Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

An automated algorithmic method to mitigate long-term variations in the efficiency of the GRAPES-3 muon telescope

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An automated pipeline using Bayesian blocks and inter-module correlations replaces operator-chosen reference detectors, producing a 22-year efficiency-corrected muon rate that agrees better with neutron monitor data than the legacy method.

desk verdict A genuinely useful automation of GRAPES-3's efficiency correction with a per-segment reference-selection step, but the validation is weaker than the prose and the stable-reference premise needs a real test. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16440 v1 pith:LY63ZZL7 submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.IM hep-ex

S. Paul , K.P. Arunbabu , M. Chakraborty , S.K. Gupta , B. Hariharan , Y. Hayashi , P. Jagadeesan , A. Jain
show 21 more authors
P. Jain M. Karthik S. Kawakami H. Kojima K. Manjunath P.K. Mohanty S.D. Morris Y. Muraki P.K. Nayak T. Nonaka A. Oshima D. Pattanaik B. Rajesh M. Rameez K. Ramesh B.S. Rao L.V. Reddy S. Shibata K. Tanaka F. Varsi M. Zuberi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMhep-ex
keywords GRAPES-3muontelescopeefficiencycorrectionBayesianblocksSavitzky-Golayfiltercosmicraymodulationneutronmonitorcorrelation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that long-term efficiency drift in the sixteen independent modules of the GRAPES-3 muon telescope can be corrected without relying on an operator's choice of a reference detector. The pipeline splits each module's pressure-corrected rate into Bayesian blocks, then within each block iteratively discards the least-correlated modules until the two most mutually correlated modules remain, using their average as a reference rate. That reference is stitched across blocks and used with a Savitzky-Golay filter to model and remove each module's slow efficiency decline. On mock data the new method agrees with the legacy approach at correlation 0.995, and against neutron-monitor data it improves the yearly correlation in 2016 from 0.44 to 0.59 and in 2017 from 0.29 to 0.48. The result is a 22-year all-direction muon rate that the authors present as corrected for all known instrumental effects and ready for physics analysis.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a multi-stage pipeline. Bayesian blocks discretize each module's pressure-corrected rate into periods separated by change points, with a p-value threshold of 0.01 and merging of change points closer than 30 days. Within each block, an iterative correlation analysis removes the module with the lowest average correlation with the others until two modules remain; those two are taken as the efficiency-stable reference pair. A rate stability map records each module's correlation with that reference for every block, a stitching step uses the most stable module common to consecutive blocks to align baselines, and a Savitzky-Golay filter with a 10-day window and polynomial order 2 is applied to the ratio of the reference rate to each module to model and correct slow efficiency decline.

