Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Energetic ($<$ 2 MeV) ion fluxes measured by ASPEX-STEPS on board Aditya-L1 during its earth-bound phase

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The polarity of the interplanetary magnetic field's north-south component controls whether energetic ions in Earth's magnetosphere are dominated by solar-wind shock particles or by substorm-accelerated ions.

desk verdict New and useful STEPS data, but the Bz-polarity claim is underdetermined by one confounded comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21919 v2 pith:RO3P7SCR submitted 2025-06-27 physics.space-ph astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

Dibyendu Chakrabarty , Bijoy Dalal , Santosh Vadawale , Aveek Sarkar , Shiv Kumar Goyal , Jacob Sebastian , Anil Bhardwaj , P. Janardhan
show 21 more authors
M. Shanmugam Neeraj Kumar Tiwari Aaditya Sarda Piyush Sharma Aakash Gupta Prashant Kumar Manan S. Shah Bhas Bapat Pranav R Adhyaru Arpit R. Patel Hitesh Kumar Adalja Abhishek Kumar Tinkal Ladiya Sushil Kumar Nishant Singh Deepak Kumar Painkra Abhishek J. Verma Nandita Srivastava Swaroop Banerjee K. P. Subramanian M. B. Dadhania
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords SolarenergeticparticleswindcoronalmassejectionsInterplanetarymagneticfieldsSubstormsMagnetosphereionspectraAditya-L1
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

During its Earth-bound orbits in September 2023, the ASPEX-STEPS instrument on Aditya-L1 measured ions between 0.1 and 2 MeV while three coronal mass ejections struck the magnetosphere. The paper uses these measurements, together with ion data from ACE at the L1 point and proton data from GOES-18 at geosynchronous orbit, to ask what controls the energetic ion population close to Earth. By selecting intervals with near-zero, northward, and southward interplanetary magnetic field Bz, it argues that the polarity of IMF Bz regulates how easily ICME-shock solar energetic particles enter the magnetosphere, where they compete with substorm-generated ions and thereby set the measured spectral index. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a way to see the relative strength of external versus internal particle sources from a single spacecraft's spectra.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the power-law spectral index m, defined by fitting differential ion flux j ∝ $E^{{-m}}$, with substorm-generated ions giving m ≈ 5 and ICME-shock-generated SEPs giving m ≈ 2. The analysis rests on interval selection: three time windows with IMF Bz ≈ 0, > 0, and < 0 are identified, and the spacecraft's location (magnetosphere, magnetosheath, or interplanetary medium) is classified using modeled magnetopause and bow-shock boundaries. Two ASPEX-STEPS detector units (Parker Spiral and North Pointing) provide directional spectra, while ACE-EPAM at L1 and GOES-18 SEISS-MPSH at geosynchronous orbit supply the external and internal reference populations.

What would settle it

A statistical survey of many ICME events with comparable SEP intensities but opposite IMF Bz polarities that finds no systematic difference in magnetospheric <2 MeV spectral indices would contradict the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that inside Earth's magnetosphere, the <2 MeV ion spectrum is the outcome of a Bz-dependent competition between two sources: ions accelerated by ICME-driven shocks (external, hard spectra with spectral index m ≈ 2) and ions accelerated by substorms (internal, soft spectra with m ≈ 5). When IMF Bz is near zero or northward, magnetospheric ions are mostly substorm- or plasma-sheet-like; when IMF Bz is southward, ICME-generated SEPs penetrate more readily and harden the spectrum. The evidence comes from spectral indices measured by two ASPEX-STEPS detector units in the magnetosphere, magnetosheath, and interplanetary medium during intervals with different Bz polarity, compared with simultaneous ACE and GOES-18 measurements. The paper also reports mild directional anisotropy in the magnetosheath in all three sampled intervals, indicating spatially inhomogeneous mixing of ions from the three candidate sources.

