Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Using Cosmic Rays to Predict the Weather: Meteorological Data Assimilation of Atmospheric Muon Flux Data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Assimilating hourly cosmic-ray muon counts into a weather model improves forecasts of surface pressure, wind, and temperature, outperforming a single barometer observation in simulated cyclone conditions.

desk verdict Genuinely novel OSSE showing muon flux assimilation could help NWP, but the unvalidated forward model and perfect-model setup mean the quantitative gains are promising, not settled. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04627 v2 pith:FRXCWFTJ submitted 2025-09-04 physics.ao-ph astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMhep-ex

William Luszczak , Man-Yau Chan This is my paper
classification physics.ao-phastro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMhep-ex
keywords atmosphericmuonfluxdataassimilationensembleKalmanfilternumericalweatherpredictionobservingsystemsimulationexperimenttropicalcyclonedensitycosmicrays
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

Numerical weather prediction needs to know the atmospheric density field, but routine instruments only sample it at points. This paper asks whether the count of cosmic-ray muons hitting a ground detector—an integral of the density along many slant paths through the atmosphere—can fill that gap. In an observing-system simulation of tropical cyclone Freddy over the southwest Indian Ocean, the authors assimilate hourly all-sky muon counts into a 50-member ensemble of a regional weather model using an ensemble adjustment Kalman filter. They find that muon-count assimilation lowers forecast error in surface pressure, wind, temperature, and (weakly) humidity, and that a detector with effective exposure 10^3 m^2 s already matches a single surface-pressure observation while larger exposures beat it. If correct, this gives weather services a new, cheap, volume-sensitive observation type from existing or easily built particle detectors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the atmospheric muon flux viewed as a volume-integrated density measurement. The paper treats the all-sky muon count as the observed quantity, computed from the model's temperature and density profile by a cascade-equation solver and converted to a Poisson draw with variance equal to the count. The assimilation engine is an ensemble adjustment Kalman filter, which transfers information from the scalar count to model variables through ensemble-estimated correlations, localized with a fifth-order rational function over a 640 km horizontal radius and 0.75 scale height vertically. The decisive diagnostic is the correlation map between muon flux at the detector and surface p

What would settle it

Deploy a calibrated ~1 m2 scintillator muon counter beside an operational weather station in a cyclone-prone region, and for several weeks assimilate hourly all-sky counts into a regional numerical weather prediction system while a control run assimilates only the co-located barometer. If muon assimilation does not reduce surface-pressure RMSE against radiosondes or reanalysis beyond the barometer case, the central claim fails. A complementary check: compare the cascade-equation model's predicted counts against the detector's measured counts over 24 h with co-located radiosonde density profile

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the total number of atmospheric muons counted per hour by a non-tracking, constant-efficiency detector is a usable meteorological observable, and that assimilating it into a numerical weather prediction system improves state estimates. The demonstration is a perfect-model observing-system simulation: a nature run reproduces cyclone Freddy, 50 perturbed members form the ensemble, and synthetic muon counts are computed at one site (17.21 S, 65.55 E) with a cascade-equation solver using a hadronic interaction model and a published primary cosmic-ray spectrum, then Poisson-sampled. Assimilating these hourly counts reduces domain-averaged RMSE relative to free ev