What would settle it

Extend the neutron-monitor comparison to every overlapping year with quoted uncertainties: if the new method's correlation advantage over the legacy method disappears or reverses when errors are included, the claimed improvement is not established. A sharper check is to inject a common-mode drift into the mock data across all sixteen modules; if the auto-selected reference pair follows the injected drift, the method will mislabel it as physical modulation, directly testing the central assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fully automated, algorithmic correction can remove all known instrumental effects from the G3MT muon data over calendar years, and that the resulting all-direction muon rate is at least as clean as, and in recent years cleaner than, the legacy operator-selected-reference product. The evidence is the corrected 2001-2022 rate, the mock-data agreement with the legacy method, and the neutron-monitor comparison in which the new method raises the yearly correlation substantially in 2016 and 2017 while matching the legacy method in the other years tested.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the two modules with the highest mutual correlation in each Bayesian block are the most efficiency-stable, so their average rate is a valid reference for correcting all other modules; if those two drift together from a shared cause, their common drift is absorbed into the reference and mistaken for cosmic-ray modulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 22-year all-direction muon rate is corrected for all known instrumental effects and can be used directly for studies of long-term cosmic-ray modulation, spanning two solar cycles and a solar magnetic cycle.
  • Applying the method separately to each of the 225 direction bins preserves angular information while removing efficiency drift, enabling directional studies without operator-chosen references.
  • The method transfers to any experiment that monitors long-term natural particle flux with redundant detectors, replacing subjective operator judgment with a reproducible algorithm.
  • Legacy calendar-year boundaries no longer introduce artificial discontinuities, because Bayesian blocks define the correction periods from the data itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's validation does not test the case where the two 'stable' modules share a common instrumental drift, for example from common gas supply or electronics aging; in that scenario the method would attribute the shared drift to cosmic-ray physics, so a simulation with injected common-mode drift would be a natural next test.
  • The neutron-monitor comparison is limited to 2008-2017 and is reported without uncertainties; extending it through 2022 and adding error bars would make the claimed improvement in 2016-2017 statistically quantifiable.
  • Because the reference is built purely from internal correlations, any instrumental effect that is common to all sixteen modules is invisible to the method; the phrase 'free of all known instrumental effects' should be read as 'free of effects visible in the inter-module correlation structure.'
  • The same pipeline could be applied to other ground-based muon or neutron telescopes with redundant modules, and to retrospective reanalysis of older data that was previously corrected with operator-chosen references.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an automated algorithmic pipeline for correcting long-term efficiency variations in the 16 independent modules of the GRAPES-3 muon telescope. The method uses Bayesian blocks to segment each module's time series, iteratively selects the two mutually most correlated modules per block as an efficiency-stable reference, stitches block baselines, and applies a Savitzky-Golay filter to each module's ratio to the reference rate to estimate and remove slow efficiency drifts. The result is a 22-year (2001-2022) combined all-direction muon rate. The authors validate the method by comparing it to the legacy operator-selected reference approach on simulated data and by correlating the corrected muon rate with the Princess Sirindhorn Neutron Monitor (PSNM) count rate for 2008-2017.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a genuinely useful contribution: a reproducible, operator-independent correction procedure for a long-running muon telescope, with potential applicability to other multi-detector cosmic-ray instruments. The pipeline is described in sufficient detail to be reimplemented, and the final corrected data product (Fig. 20) is of direct value for solar and heliospheric physics studies. The use of an independent neutron monitor for at least partial validation is a real strength, as is the explicit aim of removing human subjectivity from a historically judgment-based calibration step. However, the significance is contingent on demonstrating that the automatically chosen 'stable reference' is not merely self-consistent but actually tracks the true cosmic-ray signal, and on quantifying whether the improvements over the legacy method are statistically meaningful.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (3)] The mock-data validation is circular. The simulated rates for the other 15 modules are constructed as Ri(t) = R(t)/rSG,i, where rSG,i is the Savitzky-Golay-filtered ratio of M15 to module i computed from the real data, i.e., exactly the quantity that the new method estimates. The simulation therefore injects the method's own smoothing output as the 'true' efficiency, and the agreement in Fig. 23 only shows that the pipeline can reproduce its own smoothing model. It does not validate the stable-pair selection in Sec. 4.5 or demonstrate that the corrected rate is more accurate than the legacy result, despite the claim in Sec. 5.2 of 'more accurate results'.
  2. [Sec. 4.5 and Sec. 4.7] The load-bearing premise that the two modules with the highest mutual correlation in each Bayesian block are the most efficiency-stable is never tested against an external standard. If the two selected modules share a common drift—from a common gas-supply pressure change, common electronics aging, or synchronized maintenance—that drift is absorbed into the reference rate and misattributed to cosmic-ray modulation. The neutron-monitor comparison (Sec. 5.3) is the only external check, but it covers only 10 years, shows clear improvement in only two years, and is not used to validate the reference-module selection directly.
  3. [Table 1, Sec. 5.3] The quantitative evidence for superiority over the legacy method is weak. In Table 1, the new method improves the correlation coefficient in only 2 of 10 years (2016 and 2017) by a large amount, with modest changes in other years and slight degradations in 2008, 2009, and 2013 (0.62→0.59, 0.15→0.12, 0.56→0.54). No uncertainty or significance level is provided for any of the correlation coefficients, so it is unclear whether the 2016 and 2017 improvements are statistically robust or whether the year-to-year differences are within sampling noise. The abstract and Sec. 6 draw conclusions stronger than what Table 1 supports.
  4. [Sec. 4.8, Fig. 17] The Savitzky-Golay parameters (window size 10 days, polynomial order 2) are selected by maximizing the post-correction correlation of each module with the reference rate, which is itself constructed from the same correlation-based stable-module selection. This introduces a degree of circularity in the tuning: the metric used to choose parameters is the same internal self-consistency metric used to define the reference. The resulting 'convergence' in Fig. 17 therefore partly measures how well the filter matches the reference construction, not how well either tracks the true cosmic-ray flux. An external metric (e.g., neutron-monitor correlation as a function of these parameters) would strengthen the choice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2] In the sentence describing the EAS mechanism, 'mechanishm' is a typo for 'mechanism'; please correct.
  2. [Sec. 4.5 (Fig. 10)] The matrix in Fig. 10 is visually difficult to parse; the long repeated rows of module numbers are not clearly labeled as a function of iteration. A compact tabular or annotated version would improve readability.
  3. [Sec. 5.3] The correlation coefficients in Table 1 are quoted without uncertainties or a statement of the effective number of independent points, despite the strong autocorrelation in daily rates. Please provide bootstrap or effective-degrees-of-freedom uncertainties, particularly for the 2016-2017 comparisons.
  4. [Sec. 4.9 and Sec. 6] The phrase 'free of all known instrumental effects' (also in the abstract) is too strong given the caveats in Sec. 4.5 and the mixed neutron-monitor results. Rephrase to 'corrected for the known instrumental effects addressed in this work'.
  5. [Sec. 4.1] The choice of ±3σ in the bad-packet rejection and ±4σ in the short-unstable-period rejection appears heuristic; please state whether these thresholds are optimized or are chosen from prior experience, and whether the final results are sensitive to them.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Simulation validation is circular: mock 'true' efficiency is the method's own SG-filtered ratio; PSNM comparison is the only independent check.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.1 (Simulation of muon data), equation Ri(t)=R(t)/rSG,i; Sec. 5.2 (Comparison with legacy method)]
    "Next, we take the ratio of M15 to the other 15 modules using the SG filter, as discussed in previous sections, to account for the detector effects in the remaining modules. The muon rate for the other 15 modules is given by: Ri(t) = R(t)/rSG,i. rSG,i defines the ratio of M15 to i th module obtained using the SG filter, as discussed in the previous sections."