Load-bearing premise

The three polarity intervals differ not only in IMF Bz but also in ICME phase, SEP intensity, substorm activity, spacecraft location, and look direction, and the paper assumes those differences do not drive the observed spectral changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inside the magnetosphere, a spectral index near 5 indicates substorm or plasma-sheet dominance, while values near 2 indicate that ICME-shock SEPs have penetrated.
  • The polarity of IMF Bz, not just solar wind dynamic pressure, determines the energetic ion environment at sub-MeV energies.
  • Spacecraft closer to the magnetopause will see harder spectra than geosynchronous satellites when Bz is southward, because external ions penetrate from the boundary.
  • The correlation between ACE and GOES fluxes improves with increasing ion energy during southward Bz, meaning higher-energy external ions are preferentially admitted.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Bz polarity is the controlling variable, a single spacecraft near the magnetopause should see the magnetospheric spectral index harden within minutes of a Bz southward turning even before the ICME sheath arrives, since SEPs precede the structure.
  • The mild, consistent anisotropy in the magnetosheath suggests that multi-directional measurements of spectral index, not just flux, could map the mixing zone between solar, bow-shock, and magnetospheric ions.
  • For space-weather prediction, the paper implies that forecasting the <2 MeV ion environment requires predicting IMF Bz polarity, not just the occurrence of an ICME.
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 presents ASPEX-STEPS ion flux measurements (0.1–2 MeV) from Aditya-L1 during its Earth-bound phase on 11–19 September 2023, when three ICMEs impacted the magnetosphere. The authors select intervals according to IMF Bz polarity (≈0, northward, southward), fit power-law spectra to STEPS, ACE-EPAM, and GOES-18 data, and use the derived spectral indices to infer the relative contributions of ICME-generated SEPs and substorm-accelerated ions. They conclude that the polarity of IMF Bz controls the competition between external (SEP) and internal (substorm) ion sources in the magnetosphere, and that spectral-index differences between two STEPS detector units indicate directional anisotropy.

