Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Comparing observations of the closely located JUICE and STEREO-A spacecraft during the widespread solar energetic particle event of 2024 May 13

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read During a lucky close encounter between JUICE and STEREO-A, the radiation monitor aboard the Jupiter-bound spacecraft measured solar energetic proton fluxes matching STEREO-A within 25 percent, with intercalibration factors near unity.

desk verdict First credible cross-calibration of JUICE/RADEM against STEREO-A, with four plausible but uncertainty-free intercalibration factors; the 31.2 MeV channel and the assumed reservoir isotropy are the soft spots. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05978 v1 pith:QT2SILJO submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph

L. Rodríguez-García , E. Palmerio , M. Pinto , N. Dresing , C. M. S. Cohen , R. Gómez-Herrero , J. Gieseler , F. Santos
show 6 more authors
F. Espinosa Lara I. Cernuda M. Mewes C. Vallat O. Witasse N. Altobelli
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph
keywords solarenergeticparticlesJUICERADEMSTEREO-Aintercalibrationprotonenergyspectrumbow-tiemethodreservoireffect
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

The paper tries to establish that the RADEM radiation monitor aboard JUICE can serve as a heliospheric solar energetic particle (SEP) observatory during the spacecraft's cruise to Jupiter. Taking advantage of a lucky alignment in which JUICE and STEREO-A were separated by only $0.13$ au in radius, $0.3^\circ$ in latitude, and $1.6^\circ$ in longitude, the authors compare proton fluxes from the large 2024 May 13 SEP event during an isotropic decay-phase window. They report that RADEM differential fluxes at effective energies of $6.9$, $13.3$, $21.6$, and $31.2$ MeV agree with STEREO-A to better than $25\%$, with intercalibration factors of $1.02$, $1.23$, $1.12$, and $0.95$. If correct, this turns a planetary radiation monitor, which otherwise lacks energy-discriminating directional proton measurements, into a calibrated multi-point heliospheric particle telescope for the cruise phase.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is RADEM's Proton Detector Head operating in single-coincidence mode, where each silicon sensor acts as an integral counter with a threshold energy. The authors build four differential channels by subtracting combinations of bins, and the bow-tie method uses simulated channel response functions to find the effective energy and geometric factor $G\,dE$ at which the channel response is least sensitive to the assumed power-law spectral index. On the comparison side, the machinery is a broken power-law fit to the STEREO-A spectrum obtained with orthogonal distance regression, evaluated over an isotropy window selected using first- and second-order anisotropy from Wind and STEREO-A pitch-angle distributions; the reservoir effect justifies using that fit at JUICE without radial scaling.

