Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 32 references

How the Shortest and Longest HILDCAAs Shaped Earth Outer Radiation Belt During the Van Allen Probes Era?

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Comparing the shortest and longest HILDCAA events observed by the Van Allen Probes, this paper argues that event duration, not just intensity, controls how far outer-belt electrons are accelerated, with the longer event sustaining higher…

desk verdict A data-rich two-event case study whose central duration claim outruns its evidence; the paper is worth engaging as a hypothesis-generating report if the causal language is pulled back. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16598 v1 pith:5MDJMCGA submitted 2025-05-16 physics.space-ph

Ayushi Nema , Ankush Bhaskar , Kamlesh N. Pathak , Abhirup Datta This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-ph
keywords HILDCAAouterradiationbeltrelativisticelectronsVanAllenProbesULFwaveschorusphasespacedensityweather
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

This paper tries to establish that the duration of a HILDCAA—an interval of high-intensity, long-duration continuous auroral electrojet activity driven by high-speed solar wind streams—is what determines how strongly Earth's outer radiation belt responds. Using the shortest HILDCAA of the Van Allen Probes era (December 10–12, 2015) and the longest (August 17–21, 2017), it argues that both events enhance relativistic electron fluxes, but the longer event sustains the enhancement longer, carries electrons to higher energies (up to about 6 MeV), and is accompanied by markedly stronger ULF wave power. If the claim holds, space weather models that ignore event duration will misjudge how long multi-MeV electron populations persist in the outer belt and how much risk they pose to satellites.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the duration of exposure, because a HILDCAA keeps the outer belt under elevated auroral electrojet, ULF, and chorus wave activity for days, and a longer exposure gives wave-particle interactions more time to energize electrons. The authors compare the two extreme events with REPT and MagEIS electron flux measurements (energy-resolved and by pitch angle and L-shell), phase space density expressed as a function of the adiabatic invariants $\mu$, $K$, and $L^*$ using the T04 storm-time magnetic field model, and EMFISIS wave spectra, with ULF power isolated by a band-pass filter. The telling contrast is the ULF power level: about $-16$ to $-24~\mathrm{nT}^2/\mathrm{Hz}$ for the short event versus about $-8$ to $-15~\mathrm{nT}^2/\mathrm{Hz}$ for the long event, alongside chorus activity in both events and higher-energy, longer-lasting electron enhancements in the long one.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to compile the full HILDCAA catalog for the Van Allen Probes era and compare many events matched in solar wind pressure and geomagnetic activity but differing in duration. If a short event shows the same sustained, multi-MeV enhancement and high ULF power seen in the long 2017 event, or if a comparably long event shows only a transient weak response, then duration is not the controlling factor and the paper's central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a duration-controlled pattern in outer radiation belt electron dynamics. Both the shortest and the longest HILDCAA events elevated electron flux across multiple energy channels, yet the shortest event produced rapid, transient increases that faded after the event ended, while the longest produced sudden, larger, and sustained enhancements, with REPT seeing flux increases up to roughly 6 MeV in the long event compared with about 5.2 MeV in the short one. Pitch-angle distributions show preferential enhancement for trapped particles near $90^\circ$ in both cases, but the longer event pushed that enhancement to higher energies and showed a delay between low- and high-energy flux increases. Phase space density radial profiles develop peaks near $L^*\sim 4.5$–5.0 with negative outward gradients, indicating local acceleration, and the peaks are higher in the longer event. The authors conclude that the duration of HILDCAA events is a critical factor shaping the outer radiation belt, with sustained ULF and chorus wave activity during long events enabling cumulative electron acceleration to higher energies.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the observed differences between the two events are caused by their different durations rather than by other interplanetary or magnetospheric conditions—such as solar wind dynamic pressure, geomagnetic activity level, plasmapause location, or the pre-existing state of the radiation belt—or by differences in how the spacecraft sampled the belts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Space weather models should include HILDCAA duration as an explicit input, because the longer event produced higher-energy electrons and sustained flux while the shorter event's enhancement faded quickly.
  • Geostationary and outer-belt satellites at $L=4$–6 should be treated as at elevated risk during long-duration HILDCAA events, where flux enhancements reached roughly 6 MeV.
  • The delayed high-energy response relative to low-energy electrons points to a two-step acceleration chain, and radiation belt models should reproduce that delay rather than assuming instant acceleration.
  • ULF wave power in the 1–10 mHz band is a useful observational proxy: the long event's higher power coincided with its stronger electron acceleration, so monitoring ULF power could improve nowcasts of belt response during HILDCAAs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two-event comparison does not separate duration from intensity or prior belt state; a multi-event superposed-epoch or matched-pair study would be the direct way to test whether duration alone, not solar wind dynamic pressure or activity level, is the controlling variable.
  • If the duration dependence is real, HILDCAA statistics imply a dose-response law: peak electron energy should scale with the time-integrated ULF and chorus power, not just event length, and this could be quantified by re-processing existing Van Allen Probes data.
