as contemporaneously with the solar eruption under study. In particular, we test two different scenarios that could have produced the observed global ESP event: 1) a single circumsolar blast-wave-like shock launched by the associated solar eruption, and 2) the combination of multiple CMEs driving shocks into different directions. By comparing the simulations of the two scenarios with observations we find that both settings are able to explain the observations. However, the blast-wave scenario performs slightly better in terms of the predicted shock arrival times at the various observers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06332 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: S/C constellation in the ecliptic plane, including nominal Parker spiral field lines connecting the S/C with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Base-difference images of the white-light signatures generated in the low corona by the two combined CMEs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. In-situ observations in comparison with EUHFORIA simulation results for Parker (left) and BepiColombo (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In-situ observations in comparison with EUHFORIA simulation results for Solar Orbiter (left) and STEREO A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In-situ observations in comparison with EUHFORIA simulation results for near-Earth S/C (left) and at Mars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Three-dimensional Cartesian representation of the shock normal estimated at each observer from data and from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Snapshot from the EUHFORIA simulations showing the solar wind speed in the solar equatorial plane at March [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    1972, Journal of Geophysical Research, 77, 736

    Abraham-Shrauner , B. 1972, Journal of Geophysical Research, 77, 736

    1972

  4. [4]

    H., Curtis , D., Scheifele , J

    Acu \ n a , M. H., Curtis , D., Scheifele , J. L., et al. 2008, , 136, 203

    2008

  5. [5]

    N., Henney , C

    Arge , C. N., Henney , C. J., Koller , J., et al. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1216, Twelfth International Solar Wind Conference, ed. M. Maksimovic , K. Issautier , N. Meyer-Vernet , M. Moncuquet , & F. Pantellini (AIP), 343--346

    2010

  6. [6]

    N., Luhmann , J

    Arge , C. N., Luhmann , J. G., Odstrcil , D., Schrijver , C. J., & Li , Y. 2004, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 66, 1295

    2004

  7. [7]

    2005, Space Science Reviews, 118, 161

    Bale, S., Balikhin, M., Horbury, T., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 118, 161

    2005

  8. [8]

    D., Goetz , K., Harvey , P

    Bale , S. D., Goetz , K., Harvey , P. R., et al. 2016, , 204, 49

    2016

Show all 127 references
  1. [9]

    2006, , 126, 113

    Barabash , S., Lundin , R., Andersson , H., et al. 2006, , 126, 113

    2006

  2. [10]

    2021, , 217, 90

    Benkhoff , J., Murakami , G., Baumjohann , W., et al. 2021, , 217, 90

    2021

  3. [11]

    2022, , 663, A89

    Br \"u dern , M., Berger , L., Heber , B., et al. 2022, , 663, A89

    2022

  4. [12]

    E., Howard, R

    Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J., et al. 1995, , 162, 357

    1995

  5. [13]

    Cohen , C. M. S., Leske , R. A., Christian , E. R., et al. 2024, , 966, 148

    2024

  6. [14]

    Colburn , D. S. & Sonett , C. P. 1966, Space Science Reviews, 5, 439

    1966

  7. [15]

    A., et al

    Dalla , S., Hutchinson , A., Hyndman , R. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08211

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    2024, , 681, A92

    Ding , Z., Li , G., Mason , G., et al. 2024, , 681, A92

    2024

  9. [17]

    Domingo , V., Fleck , B., & Poland , A. I. 1995, , 162, 1

    1995

  10. [18]

    2014, , 567, A27

    Dresing , N., G \'o mez-Herrero , R., Heber , B., et al. 2014, , 567, A27

    2014

  11. [19]

    2018, , 613, A21

    Dresing , N., G \'o mez-Herrero , R., Heber , B., et al. 2018, , 613, A21

    2018

  12. [20]

    2012, , 281, 281

    Dresing , N., G \'o mez-Herrero , R., Klassen , A., et al. 2012, , 281, 281

    2012

  13. [21]

    2022, , 925, L21

    Dresing , N., Kouloumvakos , A., Vainio , R., & Rouillard , A. 2022, , 925, L21

    2022

  14. [22]

    C., et al

    Dresing , N., Rodr \' guez-Garc \' a , L., Jebaraj , I. C., et al. 2023, , 674, A105