    The simulated 'true' efficiency of each module is defined as rSG,i, which is exactly the quantity the method itself estimates with an SG filter in Sec. 4.8 ('we model the ratio of the reference rate to the muon rate of M01 using SG filter'). The simulation therefore injects as detector effects the very SG-smoothed ratios that the new method is designed to recover. The later claim that 'this simulation-based analysis confirms the effectiveness of the new method' only shows the pipeline reproduces its own smoothing; it is not an independent test of whether those smoothed ratios represent true efficiency variations. In addition, the mock data are built from the same year (2011) used to tune the SG parameters, so the comparison is fully in-sample.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 4.8, Fig. 17 caption]
    "Correlation coefficient of all 16 modules after efficiency correction with the reference module, calculated with a fixed window size of 10 days, as a function of polynomial order for the year 2011. The correlation coefficient converges at a polynomial order of 2. (b) Correlation coefficient as a function of window size, with a fixed polynomial order of 2. The correlation coefficient decreases as the window size increases, leading to the selection of a 10-day window for efficiency variation correction."

    The SG filter parameters are selected by maximizing the post-correction correlation of every module with the reference rate, but the reference rate is itself the average of the two modules judged 'most stable' by mutual correlation (Sec. 4.6), and the correction normalizes each module to that reference. The optimization target is thus internal self-agreement, not agreement with any external standard. A common slow drift of the two reference modules, e.g. from shared gas supply or common electronics aging, is invisible to this figure of merit and would be absorbed into the corrected muon rate as if it were cosmic-ray modulation. The 'optimum' parameters certify consistency with the method's own reference assumption, not freedom from all known instrumental effects.