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation of muon counts from the model atmosphere—cascade equations, hadronic interaction model, primary spectrum, constant-efficiency detector response—faithfully represents what a real detector would measure; if real detectors have angle- or energy-dependent response, or if the interaction model misses meteorological-scale effects, the simulated signal could be biased or absent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Muon-count assimilation at effective exposures of 10^3 m^2 s or more reduces surface-pressure RMSE versus free model evolution; at exposures of 10^5–10^6 m^2 s the improvement exceeds that from assimilating one surface-pressure point by more than 10% in time-integrated RMSE.
  • The exposure requirement is small: by the paper's estimate, a 0.27 m^2 detector counting for one hour, a 1 m^2 detector for 16.7 minutes, or a 10 m^2 detector for 1.7 minutes would already outperform barometer-point assimilation.
  • Only the total all-sky count is needed, so non-tracking scintillator panels—including readouts from large existing astroparticle arrays—qualify as meteorological instruments without new technology.
  • Assimilating directional muon flux, not just the all-sky integral, is a plausible further gain because ensemble members show distinct anisotropy directions.
  • Forecast improvements extend beyond surface pressure to both wind components and potential temperature, with small humidity gains appearing for the largest detectors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The experiment tests one detector site during one cyclone; an untested extension is that networks of muon counters along midlatitude storm tracks would produce larger and more robust gains than a single tropical-cyclone detector.
  • If the volume-sensitivity mechanism is real, muon counts should also sharpen the estimated vertical density structure far from the detector; this could be tested by examining analysis increments aloft in a multi-detector observing-system simulation.
  • Because the study uses a 'perfect model' setup (identical model physics for truth and ensemble), the 0.27 m^2 threshold may be optimistic under real model error; a pilot with a calibrated detector and a co-located barometer is the natural next test.
  • Directional muon data could be recast as a tomographic constraint on the three-dimensional density field, connecting this work to muon tomography; binning the simulated flux by arrival direction would quantify the added value.
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 proposes using ground-level atmospheric muon count rate as a meteorological observation for ensemble data assimilation. In a perfect-model OSSE for tropical cyclone Freddy, the authors run a 50-member WRF ensemble generated from ERA5 perturbations, synthesize hourly muon-count observations for a single non-tracking detector using MCEq/SIBYLL 2.3c with the Gaisser primary flux, and assimilate them with DART's EAKF. The experiments compare a no-assimilation control, four muon detectors with exposures from 10^3 to 10^6 m^2 s, and a co-located surface pressure observation. They report reduced RMSE for surface pressure, winds, potential temperature, and water vapor, with muon assimilation outperforming the PSFC point observation, especially in a region east of the detector. The authors conclude that muon flux measurements can improve weather forecasts and that the benefit is partially unique to muon measurements, requiring only a detector of order 0.27 m^2 for a 1-hour accumulation.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a novel and potentially impactful observation system: an inexpensive, non-tracking muon counter could provide volumetric information about atmospheric density that surface point measurements cannot. The OSSE is internally consistent, uses a standard EnKF and a realistic 50-member WRF ensemble, and the comparison against a co-located PSFC observation is a useful control that tests the added value of the muon measurement. The exposure estimate is a concrete, practically useful design target. However, the central claim depends on the fidelity of the muon forward operator and on the representativeness of a single case-study OSSE; both need strengthening before the broader conclusion is warranted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.D, Eq. (5)] The flat-detector muon count rate is written as an integral of Φ(Ω,E) over all directions without the angular projection factor. For a detector with a horizontal interaction plane, the integrand should contain cosθ if θ is the zenith angle, or sinθ if θ is the elevation angle as defined in the text. Dropping this factor gives equal weight to grazing and vertical trajectories, which strongly enhances sensitivity to distant, low-elevation air masses. This is precisely the 'volume' effect used to explain the unique east-of-site improvement in Figs. 5–7 and the distinctive correlations in Figs. 6–9. Because Eq. (5) is used both to generate the synthetic observations from the nature run and to map every ensemble member to observation space, the OSSE cannot detect this misspecification. Please correct the angular projection or explicitly justify that Eeff already absorbs a state-dependent angu