  • The mechanism suggests an operational test for forecasters: a HILDCAA that keeps AE above 200 nT for several days and sustains ULF power in the 1–10 mHz band should be followed by higher-energy electron enhancements, so real-time ULF monitoring could serve as a proxy for radiation belt state.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compares one short-duration HILDCAA event (December 10-12, 2015) with one long-duration HILDCAA event (August 17-21, 2017) using Van Allen Probes REPT, MagEIS, and EMFISIS data together with OMNI solar wind and geomagnetic indices. It reports that both events enhance outer radiation belt electron fluxes, but the longest event produces higher-energy, longer-lasting enhancements, elevated ULF wave power, and stronger chorus wave activity. From these two cases, the paper concludes that HILDCAA event duration plays a critical role in shaping radiation belt dynamics and should be incorporated into space weather models.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide practically useful guidance for space weather forecasting by linking event duration to radiation belt response, and it would complement prior superposed-epoch studies of HILDCAA events (e.g., Hajra et al., 2024). The manuscript has clear strengths: it uses public, high-quality NASA data; it analyzes phase space density in adiabatic invariants; and it documents a detailed multi-instrument comparison of two extreme events. However, the significance is currently limited because the central causal claim rests on a two-event comparison with no quantitative control for solar wind drivers, geomagnetic conditions, prior belt state, or statistical uncertainty.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The paper asserts without supporting evidence that the two selected events are the shortest and longest HILDCAA events of the Van Allen Probes era. No HILDCAA catalog, event list, or duration distribution is presented, so this selection claim cannot be verified; if these are not actually the extremes, the title and the central conclusion rest on an unestablished premise. Please provide the full event catalog with durations and justify the extreme selection, or revise the claim.
  2. [Sections 3.1-3.10] With only two events, the observed differences in electron flux, PSD peaks, and ULF/chorus power cannot be uniquely attributed to event duration. The two events differ in solar wind speed, dynamic pressure, IMF Bz variability, geomagnetic activity level, season, orbital sampling, and pre-event radiation belt state. Section 3.10 explicitly acknowledges that the ULF differences 'may reflect distinct driving mechanisms or magnetospheric conditions, such as changes in solar wind dynamic pressure, varying geomagnetic activity levels, or the location of the plasmapause,' yet the discussion still assigns duration a 'critical role.' To support the causal claim, the authors should either compare a larger sample of HILDCAA events stratified by duration or apply statistical controls (e.g., matching or regression on driver strength); at minimum, a quantitative comparison across multiple events is needed.
  3. [Section 3.10] The ULF wave comparison is qualitative. The claim of a 'clear correlation between elevated ULF wave power and enhanced electron acceleration' is based on visual inspection of two spectrograms, with no integrated wave power values, uncertainty estimates, or statistical significance test. Please quantify the ULF wave power for each event (e.g., band-integrated power as a function of L-shell and time) and test whether the difference between events is statistically significant.
  4. [Section 3.7 and Section 4] The statement that higher post-onset PSD in the long event is 'due to sustained ULF/VLF wave-driven radial diffusion for a longer time' is an unsupported mechanistic attribution. No radial diffusion coefficients, diffusion simulations, or quantitative wave-particle interaction calculations are provided; the observed PSD differences are equally consistent with differences in source population, injection history, or transport. Either remove this causal attribution or support it with a quantitative analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'electrom flux' should be 'electron flux.'
  2. [Figure 7 caption] The caption appears to have been copied from the short-event panel: it lists December 2015 dates for both panels, but panel (b) should refer to August 2017 dates for the long event.
  3. [Section 3.7] The text describing the PSD color coding is internally inconsistent: it first says red lines represent post-onset, but later states 'This peak increases for post-onset (green line).' Please correct the color-code description.
  4. [Figure 9 caption] The caption refers to '0.5fce and 0.1fce' as harmonics; these are fractions of the electron cyclotron frequency, not harmonics. The text also says 'near 0.1fce band,' which should be stated consistently.
  5. [Sections 3.3-3.4] The manuscript repeatedly calls sub-MeV electrons measured by MagEIS (up to 909 keV) 'relativistic electrons'; this terminology is loose and should be qualified.
  6. [Section 3.8] The spectral analysis reports alpha values with uncertainties but does not test whether the before/after changes differ significantly between the two events; adding a formal comparison would strengthen the interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-event comparison is observational, with duration selected as the independent variable and radiation-belt responses measured from independent public datasets; no fitted quantity is later renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational rather than constructive: the two HILDCAA events were selected by duration extremes (Section 3.1), while the response variables (REPT and MagEIS electron fluxes, pitch-angle distributions, phase space densities, ULF/chorus wave power) are measured from independent NASA Van Allen Probes and OMNI data. No model parameter is fitted to a subset of the radiation-belt data and then used to predict the same data; the comparisons are direct empirical contrasts between two events. The claim that duration plays a critical role is an interpretive attribution, not a quantity derived by construction from the definition of duration. The statement that longer events permit sustained ULF/VLF wave-driven radial diffusion for a longer time is a physical interpretation of a longer exposure interval, but the paper does not reduce the observed flux enhancements to the duration definition by an equation; it reports independent spectral, pitch-angle, and PSD evidence. Citations to prior work (Hajra et al. 2024, Da Silva et al. 2019, Nema et al. 2024) are used as background and context, and the central comparison does not rest on an unverified self-citation chain. The absence of a published HILDCAA catalog supporting the shortest/longest designation, and the uncontrolled differences in solar-wind drivers and pre-event belt state, are evidentiary or confounding concerns, not circularity. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities are introduced. The analysis uses public NASA data and standard radiation belt physics. The only fitted quantities are descriptive power-law spectral slopes, which are not used to predict anything outside the data. The main unexamined assumption is that the two selected events differ only in duration.

