Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 51 references

A forecasting framework for galactic cosmic ray flux in space weather applications

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 paper claims that a single proton-calibrated modulation parameter can forecast galactic cosmic ray fluxes for protons, helium, carbon, and oxygen across solar cycles.

desk verdict A serious forecasting framework for GCR flux with genuine out-of-sample checks; the universal-K0 assumption is the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07616 v2 pith:PM6MYFOB submitted 2025-07-10 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph

David Pelosi , Fernando Barão , Bruna Bertucci , Francesco Faldi , Emanuele Fiandrini , Alejandro Reina Conde , Miguel Orcinha , Nicola Tomassetti This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords galacticcosmicrayssolarmodulationspaceweatherforecastingParkerequationdiffusioncoefficientsunspotnumberempiricalmodedecompositionpenalizedB-splinecorrelation
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 aims to establish that the long-term flux of galactic cosmic rays near Earth can be forecast from solar activity alone, through a single effective diffusion parameter $K_0(t)$ calibrated exclusively on proton data. The parameter is assumed universal across species, with each particle's charge-to-mass ratio entering only through the $\beta$ factor in the diffusion coefficient, so helium, carbon, and oxygen fluxes follow once their local interstellar spectra are known. The forecasting chain links $K_0(t)$ to the delayed smoothed sunspot number through polarity-dependent penalized B-spline functions, turning an 11-year solar-cycle proxy into multi-cycle flux predictions. A reader should care because this is a practical path from monthly sunspot counts to the radiation environment faced by astronauts and spacecraft, with independent checks against helium, carbon, and oxygen measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the diffusion coefficient $K(P,t)=K_0(t)\beta(P)P/P_0$ and its normalization $K_0(t)$, the modulation parameter. $K_0$ is fitted to proton data, smoothed by empirical mode decomposition to isolate its long-term component, and then regressed against the delayed smoothed sunspot number using penalized cubic B-splines with separate branches for positive and negative heliospheric polarity; the time delay is $\tau(t)=\tau_M+\tau_A\cos(2\pi(t-t_p)/T_0)$, and during polarity reversals a logistic transition function blends the two branches. This chain converts a single solar proxy into a time series of $K_0$, and the Parker equation in its radial approximation, solved with a Crank-Nicolson scheme, maps $K_0$ to fluxes for any species through the $\beta$-dependent diffusion term.

What would settle it

Fit $K_0(t)$ independently to the helium flux time series from AMS-02 and PAMELA, and to carbon and oxygen from ACE/CRIS, then compare with the proton-calibrated series; the universality claim is settled by whether the independent series agree within the bootstrap uncertainty bands across both polarity phases. The test can be run with already public data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the effective radial diffusion coefficient $K(P,t)=K_0(t)\beta(P)P/P_0$ carries the entire solar-modulation response, with $K_0(t)$ universal across cosmic-ray species and $\beta(P)=P/\sqrt{P^2+(m_pA/Z)^2}$ encoding the species dependence through the mass-to-charge ratio. Calibrating $K_0(t)$ against monthly proton fluxes, then relating the smoothed series to the delayed smoothed sunspot number through polarity-dependent correlation functions, produces a forecast of $K_0$ at future times; inserting it into the radial, steady-state Parker equation gives the flux of any species whose local interstellar spectrum is known. The paper supports the claim by reconstructing proton and helium fluxes over roughly three solar cycles, including two polarity reversals, and by reproducing ACE/CRIS carbon and oxygen fluxes at tens of MeV per nucleon. Throughout, $K_0$ is treated as an effective lumped parameter, not a direct measurement of heliospheric conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The framework stands on the assumption that the proton-calibrated parameter $K_0$ is universal across species, with a particle's charge-to-mass ratio entering only through the $\beta$ factor in the diffusion coefficient, and the paper does not test this against a species-specific calibration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because $K_0$ is species-independent, the proton-calibrated framework yields forecasts for helium, carbon, and oxygen without per-species recalibration, validated in the paper against PAMELA, AMS-02, and ACE/CRIS data.
  • Smoothed monthly sunspot number and heliospheric magnetic polarity are the only external inputs, so the model can be run forward using forecasts of the solar cycle.
  • Applying the same machinery to antiproton or antinucleus local interstellar spectra would extend the forecasts to those species, since the $\beta$ factor already accounts for their charge-to-mass ratio.
  • The flux forecasts can feed astronaut radiation-dose and spacecraft electronics risk assessments, which is the stated space-weather motivation of the paper.
  • Reported average relative errors, roughly 5-9% for protons and helium near GeV energies and about 24% for ACE carbon and oxygen at lower energies, indicate where the forecasting accuracy currently stands.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: A decisive test of universality is to fit $K_0$ independently to helium or oxygen flux time series and compare with the proton-derived $K_0$; agreement within uncertainties would confirm the scaling, while a systematic offset would locate where the $\beta$-only scaling fails.
  • Editorial inference: Because the calibration data come mostly from the anomalously weak solar cycle 24, the spline behavior at high sunspot numbers is an extrapolation, making a strong future solar maximum a natural out-of-sample test.
  • Editorial inference: The framework implies that species with the same mass-to-charge ratio, such as helium-4, carbon-12, and oxygen-16, should show identical modulation patterns at fixed rigidity, a prediction testable with time-resolved AMS-02 nuclei data.
  • Editorial inference: The polarity-split correlation structure implies hysteresis in the $K_0$-versus-sunspot relation, so single-valued linear regression would be misspecified; the spline approach is adapted to that nonlinearity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a forecasting framework for galactic cosmic ray fluxes by combining an effective solar modulation model (radial Parker equation with diffusion coefficient K = K0(t) beta(P) P/P0) with a solar-proxy-based parameterization of the modulation parameter K0(t). The model is calibrated on time-resolved proton fluxes from PAMELA and AMS-02 over 2006-2019. The derived K0(t) is smoothed with empirical mode decomposition, and a polarity-dependent penalized B-spline is fitted to the smoothed K0 values as a function of a delayed sunspot-number proxy. The resulting correlation functions are then used to reconstruct and forecast proton, helium, carbon, and oxygen fluxes over roughly three solar cycles, with the helium and ACE C/O data serving as independent validation. The central claim is that a single proton-calibrated K0 is universal across species, with species dependence entering only through the beta factor in the diffusion coefficient.

