Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 65 references

LISA test-mass charging. Particle flux modeling, Monte Carlo simulations and induced effects on the sensitivity of the observatory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a Monte Carlo simulation toolkit can predict LISA test-mass charging, and that a moderate solar particle event would appear in the observatory's band with signal-to-noise ratio about 20 while galactic cosmic-ray…

desk verdict Honest methods paper with a useful toolkit and LISA-specific predictions, but the toolkit's own charging-noise numbers are a factor of two low and the authors say so themselves. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18030 v1 pith:2BIYMMDC submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.IM

Francesco Dimiccoli , Rita Dolesi , Michele Fabi , Valerio Ferroni , Catia Grimani , Martina Muratore , Paolo Sarra , Mattia Villani
show 1 more author
William Joseph Weber
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords LISAtest-masscharginggalacticcosmicrayssolarenergeticparticlesMonteCarlosimulationlow-energyelectronsgravitational-wavesensitivityaccelerationnoisebudget
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 is trying to establish that one Monte Carlo toolkit, TMCTK, can predict how fast and how noisily electric charge accumulates on LISA's free-falling test masses, and can translate those predictions into force noise on the mission's sensitivity. If the toolkit is right, the ordinary galactic-cosmic-ray background charges the test masses at a level that stays within LISA's $3\,\mathrm{fm\,s^{-2}\,Hz^{-1/2}}$ acceleration-noise budget, while a moderate solar energetic particle event would produce a force signal with signal-to-noise ratio near 20 in the measurement band. The paper also claims that including very low energy secondary electrons produced at the gold surfaces of the test mass and electrode housing improves agreement with LISA Pathfinder observations of net charging. The authors acknowledge a residual factor-of-two underestimate in the effective charging rate, which they trace to low-energy electron transmission in gold. This matters because charge-induced force disturbances are among the known environmental effects that could mimic or mask gravitational-wave signals at sub-Hz frequencies.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is a Poissonian charging model with two summary rates: $\lambda_{\mathrm{NET}} = \sum_j j\,\lambda_j$ for the mean charge accumulation and $\lambda_{\mathrm{EFF}} = \sum_j j^2\,\lambda_j$ for the shot-noise variance, with the charge noise entering the spectrum as $S_Q \propto \lambda_{\mathrm{EFF}}/f^2$. A Monte Carlo particle-transport simulation feeds these rates by tracking protons, nuclei, and electrons through the simplified spacecraft geometry, and it adds custom processes for low-energy electron emission and quantum diffraction at the gold surfaces. The induced force along the sensitive axis is $F_x = Q_{\mathrm{TM}}E_x$, where the stray field is parameterized by a small DC bias $\Delta x$, and the forecast signal-to-noise ratio is computed against LISA's acceleration-noise floor.