free parameters (1)
  • spectral index alpha (power-law slope of differential electron flux vs energy) = Shortest event: -5.29 +/- 0.23 to -5.47 +/- 0.38 from REPT; -1.73 +/- 0.05 to -2.18 +/- 0.12 from MagEIS.
    Obtained by linear regression of log(mean flux) against log(energy) in Section 3.8; the change in alpha across event phases is presented as evidence of spectral steepening, though the REPT uncertainties overlap and no significance test is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption HILDCAA definition criteria of Tsurutani and Gonzalez (1987): peak AE >= 1000 nT, duration at least 2 days, AE not below 200 nT for more than 2 hours, and occurrence outside storm main phase.
    Used in Section 3.1 to select and confirm the two events; the criteria are widely used in the literature, but the selection of the specific shortest and longest events is not shown.
  • domain assumption Tsyganenko 04 storm-time magnetic field model accurately represents the field for computing L* and adiabatic invariants.
    Used in Section 3.7 to convert measured fluxes to phase space density at fixed mu and K; model errors propagate into the reported PSD profiles.
  • domain assumption RBSP-A observations alone are representative of the radiation belt environment because both Van Allen Probes see a similar environment on long timescales.
    Stated in Section 2 as justification for using only RBSP-A data; if false, single-spacecraft sampling could alias spatial gradients into temporal trends.
  • standard math Electron fluxes follow a power law in energy over the fitted intervals.
    Implicit in the linear fits of log(flux) vs log(energy) used to derive the spectral index alpha in Section 3.8.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How the Shortest and Longest HILDCAAs Shaped Earth Outer Radiation Belt During the Van Allen Probes Era?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MDJMCGA