Significance. If the universality of K0 and the forecasting capability are established, the framework would be a practical and computationally light tool for space weather radiation assessment, complementing more elaborate transport codes. The paper has notable strengths: it uses high-quality public data from PAMELA, AMS-02, SOHO/EPHIN, BESS, and ACE/CRIS; it provides a data-driven LIS parameterization for four species; it propagates uncertainties through the EMD and spline steps with a bootstrap procedure; and it makes concrete falsifiable predictions for multiple species and epochs. However, the two load-bearing pillars—the universality of K0 and the out-of-sample validity of the proton-based calibration—are currently supported only indirectly. The manuscript therefore has a defensible central idea but needs additional validation before the forecasting claim can be accepted at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (4)] The universality assumption for K0 is load-bearing but is not directly tested. All cross-species forecasts use a proton-calibrated K0, with species dependence entering only through beta(P) in Eq. (4). The helium comparison in Fig. 6 and the ACE C/O comparisons in Fig. 7 are indirect consistency checks, not tests of universality. A species-dependent K0 that differs from the proton-derived K0 by 10-20% could still produce the quoted mean relative errors, especially at the low rigidities of the ACE points where the residuals are already about 24%. I request a direct test: fit K0 to time-resolved helium (and, where possible, carbon or oxygen) fluxes using the same procedure as Section 2.3 and compare the resulting K0(t) with the proton-derived K0(t). If the species-specific K0 values are consistent with the proton values within uncertainties, the universality claim is supported; if not, the beta-scaling alone is insufficient.
  2. [Section 2.3 and Section 2.6, Eq. (9)] The proton reconstruction inside the calibration window is a consistency check rather than a genuine forecast. The K0 values are obtained by fitting proton data (Eq. 5), the spline f is fitted to those same K0 values (Eq. 9), and the resulting model is then compared with the same proton data over 2006-2019 in Figs. 2 and 6. This circularity means that the quoted proton agreement does not demonstrate predictive skill. The manuscript needs an out-of-sample validation, for example calibrating the spline on 2006-2010 (or on one solar cycle) and forecasting 2011-2019, with the corresponding errors reported. Without such a test, the statement in Section 4 that the model exhibits 'impressive accuracy in flux reconstructions and predictive capabilities' is overstated for protons.
  3. [Section 2.5, Eq. (6)] The EMD mode selection introduces a risk of selection circularity. The mode c4 is retained because it is found to correlate with mode d3 of the smoothed sunspot number, and the same sunspot number is then used as the spline input through the proxy A/S(t-tau). It is plausible that c4 is the physically relevant long-term mode, but the paper does not report how sensitive the final forecasts are to the EMD sifting threshold, to the choice of k = 4, or to the correlation-based selection rule. I ask for a sensitivity analysis: for example, repeat the spline fit and the helium/C/O reconstruction with a different sifting parameter or with c3+r or c4+r variants, and show that the conclusions are stable. This would address the concern that the mode selection was tuned to the same solar proxy used for prediction.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 7] The ACE carbon and oxygen comparisons are the only multi-cycle tests for heavier species, but the mean relative errors are about 24%, and the model is extrapolated down to 68.3 MeV/n (carbon) and 80.4 MeV/n (oxygen). With residuals of this size, calling the reconstruction 'satisfactory' needs a quantitative benchmark. Please report the residuals as a function of rigidity and epoch, and compare the framework against a baseline model—for example, the same transport model with a constant K0, or a simple force-field model driven by the same sunspot proxy. This would demonstrate that the added complexity of the time-dependent, polarity-dependent spline actually improves predictive skill for the heavier species.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1) and Table 1] The LIS parameterization in Eq. (1) uses indices i = 1, 2, 3 for the power-law breaks, while Table 1 lists P0, s0, Delta0, P1, s1, Delta1, P2, s2, Delta2. The notation should be harmonized so that the reader can directly map the table entries onto the equation.
  2. [Section 1.1 and throughout] There are a few typographical and grammatical issues: 'heliopshere' in the Introduction should be 'heliosphere'; 'Bartel's rotation' appears in the Figure 2 caption while the text standardly uses 'Bartels rotation'; and in Section 3, 'we used data form other epochs' should be 'data from other epochs'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Section 2.7, Eq. (11)] In the transition function Wt, the parameter c appears as sign(c) with 'c = ±1 respectively for reversals during even and odd solar cycles'. The notation is confusing because c is not otherwise defined and the sign convention is ambiguous; please define c explicitly with the corresponding solar cycles.
  4. [Section 2.6, Eq. (7)] The time-lag parameters in Table 2 come from a previous calibration with IMP-8 and ACE data. Since this is an essential input to the forecasting relation, a brief statement of how those parameters were derived and whether they are assumed to be cycle-independent would help the reader assess their applicability to the PAMELA/AMS-02 epochs.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

