Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Estimating solar radiation environment extremes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a single flare observable — soft X-ray flux — can set a practical upper bound on the particle fluence spectrum of a solar energetic particle event, and that the bound holds for both ordinary strong events and the…

desk verdict A practical but modest extension of an existing SXR-based upper-limit method; the headline claim outruns the evidence because the key paleo-validation is partly circular and the GLE test is only an envelope. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05903 v1 pith:SWL6J47H submitted 2025-02-09 physics.space-ph astro-ph.SR

Konstantin Herbst , Athanasios Papaioannou This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.SR
keywords solarenergeticparticlesextremeparticleeventssoftX-rayflaresintegralfluencespectragroundlevelenhancementscosmogenicradionuclidesworst-casespaceweatherscalingrelations
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 claims that a single observable property of a solar flare, its soft X-ray flux, can be used to set a practical upper bound on the particle fluence spectrum of the resulting solar energetic particle event. If true, then a routinely measured flare metric would give a one-input estimator for the worst-case radiation impact of an event, including the rare extreme events recorded in tree rings and ice cores. The authors apply this method to the AD774/775 event, a mean extreme event from four paleo events, and a set of measured ground-level enhancements, and find the predicted spectra align with independently reconstructed ones up to roughly 1 GeV.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the set of upper-limit scaling relations between soft X-ray flux $F_{SXR}$ and proton fluence $F_p(>E)$ established by Papaioannou et al. (2023): from a sample of 65 SEP events spanning >10 to >100 MeV, each integral-energy bin is assigned an upper-limit relation, and an inverse power-law fit converts $F_{SXR}$ into a full worst-case integral spectrum that is then extended to higher energies. The paper combines these relations with the recalibrated soft X-ray fluxes of Hudson et al. (2024), including corrected fluxes for saturated GOES events, and compares the resulting spectra against the multiproxy reconstructions of Koldobskiy et al. (2023) and the GLE spectra of Koldobskiy et al. (2021).

What would settle it

Find an extreme or strong SEP event for which the flare's soft X-ray flux is known independently of its particle fluence (for example from white-light or radio observations rather than from the >200 MeV fluence), measure its integral fluence above 1 GeV, and check whether it falls inside the predicted worst-case envelope; a single event clearly above the band would falsify the claim that the SXR-based upper limit holds up to ~1 GeV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the integral fluence spectrum $F(>E)$ of a SEP event is bounded above by a spectrum determined solely by the soft X-ray flux $F_{SXR}$ of the driving flare, with $F_p(>E) \propto F_{SXR}^{5/6}$, and that this relation, extrapolated through an inverse power law from 10–100 MeV to above 1 GeV, reproduces the measured worst-case fluence of both extreme historical events and strong modern events. The paper demonstrates the method on AD774/775 using an inferred X400±200 flare (with X600 as the upper limit), matches its reconstructed spectrum, then constructs a mean extreme-event spectrum from four paleo events and shows the same upper-limit band brackets the ground-level enhancement spectra from 1956–2017. The authors conclude that the methodology can adequately estimate worst-case integral fluence spectra for strong and extreme SEP events up to ~1 GeV, while explicitly noting that a single power law is a restrictive spectral shape and that the method does not describe the underlying acceleration physics.