full rationale

The paper's core algorithm—Bayesian blocking, correlation-based reference selection, and Savitzky-Golay efficiency correction—is internally coherent and is not circular by itself. The PSNM neutron-monitor comparison (Sec. 5.3, Table 1) is genuinely independent and external, so the central claim of improved correlation with neutron-monitor data has independent content. However, the simulation-based validation is circular: the mock data are generated by dividing a smooth model rate by rSG,i, the SG-filtered ratios produced by the method itself, so the pipeline's ability to reproduce those ratios is guaranteed by construction rather than demonstrated. The SG parameter choice is also self-referential, since the figure of merit is correlation with an internal reference derived from the same module rates; any common drift of the two reference modules is absorbed into the 'corrected' cosmic-ray signal. The self-citations to prior GRAPES-3 papers for the pressure and temperature coefficients and for the legacy method are normal scientific practice and are not load-bearing circularity. Overall, one validation channel reduces by construction, while the neutron-monitor comparison remains independent, giving partial circularity rather than a fully forced result.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline rests on eight tuned or imported constants and five domain assumptions. The two most consequential choices are the SG filter parameters, which are fit to 2011 data and then used in a validation year, and the implicit assumption that the two most correlated modules are drift-free references. The pressure and temperature coefficients come from prior collaboration fits and are treated as inputs. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Savitzky-Golay window size = 10 days
    Chosen in Sec 4.8 (Fig 17b) as the point where correlation of corrected modules with the reference starts to decline; tuned on 2011 data.
  • Savitzky-Golay polynomial order = 2
    Chosen in Sec 4.8 (Fig 17a) as the order where correlation converges; tuned on 2011 data.
  • Bayesian blocks p-value = 0.01
    Selected in Sec 4.4 as the change-point significance threshold; no justification for the specific value.
  • Change-point merge threshold = 30 days
    Change points closer than 30 days are merged in Sec 4.4, reducing 71 blocks to 6 for 2011; value chosen by hand.
  • Short-unstable rejection sigma = 4 (two-day Gaussian fit)
    Rates beyond 4-sigma of a two-day Gaussian fit are rejected in Sec 4.3; also the 70% multi-module drop cut is undefined.
  • Bad packet rejection sigma = 3
    Packets beyond 3-sigma of the Poisson expectation in each 4-minute bin are dropped in Sec 4.1.
  • Pressure coefficient beta = -0.128 %/hPa
    Taken from the collaboration's prior fit [19], not re-derived here; applied via Eq 1 in Sec 4.2.
  • Temperature coefficient alpha_T = -0.17 %/K
    Taken from the collaboration's prior fit [1], applied via Eq 2 in Sec 5.3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Physical solar and atmospheric variations affect all 16 modules at the same time and in proportion, while instrumental drifts are module-specific.
    Invoked in Sec 4.3 (ratio test removes common-mode drops) and Sec 4.4 (simultaneous Bayesian block boundaries are removed as physical). If a physical event hits modules differently, the method misclassifies it.
  • domain assumption Instrumental efficiency variation is slow, smooth, and well captured by a Savitzky-Golay smoothed ratio.
    Sec 4.8 models each module's efficiency as the SG-filtered ratio to the reference; abrupt or non-smooth efficiency changes would be mis-modeled.
  • domain assumption The two modules with the highest mutual correlation in a Bayesian block are the most efficiency-stable modules.
    Sec 4.5 uses this to select the reference pair. If both selected modules share a common drift, that drift is absorbed into the reference and never corrected.
  • standard math Muon counts in 10-second packets follow Poisson statistics, so a 3-sigma cut identifies bad packets.
    Sec 4.1 justifies bad-packet rejection via Poissonian rates; the 3-sigma threshold itself is a choice.
  • domain assumption The PSNM neutron monitor rate, after standard corrections, is a valid independent proxy for the primary cosmic ray flux at GRAPES-3's rigidity.
    Sec 5.3 uses PSNM as external ground truth; its cutoff rigidity is stated as comparable to GRAPES-3, but residual atmospheric and instrument effects in the neutron data are not fully characterized.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An automated algorithmic method to mitigate long-term variations in the efficiency of the GRAPES-3 muon telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LY63ZZL7

@misc{pith2026250516440,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An automated algorithmic method to mitigate long-term variations in the efficiency of the GRAPES-3 muon telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LY63ZZL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16440}
}
read the original abstract

The GRAPES-3 large area muon telescope with its sixteen independent modules records the high energy (>1 GeV) muons continuously over 2.3 sr of the sky. However, the recorded muon rates are contaminated by instrumental effects and instabilities spanning both short- and long-timescales, such as variations in the efficiency of the detector. We present an automated, algorithmic method, which employs Bayesian blocks to discretize the data stream into periods and exploits the correlations among the sixteen independent modules of the muon telescope to separate the impact of these instrumental problems from those originating in physical effects of interest, allowing the Savitzky-Golay filter to be employed to mitigate the former. Compared to legacy methods, this method is less dependent on subjective input from experimental operators and provides a data stream free of all known instrumental effects over calendar years. The muon rate obtained with the new method shows a fairly better correlation with neutron monitor data, than that obtained with the legacy method.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    PoS ICRC2017, 357 (2018) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.301.0357