  2. [§II.F, §III] The headline claim that muon assimilation is 'somewhat unique' rests on one 24-hour tropical cyclone case, one detector location, one draw of synthetic observation noise, and hand-picked localization radii (640 km horizontal, 0.75 scale height vertical). The RMSE curves in Figs. 3, 4, and 10 show no uncertainty bands; differences of a few percent between the muon and PSFC curves may be within sampling variability. Please provide repeated experiments with different observation-noise draws, sensitivity tests to the localization radii, and ideally additional cases, or at least report ensemble-spread-based confidence intervals. Without this, the comparative conclusion in §V is not robustly supported.
  3. [§II.D, §V] The observation operator is not validated against real muon measurements. The use of MCEq with SIBYLL 2.3c and the Gaisser primary flux may carry systematic errors in muon yield and angular distribution, and Eq. (5) ignores detector energy and angular response. In a perfect-model OSSE, the same WRF configuration is used for the nature run and the ensemble, and the same h is used for truth and ensemble mapping; any systematic error in h is thus invisible to the experiment. The claim that real muon flux data can improve NWP requires at least a sensitivity study using alternative hadronic/primary models and a realistic detector response, and ideally a comparison against observed muon count variations during a meteorological event. As written, the result is a self-consistent proof of concept, but the real-world transferability is undemonstrated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II.D, Eq. (6)] The Poisson probability is written with e^{N} in the numerator; it should be e^{-N}. As typeset, the formula is not a valid probability distribution. This is likely a typo, but it should be corrected for reproducibility.
  2. [§II.B, Eq. (4)] The description of the 50-member ensemble generation is slightly confusing: it mentions 10 ERA5 perturbations, then '41 additional perturbations', then reuses x'_51 as a common offset. Please clarify the indexing so the construction of all 50 members is unambiguous.
  3. [§II.F] The localization radii are selected by examining ensemble correlations, which is reasonable, but the choice of 640 km and 0.75 scale height should be presented with the correlation diagnostics shown or referenced; currently the reader cannot assess how sharp the correlation support is.
  4. [Figures 3–4] The line styles for the four muon-exposure curves are hard to distinguish in some panels, especially 10^5 vs 10^6 m^2 s. Consider using different markers or line styles for grayscale readability.
  5. [§IV.A] The statement that 'real muon detectors have complicated angular and energy dependence' is important; it should appear earlier in the observation-operator discussion and be connected explicitly to the limitations of the idealized flat-response assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the OSSE improvements are computed, not fitted; self-citations are not load-bearing. The main caveat is observation-operator fidelity, which is a correctness risk, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on a perfect-model OSSE in which the same muon-flux observation operator h (based on MCEq with SIBYLL 2.3c and the Gaisser primary flux) is used to generate synthetic observations from the nature run and to map ensemble members into observation space. This is standard OSSE methodology and does not by construction force the forecast improvements; the EnKF updates are determined by ensemble-estimated correlations, and no parameter is fitted to the headline RMSE reductions. The localization radius (640 km) is selected by examining correlation maps, a mild tuning step, but the reported RMSE improvements are not simply a restatement of those correlations, and the same localization is applied to the surface-pressure comparison experiment, so the muon-specific benefit is not an artifact of localization. Self-citations (Luszczak & Orf 2025; Chan et al. 2020/2023/2024) appear as motivation or as resampling methodology and are not the load-bearing justification for the forecast-improvement claim; no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work. The principal weakness is that h itself is unvalidated against real detector response (and Eq. (5) omits a cosθ projection for a flat detector), but that is a model-fidelity/correctness concern, not a circular derivation. The paper's conclusion is conditional on the forward model being a faithful representation of a real muon measurement, which the authors do not establish; nevertheless, the derivation chain from the stated assumptions to the OSSE results is not circular.