    2023

  15. [23]

    2024, , 687, A72

    Dresing , N., Yli-Laurila , A., Valkila , S., et al. 2024, , 687, A72

    2024

  16. [24]

    Y., Dresing , N., Heber , B., & Klassen , A

    Dr \"o ge , W., Kartavykh , Y. Y., Dresing , N., Heber , B., & Klassen , A. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 119, 6074

    2014

  17. [25]

    Y., Dresing , N., & Klassen , A

    Dr \"o ge , W., Kartavykh , Y. Y., Dresing , N., & Klassen , A. 2016, , 826, 134

    2016

  18. [26]

    J., Velli , M

    Fox , N. J., Velli , M. C., Bale , S. D., et al. 2016, , 204, 7

    2016

  19. [27]

    Freeland , S. L. & Handy , B. N. 1998, , 182, 497

    1998

  20. [28]

    B., Kistler, L

    Galvin, A. B., Kistler, L. M., Popecki, M. A., et al. 2008, , 136, 437

    2008

  21. [29]

    & Ganushkina , N

    Gedalin , M. & Ganushkina , N. 2022, Journal of Plasma Physics, 88, 905880301

    2022

  22. [30]

    V., & Roytershteyn, V

    Gedalin, M., Golan, M., Pogorelov, N. V., & Roytershteyn, V. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 21

    2022

  23. [31]

    Golub, G. H. & Van Loan, C. F. 2013, Matrix computations (JHU press)

    2013

  24. [32]

    2015, , 799, 55

    G \'o mez-Herrero , R., Dresing , N., Klassen , A., et al. 2015, , 799, 55

    2015

  25. [33]

    2021, , 656, L3

    G \'o mez-Herrero , R., Pacheco , D., Kollhoff , A., et al. 2021, , 656, L3

    2021

  26. [34]

    2021, Space Science Reviews, 217, 52

    Heyner, D., Auster, H.-U., Forna c on, K.-H., et al. 2021, Space Science Reviews, 217, 52

    2021

  27. [35]

    S., Godinez , H

    Hickmann , K. S., Godinez , H. C., Henney , C. J., & Arge , C. N. 2015, , 290, 1105

    2015

  28. [36]

    E., Mitchell , D

    Hill , M. E., Mitchell , D. G., Andrews , G. B., et al. 2017, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 122, 1513

    2017

  29. [37]

    S., O'Brien , H., Carrasco Blazquez , I., et al

    Horbury , T. S., O'Brien , H., Carrasco Blazquez , I., et al. 2020, , 642, A9

    2020

  30. [38]

    A., Moses, J

    Howard, R. A., Moses, J. D., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2008, , 136, 67

    2008

  31. [39]

    Howard, T. A. & Pizzo, V. J. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 824, 92

    2016

  32. [40]

    2020, Space Science Reviews, 216

    Huovelin, J., Vainio, R., Kilpua, E., et al. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216

    2020

  33. [41]

    2005, , 438, 705

    Ippolito , A., Pommois , P., Zimbardo , G., & Veltri , P. 2005, , 438, 705

    2005

  34. [42]

    M., Lin , R

    Jakosky , B. M., Lin , R. P., Grebowsky , J. M., et al. 2015, , 195, 3

    2015

  35. [43]

    C., Agapitov , O., Krasnoselskikh , V., et al

    Jebaraj , I. C., Agapitov , O., Krasnoselskikh , V., et al. 2024 a , , 968, L8

    2024

  36. [44]

    C., Agapitov , O

    Jebaraj , I. C., Agapitov , O. V., Gedalin , M., et al. 2024 b , , 976, L7

    2024

  37. [45]

    C., Dresing , N., Krasnoselskikh , V., et al

    Jebaraj , I. C., Dresing , N., Krasnoselskikh , V., et al. 2023 a , , 680, L7

    2023

  38. [46]

    C., Kouloumvakos , A., Dresing , N., et al

    Jebaraj , I. C., Kouloumvakos , A., Dresing , N., et al. 2023 b , , 675, A27

    2023

  39. [47]

    L., Kucera , T

    Kaiser , M. L., Kucera , T. A., Davila , J. M., et al. 2008, , 136, 5

    2008

  40. [48]