    Mohanty, P.K., et al.: Long-term correction of GRAPES-3 muon telescope efficiency. PoS ICRC2017, 357 (2018) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.301.0357

    work page doi:10.22323/1.301.0357 2018

  2. [1]

    Astroparticle Physics94, 22–28 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.07.002

    Arunbabu, K.P.: Dependence of the muon intensity on the atmospheric tempera- ture measured by the grapes-3 experiment. Astroparticle Physics94, 22–28 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.07.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.07.002 2017

  3. [2]

    Physical Review D 109, 063011 (2024) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063011

    Kojima, H.: Dependence of the parallel mean free path of high-energy galactic cosmic rays in the heliosphere on their rigidity, and solar activity as measured by the grapes-3 experiment. Physical Review D 109, 063011 (2024) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063011 2024

  4. [3]

    Physical Review Letters 122, 105101 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.105101

    Hariharan, B.: Measurement of the electrical properties of a thundercloud through muon imaging by the grapes-3 experiment. Physical Review Letters 122, 105101 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.105101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.105101 2019

  5. [4]

    Physical Review Letters 117, 171101 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.117.171101

    Mohanty, P.K.: Transient weakening of earth’s magnetic shield probed by a cosmic ray burst. Physical Review Letters 117, 171101 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.117.171101

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Mohanty, P.K.: Was the cosmic ray burst detected by the grapes-3 muon telescope on 22 june 2015 caused by a transient weakening of the geomagnetic field or by an interplanetary anisotropy? Physical Review D 97, 082001 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.082001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.082001 2018

  7. [6]

    M., Dugad, S

    Subramanian, P., Antia, H. M., Dugad, S. R., Goswami, U. D., Gupta, S. K., Hayashi, Y., Ito, N., Kawakami, S., Kojima, H., Mohanty, P. K., Nayak, P. K., Nonaka, T., Oshima, A., Sivaprasad, K., Tanaka, H., S. C. Tonwar (The GRAPES-3 collaboration): Forbush decreases and turbulence levels at coronal mass ejection fronts. A&A 494(3), 1107–1118 (2009) https:/...

    work page 2009

  8. [7]

    P., Antia, H

    Arunbabu, K. P., Antia, H. M., Dugad, S. R., Gupta, S. K., Hayashi, Y., Kawakami, S., Mohanty, P. K., Nonaka, T., Oshima, A., Subramanian, P.: High-rigidity forbush decreases: due to cmes or shocks? A&A 555, 139 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201220830

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220830 2013

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    P., Antia, H

    Arunbabu, K. P., Antia, H. M., Dugad, S. R., Gupta, S. K., Hayashi, Y., Kawakami, S., Mohanty, P. K., Oshima, A., Subramanian, P.: How are forbush decreases related to interplanetary magnetic field enhancements? A&A 580, 41 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201425115

    2015 doi

  2. [9]

    Physical Review Letters 132, 051002 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.051002

    Varsi, F.: Evidence of a hardening in the cosmic ray proton spectrum at around 166 tev observed by the grapes-3 experiment. Physical Review Letters 132, 051002 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.051002

    2024 doi

  3. [10]

    The Astrophysical Journal 961(87), 7 (2024) https: 24 //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad132b

    Chakraborty, M.: Small-scale cosmic-ray anisotropy observed by the grapes-3 experiment at tev energies. The Astrophysical Journal 961(87), 7 (2024) https: 24 //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad132b

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 540, 311–323 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j

    Gupta, S.K.: Grapes-3—a high-density air shower array for studies on the struc- ture in the cosmic-ray energy spectrum near the knee. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 540, 311–323 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nima.2004.11.025

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 545, 643–657 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2005.02

    Hayashi, Y.: A large area muon tracking detector for ultra-high energy cosmic ray astrophysics—the grapes-3 experiment. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 545, 643–657 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2005.02. 020

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    Experimental Astronomy 50(185–198) (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10686-020-09671-y