What would settle it

A measurement of the secondary-electron spectrum transmitted through a 100-nm gold slab under 10 keV electron bombardment, from a few eV up to 1 keV, would settle the discrepancy: the toolkit's prediction currently sits about an order of magnitude below the alternative model below 1 keV. Once LISA flies, comparing the predicted and measured net and effective charging rates would provide the same test at mission scale.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that TMCTK gives reliable predictions of LISA test-mass charging and of the forces the charging induces. Simulating a simplified spherical spacecraft with $16\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-2}}$ of shielding and a cubic gold test mass, the toolkit finds total net charging rates $\lambda_{\mathrm{NET}} = 57.85 \pm 0.83\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ and effective charging rates $\lambda_{\mathrm{EFF}} = 651.05 \pm 9.80\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ for galactic cosmic rays at solar minimum, and correspondingly smaller values at solar maximum. For the December 13, 2006 solar energetic particle event the predicted force signal has signal-to-noise ratio about 20, while the accompanying Forbush decrease gives about 0.1; a stronger September 29, 1989 event pushes the net charging rate above $10^4\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$. The paper's key comparison claim is that net charging agrees with LISA Pathfinder measurements and with previous simulations, but effective charging is underestimated by about a factor of two relative to LISA Pathfinder, a discrepancy the authors attribute to low-energy secondary-electron production and transport in gold.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the toolkit's low-energy electron model faithfully describes how many and how energetic secondary electrons are produced and transported in the gold surfaces of the test mass and electrode housing; the paper's own comparison with LISA Pathfinder indicates this premise may be off by about a factor of two in the effective charging rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Galactic-cosmic-ray charging noise will not by itself limit LISA's baseline sensitivity: the predicted acceleration noise from charging stays near $0.3\,\mathrm{fm\,s^{-2}\,Hz^{-1/2}}$ at $0.1$ mHz if the higher-yield low-energy electron results are used, comfortably below the $3\,\mathrm{fm\,s^{-2}\,Hz^{-1/2}}$ requirement.
  • A moderate solar energetic particle event of the December 2006 type would be clearly visible in LISA data as a signal-to-noise ratio of about 20, so such events will need to be vetoed or subtracted rather than ignored.
  • A much stronger event of the September 1989 type would raise the net charging rate above $10^4\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ and could charge the test mass toward potentials near $1$ volt, making the response of the charge-management system a relevant part of mission operations.
  • Forbush decreases alone would sit at signal-to-noise ratio about 0.1 under the nominal $5$ mV DC bias, but with un-compensated biases of order $50$ mV they could become spurious signals in the LISA band.
  • The acknowledged factor-of-two underestimate in effective charging means the absolute charge-induced force noise from the toolkit should be treated with that uncertainty, even though the main budget conclusion is unaffected.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper itself, a direct laboratory measurement of the secondary-electron transmission spectrum through a thin gold slab (about 100 nm) at 10 keV incident energy would discriminate the two low-energy electron models; if the higher-yield result is correct, LISA's absolute charging force noise would be about twice the TMCTK numbers, while the SEP signal-to-noise conclusion, driven by primar
  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the same toolkit and flux parameterizations can be reused for any future mission with free-falling test masses, so the method transfers to other drag-free gravitational-wave or geodesy concepts before their designs are final.
  • The paper's simplified spherical shielding assumption, which the authors find has negligible effect on their results, could be tested against the final LISA spacecraft geometry; the interesting stress test is whether non-uniform shielding changes the balance between low-energy electrons emitted near the electrode housing and those produced deeper in the spacecraft.
  • Because the signal-to-noise estimate assumes charge-control response times much longer than the event duration, a natural extension is to simulate a multi-day SEP event with the actual discharge algorithm; the paper leaves this for a dedicated study.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents the Test Mass Charging Toolkit (TMCTK), a GEANT4-based Monte Carlo package for simulating LISA test-mass charging. It combines a simplified spherical shielding geometry with GEANT4-DNA low-energy electromagnetic physics, custom yield-based kinetic emission processes for protons and alpha particles, and a quantum diffraction model for electrons below 100 eV. The authors model galactic cosmic-ray long-term and short-term variations and two solar energetic particle events, computing net charging rate λNET and effective charging rate λEFF, and translate these into force noise and signal-to-noise ratios for LISA sensitivity. The key quantitative results are that TMCTK reproduces λNET within about 10% of FLUKA/LEI and LPF observations, while λEFF is underestimated by roughly a factor of two relative to LPF and FLUKA/LEI, and that the transmitted secondary-electron spectrum from a gold slab is about an order of magnitude lower than FLUKA/LEI below 1 keV. Using FLUKA/LEI values, the authors conclude that GCR charging noise is within the 3 fm s^-2 Hz^-1/2 budget and that the 13 December 2006 SEP event would yield SNR ≈ 20.