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

The main free parameters are DA tuning choices (localization radii, RTPS), not fitted to the target metric, but the localization radii are data-informed. The forward model and perfect-model assumption are the key domain axioms. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Horizontal localization radius = 640 km
    Chosen based on examining spatial correlations between muon flux and surface pressure in the ensemble (Sec. II.E); no sensitivity study.
  • Vertical localization radius = 0.75 scale height
    Chosen via same correlation-based approach; see Sec. II.E.
  • RTPS relaxation factor = 0.8
    Applied to maintain spread-to-error ratios; standard factor, not optimized here (Sec. II.E).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The atmospheric muon flux at the surface is determined by the atmospheric density profile through MCEq with SIBYLL 2.3c and the Gaisser primary flux.
    Used to define the observation operator h in Sec. II.D; not validated against real muon measurements in this study.
  • domain assumption The WRF model with the specified physics is an adequate representation of the atmosphere for both the nature run and the ensemble (perfect model OSSE).
    All simulations share the same model configuration (Sec. II.B); this removes model error from the assimilation experiment.
  • domain assumption Relationships between muon count and model state are approximately linear and Gaussian, as assumed by the EAKF.
    EnKF framework in Sec. II.E; the total muon count is a Poisson draw but the assimilation treats it with Gaussian approximations.
  • standard math Hydrostatic balance relates surface pressure to column mass.
    Used to explain why muon flux (sensitive to column density) improves PSFC (Sec. III.A).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Using Cosmic Rays to Predict the Weather: Meteorological Data Assimilation of Atmospheric Muon Flux Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FRXCWFTJ

@misc{pith2026250904627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Using Cosmic Rays to Predict the Weather: Meteorological Data Assimilation of Atmospheric Muon Flux Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FRXCWFTJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04627}
}
read the original abstract

Numerical weather prediction requires initial estimates of the atmospheric state. Since the atmospheric density field is intricately woven into the atmosphere's governing equations, advancing atmospheric density estimation will improve numerical weather prediction. However, current meteorological instrumentation cannot directly measure the atmospheric density field over large volumes. Existing techniques rely on sparse point measurements, limiting our ability to accurately estimate the three-dimensional atmospheric density field. One potential solution is to employ measurements of the atmospheric muon flux. Atmospheric muons are particles produced when energetic atomic nuclei (cosmic rays) collide with nuclei in the upper atmosphere, producing a shower of secondary particles (muons) that propagates to the Earth's surface. The surface atmospheric muon flux is known to be proportional to the local atmospheric density field, implying that this technique can be used as a measurement of atmospheric density. This study examines the potential for using atmospheric muon flux measurements to improve atmospheric state estimation via a case study of simulated atmospheric muon observations in the path of tropical cyclone Freddy. We show that improvement in data assimilation performance can be achieved using data from a relatively small astroparticle detector, well within the capabilities of existing astroparticle technology. We additionally show that the improvements to atmospheric state estimates associated with muon flux assimilation are at least partially unique to muon flux measurements, as comparable surface pressure point measurements do not reproduce a similar effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04627 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Typical workflow of an EnKF-based DA system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Top: Surface pressure (PSFC) RMSE values, calcu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Similar to Fig 3, except that the PSFC RMSEs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: figure 5. In addition to improved surface pressure fore [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Top: The difference in surface pressure RMSE be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The correlation between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The normalized dependence of measured muon flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Top: Plots of the correlation between muon flux (left), surface pressure (center) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. As figure 8, but showing the correlation of muon flux (or surface pressure) measurements with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The temporal integral of the curves shown in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Directions of greatest muon flux anisotropy, for 50 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lechmann, D

    A. Lechmann, D. Mair, A. Ariga, T. Ariga, A. Ereditato, R. Nishiyama, C. Pistillo, P. Scampoli, F. Schlunegger, and M. Vladymyrov, Muon tomography in geoscientific research – a guide to best practice, Earth-Science Re- views 222, 103842 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Jourde, D

    K. Jourde, D. Gibert, J. Marteau, J. de Bremond d’Ars, S. Gardien, C. Girerd, and J.-C. Ianigro, Monitoring temporal opacity fluctuations of large structures with muon radiography: a calibration experiment using a wa- ter tower, Scientific Reports6, 10.1038/srep23054 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1038/srep23054 2016

  3. [3]

    Seasonal variation of atmospheric muons in IceCube

    S. Tilav, T. K. Gaisser, D. Soldin, and P. Desiati, Sea- sonal variation of atmospheric muons in icecube (2019), arXiv:1909.01406 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Alameddine, J