In-sample proton reconstructions reduce to the fitted spline mapping, and the cross-species K0 universality premise rests on a self-citation; independent He/C/O comparisons give the central claim real but only partial independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Results), Fig. 6; Eqs. (5), (6), (9)]
    "Once the smooth cross-correlation functions are determined, knowing the smoothed SSN value at epoch t allows us to establish the parameter K0 at epoch t+τ (t), enabling the forecast of CR fluxes. It’s noteworthy that this model was obtained using only the proton fluxes from PAMELA and AMS-02."

    The spline f in Eq. (9) is fitted to K* values derived from Ks = c4 + r (Eq. 6), where the K0(t) time series was itself obtained by fitting proton fluxes via χ2(K0) in Eq. (5). When the framework 'forecasts' proton fluxes at PAMELA/AMS-02 epochs inside 2006–2019, K0 is recovered from f(S(t−τ)), i.e. a smoothed interpolation of those same fitted K0 values, and the model output J(P, K0) then reproduces the proton data used in Eq. (5) by construction. The figure caption calls this 'reconstruction capabilities,' and the text notes the model was obtained from proton data, so this is a transparent in-sample fit rather than an independent proton prediction; nevertheless, Section 3 presents it among 'forecasting model results.'

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 3 (Results), paragraph after 'It’s noteworthy...']
    "as argued in Tomassetti et al. (2019), differences in the time variations of GCR fluxes can be attributed to variations in their spectral shapes (LIS) and the differing velocity dependence of the propagation parameters, which are influenced by the A/Z ratio ... Based on this argument, we assume that the parameter K0 is universal, and the correlation functions can be applied to other CR species enabling forecasts if the LIS spectrum and isotopes abundances are known."