What would settle it

Recompute the STA/JUICE intercalibration factors using a different isotropic window during the same decay phase, for instance the 2024 May 15 18:00–May 16 02:00 interval that was excluded because the STEREO-A pitch-angle coverage changed; the authors note that altering the accumulated-spectrum window shifts the broken-power-law break energy and can change the $31.2$ MeV factor, so factors that move by more than the quoted uncertainties would show the calibration is window-dependent. A cleaner test is a second conjunction event with a differently located calibrated spacecraft, which would distinguish instrumental offsets from environmental gradients.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that RADEM's integral proton channels, combined linearly and calibrated with a bow-tie method, reproduce the differential proton spectrum measured by STEREO-A during the isotropic interval 2024 May 15 12:00–18:00 UT. The authors treat the STEREO-A broken-power-law fit as the reference particle environment at both locations and compute the STA/JUICE intercalibration factors $1.02$, $1.23$, $1.12$, and $0.95$ at the four effective energies. They therefore conclude that RADEM data collected before 2024 July 10 can be converted to differential SEP proton fluxes, making JUICE a valid heliospheric particle observatory between $0.65$ and $5.2$ au.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that during 2024 May 15 12:00–18:00 UT the proton spectrum at JUICE, $0.13$ au farther out and without its own magnetometer or pitch-angle data, was identical to the spectrum measured by STEREO-A, so that any difference between the two instruments is purely instrumental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • RADEM cruise data from 2023 September to 2024 July 10 can be converted into differential SEP proton fluxes at roughly $6.9$–$31.2$ MeV, with deviations from STEREO-A under $25\%$.
  • JUICE becomes a third inner-heliosphere vantage point alongside near-Earth spacecraft and STEREO-A for studying how SEP events spread in longitude and radius.
  • The near-unity intercalibration factors give a direct check on RADEM's geometric calibration for its pre-July-2024 configuration.
  • The same isotropic-window comparison can be repeated for other SEP events with different spectral shapes to test how robust the factors are.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit corollary is that this comparison cannot separate a small instrumental offset from a small real spectral difference at JUICE, since the two spacecraft were only $1.6^\circ$ apart in longitude; a future event observed by JUICE alongside another well-calibrated platform at a larger separation would test how much of the $<25\%$ deviation is environmental.
  • The method generalises to other planetary missions carrying radiation monitors without full directional or energy information: any such monitor can be cross-calibrated during a close conjunction with a well-instrumented heliophysics spacecraft, provided an isotropy window can be identified.
  • The spectral-index dependence of the channel response suggests that applying these factors to events with much harder or softer proton spectra could introduce errors larger than the $25\%$ quoted here, and the authors' own fit uncertainty in the high-energy index already hints at this.
  • If the calibration is confirmed on more events, a fleet of planetary cruise-phase monitors could extend the sparse network of SEP observers to heliocentric distances beyond 2 au, where direct radiation and solar-wind measurements are scarce.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the widespread solar energetic particle (SEP) event of 2024 May 13 using observations from JUICE/RADEM, STEREO-A, and near-Earth spacecraft, exploiting the unusually close alignment of JUICE and STEREO-A (0.13 au radial, 0.3 deg latitude, 1.6 deg longitude). The authors characterize the interplanetary context, use Wind and STEREO-A pitch-angle distributions to identify an isotropic decay-phase interval (2024 May 15, 12:00-18:00 UT), fit the STEREO-A LET+HET spectrum with a broken power law, and compare that reference spectrum with SOHO/ERNE and with JUICE/RADEM proton channels reconstructed via a GEANT4-based bow-tie method. The central result is a set of STEREO-A/JUICE intercalibration factors of 1.02, 1.23, 1.12, and 0.95 at effective energies 6.9, 13.3, 21.6, and 31.2 MeV, with the claim that the fluxes agree to better than 25%. The authors explicitly restrict the validity of the result to RADEM data acquired before the instrument configuration change on 2024 July 10.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides the first quantitative cross-calibration of RADEM proton measurements against STEREO-A during the JUICE cruise phase, turning RADEM into a usable heliospheric SEP observatory between 0.65 and 5.2 au. This would be a valuable contribution to multi-spacecraft SEP studies. The paper has genuine strengths: the bow-tie reconstruction is based on GEANT4 response functions, the isotropic window is selected from explicit pitch-angle anisotropy criteria, the STEREO-A spectral fit is shown together with SOHO/ERNE data, and the authors state the instrument-configuration validity window and several caveats. The main weaknesses are that the headline intercalibration factors are quoted without propagated uncertainties and that the assumption of an identical isotropic reservoir spectrum at JUICE and STEREO-A is load-bearing but not quantitatively bounded at JUICE, where no magnetometer or pitch-angle measurements are available.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4 and Table 2] The intercalibration factors in Table 2 are quoted to two decimal places with no uncertainties, despite substantial uncertainties in the inputs: the broken-power-law fit gives delta2 = -6.46 +- 1.92 and Eb = 33.9 +- 8.2 MeV, and the bow-tie geometric factors in Table 1 have 5th-95th percentile spreads as large as -9.31%/+24.6% for the 13.3 MeV channel. The authors themselves note that changing the accumulation time interval alters Eb and can affect the 31.2 MeV factor. Because the central claim is agreement 'with a deviation of less than 25%', the factors must be reported with propagated uncertainties; otherwise the reader cannot tell whether the four deviations are statistically significant or consistent with unity.
  2. [§4.3–4.4 and Fig. 5] The reference spectrum is the omnidirectional STEREO-A fit, but JUICE observes only an anti-sunward 20-degree field of view, and the comparison assumes that the isotropic reservoir spectrum at STEREO-A also describes the particle environment at JUICE, 0.13 au farther out. The paper has no JUICE magnetometer or pitch-angle data to verify this assumption. The authors' own radial-scaling example (alpha = 2.14 +- 0.26 from Lario et al. 2006) corresponds to a flux difference of roughly 30% over 0.13 au at 4-13 MeV, comparable to or larger than the claimed <25% agreement, and the STEREO-A/LET B7 anti-sunward sector is visibly dissimilar from JUICE at 6.9 MeV in Fig. 5. A quantitative bound on this environmental systematic (for example, the B7-to-omni ratio during the selected window, or a radial-gradient systematic added to Table 2) is needed before the <25% statement can be considered supported.