Significance. If the causal claim holds, this is a valuable early observational result from a new Indian solar mission, providing a rare look at sub-2 MeV ion entry into the magnetosphere during multiple ICME impacts. The paper is careful in cross-validating STEPS against ACE and GOES, in tabulating fit parameters with uncertainties, and in making the data publicly available. The principal weakness is that the central Bz-polarity conclusion rests on one interval per polarity, with simultaneous differences in SEP event phase, intensity, and substorm activity; the additional ACE-GOES correlation evidence is suggestive but not controlled. With appropriate qualification or added analysis, the paper would be a useful contribution to the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2.3 and Table 1] The central claim that IMF Bz polarity controls the spectral indices in the magnetosphere rests on comparing interval 4c (Bz > 0) with interval 5c (Bz < 0), but these intervals differ simultaneously in SEP phase (decaying ICME-2 versus rising ICME-3, Figure 5), SEP intensity and hardness (ACE spectral index 2.55 versus 2.29; GOES H+ index 5.05 versus 3.09), substorm activity (none in 4c, active in 5c per Figure 9), spacecraft location, and look direction. With a single interval per polarity, the observed hardening from ~2.8 to ~2.45 could be caused by the stronger, harder ICME-3 SEP event or by substorm injections, independent of Bz. Please either provide a matched-subinterval analysis or regression control for SEP flux and substorm activity, or substantially soften the causal statement to a hypothesis that is not yet uniquely determined.
  2. [Section 5.4 and Figure 10] The higher ACE-GOES correlations for ICME-3 (R2 = 0.30–0.71) compared to ICME-1 and ICME-2 (R2 = 0.01–0.45) are presented as evidence that southward IMF Bz allowed entry of SEPs into the magnetosphere. However, the ICME-3 shaded interval contains a strong rising SEP event with a prevailing inward trend, so the correlation may simply reflect the common temporal envelope of the event rather than a Bz-dependent entry process. The three intervals also differ in SEP intensity and duration. Please report detrended or partial correlations that control for the common trend, and/or compare events with similar SEP intensity and duration but different Bz, before using these correlations as supporting evidence.
  3. [Section 5.5 and Section 3.1] The classification of intervals as magnetosphere versus magnetosheath relies on model boundaries with uncertainties of about 0.3 RE for the magnetopause (Ingale et al. 2019) and about 1.2 RE for the bow shock (Chao et al. 2002). The paper asserts that these uncertainties will not alter the conclusions, but it does not demonstrate this. Because the central Bz comparison uses intervals 4c and 5c, which are described as close to the magnetopause, a sensitivity test that shifts both model boundaries by the stated uncertainties is needed to confirm that the interval memberships—and hence the spectral-index comparison—remain unchanged.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, first paragraph] The sentence 'we repeat this exercise (Figures A1 and A2 in the Appendix section here for another interval for the sake of completeness' is missing a closing parenthesis.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Section 5.2.2] The paper states that plasma-sheet ion spectra follow a power law with exponent ≈6.5 (citing Christon et al. 1988) in the introductory part of Section 5.2, but later in Section 5.2.2 states that the plasma sheet spectral index is ≈5; these two statements should be reconciled or clearly distinguished.
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The caption contains a duplicated word: 'green dashed-dotted green vertical lines'.
  4. [Section 5.1.3] The word 'soffter' should be 'softer' in the sentence describing the magnetosheath spectral indices.
  5. [Section 3.3] The definitions of 'mild' (≈0.3) and 'significant' (≈0.5) spectral-index differences are introduced without a statistical justification; please clarify whether these thresholds are based on the fit uncertainties presented in Table 1 or on external criteria, and state how many of the reported anisotropies exceed the 1-sigma or 2-sigma uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: spectral indices are measured outputs, and the Bz-polarity claim rests on independent multi-spacecraft comparisons; the causal inference is confounded but not circular.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational rather than definitional. ASPEX-STEPS, ACE-EPAM-LEMS120, and GOES-SEISS-MPSH provide independent measurements, and the spectral indices in Table 1 are power-law fit outputs, not assumed inputs. The IMF Bz polarity categories are defined solely from IMF data (Figure 1, panel vi) and are not derived from the ion spectra, so there is no self-definitional loop. The central claim that Bz polarity modulates the interplay of ICME-generated SEPs with substorm-generated ions is based on comparing intervals 4c and 5c; while that comparison is underdetermined because SEP intensity, spectral hardness, substorm activity, spacecraft location, and look direction differ simultaneously, this is a threat to causal validity rather than circularity. Self-citations are present (e.g., Goyal et al. 2025 for instrument details, Rathi et al. 2025 for a substorm proton spectrum, Chakrabarty et al. 2008, 2015 for substorm enhancements), but none is load-bearing for the central conclusion: the instrument is independently cross-validated against ACE and GOES in the appendix, and substorm occurrence is independently established from SML/SMU indices and GOES electron injections, not merely assumed from the cited papers. The GOES-derived substorm spectral index near 5 is used both as a calibration template and as an interpretive reference, but the intervals identified as substorm-dominated are corroborated by independent auroral-electrojet and injection activity, so the identification is not circular. No equation or fitting step reduces the conclusion to its own inputs, and the result would be falsifiable if the spectral indices or external correlations were different. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not derive a model; it interprets fits. The ledger records the fitted spectral indices and hand-chosen thresholds that the interpretation depends on, plus the domain assumptions used to map spectra to source regions. No invented entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Spectral index m in J = A E^-m fits for each interval and detector = 1.24 to 5.71 (Table 1)
    Primary diagnostic; these fitted slopes are the evidence for source attribution. They are measured outputs, not free parameters in a theory, but the central claim depends on them.
  • Anisotropy significance thresholds = 0.3 (mild), 0.5 (significant)
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.3 based on plasma turbulence literature; determines which PS-NP differences are called anisotropy.
  • Pre-shock correlation window = 1.5 days
    Chosen uniformly in Section 5.4 for ACE-GOES flux correlations; affects the R2 values in Figure 10.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AL1 was outside the radiation belt and ring current during STEPS observations, based on literature boundaries around 7 RE.
    Invoked in Section 1 to justify that measured ions are not trapped belt or ring current particles; not verified by simultaneous measurements.
  • domain assumption Model magnetopause (Shue 1997) and bow shock (Chao 2002) positions correctly classify AL1 as being in magnetosphere, magnetosheath, or IP medium in each interval.
    Used in Section 3.1 to assign intervals 1-5 to regions; authors acknowledge up to 0.3 RE and 1.2 RE model uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Species-integrated STEPS ion fluxes (H+ and He2+) can be compared with proton-only fluxes from ACE-EPAM and GOES-SEISS.
    Cross-validation in Appendix A shows high correlations, but species mixture can affect spectral index; no species deconvolution is performed.
  • domain assumption Spectral index ranges identify source populations: indices near 5 indicate substorm or magnetospheric ions, indices near 1.25-2 indicate gradual SEPs, and bow shock ions have indices around 4.5.
    Used throughout Section 5 to attribute STEPS and GOES spectra to sources; based on prior literature and Appendix B GOES substorm examples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energetic ($<$ 2 MeV) ion fluxes measured by ASPEX-STEPS on board Aditya-L1 during its earth-bound phase." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RO3P7SCR