Significance. The paper addresses a mission-critical issue for LISA and provides a useful public benchmark of GEANT4-DNA against LPF data and FLUKA/LEI. Its strengths are the transparent comparison with LPF observations, the explicit documentation of the TMCTK physics list and flux parameterizations, and the honest admission of the λEFF discrepancy in Section 5. If the λNET agreement holds, the SEP signal-to-noise prediction and the overall conclusion that GCR charging noise is not a limiting noise source remain robust. The λEFF factor-of-two underestimate, however, means the paper's central promise of 'precise knowledge' of charging is not yet delivered for the noise channel, and the quantitative noise-budget argument currently rests on FLUKA/LEI rather than on TMCTK.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Tables 6 and 8, Fig. 14] The paper's own results show that TMCTK underestimates λEFF by about a factor of two relative to LPF measurements (Table 1) and FLUKA/LEI (Table 8), and that the GEANT4-DNA transmitted secondary-electron spectrum is about an order of magnitude below LEI below 1 keV (Fig. 14). Because the charge-noise force scales with sqrt(λEFF), TMCTK-based noise predictions are systematically low. The abstract's claim of 'precise knowledge' of the charging process is therefore not supported for the noise channel. The authors should either provide a corrected or rescaled prediction, or explicitly reframe the paper as a development milestone with validated λNET and a known λEFF limitation.
  2. [Section 6, Eq. 6] The noise-budget calculation that yields 0.3 fm s^-2 Hz^-1/2 uses FLUKA/LEI values (Table 8), not the TMCTK values from Table 6. The text should state this explicitly and justify the choice, since otherwise a reader may attribute the noise-budget conclusion to TMCTK. This is not a physics error, but it is a mismatch between the paper's presentation of TMCTK as the comprehensive toolkit and the source of the headline numbers.
  3. [Section 4, Table 7 and Section 6] For SEP events, the Monte Carlo simulations were run for a fixed physical time of 6 s per phase (Section 4), yet the force time series in Figs. 15-16 and the SNR in Eq. (7) are computed over a much longer event window. The paper should explain how the 6 s simulations are extrapolated to the full event duration and how statistical and systematic uncertainties in that extrapolation affect the reported SNR of 20.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] The typo 'sourrounding' appears in the first paragraph; also the toolkit name is written both 'TMCTK' and 'TMTCK' in the text and in Section 3, and should be made uniform.
  2. [Section 5, Fig. 14] The caption of Fig. 14 states a '150 nm thick gold target' while the body text in Section 5 says '100 nm thick gold slab'; please reconcile the thickness description.
  3. [Section 2.1] The notation 'E min' and 'Eth' is used inconsistently; use consistent subscript notation for the propagation cutoff and the cross-section validity threshold.
  4. [Table 3] The solar maximum electron parameterization '4 .5(E− 0.04)0.84' appears to be missing a multiplication sign and has a spurious space; please format the equation consistently with Table 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the toolkit predictions are forward simulations openly benchmarked against LISA Pathfinder data, and the paper explicitly flags its own underprediction of the effective charging rate.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. TMCTK computes lambda_NET and lambda_EFF by forward GEANT4/GEANT4-DNA simulation from environmental flux parameterizations, spacecraft geometry, and physics models; none of these inputs include the LPF charge measurements that are used only as external benchmarks. The paper openly reports that TMCTK underpredicts lambda_EFF by about a factor of two relative to LPF data and FLUKA/LEI (Tables 1, 6 and 8), which is the opposite of fitting the target result. The helium flux normalization to AMS-02 data in Section 3.1 is a calibration of an environmental input, not a fit to the charging output. In Section 6 the noise-budget conclusion deliberately switches to FLUKA/LEI values, with the paper stating 'Although our simulation have shown some limit in reproducing LPF measurements, we can use FLUKA/LEI results...', so the main engineering claim does not rest on the underperforming TMCTK lambda_EFF. The SNR=20 SEP result follows from simulated lambda_NET and an assumed 5 mV stray field; lambda_NET agrees with FLUKA/LEI to about 10%, so that result is not forced by construction. The extensive self-citations to FLUKA/LEI and to the quantum-diffraction/kinetic-emission models are backed by LPF observations and by the explicit cross-code comparison in Figure 14, so under the rule that externally falsifiable, code-reproduced results count as real evidence, these citations do not create circularity. The genuine weakness is physical accuracy of the GEANT4-DNA low-energy electron model in gold, which is a correctness risk acknowledged by the paper, not a circular-logic defect.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions depend on environmental inputs (solar modulation extremes, helium normalization), on imported LEE yield models, and on the validity of GEANT4-DNA physics in gold. No new physical entities are introduced. The toolkit itself is a new software artifact, not a postulated entity.