  3. [§2.1 and Eq. (1)] The bow-tie reconstruction of the RADEM channels was calibrated assuming power-law spectral indices in the range [-5, -2], but the fitted STEREO-A spectrum has delta2 = -6.46 +- 1.92 above Eb = 33.9 MeV, and the 21.6 and 31.2 MeV RADEM channels extend up to 37.4 MeV. Since the authors state that the reconstruction quality depends on the spectral shape at each time, the two highest-energy intercalibration factors may be biased by the spectrum falling outside the calibrated index range. This should be quantified, for example by evaluating the channel responses against the actual fitted broken power law, or explicitly argued to be negligible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3] There is a typo in the sentence 'the the radial correction is small'.
  2. [§3] The active region is identified once as 'AR 13364' instead of 'AR 13664'.
  3. [Acknowledgements] The word 'finnancial' should be 'financial'.
  4. [§6] The opening sentence contains a capitalization/grammar error: 'This work illustrates that The RADEM instrument'.
  5. [§4.4] The abstract and conclusions state the '<25%' agreement, but the body of the paper does not define how this number is computed from the four intercalibration factors; a sentence specifying the metric (for example, maximum deviation across channels) would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the intercalibration factors are measured ratios between independently reconstructed JUICE/RADEM fluxes and a STEREO-A/LET+HET spectral fit, with no fitted parameter or self-citation reducing to the claimed result.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a set of measured flux ratios between two spacecraft. The JUICE/RADEM differential proton fluxes are reconstructed from RADEM count rates via GEANT4-derived response functions and a bow-tie method (Sect. 2.1, Table 1), while the reference spectrum is fitted to STEREO-A/LET and HET omnidirectional data using a broken power law (Sect. 4.4, Eq. 1). No parameter of the STEREO-A fit enters the RADEM flux reconstruction, and no RADEM data are used in fitting the STEREO-A spectrum. The quoted intercalibration factors (Table 2) are therefore measured ratios, not outputs of a model that contains them as free parameters. The selection of the isotropic window from STEREO-A and Wind PADs and the assumption that the reservoir-phase spectrum also describes JUICE are physical assumptions, and the paper explicitly does not apply radial or longitudinal scaling ('We did not apply any radial/longitudinal scaling for the spacecraft measurements based on the reservoir effect discussed in Sect. 4.3'), so the near-unity ratios are not forced by construction. Self-citations (Pinto 2019; Hajdas et al. 2025; Rodríguez-García et al. 2023, 2025) describe instrument response, ENLIL context, or radial-scaling parameters, but none of these is load-bearing for the derived intercalibration factors; the instrument response is based on GEANT4 simulations and the reference spectrum is anchored to an external benchmark (STEREO-A/LET+HET). The acknowledged uncertainties, such as the possible radial gradient and the absence of JUICE magnetometer data, concern the validity of the reservoir assumption, not a circular reduction. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reservoir-effect and isotropy assumption at JUICE, on the GEANT4-based bow-tie calibration of RADEM, and on the fitted STEREO-A broken power law. The free parameters are mostly fit parameters for the reference spectrum and calibration constants for RADEM; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • STEREO-A spectral index below the break (delta1) = -2.26 ± 0.05
    Fitted with Eq. (1) to the STEREO-A/LET+HET accumulated spectrum; defines the reference environment used for the JUICE comparison.
  • STEREO-A spectral index above the break (delta2) = -6.46 ± 1.92
    Fitted parameter with large uncertainty; it lies outside the [-5,-2] range assumed in the RADEM bow-tie reconstruction and affects the highest-energy channel.
  • Spectral break energy (Eb) = 33.9 ± 8.2 MeV
    Fitted parameter; the paper states that changing the accumulation period alters Eb and can influence the 31.2 MeV intercalibration factor.
  • Break sharpness parameter (alpha) = not reported numerically
    Fitted in Eq. (1); the value appears only in the Fig. 6 legend and is not quoted in the text.
  • Reference energy (E0) = 0.1 MeV
    Chosen normalization energy in Eq. (1).
  • RADEM effective energies and G·dE for the four channels = 6.9, 13.3, 21.6, 31.2 MeV and G·dE = 0.214, 0.837, 1.22, 0.844 cm^2 sr MeV
    Derived from GEANT4 response functions with the bow-tie method under an assumed power-law range [-5,-2]; these calibration constants determine the reported fluxes.
  • Radial scaling exponents from Lario et al. (2006) = a=2.14, b=0.26 (4-13 MeV); a=1.97, b=0.27 (27-37 MeV)
    Taken from prior literature to produce the Icorr curves shown in Fig. 5; they are not used for the final intercalibration factors.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The SEP differential flux is a power law with spectral index in [-5,-2] over each RADEM channel
    Used in Section 2.1 to apply the bow-tie method; the fitted May 13 reference spectrum violates this above 33.9 MeV.
  • domain assumption Proton flux above 70 MeV is negligible during the event
    Required in Section 2.1 because the single-coincidence PDH channels cannot discriminate energies above 70 MeV.
  • domain assumption Reservoir effect makes SEP intensities nearly uniform in longitude and radial distance during the decay phase
    Justifies using the STEREO-A fit as the environment at JUICE despite 0.13 AU radial separation (Sections 4.3 and 4.4).
  • domain assumption JUICE and STEREO-A were embedded in the same magnetic ejecta structures
    JUICE's magnetometer was not operating; ejecta arrival times at JUICE are propagated from STEREO-A using assumed speeds of 820, 710, and 680 km/s (Section 4.1.3).
  • domain assumption STEREO-A pitch-angle data define isotropy for both spacecraft
    The isotropic window is selected from STEREO-A/LET only; JUICE has no PAD data, so isotropy at JUICE is inferred (Sections 4.2.2 and 4.3).
  • domain assumption GEANT4 simulations of the RADEM PDH response are correct
    Effective energies and geometric factors in Table 1 depend on simulation parameters from Pinto (2019); no independent in-flight calibration is available.
  • domain assumption The broken power-law form of Eq. (1) represents the true accumulated spectrum
    The ODR fit assumes this functional form; SOHO/ERNE points agree, but the form is not independently derived.
  • domain assumption CNO ions have the same anisotropy as protons in the STEREO-A B7 gap proxy
    Appendix B uses CNO sector ratios to fill the B7 data gap during dynamic threshold mode; this proxy does not enter the main intercalibration factors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparing observations of the closely located JUICE and STEREO-A spacecraft during the widespread solar energetic particle event of 2024 May 13." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QT2SILJO