@misc{pith2026250516598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How the Shortest and Longest HILDCAAs Shaped Earth Outer Radiation Belt During the Van Allen Probes Era?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MDJMCGA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16598}
}
read the original abstract

High-intensity long-duration continuous auroral electrojet (AE) activity (HILDCAA) events are associated with the enhancement of relativistic electron fluxes in the inner magnetosphere. The physical mechanisms underlying this enhancement are not well established yet. In this study, we analyze two contrasting HILDCAA events, one representing the shortest and the other the longest duration, using NASA Van Allen Probes observations, which have provided unprecedented, unique in-situ observations of the harsh radiation environment around the Earth. Detailed spectral and temporal analyses reveal that while both events trigger enhancements in electron flux across multiple energy channels, the shortest event is characterized by rapid, transient increases in energy levels. In contrast, the longest event produced sudden and markedly higher flux variation. The long duration event showed an acceleration of electrons to higher energy as compared to the shorter one. Moreover, a clear correlation between elevated ULF wave power for the longest event compared to the shortest is observed, apart from chorus waves responsible for relativistic electron acceleration. These findings underscore the importance of considering the duration of events in space weather models and assessment and provide valuable insights into the magnetospheric processes that modulate the variability of the radiation belt during HILDCAA conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16598 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interplanetary and geomagnetic parameters for shortest and longest HILDCAA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variation of relativistic electrom flux for different energies using REPT and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time evolution of pitch angle distribution of relativistic electron flux of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pitch angle dependence of electron flux variation of the two events(shortest (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fluxes of relativistic electrons observed by REPT with energies of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fluxes of relativistic electrons using MagEIS with energies of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time evolution of phase space density radial profiles at fixed first ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectral analysis of two HILDCAA events using REPT (top two) and MagEIS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: HFR and WFR spectral analysis for two HILDCAA analyses. The 2 vertical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ULF wave analysis of the two HILDCAA events. The two plots derived from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    APACrefauthors \ 1981

    akasofu1981relationships APACrefauthors Akasofu, S I. APACrefauthors \ 1981 . Relationships between the AE and Dst indices during geomagnetic storms Relationships between the ae and dst indices during geomagnetic storms . Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 86 A6 4820--4822

    work page 1981

  2. [2]

    , Kanekal, S

    baker2014relativistic APACrefauthors Baker, D N. , Kanekal, S. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2014 . The Relativistic Electron-Proton Telescope (REPT) instrument on board the Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP) spacecraft: Characterization of Earth’s radiation belt high-energy particle populations The relativistic electron-proton telescope (rept) instrument on board...

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    , Kanekal, S G

    baker2021relativistic APACrefauthors Baker, D N. , Kanekal, S G. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2021 . The relativistic electron-proton telescope (REPT) investigation: Design, operational properties, and science highlights The relativistic electron-proton telescope (rept) investigation: Design, operational properties, and science highlights . Space science reviews 217 5 68

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    , Carranza, P

    blake2014magnetic APACrefauthors Blake, J. , Carranza, P. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2014 . The magnetic electron ion spectrometer (MagEIS) instruments aboard the radiation belt storm probes (RBSP) spacecraft The magnetic electron ion spectrometer (mageis) instruments aboard the radiation belt storm probes (rbsp) spacecraft . The van allen probes mission 383--421

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    , O'Brien, T

    claudepierre2015background APACrefauthors Claudepierre, S. , O'Brien, T. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2015 . A background correction algorithm for Van Allen Probes MagEIS electron flux measurements A background correction algorithm for van allen probes mageis electron flux measurements . Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 120 7 5703--5727

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    , Sibeck, D

    da2019contribution APACrefauthors Da Silva, L A. , Sibeck, D. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2019 . Contribution of ULF wave activity to the global recovery of the outer radiation belt during the passage of a high-speed solar wind stream observed in September 2014 Contribution of ulf wave activity to the global recovery of the outer radiation belt during the passag...