free parameters (5)
  • Solar modulation parameter φ = 200 MV (solar minimum), 1200 MV (solar maximum)
    Extreme-case values chosen from prior solar-cycle observations; they set the GCR energy spectra input to the simulations (Section 3.1).
  • Helium flux normalization factor = Adjusted by 25% downward vs Shikaze et al. interstellar spectrum to match AMS-02 2016 data above 450 MeV/n
    The model helium flux was 25% above AMS-02 data, so the input helium spectrum was renormalized; this directly scales helium-induced charging (Section 3.1).
  • Kinetic emission yield parameters (protons) = Y0=2.18, E0=180 keV, s=1.54
    Parameters from Furman & Pivi (2002), adopted for proton-induced LEE yield in Eq. 2.2; central to λEFF via secondary electron production.
  • Kinetic emission yield parameters (alphas) = Y0=6, E0=200 keV, s=1.64; angular dependence constant
    Adopted for alpha-induced LEE; alpha contribution subdominant (Section 2.2).
  • Emitted LEE energy distribution = Gaussian, σ=2 eV, centered at 8.4 eV; isotropic emission
    Chosen model input for secondary electrons from kinetic emission (Section 2.2); affects escape probability and λEFF.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Gleeson-Axford force-field approximation with a single modulation parameter φ describes GCR transport at LISA orbit.
    Adopted in Section 3.1 to build modulated proton, helium and electron spectra (Eq. 2).
  • domain assumption The simplified spherical 16 g/cm2 aluminum shell geometry is representative of the LISA spacecraft for charging purposes.
    Stated in Section 2; LISA design not final; authors tested shell amount and radius and found no relevant differences.
  • domain assumption GEANT4-DNA electron cross-section models for gold are valid from 10 eV to 1 GeV, and custom processes cover kinetic emission and quantum diffraction.
    Invoked in Sections 2.1-2.3; the paper's own Fig. 14 and Section 5 show this assumption is not fully accurate for transmitted secondary spectra.
  • ad hoc to paper Furman-Pivi yield formula with literature parameters describes proton and alpha kinetic emission from gold surfaces.
    Section 2.2; imported from accelerator physics literature, not measured for LISA gold; alpha angular dependence assumed constant.
  • domain assumption Only particles above approximately 100 MeV/n (hadrons), 20 MeV (electrons) and 100 keV (photons) contribute to TM charging.
    Section 3, based on 16 g/cm2 shielding and prior estimates; sets the flux integration thresholds.
  • domain assumption The LISA discharge control system response time is about 10^5 s and will not filter SEP charge dynamics above 10^-4 Hz.
    Section 6; this justifies neglecting the discharge system in the SNR=20 estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LISA test-mass charging. Particle flux modeling, Monte Carlo simulations and induced effects on the sensitivity of the observatory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2BIYMMDC

@misc{pith2026241118030,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LISA test-mass charging. Particle flux modeling, Monte Carlo simulations and induced effects on the sensitivity of the observatory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2BIYMMDC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18030}
}
read the original abstract