    J.-M. Alameddine, J. Soedingrekso, A. Sandrock, M. Sackel, and W. Rhode, Proposal: A library to propa- gate leptons and high energy photons, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1690, 012021 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Tanaka, J

    H. Tanaka, J. Gluyas, M. Holma, J. Joutsenvaara, P. Ku- usiniemi, G. Leone, D. Lo Presti, J. Matsushima, L. Ol´ ah, S. Steigerwald, L. Thompson, I. Usoskin, S. Poluianov, D. Varga, and Y. Yokota, Atmospheric muography for imaging and monitoring tropic cyclones, Scientific Re- ports 12, 16710 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Luszczak and L

    W. Luszczak and L. Orf, Effect of tornadic supercell thunderstorms on the atmospheric muon flux, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023018 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    ECMWF, IFS Documentation CY49R1 - Part II: Data Assimilation, in IFS Documentation CY49R1(ECMWF,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Kalnay, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Vol

    E. Kalnay, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Vol. 129 (Cambridge University Press, 2003) pp. 2441–2442

    work page 2003

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    S. J. Fletcher, Applications of Data Assimilation in the Geosciences, in Data Assimilation for the Geosciences (Elsevier, 2017) pp. 887–916

    2017

  2. [10]

    Evensen, F

    G. Evensen, F. C. Vossepoel, and P. J. van Leeuwen, Springer Textbooks in Earth Sciences, Geography and En- vironment (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    J. S. Whitaker and T. M. Hamill, Ensemble data assimi- lation without perturbed observations, Monthly Weather Review 130, 1913 (2002)

    1913

  4. [12]

    J. L. Anderson, A Local Least Squares Framework for Ensemble Filtering, Monthly Weather Review 131, 634 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    G. Evensen, Sequential data assimilation with a nonlinear quasi-geostrophic model using Monte Carlo methods to forecast error statistics, Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 10143 (1994)

    1994

  6. [14]

    Burgers, P

    G. Burgers, P. Jan van Leeuwen, G. Evensen, P. J. Van Leeuwen, and G. Evensen, Analysis scheme in the ensemble Kalman filter, Monthly Weather Review 126, 1719 (1998)

    1998

  7. [15]

    P. L. Houtekamer and H. L. Mitchell, Data assimila- tion using an ensemble Kalman filter technique, Monthly Weather Review 126, 796 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    C. H. Bishop, B. J. Etherton, and S. J. Majumdar, Adap- tive Sampling with the Ensemble Transform Kalman Fil- ter. Part I: Theoretical Aspects, Monthly Weather Re- view 129, 420 (2001)

    2001

  9. [17]

    D. T. Pham, Stochastic Methods for Sequential Data Assimilation in Strongly Nonlinear Systems, Monthly Weather Review 129, 1194 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    World Meteorological Organization, Tropical Cyclone Freddy is the longest tropical cyclone on record at 36 days (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    A. J. Simmons and D. M. Burridge, An energy and angular-momentum conserving vertical finite- difference scheme and hybrid vertical coordinates., Monthly Weather Review 109, 10.1175/1520- 0493(1981)109¡0758:AEAAMC¿2.0.CO;2 (1981)

    1981 doi

  12. [20]

    Thompson, P

    G. Thompson, P. R. Field, R. M. Rasmussen, and W. D. Hall, Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. Part II: Implemen- tation of a new snow parameterization, Monthly Weather Review 136, 5095 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    P. A. Jim´ enez, J. Dudhia, J. F. Gonz´ alez-Rouco, J. Navarro, J. P. Mont´ avez, and E. Garc ´ ıa-Bustamante, A revised scheme for the WRF surface layer formula- tion, Monthly Weather Review 140, 10.1175/MWR-D- 11-00056.1 (2012)

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Tewari, F

    M. Tewari, F. Chen, W. Wang, J. Dudhia, M. A. LeMone, K. Mitchell, M. Ek, G. Gayno, J. Wegiel, and R. H. Cuenca, Implementation and verification of the unified noah land surface model in the WRF model, in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society(2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    S. Y. Hong, Y. Noh, and J. Dudhia, A new ver- tical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes, Monthly Weather Review 10.1175/MWR3199.1 (2006)