@misc{pith2026250621919,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energetic ($<$ 2 MeV) ion fluxes measured by ASPEX-STEPS on board Aditya-L1 during its earth-bound phase},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RO3P7SCR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21919}
}
abstract

During its earth-bound phase of the Aditya-L1 spacecraft of India, the Supra-Thermal and Energetic Particle Spectrometer (STEPS) of the Aditya Solar wind Particle EXperiment (ASPEX) was operated whenever the orbit was above 52000 km during 11 - 19 September 2023. This phase of operation provided measurements of energetic ions (with energies 0.1--2 MeV) in the magnetosphere, magnetosheath, and interplanetary medium. Three interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICME) hit the magnetosphere during this period. This provided opportunity to examine the relative roles of ICME-generated solar energetic particles (SEPs) and substorm generated energetic ions on the magnetosphere. We approach this objective by detailed spectral analyses of energetic ion fluxes measured by two units of ASPEX-STEPS. We identify three distinctly different conditions of the north-south component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF $B_z$ = 0, $>$ 0, and $<$ 0) and use the derived spectral indices to understand this relative role. By combining these with the simultaneous energetic ion flux variations from the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) around the Sun-Earth first Lagrangian (L1) point and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) in the Earth's magnetosphere, we show that the polarity of IMF $B_z$ influences the energetic ion spectra in the magnetosphere by modulating the interplay of the ICME-generated SEP with the energetic particles generated inside the magnetosphere by substorms. Interestingly, ASPEX-STEPS observations also indicate towards directional anisotropy based on spectral indices. This suggests spatially inhomogeneous mixing of energetic ions coming from different source processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21919 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panels (i) and (ii) present the ion fluxes at different energy channels as measured by PS and NP units of the ASPEX-STEPS. The energy channels are mentioned at the right side of these panels. The stand-off distance of the nose of the Earth’s bow shock (violet, calculated from the position coordinates available at https://cdaweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html) and magnetopause (gray, calculated using Eq. 1) are plotted in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Locations (in the XY and XZ planes of GSE coordinate system) of AL1 (red dot) and GOES-18 (black pentagon) are shown with respect to the magnetopause (blue solid curves) and bow shock boundaries (magenta dashed curves) at the start and end of all the selected intervals that are mentioned in red at the top of each pair of panels from top to bottom of each column. The distances are in terms of the Earth’s radius (RE ≈… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Orientations of ASPEX-STEPS detectors with respect to GSE coordinate system during intervals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The upper row presents the orientations of PS (red) and NP (black) at the start (filled arrows) of the intervals in the XY plane of GSE coordinate system. On the other hand, orientations in the XZ plane are shown in the bottom row. The unfilled arrows illustrate the orientations at the end of corresponding… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Differential directional flux vs. energy spectrum as observed by ASPEX-STEPS-PS (panel a) and NP (panel b) on 19 September 2023 from 12:00 UT – 22:00 UT when AL1 was in the IP medium (see panel (iii) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time series of (a) ion fluxes observed by ACE-EPAM-LEMS120 and (b) proton fluxes observed by GOES18-SEISS￾MPSH at different energy channels during 11 – 19 September 2023. The arrival times of the shocks associated with ICME-1, 2, and 3 are marked by black vertical dash…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ion spectra observed by (a) ASPEX-STEPS-PS, (b) STEPS-NP, (c) ACE-EPAM-LEMS120, and (d) proton spectra observed by GOES18-SEISS-MPSH during intervals when AL1 was in the magnetosphere (2, 3, 4c, and 5c) are shown by different colors. The spectral indices (m) and χ 2 va…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ion spectra observed by (a) ASPEX-STEPS-PS, (b) STEPS-NP, (c) ACE-EPAM-LEMS120, and (d) proton spectra observed by GOES18-SEISS-MPSH during intervals when AL1 was in the magnetosheath (1, 4b, and 5b) are shown by different colors. The spectral indices (m) and χ 2 value…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ion spectra observed by (a) ASPEX-STEPS-PS, (b) STEPS-NP, (c) ACE-EPAM-LEMS120, and (d) proton spectra observed by GOES18-SEISS-MPSH during intervals when AL1 was in the IP medium (4a and 5a) are shown by different colors. The spectral indices (m) and χ 2 values are me…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (i) Variations of electron fluxes at four different energy channels (mentioned at the right of the top panel) during 11-19 September 2023, as observed by GOES-SEISS-MPSH. The yellow, pink, and gray shaded intervals refer to the same intervals as described in [PITH_FUL…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Correlations between ion fluxes measured by ACE-EPAM-LEMS120 and proton fluxes measured by GOES18- SEISS-MPSH at three energy channels (three rows) corresponding to ICME-1 (first column), ICME-2 (middle column), and ICME-3 (last column). The red lines (y = mx + c) are…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664