@misc{pith2026250605978,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparing observations of the closely located JUICE and STEREO-A spacecraft during the widespread solar energetic particle event of 2024 May 13},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QT2SILJO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05978}
}
read the original abstract

JUICE was launched in April 2023, and it is now in its cruise phase to Jupiter, where it is scheduled to arrive in July 2031. JUICE carries a radiation monitor, namely the RADiation hard Electron Monitor (RADEM) to measure protons, electrons, and ions, detecting particles coming mainly from the anti-Sun direction. On 2024 May 13, a large solar energetic particle (SEP) event took place in association with an eruption close to the western limb of the Sun as seen from Earth. Providentially, at that time JUICE was located very close to STEREO-A, being separated by 0.13 au in radial distance, 0.3 deg in latitude, and 1.6 deg in longitude. Methods. We analysed the IP context using in-situ measurements and studied the proton anisotropies measured by near-Earth spacecraft and STEREO-A. We focused on an isotropic period during the decay phase of the SEP event to compute the proton energy spectrum. We fit the STEREO-A spectrum and compared it to that measured by SOHO and JUICE. Conclusions. The RADEM instrument aboard JUICE is a valuable tool for measuring SEP events in the heliosphere, providing an excellent opportunity to study and characterise the energetic particle environment in the solar wind between 0.65 and 5.2 au. The intercalibration factors between the fluxes measured by STEREO-A and JUICE at the effective energies of 6.9 MeV, 13.3 MeV, 21.6 MeV, and 31.2 MeV are 1.02, 1.23, 1.12, and 0.95 respectively. These intercalibration factors are valid only until 2024 July 10, when the configuration of the RADEM instrument was changed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05978 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of spacecraft and their magnetic connectivity at 09:45 UT on May 13, 2024, along with SEP observations from multiple spacecraft. (a) The spacecraft constellation was produced using the Solar-MACH tool (Gieseler et al. 2023), which is accessible online at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7016783. The solar wind speeds applied at various positions are derived from a combination of in-situ measuremen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of some of the available remote-sensing observations for the 2024 May 13 eruption. (a) SDO/AIA image in the 131 Å channel showing AR 13664 and the eruption onset in the southwestern quadrant of the solar disc. (b) Coronagraph image from the COR2 telescope onboard STEREO-A displaying the CME as it propagated through the solar corona. a threshold energy, as described in (Pinto 2019). Moreover, pro￾tons above … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In-situ magnetic field and plasma observations as well as SEP time profiles by (a) near-Earth spacecraft and (b) STEREO-A, together with (c) proton observations by JUICE. The panels in (a) and (b) show, from top to bottom, the (i) magnetic field magnitude, (ii) magnetic field components (where RTN stands for radial–tangential–normal coordinates; e.g. Hapgood 1992), magnetic field (iii) latitudinal and (iv) azimuthal… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pitch-angle distributions of protons recorded by Wind/3DP at 4 MeV (panel a) and STEREO-A/LET at 6 MeV (panel b). The panels include: (i) the measured intensities within each instrument’s field of view; (ii) the pitch-angle coverage, displayed for the eight angular bin…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In-situ SEP time profiles by Wind/3DP–omni– or SOHO/ERNE–sun– (green), STEREO-A/LET–omni– or HET–sun– (red), and JUICE/RADEM–anti-sun– (magenta) for four different proton energies: (i) ∼6.9 MeV, (ii) ∼13.3, (iii) ∼21.6 MeV and (iv) ∼31.2 MeV. JUICE Icorr is estimated a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Proton accumulated spectra measured by STEREO-A (red), SOHO/ERNE (black), and JUICE/RADEM (magenta). The legend shows the fit values using STEREO-A data: the spectral index (δ1, δ2) observed in between the spectral transition: Eb; and α, which determines the sharpness …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H., Curtis , D., Scheifele , J