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    \ Sugiura, M

    davis1966auroral APACrefauthors Davis, T N. \ Sugiura, M. APACrefauthors \ 1966 . Auroral electrojet activity index AE and its universal time variations Auroral electrojet activity index ae and its universal time variations . Journal of Geophysical Research 71 3 785--801

    work page 1966

  8. [8]

    , Claudepierre, S

    fennell2015van APACrefauthors Fennell, J. , Claudepierre, S. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2015 . Van Allen Probes show that the inner radiation zone contains no MeV electrons: ECT/MagEIS data Van allen probes show that the inner radiation zone contains no mev electrons: Ect/mageis data . Geophysical Research Letters 42 5 1283--1289

    work page 2015

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    , Joselyn, J A

    gonzalez1994geomagnetic APACrefauthors Gonzalez, W. , Joselyn, J A. \ . APACrefauthors \ 1994 . What is a geomagnetic storm? What is a geomagnetic storm? Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 99 A4 5771--5792

    1994

  2. [10]

    , Echer, E

    hajra2013solar APACrefauthors Hajra, R. , Echer, E. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2013 . Solar cycle dependence of High-Intensity Long-Duration Continuous AE Activity (HILDCAA) events, relativistic electron predictors? Solar cycle dependence of high-intensity long-duration continuous a...

    2013

  3. [11]

    , Tsurutani, B T

    hajra2014relativistic APACrefauthors Hajra, R. , Tsurutani, B T. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2014 . Relativistic electron acceleration during high-intensity, long-duration, continuous AE activity (HILDCAA) events: Solar cycle phase dependences Relativistic electron acceleration durin...

    2014

  4. [12]

    , Tsurutani, B T

    hajra2015relativistic APACrefauthors Hajra, R. , Tsurutani, B T. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2015 . Relativistic (E> 0.6,> 2.0, and> 4.0 MeV) electron acceleration at geosynchronous orbit during high-intensity, long-duration, continuous AE activity (HILDCAA) events Relativistic (e> 0...

    2015

  5. [13]

    , Tsurutani, B T

    hajra2024ultra APACrefauthors Hajra, R. , Tsurutani, B T. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Ultra-relativistic Electron Acceleration during High-intensity Long-duration Continuous Auroral Electrojet Activity Events Ultra-relativistic electron acceleration during high-intensity long-...

    2024

  6. [14]

    APACrefauthors \ 1992

    hapgood1992space APACrefauthors Hapgood, M. APACrefauthors \ 1992 . Space physics coordinate transformations: A user guide Space physics coordinate transformations: A user guide . Planetary and Space Science 40 5 711--717

    1992

  7. [15]

    , Meredith, N P

    iles2006phase APACrefauthors Iles, R H. , Meredith, N P. , Fazakerley, A N. \ Horne, R B. APACrefauthors \ 2006 . Phase space density analysis of the outer radiation belt energetic electron dynamics Phase space density analysis of the outer radiation belt energetic electron dy...

    2006

  8. [16]

    , Kurth, W

    kletzing2013electric APACrefauthors Kletzing, C. , Kurth, W. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2013 . The electric and magnetic field instrument suite and integrated science (EMFISIS) on RBSP The electric and magnetic field instrument suite and integrated science (emfisis) on rbsp . Space ...

    2013

  9. [17]

    \ Richmond, A D

    laundal2017magnetic APACrefauthors Laundal, K M. \ Richmond, A D. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . Magnetic coordinate systems Magnetic coordinate systems . Space Science Reviews 206 1 27--59

    2017

  10. [18]

    , Fox, N J

    mauk2014science APACrefauthors Mauk, B. , Fox, N J. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2014 . Science objectives and rationale for the radiation belt storm probes mission Science objectives and rationale for the radiation belt storm probes mission . The van Allen probes mission 3--27

    2014

  11. [19]

    , Henderson, M

    morley2013phase APACrefauthors Morley, S. , Henderson, M. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2013 . Phase space density matching of relativistic electrons using the Van Allen Probes: REPT results Phase space density matching of relativistic electrons using the van allen probes: Rept results...