    2023

  2. [2]

    1991, Geophysical Monograph Series, 64, 147

    Baker, D., & Pulkkinen, T. 1991, Geophysical Monograph Series, 64, 147

    work page 1991

  3. [3]

    2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 4993

    Chakrabarty, D., Rout, D., Sekar, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 4993

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    2008, Geophysical Research Letters, 35

    Chakrabarty, D., Sekar, R., Sastri, J., & Ravindran, S. 2008, Geophysical Research Letters, 35

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 105, 5471

    Chang, S.-W., Scudder, J., Fennell, J., et al. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 105, 5471

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    2002, in COSPAR colloquia series, Vol

    Chao, J., Wu, D., Lin, C.-H., et al. 2002, in COSPAR colloquia series, Vol. 12, Elsevier, 127--135

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    1988, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 93, 2562

    Christon, S., Mitchell, D., Williams, D., et al. 1988, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 93, 2562

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    2016, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 5960

    Cohen, I., Mauk, B., Anderson, B., et al. 2016, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 5960

    work page 2016

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    1975, Physical Review Letters, 34, 495

    Fan, C., Gloeckler, G., & Hovestadt, D. 1975, Physical Review Letters, 34, 495

    1975

  2. [10]

    J., Richardson, I., Burlaga, L., Lepping, R., & Osherovich, V

    Farrugia, C. J., Richardson, I., Burlaga, L., Lepping, R., & Osherovich, V. 1993, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 98, 15497

    1993

  3. [11]

    G., Navarro, L

    Fejer, B. G., Navarro, L. A., & Chakrabarty, D. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1471140

    2024

  4. [12]

    J., Jaynes, A

    Filwett, R. J., Jaynes, A. N., Baker, D. N., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027584

    2020

  5. [13]

    2016, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol

    Fioretti, V., Bulgarelli, A., Malaguti, G., Spiga, D., & Tiengo, A. 2016, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol. 9905, SPIE, 1991--2004

    2016

  6. [14]

    2016, in Earth observing missions and sensors: Development, implementation, and characterization iv, Vol

    Galica, G., Dichter, B., Tsui, S., et al. 2016, in Earth observing missions and sensors: Development, implementation, and characterization iv, Vol. 9881, SPIE, 237--251

    2016

  7. [15]

    1998, The Advanced Composition Explorer Mission, 541

    Gold, R., Krimigis, S., Hawkins, S., et al. 1998, The Advanced Composition Explorer Mission, 541

    1998

  8. [16]

    D., Tsurutani, B

    Gonzalez, W. D., Tsurutani, B. T., & Cl \'u a de Gonzalez, A. L. 1999, Space Science Reviews, 88, 529

    1999

  9. [17]

    2018, Planetary and Space Science, 163, 42

    Goyal, S., Kumar, P., Janardhan, P., et al. 2018, Planetary and Space Science, 163, 42

    2018

  10. [18]

    K., Tiwari, N

    Goyal, S. K., Tiwari, N. K., Patel, A. R., et al. 2025, Solar Physics, 300, 35

    2025

  11. [19]

    2010, Annales Geophysicae, 28, 1483

    Haaland, S., Kronberg, E., Daly, P., et al. 2010, Annales Geophysicae, 28, 1483

    2010

  12. [20]

    2015, Earth, Planets and Space, 67, 1

    Imada, S., Hirai, M., & Hoshino, M. 2015, Earth, Planets and Space, 67, 1

    2015

  13. [21]

    2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 6363

    Ingale, M., Janardhan, P., & Bisoi, S. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 6363

    2019

  14. [22]

    V., Vlasova, N

    Kalegaev, V. V., Vlasova, N. A., Nazarkov, I. S., & Melkova, S. A. 2018, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 8, A55

    2018

  15. [23]

    G., & Russell, C

    Kivelson, M. G., & Russell, C. T. 1995, Introduction to space physics (Cambridge university press)

    1995

  16. [24]

    2005, Geophysical Research Letters, 32

    Kress, B., Hudson, M., & Slocum, P. 2005, Geophysical Research Letters, 32

    2005

  17. [25]