    C., Abiad , R., Austin , G., et al

    Kasper , J. C., Abiad , R., Austin , G., et al. 2016, , 204, 131

    2016

  41. [49]

    Kennel , C. F. 1988, , 93, 8545

    1988

  42. [50]

    Y., S \'a nchez-Cano , B., Lee , C

    Khoo , L. Y., S \'a nchez-Cano , B., Lee , C. O., et al. 2024, , 963, 107

    2024

  43. [51]

    2016, , 593, A31

    Klassen , A., Dresing , N., G \'o mez-Herrero , R., Heber , B., & M \"u ller-Mellin , R. 2016, , 593, A31

    2016

  44. [52]

    2008, , 486, 589

    Klein, K.-L., Krucker, S., Lointier, G., & Kerdraon, A. 2008, , 486, 589

    2008

  45. [53]

    2022, , 663, A173

    Klein , K.-L., Musset , S., Vilmer , N., et al. 2022, , 663, A173

    2022

  46. [54]

    2024, , 690, A382

    Klein , K.-L., Salas Matamoros , C., Hamini , A., & Kollhoff , A. 2024, , 690, A382

    2024

  47. [55]

    2021, , 656, A20

    Kollhoff , A., Kouloumvakos , A., Lario , D., et al. 2021, , 656, A20

    2021

  48. [56]

    Y., Rodr \' guez-Garc \' a , L., et al

    Kouloumvakos , A., Kwon , R. Y., Rodr \' guez-Garc \' a , L., et al. 2022, , 660, A84

    2022

  49. [57]

    Kouloumvakos , A., Papaioannou , A., Waterfall , C. O. G., et al. 2024, , 682, A106

    2024

  50. [58]

    Kouloumvakos , A., Vainio , R., Gieseler , J., & Price , D. J. 2023, , 669, A58

    2023

  51. [59]

    J., Grimm , O., et al

    Krucker , S., Hurford , G. J., Grimm , O., et al. 2020, , 642, A15

    2020

  52. [60]

    Laitinen , T., Kopp , A., Effenberger , F., Dalla , S., & Marsh , M. S. 2016, , 591, A18

    2016

  53. [61]

    2013, , 767, 41

    Lario, D., Aran, A., G \'o mez-Herrero, R., et al. 2013, , 767, 41

    2013

  54. [62]

    2016, , 819, 72

    Lario , D., Kwon , R.-Y., Vourlidas , A., et al. 2016, , 819, 72

    2016

  55. [63]

    E., Kwon , R.-Y., et al

    Lario , D., Raouafi , N. E., Kwon , R.-Y., et al. 2014, , 797, 8

    2014

  56. [64]

    Y., et al

    Lario , D., Wijsen , N., Kwon , R. Y., et al. 2022, , 934, 55

    2022

  57. [65]

    E., Lillis , R

    Larson , D. E., Lillis , R. J., Lee , C. O., et al. 2015, , 195, 153

    2015

  58. [66]

    O., Dunn , P., & Ehresmann , B

    Lee , C. O., Dunn , P., & Ehresmann , B. 2023, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2023, P43H--3366

    2023

  59. [67]

    O., Jakosky , B

    Lee , C. O., Jakosky , B. M., Luhmann , J. G., et al. 2018, , 45, 8871

    2018

  60. [68]

    R., Title , A

    Lemen , J. R., Title , A. M., Akin , D. J., et al. 2012, , 275, 17

    2012

  61. [69]

    P., Ac \ u na , M

    Lepping , R. P., Ac \ u na , M. H., Burlaga , L. F., et al. 1995, , 71, 207

    1995

  62. [70]

    P., Anderson , K

    Lin , R. P., Anderson , K. A., Ashford , S., et al. 1995, , 71, 125

    1995

  63. [71]

    Liu , R., Alexander , D., & Gilbert , H. R. 2009, , 691, 1079

    2009

  64. [72]

    D., Hu , H., Zhu , B., Luhmann , J

    Liu , Y. D., Hu , H., Zhu , B., Luhmann , J. G., & Vourlidas , A. 2017, , 834, 158

    2017

  65. [73]

    E., Kasper , J

    Livi , R., Larson , D. E., Kasper , J. C., et al. 2022, , 938, 138

    2022

  66. [74]