    2013

  12. [20]

    , Bhaskar, A

    nema2024impact APACrefauthors Nema, A. , Bhaskar, A. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Impact of High Intensity Long-Duration Continuous Auroral Electrojet Activity (HILDCAAs) on relativistic electrons of the radiation belt of Earth during Van Allen probe era Impact of high intensit...

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    APACrefauthors \ 2012

    roederer2012dynamics APACrefauthors Roederer, J G. APACrefauthors \ 2012 . Dynamics of geomagnetically trapped radiation Dynamics of geomagnetically trapped radiation \ ( 2). Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  14. [22]

    APACrefauthors \ 1972

    rostoker1972geomagnetic APACrefauthors Rostoker, G. APACrefauthors \ 1972 . Geomagnetic indices Geomagnetic indices . Reviews of Geophysics 10 4 935--950

    1972

  15. [23]

    , Angelopoulos, V

    runov2025themis APACrefauthors Runov, A. , Angelopoulos, V. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2025 . THEMIS observations of relativistic electrons at the nightside transition region during HILDCAA events Themis observations of relativistic electrons at the nightside transition region durin...

    2025

  16. [24]

    APACrefauthors \ 1971

    russell1971geophysical APACrefauthors Russell, C T. APACrefauthors \ 1971 . Geophysical coordinate transformations Geophysical coordinate transformations . Cosmic electrodynamics 2 2 184--196

    1971

  17. [25]

    , McPherron, R L

    russell1974cause APACrefauthors Russell, C T. , McPherron, R L. \ . APACrefauthors \ 1974 . On the cause of geomagnetic storms On the cause of geomagnetic storms . Journal of Geophysical Research 79 7 1105--1109

    1974

  18. [26]

    schiller2017simultaneous APACrefauthors Schiller, Q. , Tu, W. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2017 . Simultaneous event-specific estimates of transport, loss, and source rates for relativistic outer radiation belt electrons Simultaneous event-specific estimates of transport, loss, and so...

    2017

  19. [27]

    \ Lanzerotti, L J

    schulz2012particle APACrefauthors Schulz, M. \ Lanzerotti, L J. APACrefauthors \ 2012 . Particle diffusion in the radiation belts Particle diffusion in the radiation belts \ ( 7). Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  20. [28]

    , Bortnik, J

    thorne2021wave APACrefauthors Thorne, R M. , Bortnik, J. , Li, W. \ Ma, Q. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Wave--particle interactions in the Earth's magnetosphere Wave--particle interactions in the earth's magnetosphere . Magnetospheres in the solar system 93--108

    2021

  21. [29]

    \ Gonzalez, W D

    tsurutani1987cause APACrefauthors Tsurutani, B T. \ Gonzalez, W D. APACrefauthors \ 1987 . The cause of high-intensity long-duration continuous AE activity (HILDCAAs): Interplanetary Alfv \'e n wave trains The cause of high-intensity long-duration continuous ae activity (hildc...

    1987

  22. [30]

    , Gonzalez, W D

    tsurutani2004high APACrefauthors Tsurutani, B T. , Gonzalez, W D. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2004 . Are high-intensity long-duration continuous AE activity (HILDCAA) events substorm expansion events? Are high-intensity long-duration continuous ae activity (hildcaa) events substorm e...

    2004

  23. [31]

    \ Lakhina, G S

    tsurutani1997some APACrefauthors Tsurutani, B T. \ Lakhina, G S. APACrefauthors \ 1997 . Some basic concepts of wave-particle interactions in collisionless plasmas Some basic concepts of wave-particle interactions in collisionless plasmas . Reviews of Geophysics 35 4 491--501

    1997

  24. [32]

    \ Sitnov, M

    tsyganenko2005modeling APACrefauthors Tsyganenko, N. \ Sitnov, M. APACrefauthors \ 2005 . Modeling the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere during strong geomagnetic storms Modeling the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere during strong geomagnetic storms . Journal of Geophysica...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.