    The premise that a proton-calibrated K0 applies unchanged to He, C, and O is the load-bearing step for every cross-species forecast. The only stated justification in the text is a citation to Tomassetti et al. (2019), whose author list overlaps with the present work; the paper itself shows no species-specific K0 calibration or independent derivation of universality. The He/C/O comparisons test the assumption after the fact, but the assumption itself is imported from the authors' prior work rather than derived here, so the non-proton forecasting claim rests on a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central forecasting chain is: fit K0 to proton data (Eq. 5); smooth via EMD, selecting c4 by its correlation with the solar-cycle mode d3 (Eq. 6, Sec. 2.5); fit a penalized spline f to K* versus the delayed sunspot proxy (Eqs. 8–9); then use SSN to recover K0 and compute fluxes of any species. The helium, carbon, and oxygen comparisons in Figs. 6–7, plus BESS and SOHO/EPHIN proton points outside the 2006–2019 calibration window, are genuine out-of-sample checks, and the LIS is fitted to Voyager and AMS-02 data rather than to the forecast target time series. Those features give the central claim independent content. However, within the calibration window the proton 'reconstructions' are not predictions: f is fit to Ks(t), which derives from K0 fit to those same proton fluxes, so the AMS/PAMELA proton agreement is forced by construction. The paper honestly labels these as reconstructions and notes that the model was obtained from proton data, but they are still presented as 'forecasting model results.' Separately, the universality of K0 for He/C/O is asserted on the basis of 'as argued in Tomassetti et al. (2019),' a self-citation with overlapping authors, with no species-specific K0 calibration shown. The EMD mode-selection step (c4 chosen by correlation with d3 and then used to build the SSN–K0 relation) also has a selection-bias flavor, though it is model construction rather than a prediction reduction. Overall, the paper is partially circular but not equivalent to its inputs: the non-proton species data were not used in the fit and could have falsified the framework.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical entities, but depends on several modeling assumptions: a simplified radial Parker solver, a constant LIS, and notably the universality of the proton-calibrated K0 across species. The spline correlation function and EMD mode selection are fitted or selected on the same data used for in-sample proton validation, which carries circularity risk. The time-lag parameters and LIS are adopted from prior fits, which provides some independent grounding but does not eliminate the fitted nature of the core correlation.

free parameters (6)
  • LIS parameters (N, gamma0, Pi, si, Deltai, phi) for p, He, C, O = Table 1, 12 values per species
    Fitted to Voyager and AMS-02 data in Reina Conde (2022) and used as fixed inputs here; they shape the species-dependent spectra that the forecasting model modulates.
  • Modulation parameter K0 per Bartels/Carrington rotation = Time series shown in Fig. 3, range ~2-10 x 10^22 cm^2/s
    Obtained by fitting the Parker model to PAMELA and AMS-02 proton fluxes (Eq. 5); this is the target variable that the spline correlation function is fit to.
  • Penalized B-spline correlation function f = Not tabulated; knot count, penalty lambda, and shift b chosen to minimize Eq. 9
    The spline maps the delayed, polarity-adjusted sunspot proxy to K0. Its coefficients and hyperparameters are fitted to the K0 time series in Section 2.6.
  • EMD sifting threshold = Not specified
    Controls the number of intrinsic mode functions (set to 4) in the EMD decomposition of K0(t); chosen empirically in Section 2.5.
  • Solar wind speed V = 450 km/s and heliopause radius rHP = 122 AU = 450 km/s, 122 AU
    Fixed constants chosen to remove the degeneracy between V, K0, and boundary size (Section 2.2).
  • Time-lag parameters tau_M, tau_A, T0, tp = 9.82 +/- 0.42 months, 4.87 +/- 0.55 months, 21.44 +/- 0.73 years, 2.25 +/- 0.51 years (Table 2)
    Adopted from Tomassetti et al. (2022), fitted to IMP-8 and ACE data; used in Eq. 7 for the delayed sunspot proxy. Not fitted in this paper.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The Parker equation can be reduced to a steady-state, spherically symmetric, isotropic diffusion equation with no radial dependence of K (Eqs. 3-4).
    Neglects drifts, the heliospheric current sheet, latitudinal solar wind structure, and radial K dependence, as stated in Sections 2.2 and 4.
  • domain assumption The quasi-steady approximation is valid at monthly resolution: a time series of steady-state solutions matches the time-dependent flux on solar cycle timescales.
    Used throughout to justify fitting K0 independently for each Bartels/Carrington rotation (Section 2.3).
  • domain assumption The Local Interstellar Spectrum is constant over time and is taken from Reina Conde (2022), fitted to Voyager and AMS-02 data.
    The LIS is the outer boundary condition at 122 AU and is assumed not to change during the solar cycles considered (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption K0 is universal across species; only the beta factor with A/Z scaling in the diffusion coefficient distinguishes species.
    Explicit assumption in Section 3: 'we assume that the parameter K0 is universal'; this is the basis for applying proton-calibrated correlations to He, C, and O.
  • domain assumption The empirical time-lag formula of Eq. 7, with parameters from Tomassetti et al. (2022), holds for all epochs, polarities, and proxies used.
    The lag parameters were calibrated on IMP-8 and ACE data and are applied without refitting to the PAMELA/AMS-02 period and earlier cycles (Section 2.6).
  • ad hoc to paper The EMD mode c4, plus residual r, captures the physically relevant long-term component of K0, and other modes are noise for this purpose.
    c4 is selected because it has statistically significant Spearman correlation with the d3 solar-cycle mode of the smoothed SSN; this selection is data-driven and applied to the same time series (Section 2.5).
  • ad hoc to paper The polarity transition function Wt of Eq. 11, with delta_t = 3 months and reversal times from Sun et al. (2015), smoothly interpolates the undefined-polarity periods.
    The logistic form and width are assumed without independent validation; used to blend positive and negative polarity solutions (Section 2.7).
  • ad hoc to paper The constructed proxy A/S(t-tau) and the shift b in Eq. 8 provide a smooth, well-behaved independent variable for the spline across polarity phases.
    The proxy is designed to tend to zero at high solar activity to stabilize extrapolation; its form is chosen for convenience, not derived from theory (Section 2.6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A forecasting framework for galactic cosmic ray flux in space weather applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PM6MYFOB