    A., Daly, P

    Kronberg, E. A., Daly, P. W., Grigorenko, E. E., et al. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126, e2021JA029273

    2021

  18. [26]

    2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 128, e2022JA030826

    Kumar, A., Chakrabarty, D., Fejer, B., et al. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 128, e2022JA030826

    2023

  19. [27]

    S., et al

    Kumar, P., Bapat, B., Shah, M. S., et al. 2025, Solar Physics, 300, 37

    2025

  20. [28]

    Lee, M. A. 1982, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 87, 5063

    1982

  21. [29]

    2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    Longden, N., Denton, M., & Honary, F. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113

    2008

  22. [30]

    McPherron, R. L. 1979, Reviews of Geophysics, 17, 657

    1979

  23. [31]

    2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116

    Newell, P., & Gjerloev, J. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116

    2011

  24. [32]

    L., Bautz, M

    O'Dell, S. L., Bautz, M. W., Blackwell Jr, W. C., et al. 2000, in X-ray and gamma-ray instrumentation for astronomy XI, Vol. 4140, SPIE, 99--110

    2000

  25. [33]

    1974, Reviews of Geophysics, 12, 117

    Paulikas, G. 1974, Reviews of Geophysics, 12, 117

    1974

  26. [34]

    1969, Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, 2161, 10.1029/JA074i009p02161

    Paulikas, G., & Blake, J. 1969, Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, 2161, 10.1029/JA074i009p02161

    1969 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, Advances in Space Research

    Rathi, R., Sivakandan, M., Chakrabarty, D., et al. 2025, Advances in Space Research

    2025

  28. [36]

    2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 106, 5833

    Reeves, G., & Henderson, M. 2001, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 106, 5833

    2001

  29. [37]

    2002, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107, SSH

    Richard, R., El-Alaoui, M., Ashour-Abdalla, M., & Walker, R. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107, SSH

    2002

  30. [38]

    1998, Solar Physics, 181, 185

    Rodr \' guez-Pacheco, J., Sequeiros, J., Del Peral, L., Bronchalo, E., & Cid, C. 1998, Solar Physics, 181, 185

    1998

  31. [39]

    Y., Drozdov, A., et al

    Saikin, A., Shprits, Y. Y., Drozdov, A., et al. 2021, Space weather, 19, e2020SW002524

    2021

  32. [40]

    1976, Geophysical Research Letters, 3, 437

    Sarris, E., Krigmigis, S., Iijima, T., Bostrom, C., & Armstrong, T. 1976, Geophysical Research Letters, 3, 437

    1976

  33. [41]

    1975, Space Science Reviews, 17, 3

    Scholer, M. 1975, Space Science Reviews, 17, 3

    1975

  34. [42]

    1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 86, 1299

    Scholer, M., Ipavich, F., Gloeckler, G., Hovestadt, D., & Klecker, B. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 86, 1299

    1981

  35. [43]

    1997, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 102, 9497

    Shue, J.-H., Chao, J., Fu, H., et al. 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 102, 9497

    1997

  36. [44]

    1987, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 92, 12097

    Sibeck, D., McEntire, R., Lui, A., et al. 1987, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 92, 12097

    1987

  37. [45]

    L., & Curtin, D

    Statler, R. L., & Curtin, D. J. 1971, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 18, 412

    1971

  38. [46]

    C., Frandsen, A., Mewaldt, R., et al

    Stone, E. C., Frandsen, A., Mewaldt, R., et al. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 86, 1

    1998

  39. [47]

    2022, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 18, 17

    Tripathi, D., Chakrabarty, D., Nandi, A., et al. 2022, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 18, 17

    2022

  40. [48]

    Tverskoi, B., Derchieva, L., Ivanova, T., et al. 1973

    1973

  41. [49]

    2014, Space Weather, 12, 387

    Walsh, B., Kuntz, K., Collier, M., et al. 2014, Space Weather, 12, 387

    2014

  42. [50]

    1999, Geophysical research letters, 26, 3349

    Zong, Q.-G., & Wilken, B. 1999, Geophysical research letters, 26, 3349

    1999

  43. [51]

    1999, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part C: Solar, Terrestrial & Planetary Science, 24, 293

    Zong, Q.-G., Wilken, B., Woch, J., et al. 1999, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part C: Solar, Terrestrial & Planetary Science, 24, 293

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.