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

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    2016, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 835, 186

    Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., et al. 2016, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 835, 186

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    2021, , 217, 90

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

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Boggs, P. T. & Rogers, J. E. 1990, in Contemp. Math., Vol. 112, Statistical analysis of measurement error models and applications ( A rcata, CA , 1989) (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI), 183--194

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    1981, , 86, 6673

    Burlaga , L., Sittler , E., Mariani , F., & Schwenn , R. 1981, , 86, 6673

    work page 1981

  6. [6]

    W., Kasper , J

    Case , A. W., Kasper , J. C., Stevens , M. L., et al. 2020, , 246, 43

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

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

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    2020, , 889, 143

    Dresing , N., Effenberger , F., G \'o mez-Herrero , R., et al. 2020, , 889, 143

    work page 2020

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    2014, , 567, A27

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

    2014

  2. [10]

    C., et al

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

    2023

  3. [11]

    , Jebaraj, I

    Dresing, N. , Jebaraj, I. C. , Wijsen, N. , et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A127

    2025

  4. [12]

    2019, , 880, 18

    Dumbovi \'c , M., Guo , J., Temmer , M., et al. 2019, , 880, 18

    2019

  5. [13]

    J., Velli , M

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

    2016

  6. [14]

    B., Kistler , L

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

    2008

  7. [15]

    2023, , 9, 384

    Gieseler , J., Dresing , N., Palmroos , C., et al. 2023, , 9, 384

    2023

  8. [16]

    E., Krimigis , S

    Gold , R. E., Krimigis , S. M., Hawkins , S. E., I., et al. 1998, , 86, 541

    1998

  9. [17]

    K., Coustenis , A., et al

    Grasset , O., Dougherty , M. K., Coustenis , A., et al. 2013, , 78, 1

    2013

  10. [18]

    2025, Space Science Reviews, 221, 43

    Hajdas, W., Gon c alves, P., Pinto, M., et al. 2025, Space Science Reviews, 221, 43

    2025

  11. [19]

    T., Lakhina , G

    Hajra , R., Tsurutani , B. T., Lakhina , G. S., Lu , Q., & Du , A. 2024, , 974, 264

    2024

  12. [20]

    Hapgood , M. A. 1992, , 40, 711

    1992

  13. [21]

    2025, , 979, 49

    Hayakawa , H., Ebihara , Y., Mishev , A., et al. 2025, , 979, 49

    2025

  14. [22]

    A., Moses , J

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

    2008

  15. [23]

    2014, , 4, A20

    Jiggens , P., Chavy-Macdonald , M.-A., Santin , G., et al. 2014, , 4, A20

    2014

  16. [24]

    L., Kucera , T

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

    2008

  17. [25]

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

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

    2016

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    2021, , 656, A20

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

    2021

  20. [28]

    2024, , 970, L13

    Kruparova , O., Krupar , V., Szabo , A., et al. 2024, , 970, L13

    2024

  21. [29]