Context. The LISA space observatory will explore the sub-Hz spectrum of gravitational wave emission from the Universe. The space environment, where will be immersed in, is responsible for charge accumulation on its free falling test masses (TMs) due to the galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and solar energetic particles (SEP) impinging on the spacecraft. Primary and secondary particles produced in the spacecraft material eventually reach the TMs by depositing a net positive charge fluctuating in time. This work is relevant for any present and future space missions that, like LISA, host free-falling TMs as inertial reference. Aims. The coupling of the TM charge with native stray electrostatic field produces noise forces on the TMs, which can limit the performance of the LISA mission. A precise knowledge of the charging process allows us to predict the intensity of these charge-induced disturbances and to design specific counter-measures. Methods. We present a comprehensive toolkit that allows us to calculate the TM charging time-series in a geometry representative of LISA mission, and the associated induced forces under different conditions of the space environment by considering the effects of short, long GCR flux modulations and SEPs. Results. We study, for each of the previously mentioned conditions, the impact of spurious forces associated with the TM charging process on the mission sensitivity for gravitational wave detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18030 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: LISA spacecraft simplified matter distribution around the TMs. Bottom panel: Magnified view of the central part of the geom￾etry modeling the GRS and the TM in GEANT4. The 150 nm wide cubic box modeling the last interface of the EH, as well as the spheri￾cal shielding shells, are visualized in wireframe mode for visualization purposes. symmetry for the material distribution around the TM consist￾ing of fo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Low-energy electron yield of the kinetic emission processes for p (red) and α particles (blue) crossing perpendicularly gold surfaces (Y90) as a function of p and α energy. used (Furman & Pivi 2002). For the kinetic emission given by alpha particles, very subdominant with respect to the electron production from protons, the angular dependence was consid￾ered constant, and values of Y0=6, E0= 200 keV and s=1.64 were … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Galactic electron energy spectra at solar minimum (dashed line) and solar maximum (continuous line) for LISA. The interstellar spec￾trum is represented by the top dotted line (Moskalenko & Strong 1998). 3.3. Solar energetic particle events during LISA The charging of the TMs is expected to increase by several or￾ders of magnitude during SEP events (Grimani et al. 2022) with respect to the background values associate… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: From top to Bottom panel: proton (p, red), helium (He, blue), car￾bon (C, magenta), oxygen (O, green), nitrogen (N, cyan) and iron (Fe, yellow) cosmic-ray energy spectra at solar minimum (ϕ= 200 MV/c; continuous lines) band solar maximum (ϕ= 1200 MV/c; dashed lines) as…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Recurrent short-term variations of GCRs observed with LPF between November 21, 2016 and December 4, 2016. Continuous lines indicate the decrease phase and the dashed lines the recovery phase. The top red continuous line indicates the proton energy spectrum at the onset…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Solar energetic proton fluxes observed during the evolution of the gradual events dated September 29, 1989 (dashed line) and December 13, 2006 (continuous line). Different phases of the events are indicated. The timings of the events shown in the figure appear in the f…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of λNET and λEFF over simulation time for the proton energy spectrum at solar minimum (ϕ = 200 MV). Error bars indicate statistical uncertainty. The green line represents an exponential fit to data to show the trend (A(1-e−Bt) C ). gold material grammage 91 g…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top panel: Comparison of the contribution to total λNET and to total λEFF for a primary proton flux (ϕ = 200 MV) and particles of different energies. Bottom panel: Break down of the λ i NET from the most abundant particle species contributing to the total λNET as a fun…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of charging time series for proton (a) and iron nuclei (b) fluxes at Φ = 200 MV. Panel (c) shows a comparison between the charging histograms of the two time series normalized to the number of events. the proton flux in June 2017. In the same solar modulati…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top panel: Comparison of charging histograms obtained from simulations of proton fluxes at extreme solar minimum (Φ = 200 MV) and solar maximum (Φ = 1200 MV) conditions. Bottom panel: To￾tal charging histogram obtained from complete simulation of CR flux (10000 second…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Simulation of the TM net charging evolution as a function of the TM to EH ground electric potential for a proton flux corresponding to the initial operation timeframe of LPF. lations of the different temporal phases of the event. From that, the force timeseries can be…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison between the energy spectra of secondary electrons per incident primary electron transmitted by a 150 nm thick gold target simulated using GEANT4-DNA (red curve) and LEI (purple curve) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Forbush decrease contribution to the TM accumulated charge (blue line) and to TM acceleration (black line) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: SEP contribution to the TM accumulated charge (blue line) and to TM acceleration (black line). energy spectra of simulated electrons emitted from a 100 nm gold layer with incident electrons beams of 10 keV energy. This issue was acknowledged by scientists of the GEANT…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102

    2016

  2. [2]

    C., Bazilevskaya, G

    Adriani, O., Barbarino, G. C., Bazilevskaya, G. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 102

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Agostinelli, S. et al. 2003, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 506, 250

    2003

  4. [4]

    A., Ambrosi, G., et al

    Aguilar, M., Cavasonza, L. A., Ambrosi, G., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 271102

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    2006, IEEE Transactions on Nu- clear Science, 53, 270

    Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., et al. 2006, IEEE Transactions on Nu- clear Science, 53, 270

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Allison, J. et al. 2016, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 835, 186

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    2012, CQG, 29, 124014

    Antonucci, F., Armano, M., Audley, H., et al. 2012, CQG, 29, 124014

    work page 2012

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    2012, Phys

    Antonucci, F., Cavalleri, A., Dolesi, R., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 181101 Araújo, H., Wass, P., Shaul, D., Rochester, G., & Sumner, T. 2005, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 451

    2012

  2. [10]

    2016, Phys

    Armano, M., Audley, H., Auger, G., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 231101

    2016

  3. [12]

    2017, Phys

    Armano, M., Audley, H., Auger, G., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118, 171101

    2017

  4. [13]

    2019, Astrophys

    Armano, M., Audley, H., Baird, J., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 874, 167

    2019

  5. [14]

    2023, Phys

    Armano, M., Audley, H., Baird, J., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 062007

    2023

  6. [15]

    2014, in Joint International Confer- ence on Supercomputing in Nuclear Applications + Monte Carlo, 06005

    Battistoni, G., Boehlen, T., Cerutti, F., et al. 2014, in Joint International Confer- ence on Supercomputing in Nuclear Applications + Monte Carlo, 06005

    2014

  7. [16]

    A., Bordage, M

    Bernal, M. A., Bordage, M. C., Brown, J. M. C., et al. 2015, Physica Medica, 31, 861 Böhlen, T. T., Cerutti, F., Chin, M. P. W., et al. 2014, Nuclear Data Sheets, 120, 211