Load-bearing premise

The scaling laws that turn soft X-ray flux into a worst-case fluence spectrum were fitted to 65 ordinary SEP events spanning only 10–100 MeV, and the paper assumes they keep their power-law form when extrapolated by orders of magnitude to extreme paleo events and to energies above 1 GeV; this extrapolation is never independently tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A spacecraft or ground observatory that measures a flare's soft X-ray class can immediately produce an upper-limit fluence spectrum for the associated SEP event, without waiting for particle measurements.
  • The same recipe can be applied to historical extreme events whose flare size is recovered, giving practical worst-case spectra for events like AD774/775.
  • For engineering and space-weather applications, the method supplies a conservative radiation-dose envelope at energies up to ~1 GeV, which matters for satellite electronics and aviation.
  • The consistency with the GLE sample suggests the upper-limit scaling holds across a wide range of event fluence, linking regular SEPs and extreme paleo events on a single relation.
  • As noted in the paper, the method also provides a first-order estimate of worst-case stellar energetic particle fluences for Sun-like stars, with implications for exoplanet habitability studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The AD774/775 validation is partly circular, because the flare's soft X-ray flux was itself inferred from the event's >200 MeV fluence; a fully independent test would obtain the flare size from other proxies, such as white-light emission, radio observations, or active-region area, before comparing the predicted spectrum with radionuclide data.
  • A testable extension would apply the scaling to hard X-ray or microwave flare proxies, or to spectra at energies below 10 MeV, checking whether the $F^{5/6}$ exponent and the upper-limit envelope persist outside the calibration range.
  • If the relation holds, the observational gap between instrumental SEPs and paleo extreme events (roughly $F_{30}$ between $10^9$ and $10^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$) becomes less problematic for worst-case assessment, because the flare size alone would set the ceiling.
  • The single power-law shape neglects the roll-over seen near 300 MeV; embedding the same SXR scaling in a Band-function spectral form could tighten the upper bound at multi-GeV energies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper applies an existing upper-limit scaling relation between soft X-ray (SXR) flare flux and solar energetic particle (SEP) integral fluence, developed by Papaioannou et al. (2023) from 65 regular SEP events at 10\u2013100 MeV, to extreme SEP events (ESPEs) found in cosmogenic radionuclide records and to strong ground-level enhancements (GLEs). Using the recalibrated SXR fluxes of Hudson et al. (2024), the authors derive \u201cworst-case\u201d integral fluence spectra and compare them with published reconstructions for AD774/775, a mean ESPE spectrum built from four confirmed events, and thirteen GLEs from 1956\u20132017. They conclude that the method adequately estimates worst-case integral fluence spectra up to ~E>1 GeV. The paper is concise and explicitly acknowledges several limitations of the spectral form, but the validation cases are partly circular or qualitative.

Significance. If the method is reliable, it provides a practical way to translate an observable flare property (SXR flux) into an upper bound on the particle fluence spectrum, with direct applications to space weather risk assessment and to estimates of stellar energetic particle environments for exoplanet habitability. The paper makes good use of the most recent reconstructions and recalibrated SXR values, and it is candid about the restrictive single-power-law assumption. However, the central claim of adequacy up to ~1 GeV rests on comparisons that are either partially circular (AD774/775) or only visual envelope checks (GLEs), so the quantitative support is currently weaker than the conclusion suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Fig. 2] The AD774/775 validation is partly circular because the input SXR flux, X400\u00b1200 (recalibrated from X285\u00b1140), was itself derived by extrapolating a correlation between >200 MeV fluence and SXR flux onto the AD774/775 reconstructed fluence (Cliver et al. 2020, as described in the text). Thus the agreement between the X600 upper-limit spectrum and the Koldobskiy et al. (2023) and Usoskin et al. (2021) reconstructions is partially built into the input. This case should be reframed as a consistency check, not an independent validation, or an independent SXR estimate for AD774/775 should be provided.
  2. [Section 2, Fig. 4 and Table B.1] The GLE comparison is presented as a band between the lowest and highest recalibrated SXR fluxes (M7.2 for GLE71 and X25.7 for GLE65), with all observed GLE spectra falling inside. This does not constitute a quantitative per-event test of the upper-limit scaling: the paper does not report residuals between predicted and observed fluences at 300, 600, or 1000 MeV, does not state which GLEs were part of the 65-event training sample of Papaioannou et al. (2023), and does not provide event-by-event predicted upper limits based on each GLE's F_SXR^rec. A per-event comparison with residuals and a statement on training-set overlap is needed to support the claim of reliable estimation up to ~1 GeV.
  3. [Section 2, Fig. 3] The mean-ESPE test does not actually test the SXR-to-fluence scaling: three of the four ESPEs (AD993/994, 660 BCE, 7176 BCE) have no associated SXR flux, and the comparison only shows that a Band fit to the reconstructed mean fluences lies below the X600 upper-limit envelope. This case should be described as an illustration of the upper-limit method with an assumed X600-class flare, rather than as an independent validation, and the text currently overstates the evidential weight of this comparison.
  4. [Section 2 and Conclusions] The extrapolation of the single power-law from the fitted range (10\u2013100 MeV) to >1 GeV is acknowledged as restrictive, and the paper itself notes a roll-over at ~300 MeV in the ESPE spectra. To justify the conclusion that the method quantifies impact up to ~E>1 GeV, the authors should quantify how much the single-power-law upper limit exceeds the reconstructed (Band-fit) spectra at 1 GeV for the GLEs and for the mean ESPE. Without such a quantification, the reader cannot judge whether the method provides a tight upper bound or merely a very conservative envelope at high energies.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains a typo: \u201c1776 BCE\u201d should be \u201c7176 BCE\u201d.
  2. [Table B.1 note] The table note mentions GLE72, but the table lists only GLE55\u2013GLE71; this appears to be a typo (likely GLE71) and should be corrected.
  3. [Eq. (2) and surrounding text] Equation (2) is introduced as the \u201cevent-integrated differential spectrum\u201d but uses the notation F(>E) for both integral and differential quantities; the notation should be clarified to avoid confusion between F(>E), the differential flux, and the normalization J0.
  4. [Section 3] The sentence \u201cOur derived \u2018worst case\u2019 integral influences seem to hold true\u201d contains a typo: \u201cinfluences\u201d should be \u201cfluence spectra\u201d.
  5. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase \u201cquantifying their impact up to an integral energy of ~E>1 GeV\u201d is awkwardly typeset; the spacing around \u201c~E>\u201d should be cleaned up.
  6. [Section 2, GLE selection] The text says the GLE sample covers GLE55\u2013GLE71, but the table and figure include GLE55, 56, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, and 71; the missing GLE57, 58, 61, and 68 should be explicitly noted as excluded and the reason given.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