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    M. J. Iacono, J. S. Delamere, E. J. Mlawer, M. W. Shep- hard, S. A. Clough, and W. D. Collins, Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: Calculations with the AER radiative transfer models, Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 10.1029/2008JD009944 (2008)

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    Chou and M

    M.-D. Chou and M. J. Suarez, A Solar Radiation Param- eterization Atmospheric Studies, Technical Report Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    S. Wang, A. H. Sobel, F. Zhang, Y. Qiang Sun, Y. Yue, and L. Zhou, Regional simulation of the oc- tober and november MJO events observed during the CINDY/DYNAMO field campaign at gray zone resolu- tion, Journal of Climate 28, 2097 (2015)

  19. [27]

    Hersbach, B

    H. Hersbach, B. Bell, P. Berrisford, S. Hirahara, A. Hor´ anyi, J. Mu˜ noz-Sabater, J. Nicolas, C. Peubey, R. Radu, D. Schepers, A. Simmons, C. Soci, S. Abdalla, X. Abellan, G. Balsamo, P. Bechtold, G. Biavati, J. Bid- lot, M. Bonavita, G. De Chiara, P. Dahlgren, D. Dee, M. Di...

    2020

  20. [28]

    M.-Y. Chan, J. L. Anderson, and X. Chen, An effi- cient bi-Gaussian ensemble Kalman filter for satellite in- frared radiance data assimilation, Monthly Weather Re- view 10.1175/mwr-d-20-0142.1 (2020)

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    M.-Y. Chan, X. Chen, and J. L. Anderson, The po- tential benefits of handling mixture statistics via a bi- Gaussian EnKF: tests with all-sky satellite infrared radi- ances, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 13 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    M.-Y. Chan, Improving Ensemble Data Assimilation through Probit-space Ensemble Size Expansion for Gaus- sian Copulas (PESE-GC), Nonlinear Processes in Geo- physics 10.5194/npg-31-287-2024 (2024)

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    G. Y. Yang and J. Slingo, The diurnal cycle in the tropics, Monthly Weather Review 129, 784 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Ickes, A

    L. Ickes, A. Welti, C. Hoose, and U. Lohmanna, Classi- cal Nucleation Theory of homogeneous freezing of water: Thermodynamic and kinetic parameters (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Morrison, M

    H. Morrison, M. van Lier-Walqui, A. M. Fridlind, W. W. Grabowski, J. Y. Harrington, C. Hoose, A. Ko- rolev, M. R. Kumjian, J. A. Milbrandt, H. Pawlowska, D. J. Posselt, O. P. Prat, K. J. Reimel, S. I. Shima, B. van Diedenhoven, and L. Xue, Confronting the Chal- lenge of Modeli...

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    T. K. Gaisser, Spectrum of cosmic-ray nucleons, kaon production, and the atmospheric muon charge ratio, Astroparticle Physics 35, 801 (2012), arXiv:1111.6675 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Riehn, H

    F. Riehn, H. P. Dembinski, R. Engel, A. Fedynitch, T. K. Gaisser, and T. Stanev, The hadronic interaction model SIBYLL 2.3c and Feynman scaling, PoSICRC2017, 301 (2018), arXiv:1709.07227 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. L. Anderson, T. Hoar, K. Raeder, H. Liu, N. Collins, R. Torn, and A. Avellano, The data assimilation research testbed a community facility, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90, 1283 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    J. L. Anderson, An ensemble adjustment Kalman fil- ter for data assimilation, Monthly Weather Review 129, 2884 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    M. K. Tippett, J. L. Anderson, C. H. Bishop, T. M. Hamill, and J. S. Whitaker, Ensemble Square Root Fil- ters, Monthly Weather Review 131, 1485 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    K. Zhu, Y. Pan, M. Xue, X. Wang, J. S. Whitaker, S. G. Benjamin, S. S. Weygandt, and M. Hu, A Regional GSI- Based Ensemble Kalman Filter Data Assimilation Sys- tem for the Rapid Refresh Configuration: Testing at Re- duced Resolution, Monthly Weather Review 141, 4118 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    J. S. Whitaker, T. M. Hamill, X. Wei, Y. Song, and Z. Toth, Ensemble data assimilation with the NCEP global forecast system, Monthly Weather Review 136, 10.1175/2007MWR2018.1 (2008)