@misc{pith2026250707616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A forecasting framework for galactic cosmic ray flux in space weather applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PM6MYFOB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07616}
}
read the original abstract

The intensity and energy spectrum of galactic cosmic rays in the heliosphere are significantly influenced by the 11-year solar cycle, a phenomenon known as solar modulation. Understanding this effect and its underlying physical mechanisms is essential for assessing radiation exposure and associated risks during space missions. Starting from a previously developed effective predictive model of solar modulation, validated using cosmic ray flux measurements from space-based detectors such as PAMELA and AMS-02, we build a generalizable forecasting strategy for the long-term evolution of cosmic ray fluxes. This strategy is based on identifying delayed cross-correlation relationships between solar proxies and the model's parameters. It integrates recent findings on time lags between cosmic ray fluxes and solar activity, and incorporates advanced time-series signal processing techniques. The framework not only performs well in reproducing observed data, but also shows strong potential for applications in space radiation monitoring and forecasting. By efficiently capturing the long-term variability of galactic cosmic rays, our approach contributes valuable insights for evaluating radiation risks, ultimately supporting safer and more effective space exploration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07616 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison among LIS models representing dif￾ferent GCR species such as protons, He, C, and O, with the magenta line indicating the LIS utilized in this study (Reina Conde 2022). Low-energy data from Voyager (Cum￾mings et al. 2016) and high-energy data from AMS-02 (Aguilar et al. 2021a), (Aguilar et al. 2017) are also included. The Oxygen LIS and data are scaled by an arbitrary factor for visualization purposes. lis… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Modulated energy spectra measured by PAMELA and AMS-02 over 8 selected Bartel rotations (BR), marked as black boxes in the bottom panel. The calculations show the best-fit proton fluxes as black lines, while the magenta line represents the LIS used in this work. The model demonstrates good consistency with the data across all explored epochs. The bottom panel shows the temporal evolution of the proton flux measured … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The best-fit results of the model parameter K0 from the time-resolved proton flux measurements of PAMELA and AMS-02 are reported in green and blue mark￾ers respectively. The dark blue points represent the same pa￾rameter after smoothing using the EMD approach described in the text (see Sect. 2.5), whose intrinsic mode functions ci, with i = 1, . . . , 4, are also displayed. Relating to the heliospheric conditions du… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Hilbert spectrum of the d3 mode of the solar proxy, and of c4 from the modulation parameter, highlighting their shared ∼11-year periodicity over time. Right: Mode-by-mode cross-correlation matrix between the modulation parameter K0(t) and the smoothed sunspot num…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The top row displays the spline function ⃗f, shown as blue lines, for the model’s modulation parameter obtained using the penalized spline fit defined in Eq. 9. The magenta data points correspond to the K∗ parameter derived from Eq. 8 plotted against A/S(t−τ ). The bot…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top plot: Results of the model evaluated at approximately 1300 MeV/n for protons using data from SOHO/EPHIN, BESS, PAMELA (Adriani et al. 2013; Martucci et al. 2018), and AMS-02 (Aguilar et al. 2021b) at the nearest energy bin to showcase reconstruction capabilities an…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of the model evaluated at 80.4 MeV/n for Oxygen (magenta data-points) and 68.3 MeV/n for Carbon (azure data-points) shown as a solid blue line. The shaded band accounts for the model uncertainty; refer to the text for more details. The data are monthly averaged…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 822, 65, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/65