    2015

  8. [17]

    A., Potgieter, M

    Burger, R. A., Potgieter, M. S., & Heber, B. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics, 105, 27447

    2000

  9. [18]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571

    Colpi, M., Danzmann, K., Hewitson, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571

    2024 arXiv

  10. [19]

    A., Katz, R., Wilson, J

    Cucinotta, F. A., Katz, R., Wilson, J. W., & Dubey, R. R. 1996, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 362, Two-center e ffects in ion- atom Collisions: A Symposium in honor of M. Eugene Rudd, 245–265

    1996

  11. [20]

    1916, Sitzungsberichte der Koumlniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 688

    Einstein, A. 1916, Sitzungsberichte der Koumlniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 688

    1916

  12. [21]

    Forbush, S. E. 1937, Physical Review, 51, 1108

    1937

  13. [22]

    Forbush, S. E. 1954, Journal of Geophysical Research, 59, 525

    1954

  14. [23]

    Forbush, S. E. 1958, Journal of Geophysical Research, 63, 651

    1958

  15. [24]

    Furman, M. A. & Pivi, M. T. F. 2002, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, 5, 124404 García Marirrodriga, C., Pacros, A., Strandmoe, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A121 Geant4 Collaboration. 2024, Geant4 Physics Reference Manual, accessed: 2024- 09-12

    2002

  16. [25]

    Gleeson, L. J. & Axford, W. I. 1968, ApJ, 154, 1011

    1968

  17. [26]

    2004, A&A, 418, 649

    Grimani, C. 2004, A&A, 418, 649

    2004

  18. [27]

    2007, A&A, 474, 339

    Grimani, C. 2007, A&A, 474, 339

    2007

  19. [28]

    2021, A&A, 656, A15

    Grimani, C., Andretta, V ., Chioetto, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A15

    2021

  20. [29]

    2013, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol

    Grimani, C., Fabi, M., Finetti, N., Laurenza, M., & Storini, M. 2013, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 409, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012159

    2013

  21. [30]

    2008, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 1, 485

    Grimani, C., Fabi, M., Finetti, N., & Tombolato, D. 2008, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 1, 485

    2008

  22. [31]

    2009, Class

    Grimani, C., Fabi, M., Finetti, N., & Tombolato, D. 2009, Class. Quant. Grav., 26, 215004

    2009

  23. [32]

    2015, CQG, 32, 035001

    Grimani, C., Fabi, M., Lobo, A., Mateos, I., & Telloni, D. 2015, CQG, 32, 035001

    2015

  24. [33]

    2025, in preparation

    Grimani, C., Fabi, M., Sabbatini, F., & Villani, M. 2025, in preparation

    2025

  25. [34]

    2022, A&A, 666, A38

    Grimani, C., Villani, M., Fabi, M., Cesarini, A., & Sabbatini, F. 2022, A&A, 666, A38

    2022

  26. [35]

    2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 42, 38

    Grimani, C., Villani, M., Fabi, M., & Sabbatini, F. 2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 42, 38

    2024

  27. [36]

    A., et al

    Incerti, S., Kyriakou, I., Bernal, M. A., et al. 2018, Medical Physics, 45, e722

    2018

  28. [37]

    2014, in Geant4 electromagnetic physics: improving simulation performance and accuracy, 03101

    Ivanchenko, V ., Incerti, S., Allison, J., et al. 2014, in Geant4 electromagnetic physics: improving simulation performance and accuracy, 03101

    2014

  29. [38]

    2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 1494

    Mazzanti, D., Guberman, D., Aran, A., et al. 2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 1494

    2023

  30. [39]

    I., De Koning, C

    Miroshnichenko, L. I., De Koning, C. A., & Perez-Enriquez, R. 2000, Space Sci. Rev., 91, 615

    2000

  31. [40]

    Moskalenko, I. V . & Strong, A. W. 1998, Ap. J., 493, 694 Müller, D., St. Cyr, O. C., Zouganelis, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A1

    1998

  32. [41]

    2023, PRD, 108, 082004

    Muratore, M. 2023, PRD, 108, 082004

    2023

  33. [42]

    Muratore, M., Hartwig, O., Vetrugno, D., Vitale, S., & Weber, W. J. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 082004

    2023

  34. [43]