    G., Curtis , D

    Luhmann , J. G., Curtis , D. W., Schroeder , P., et al. 2008, , 136, 117

    2008

  67. [75]

    J., Palmerio , E., DeVore , C

    Lynch , B. J., Palmerio , E., DeVore , C. R., et al. 2021, , 914, 39

    2021

  68. [76]

    K., & DeVore , C

    Masson , S., Antiochos , S. K., & DeVore , C. R. 2013, , 771, 82

    2013

  69. [77]

    E., Mason, G

    Mazur, J. E., Mason, G. M., Dwyer, J. R., et al. 2000, , 532, L79

    2000

  70. [78]

    J., Alexander , N., Angold , N., et al

    McComas , D. J., Alexander , N., Angold , N., et al. 2016, , 204, 187

    2016

  71. [79]

    2014, , accepted

    Miteva , R., Klein , K.-L., Kienreich , I., et al. 2014, , accepted

    2014

  72. [80]

    2017, , 606, A10

    M \"u ller , D., Nicula , B., Felix , S., et al. 2017, , 606, A10

    2017

  73. [81]

    M \"u ller , D., St. Cyr , O. C., Zouganelis , I., et al. 2020, , 642, A1

    2020

  74. [82]

    u ller-Mellin , R., Gomez-Herrero , R., B \

    M \"u ller-Mellin , R., Gomez-Herrero , R., B \"o ttcher , S., et al. 2008, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 1, 371

    2008

  75. [83]

    1995, , 162, 483

    M\" u ller-Mellin, R., Kunow, H., Fleissner, V., et al. 1995, , 162, 483

    1995

  76. [84]

    Norsham , N. A. M. & Sharizat Hamidi , Z. 2019, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1411, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012011

    2019

  77. [85]

    W., Chornay , D

    Ogilvie , K. W., Chornay , D. J., Fritzenreiter , R. J., et al. 1995, , 71, 55

    1995

  78. [86]

    Ogilvie , K. W. & Desch , M. D. 1997, Advances in Space Research, 20, 559

    1997

  79. [87]

    J., Bruno , R., Livi , S., et al

    Owen , C. J., Bruno , R., Livi , S., et al. 2020, , 642, A16

    2020

  80. [88]

    Y., et al

    Palmerio , E., Carcaboso , F., Khoo , L. Y., et al. 2024, , 963, 108

    2024

  81. [89]

    Palmerio , E., Kilpua , E. K. J., Witasse , O., et al. 2021, Space Weather, 19, e2020SW002654

    2021

  82. [90]

    P., & Vainio , R

    Palmroos , C., Dresing , N., Gieseler , J., Guti\'errez , C. P., & Vainio , R. 2024, A&A, under revision

    2024

  83. [91]

    & Schwartz , S

    Paschmann , G. & Schwartz , S. J. 2000, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 449, Cluster-II Workshop Multiscale / Multipoint Plasma Measurements, ed. R. A. Harris , 99

    2000

  84. [92]

    D., Thompson , B

    Pesnell , W. D., Thompson , B. J., & Chamberlin , P. C. 2012, , 275, 3

    2012

  85. [93]

    & Poedts , S

    Pomoell , J. & Poedts , S. 2018, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 8, A35

    2018

  86. [94]

    J., Harra , L

    Prise , A. J., Harra , L. K., Matthews , S. A., Long , D. M., & Aylward , A. D. 2014, , 289, 1731

    2014

  87. [95]

    D., Bonnell , J

    Pulupa , M., Bale , S. D., Bonnell , J. W., et al. 2017, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., 122, 2836

    2017

  88. [96]

    D., Jebaraj , I

    Pulupa , M., Bale , S. D., Jebaraj , I. C., Romeo , O., & Krucker , S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05464

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    G., von Rosenvinge , T

    Richardson , I. G., von Rosenvinge , T. T., Cane , H. V., et al. 2014, , 289, 3059

    2014

  90. [98]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04564

    Rodr \' guez-Garc \' a , L., G \'o mez-Herrero , R., Dresing , N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04564

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    2021, , 653, A137

    Rodr \' guez-Garc \' a , L., G \'o mez-Herrero , R., Zouganelis , I., et al. 2021, , 653, A137

    2021

  92. [100]