    2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Lario , D. 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 , 625--628

    2010

  22. [30]

    B., et al

    Lario , D., Kallenrode , M.-B., Decker , R. B., et al. 2006, , 653, 1531

    2006

  23. [31]

    Y., et al

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

    2022

  24. [32]

    R., Title , A

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

    2012

  25. [33]

    P., Ac \ u na , M

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

    1995

  26. [34]

    P., Anderson , K

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

    1995

  27. [35]

    D., Hu , H., Zhao , X., Chen , C., & Wang , R

    Liu , Y. D., Hu , H., Zhao , X., Chen , C., & Wang , R. 2024, , 974, L8

    2024

  28. [36]

    Lugaz , N., Temmer , M., Wang , Y., & Farrugia , C. J. 2017, , 292, 64

    2017

  29. [37]

    G., Curtis , D

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

    2008

  30. [38]

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

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

    2016

  31. [39]

    McKibben , R. B. 1972, , 77, 3957

    1972

  32. [40]

    A., Cohen , C

    Mewaldt , R. A., Cohen , C. M. S., Cook , W. R., et al. 2008, , 136, 285

    2008

  33. [41]

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

    2020

  34. [42]

    1995, , 162, 483

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

    1995

  35. [43]

    Odstrcil , D., Riley , P., & Zhao , X. P. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A02116

    2004

  36. [44]

    W., Chornay , D

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

    1995

  37. [45]

    Ogilvie , K. W. & Desch , M. D. 1997, , 20, 559

    1997

  38. [46]

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

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

    2020

  39. [47]

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

    2021

  40. [48]

    D., Thompson , B

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

    2012

  41. [49]

    2019, PhD thesis, University of Lisbon - Instituto Superior Tecnico

    Pinto, M. 2019, PhD thesis, University of Lisbon - Instituto Superior Tecnico

    2019

  42. [50]

    2020, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2020--311

    Pinto , M., Goncalves , P., Hajdas , W., & Socha , P. 2020, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2020--311

    2020

  43. [51]

    2020, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 10, 24

    Raukunen , O., Paassilta , M., Vainio , R., et al. 2020, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 10, 24

    2020

  44. [52]

    Richardson , I. G. & Cane , H. V. 1996, , 101, 27521

    1996

  45. [53]

    2025, , 694, A64

    Rodr \' guez-Garc \' a , L., G \'o mez-Herrero , R., Dresing , N., et al. 2025, , 694, A64

    2025

  46. [54]

    2023, , 670, A51

    Rodr \' guez-Garc \' a , L., G \'o mez-Herrero , R., Dresing , N., et al. 2023, , 670, A51

    2023

  47. [55]

    2021, , 653, A137

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

    2021

  48. [56]

    F., Mason , G

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

    2020

  49. [57]

    C., Gold , R

    Roelof , E. C., Gold , R. E., Simnett , G. M., et al. 1992, , 19, 1243

    1992

  50. [58]

    W., et al

    S \'a nchez-Cano , B., Witasse , O., Knutsen , E. W., et al. 2023, Space Weather, 21, e2023SW003540

    2023

  51. [59]

    A., Larson , D., Aoustin , C., et al

    Sauvaud , J. A., Larson , D., Aoustin , C., et al. 2008, , 136, 227

    2008

  52. [60]

    C., Frandsen , A

    Stone , E. C., Frandsen , A. M., Mewaldt , R. A., et al. 1998, , 86, 1

    1998

  53. [61]

    D., Dresing , N., Kollhoff , A., & Br \"u dern , M

    Strauss , R. D., Dresing , N., Kollhoff , A., & Br \"u dern , M. 2020, , 897, 24

    2020

  54. [62]

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

    2009

  55. [63]

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

    2006

  56. [64]

    1995, , 162, 505

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

    1995

  57. [65]

    A., Baker , D

    Van Allen , J. A., Baker , D. N., Randall , B. A., & Sentman , D. D. 1974, , 79, 3559

    1974

  58. [66]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  59. [67]

    T., Reames , D

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

    2008

  60. [68]

    E., et al

    Weiler , E., M \"o stl , C., Davies , E. E., et al. 2025, Space Weather, 23, e2024SW004260

    2025

  61. [69]

    G., et al

    Whitman , K., Egeland , R., Richardson , I. G., et al. 2023, , 72, 5161

    2023

  62. [70]

    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

  63. [71]

    Zurbuchen , T. H. & Richardson , I. G. 2006, , 123, 31

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.