    2008 doi

  33. [41]

    Gaspari and S

    G. Gaspari and S. E. Cohn, Construction of correlation functions in two and three dimensions, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 125, 723 (1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    G. K. Vallis, Essentials of Atmospheric and Oceanic Dy- namics (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    J. R. Holton and G. J. Hakim, An Introduction to Dy- namic Meteorology: Fifth Edition, Vol. 9780123848666 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    C. F. Bohren and B. A. Albrecht, Atmospheric Thermo- dynamics (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    The Pierre Auger Cosmic Ray Observatory, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 798, 172 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Teshima (Telescope Array), Telescope Array project, in 32nd Rencontres de Moriond: High-Energy Phenom- ena in Astrophysics(1997) pp

    M. Teshima (Telescope Array), Telescope Array project, in 32nd Rencontres de Moriond: High-Energy Phenom- ena in Astrophysics(1997) pp. 217–222

    1997

  39. [47]

    Gupta, Y

    S. Gupta, Y. Aikawa, N. Gopalakrishnan, Y. Hayashi, N. Ikeda, N. Ito, A. Jain, A. John, S. Karthikeyan, S. Kawakami, T. Matsuyama, D. Mohanty, P. Mohanty, S. Morris, T. Nonaka, A. Oshima, B. Rao, K. Ravindran, M. Sasano, K. Sivaprasad, B. Sreekantan, H. Tanaka, S. Tonwar, K. V...

    2005

  40. [48]

    Ayres et al., The NOvA Technical Design Report, Tech

    D. Ayres et al., The NOvA Technical Design Report, Tech. Rep. (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    Kauer, T

    M. Kauer, T. Huber, D. Tosi, and C. Wendt, The scin- tillator upgrade of icetop: Performance of the prototype array (2019), arXiv:1908.09860 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Aartsen et al., The icecube neutrino observatory: in- strumentation and online systems, Journal of Instrumen- tation 12 (03), P03012–P03012

    M. Aartsen et al., The icecube neutrino observatory: in- strumentation and online systems, Journal of Instrumen- tation 12 (03), P03012–P03012

  43. [51]

    Agostini, M

    M. Agostini, M. B¨ ohmer, J. Bosma, K. Clark, M. Dan- ninger, C. Fruck, R. Gernh¨ auser, A. G¨ artner, D. Grant, F. Henningsen, K. Holzapfel, M. Huber, R. Jenkyns, C. B. Krauss, K. Krings, C. Kopper, K. Leism¨ uller, S. Leys, P. Macoun, S. Meighen-Berger, J. Michel, R. Moore, ...

    2020

  44. [52]

    Axani, K

    S. Axani, K. Frankiewicz, and J. Conrad, The cos- micwatch desktop muon detector: a self-contained, pocket sized particle detector, Journal of Instrumenta- tion 13 (03), P03019–P03019

  45. [53]

    G. G. Karapetyan, Variations of muon flux in the atmo- sphere during thunderstorms, Phys. Rev. D 89, 093005 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Kozyrev, N

    A. Kozyrev, N. Barbashina, T. Belyakova, J. Pavlyukov, A. Petrukhin, N. Serebryannik, V. Shutenko, and I. Yashin, Studies of thunderstorm events based on the data of muon hodoscope uragan and meteorological radar dmrl-c, Physics Procedia 74, 486 (2015), fundamental Research in...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.