    , G\'omez-Herrero, R

    Rodr\' guez-Garc\' a , L., Nieves-Chinchilla, T. , G\'omez-Herrero, R. , et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A45

    2022

  93. [101]

    F., Mason , G

    Rodr \' guez-Pacheco , J., Wimmer-Schweingruber , R. F., Mason , G. M., et al. 2020, , 642, A7

    2020

  94. [102]

    T., Luhmann, J

    Russell, C. T., Luhmann, J. G., & Strangeway, R. J. 2016, Space physics: An introduction (Cambridge University Press)

    2016

  95. [103]

    H., Wilcox , J

    Schatten , K. H., Wilcox , J. M., & Ness , N. F. 1969, , 6, 442

    1969

  96. [104]

    Sedov, L. I. 1946, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 10, 241

    1946

  97. [105]

    Sonnerup , B. U. \"O . & Scheible , M. 1998, ISSI Scientific Reports Series, 1, 185

    1998

  98. [106]

    Strauss , R. D. T., Dresing , N., & Engelbrecht , N. E. 2017, , 837, 43

    2017

  99. [107]

    2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 126, e28380

    Temmer , M., Holzknecht , L., Dumbovi \'c , M., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 126, e28380

    2021

  100. [108]

    2011, , 194, 33

    Thernisien , A. 2011, , 194, 33

    2011

  101. [109]

    Thernisien , A., Vourlidas , A., & Howard , R. A. 2009, , 256, 111

    2009

  102. [110]

    Thernisien , A. F. R., Howard , R. A., & Vourlidas , A. 2006, , 652, 763

    2006

  103. [111]

    1995, , 162, 505

    Torsti , J., Valtonen , E., Lumme , M., et al. 1995, , 162, 505

    1995

  104. [112]

    2019, , 627, A111

    Verbeke , C., Pomoell , J., & Poedts , S. 2019, , 627, A111

    2019

  105. [113]

    A., Bazilevskaya , G

    Vlasova , N. A., Bazilevskaya , G. A., Ginzburg , E. A., et al. 2024, Cosmic Research, 62, 197

    2024

  106. [114]

    T., Reames , D

    von Rosenvinge , T. T., Reames , D. V., Baker , R., et al. 2008, , 136, 391

    2008

  107. [115]

    Wang , Y. M. & Sheeley , N. R., J. 1992, , 392, 310

    1992

  108. [116]

    L., Larson , D

    Whittlesey , P. L., Larson , D. E., Kasper , J. C., et al. 2020, , 246, 74

    2020

  109. [117]

    E., Angold , N

    Wiedenbeck , M. E., Angold , N. G., Birdwell , B., et al. 2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 301, 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017), 16

    2017

  110. [118]

    2019, , 624, A47

    Wijsen , N., Aran , A., Pomoell , J., & Poedts , S. 2019, , 624, A47

    2019

  111. [119]

    2025, , submitted

    Wijsen , N., Jebaraj , I., Dresing , N., et al. 2025, , submitted

    2025

  112. [120]

    2023, , 950, 172

    Wijsen , N., Lario , D., S \'a nchez-Cano , B., et al. 2023, , 950, 172

    2023

  113. [121]

    F., Berger , L., Kollhoff , A., et al

    Wimmer-Schweingruber , R. F., Berger , L., Kollhoff , A., et al. 2023, , 678, A98

    2023

  114. [122]

    2004, in Proceedings of SPIE, Vol

    Wuelser, J.-P. 2004, in Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 5171 (SPIE), 111--122

    2004

  115. [123]

    2023, A&A, 673, A142

    Xiao , H., Maloney, Shane , Krucker, S\"am , et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A142

    2023

  116. [124]

    Xie , H., St. Cyr , O. C., M \"a kel \"a , P., & Gopalswamy , N. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 6384

    2019

  117. [125]

    2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A07105

    Yashiro , S., Gopalswamy , N., Michalek , G., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A07105

    2004

  118. [126]

    D., Kwon , R.-Y., & Wang , R

    Zhu , B., Liu , Y. D., Kwon , R.-Y., & Wang , R. 2018, , 865, 138

    2018

  119. [127]

    2024, , 963, 119

    Zhuang , B., Lugaz , N., Lario , D., et al. 2024, , 963, 119

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.