    Hariharan, B.: Energy sensitivity of the grapes-3 eas array for primary cosmic ray protons. Experimental Astronomy 50(185–198) (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10686-020-09671-y

    2020

  7. [15]

    Yoshida, S., Akasofu, S.-I.: The development of the Forbush decrease and the geomagnetic storm fields 14(10), 979–986 (1966) https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0032-0633(66)90134-6

    1966

  8. [16]

    In: Sawaya-Lacoste, H

    Kudela, K., Storini, M.: Direct and indirect relations of cosmic rays to Space Weather. In: Sawaya-Lacoste, H. (ed.) Solspa 2001, Proceedings of the Second Solar Cycle and Space Weather Euroconference. ESA Special Publication, vol. 477, pp. 289–292 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    Badruddin, K. Anand: Study of the Forbush Decreases, Geomagnetic Storms, and Ground-Level Enhancements in Selected Intervals and Their Space Weather Implications 290(4), 1271–1283 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11207-015-0665-4

    2015

  10. [18]

    Venkatesan, D., Badruddin: Cosmic-Ray Intensity Variations in the 3- DIMENSIONAL Heliosphere 52(1-2), 121–194 (1990) https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00704241

    1990

  11. [19]

    Astroparticle Physics 79, 23–30 (2016) https://doi

    Mohanty, P.K.: Fast fourier transform to measure pressure coefficient of muons in the grapes-3 experiment. Astroparticle Physics 79, 23–30 (2016) https://doi. org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2016.02.006

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Experimental Astronomy 56, 31–47 (2023) https://doi.org/10

    Ramesh, K.: High-performance and low-noise front-end electronics for grapes-3 muon telescope. Experimental Astronomy 56, 31–47 (2023) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10686-023-09898-5

    2023

  13. [21]

    Proceedings of Science 25 ICRC2023, 530 (2023) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.444.0530

    Hariharan, B.: Observation of the atmospheric wave created by hunga tonga- hunga ha’apai volcano eruption using grapes-3 detectors. Proceedings of Science 25 ICRC2023, 530 (2023) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.444.0530

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Analystical Chemistry 36(8), 1627–1639 (1964) https: //doi.org/10.1021/ac60214a047

    Savitzky, A., Golay, M.J.E.: Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Analystical Chemistry 36(8), 1627–1639 (1964) https: //doi.org/10.1021/ac60214a047

    1964 doi

  15. [23]

    Physical Review D 74, 052003 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD

    Nonaka, T.: Did the 28 october 2003 solar flare accelerate protons to ≥ 20 gev? a study of the subsequent forbush decrease with the grapes-3 tracking muon tele- scope. Physical Review D 74, 052003 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 74.052003

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    Gurgenashvili, E., Zaqarashvili, T.V., Kukhianidze, V., Reiners, A., Oliver, R., Lanza, A.F., Reinhold, T.: Rieger-type periodicity in the total irradiance of the Sun as a star during solar cycles 23-24 653, 146 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202141370

    2021

  17. [25]

    Astrophys

    Ruffolo, D., S´ aiz, A., Mangeard, P.-S., Kamyan, N., Muangha, P., Nutaro, T., Sumran, S., Chaiwattana, C., Gasiprong, N., Channok, C., Wuttiya, C., Ruji- warodom, M., Tooprakai, P., Asavapibhop, B., Bieber, J.W., Clem, J., Evenson, P., Munakata, K.: Monitoring Short-term Cosm...

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Proceedings of Science ICRC2017, 357 (2017) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.301

    Mohanty, P.K.: Long-term correction of grapes-3 muon telescope efficiency. Proceedings of Science ICRC2017, 357 (2017) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.301. 0357

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Canadian Journal of Physics 42(12), 2443–2472 (1964) https://doi.org/ 10.1139/p64-222

    Hatton, C.J., Carmichael, H.: Experimental Investigation of the NM-64 Neutron Monitor. Canadian Journal of Physics 42(12), 2443–2472 (1964) https://doi.org/ 10.1139/p64-222

    1964 doi

  20. [28]

    12.4/summary

    NASA MERRA-2 dataset https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/datasets/M2I3NPASM 5. 12.4/summary

  21. [29]

    NMDB Database http://nest.nmdb.eu/ 26

Pith tools

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