    Abe, K., Fuke, H., Haino, S., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 822, 65, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/65

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/822/2/65 2016

  2. [2]

    C., Bazilevskaya, G

    Adriani, O., Barbarino, G. C., Bazilevskaya, G. A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/91

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/91 2013

  3. [3]

    2014, Physics Reports, 544, 323, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.06.003

    Adriani, O., Barbarino, G., Bazilevskaya, G., et al. 2014, Physics Reports, 544, 323, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.06.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.06.003 2014

  4. [4]

    A., & Ambrosi, G

    Aguilar, M., Cavasonza, L. A., & Ambrosi, G. e. a. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 130, 161001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.161001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.161001 2023

  5. [5]

    2013, Phys

    Aguilar, M., Alberti, G., Alpat, B., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 141102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.141102 2013

  6. [6]

    2017, Phys

    Aguilar, M., Ali Cavasonza, L., Alpat, B., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 251101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.251101 2017

  7. [7]

    2021a, Physics Reports, 894, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.09.003

    Aguilar, M., Ali Cavasonza, L., Ambrosi, G., et al. 2021a, Physics Reports, 894, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.09.003

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.09.003 2020

  8. [8]

    A., Ambrosi, G., et al

    Aguilar, M., Cavasonza, L. A., Ambrosi, G., et al. 2021b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 271102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.271102 —. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 231102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.231102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.271102 2022

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    2025, Phys

    Aguilar, M., Alpat, B., Ambrosi, G., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 134, 051001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.051001 Al ´ ıa, R. G., Bilko, K., Cerutti, F., et al. 2023, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 70, 486, doi: 10.1109/TNS.2022.3210403

    2025

  2. [10]

    Asikainen, T., & Mantere, M. J. 2023, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 13, 25, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2023024

    2023

  3. [11]

    A., & Usoskin, I

    Asvestari, E., Gil, A., Kovaltsov, G. A., & Usoskin, I. G. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 9790, doi: 10.1002/2017JA024469

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Torre, S

    Boschini, M. J., Torre, S. D., Gervasi, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 250, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba901

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 8, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/8

    Corti, C., Bindi, V., Consolandi, C., & Whitman, K. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 8, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/8

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Stone, E

    Cummings, A. C., Stone, E. C., Heikkila, B. C., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/18

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    V., & Dorman, L

    Dorman, I. V., & Dorman, L. I. 1967, Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977), 72, 1513

    1967

  8. [16]

    Dorman, L., Tassev, Y., Velinov, P. I. Y., et al. 2019, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1181, 012070, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1181/1/012070

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Durante, M., & Cucinotta, F. A. 2011, Rev. Mod. Phys., 83, 1245, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1245 A forecasting framework for galactic cosmic ray flux in space weather applications13

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    2016, Phys

    Feng, J., Tomassetti, N., & Oliva, A. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 123007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.123007

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    2021, Phys

    Fiandrini, E., Tomassetti, N., Bertucci, B., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 023012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.023012

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    J., & Axford, W

    Gleeson, L. J., & Axford, W. I. 1968, The Astrophysical Journal, 154, 1011, doi: 10.1086/149822

    1968 doi

  13. [21]

    2005, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 52, 2818, doi: 10.1109/TNS.2005.860152

    Hatlo, M., James, F., Mato, P., et al. 2005, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 52, 2818, doi: 10.1109/TNS.2005.860152

    2005

  14. [22]

    2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 23, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023207

    Herbst, K., Muscheler, R., & Heber, B. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 23, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023207

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    E., Shen, Z., Long, S

    Huang, N. E., Shen, Z., Long, S. R., et al. 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 454, 903, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1998.0193

    1998

  16. [24]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf719

    Jiang, J., Lin, S., & Yang, L. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf719

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    2024, Econometrics and Statistics, 29, 169, doi: 10.1016/j.ecosta.2021.07.005