    1996, Nuovo Cim., C19, 367 Quang Nam, D., Martino, J., Lemière, Y ., et al

    Papini, P., Grimani, C., & Stephens, S. 1996, Nuovo Cim., C19, 367 Quang Nam, D., Martino, J., Lemière, Y ., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 082004

    1996

  35. [44]

    Reames, D. V . 2021, Solar Energetic Particles. A Modern Primer on Understand- ing Sources, Acceleration and Propagation, V ol. 978

    2021

  36. [45]

    Reames, D. V . 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9 Rodríguez-Pacheco, J., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Mason, G. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A7

    2022

  37. [46]

    C., et al

    Sakata, D., Incerti, S., Bordage, M. C., et al. 2016, Journal of Applied Physics, 120, 244901

    2016

  38. [47]

    2018, Medical Physics, 45, 2230, epub 2018 Mar 23

    Sakata, D., Kyriakou, I., Okada, S., et al. 2018, Medical Physics, 45, 2230, epub 2018 Mar 23

    2018

  39. [48]

    1980, Phys

    Schou, J. 1980, Phys. Rev. B, 22, 2141

    1980

  40. [49]

    2016, Phys

    Sesana, A. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 231102

    2016

  41. [50]

    Shaul, D. N. A., Aplin, K. L., Araújo, H., et al. 2006, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 873, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna: 6th International LISA Symposium, ed. S. M. Merkovitz & J. C. Livas (AIP), 172–178

    2006

  42. [51]

    2007, Astroparticle Physics, 28, 154

    Shikaze, Y ., Haino, S., Abe, K., et al. 2007, Astroparticle Physics, 28, 154

    2007

  43. [52]

    Simpson, J. A. 1983, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 33, 323

    1983

  44. [53]

    Singh, A. K. & Bhargawa, A. 2019, Ap&SS, 364, 12

    2019

  45. [54]

    & Murase, K

    Suwa, Y . & Murase, K. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 123008

    2009

  46. [55]

    2023, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40, 075001

    Taioli, S., Dapor, M., Dimiccoli, F., et al. 2023, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40, 075001

    2023

  47. [56]

    & Armstrong, J

    Tinto, M. & Armstrong, J. W. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 102003

    1999

  48. [57]

    N., Archer, J., Baldacchino, G., et al

    Tran, H. N., Archer, J., Baldacchino, G., et al. 2024, Medical Physics, n /a [https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/mp.17256]

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    G., Bazilevskaya, G

    Usoskin, I. G., Bazilevskaya, G. A., & Kovaltsov, G. A. 2011, Journal of Geo- physical Research: Space Physics, 116

    2011

  50. [59]

    G., Gil, A., Kovaltsov, G

    Usoskin, I. G., Gil, A., Kovaltsov, G. A., Mishev, A. L., & Mikhailov, V . V . 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 3875 Van Hove, M., Weinberg, W., & Chan, C. 1986, Low-Energy Electron Di ffrac- tion: Experiment, Theory and Surface Structure Determinatio...

    2017

  51. [60]

    2022, Acta Astronautica, 193, 731 Article number, page 15 of 16 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Vidano, S., Novara, C., Pagone, M., & Grzymisch, J. 2022, Acta Astronautica, 193, 731 Article number, page 15 of 16 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda

    2022

  52. [61]

    2020, Applied Surface Science, 512, 145734

    Villani, M., Benella, S., Fabi, M., & Grimani, C. 2020, Applied Surface Science, 512, 145734

    2020

  53. [62]

    2021, CQG, 38, 145005

    Villani, M., Cesarini, A., Fabi, M., & Grimani, C. 2021, CQG, 38, 145005

    2021

  54. [63]

    2023, Experi- mental Astronomy, 56, 1

    Villani, M., Sabbatini, F., Grimani, C., Fabi, M., & Cesarini, A. 2023, Experi- mental Astronomy, 56, 1

    2023

  55. [64]

    Vlachoudis, V . 2009, in International Conference on Mathematics, Computa- tional Methods & Reactor Physics (M&C 2009), Saratoga Springs, New York, 790–800 V occa, H., Grimani, C., Amico, P., et al. 2004, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 21, S665

    2009

  56. [65]

    J., Araújo, H

    Wass, P. J., Araújo, H. M., Shaul, D. N. A., & Sumner, T. J. 2005, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 22, S311

    2005

  57. [66]

    J., Sumner, T

    Wass, P. J., Sumner, T. J., Araújo, H. M., & Hollington, D. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 022010 Article number, page 16 of 16

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.