    Kalogridis, I., & Van Aelst, S. 2024, Econometrics and Statistics, 29, 169, doi: 10.1016/j.ecosta.2021.07.005

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    A., K¨ ahk¨ onen, R., Hofer, B., et al

    Koldobskiy, S. A., K¨ ahk¨ onen, R., Hofer, B., et al. 2022, Solar Physics, 297, 38, doi: 10.1007/s11207-022-01970-1 K¨ uhl, P., G´ omez-Herrero, R., & Heber, B. 2016, Solar Physics, 291, 965, doi: 10.1007/s11207-016-0879-0

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Zhang, M., & Shen, F

    Luo, X., Potgieter, M. S., Zhang, M., & Shen, F. 2024, Astrophys. J., 961, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cb6

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab80c2 —

    Marcelli, N., Boezio, M., Lenni, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab80c2 —. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 925, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4787

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 854, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa9b2

    Martucci, M., Munini, R., Boezio, M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 854, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa9b2

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2011, Space Science Reviews, 176, 299, doi: 10.1007/s11214-011-9819-3

    Moraal, H. 2011, Space Science Reviews, 176, 299, doi: 10.1007/s11214-011-9819-3

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    Badavi, F. F. 2018, Life Sciences in Space Research, 18, 64, doi: 10.1016/j.lssr.2018.05.003

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    2000, Advances in Space Research, 26, 1875, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(99)01242-9

    Nymmik, R. 2000, Advances in Space Research, 26, 1875, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(99)01242-9

    2000 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 62, 221, doi: 10.1007/s00411-023-01023-6

    Papadopoulos, A., Kyriakou, I., Incerti, S., et al. 2023, Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 62, 221, doi: 10.1007/s00411-023-01023-6

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    1965, Planetary and Space Science, 13, 9, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(65)90131-5

    Parker, E. 1965, Planetary and Space Science, 13, 9, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(65)90131-5

    1965 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 922, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3663

    Criscuoli, S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 922, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3663

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    A., J´ ohannesson, G., & Moskalenko, I

    Porter, T. A., J´ ohannesson, G., & Moskalenko, I. V. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac80f6

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    S., Vos, E

    Potgieter, M. S., Vos, E. E., Boezio, M., et al. 2014, Solar Physics, 289, 391, doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0324-6 Reina Conde, A. 2022, PhD thesis, Universidad de La Laguna

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449836

    Romaneehsen, L., Heber, B., & Marquardt, J. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449836

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2000, Advances in Space Research, 26, 1831, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(99)01232-6

    Seo, E., Wang, J., Matsunaga, H., et al. 2000, Advances in Space Research, 26, 1831, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(99)01232-6

    2000 doi

  32. [40]

    2003, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Shikaze, Y., Abe, K., Anraku, K., et al. 2003, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 7, Proceedings of the 28th International Cosmic Ray

    2003

  33. [41]

    2007, Astroparticle Physics, 28, 154, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.05.001

    Shikaze, Y., Haino, S., Abe, K., et al. 2007, Astroparticle Physics, 28, 154, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.05.001

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    C., Cummings, A

    Stone, E. C., Cummings, A. C., Heikkila, B. C., & Lal, N. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1013, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0928-3

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    C., Cohen, C

    Stone, E. C., Cohen, C. M. S., Cook, W. R., et al. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 86, 285, doi: 10.1023/A:1005075813033

    1998 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Potgieter, M

    Strauss, R. D., Potgieter, M. S., Kopp, A., & B¨ usching, I. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116, doi: 10.1029/2011JA016831

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    T., Liu, Y., & Zhao, J

    Sun, X., Hoeksema, J. T., Liu, Y., & Zhao, J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/114

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, Advances in Space Research, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.06.025

    Orcinha, M. 2019, Advances in Space Research, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.06.025

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, Phys

    Tomassetti, N., Bertucci, B., & Fiandrini, E. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 103022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103022

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 803, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/L15 Van Allen, J

    Tomassetti, N., & Donato, F. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 803, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/L15 Van Allen, J. A. 2000, Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 2453

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    2019, Phys

    Wang, B., Bi, X.-J., Fang, K., Lin, S.-J., & Yin, P.-F. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 063006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063006

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acca1b

    Wang, S., Bindi, V., Consolandi, C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acca1b

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 157

    Wang, Y., Guo, J., Li, G., Roussos, E., & Zhao, J. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 157

    2022

Pith tools

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