AD774/775 validation is partly circular because the SXR input was derived from the same event's >200 MeV fluence; the GLE test is independent but only a broad envelope, so the claimed extreme-event agreement is not a clean out-of-sample check.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, AD774/775 paragraph (Fig. 2)]
    "Through these points, they extrapolated lines parallel to the RMA fit to the modeled >200 MeV fluence for the AD774 SEP event to obtain an estimate of X285±140 for the AD774 flare."

    The SXR flux used as input for the Papaioannou et al. (2023) method is itself inferred from the AD774/775 >200 MeV fluence via the Cliver et al. (2020) fluence–SXR relation. The method then converts this SXR input back into an integral fluence spectrum, and the paper presents agreement with Koldobskiy et al. (2023) at high energies as an independent check. At the anchoring energy, the predicted >200 MeV fluence is essentially the input by construction, so the high-energy part of the AD774/775 validation does not independently test the SXR-to-fluence scaling or its extrapolation to ~1 GeV.

  2. other [Section 3 (Fig. 3), mean-ESPE comparison]
    "We then implement a mean ESPE utilizing four confirmed paleo ESPEs (i.e., AD993/994, AD774/775, 660 BCE, and 7176 BCE) and test the resulting spectrum against the estimated one."

    The 'estimated one' is the AD774/775 worst-case spectrum whose SXR input was derived from AD774/775's own high-energy fluence. Since AD774/775 is one of the four events in the mean, the mean-ESPE comparison does not provide an independent out-of-sample test; it inherits the circularity of the AD774/775 input.

full rationale

The central scaling relation (Papaioannou et al. 2023) is itself based on 65 instrumental SEP events and is therefore not circular in origin. The GLE comparison (Fig. 4) is a genuinely out-of-sample check: the re-calibrated SXR fluxes are measured and the fluence spectra are independent reconstructions. However, that test is presented only as a broad band between the lowest and highest SXR values, not as per-event upper-limit predictions with quantitative residuals, so it is weak evidence for a hard upper limit at ~1 GeV. The mean-ESPE comparison is contaminated by the inclusion of AD774/775, whose SXR input was obtained from its own fluence. The strongest claimed validation, AD774/775, is partly circular: the input X400±200 was derived by extrapolating a fluence–SXR fit to the very >200 MeV fluence that the method then claims to reproduce. Thus one or more predictions reduce by construction, giving partial circularity, though the method retains independent content from the 65-event calibration and the GLE comparison.

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

The core method is imported from Papaioannou et al. (2023); no new physical model is introduced. The AD774/775 input is an inferred upper limit, not a measured SXR flux. The Band fit for the mean ESPE is a descriptive fit. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • SXR-SEP scaling relation (exponent and normalization) from Papaioannou et al. (2023) = F_P(>E) ~ F_SXR^(5/6), normalization in Table 3 of that work
    The central method is an application of these fitted scaling relations; the paper does not re-fit or independently derive them.
  • AD774/775 soft X-ray flux SXR class = X600 (upper limit of X400+/-200)
    Chosen as worst-case upper limit from Cliver et al. (2022) after Hudson et al. (2024) recalibration; this value drives the AD774/775 estimate.
  • Mean ESPE Band fit parameters = J0 = 8.5e13 cm^-2, gamma1 = 0.65, gamma2 = 7.0, R0 = 0.35 GV
    Fitted to the mean fluences of four ESPEs; used for the mean-ESPE comparison in Fig. 3.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A universal upper-limit scaling relation between soft X-ray flux and SEP integral fluence exists and is valid from >10 MeV to >1 GeV, including for ESPEs orders of magnitude larger than the calibration sample.
    Adopted from Papaioannou et al. (2023); the paper extends it to extreme events and higher energies without new derivation (Section 2).
  • domain assumption The AD774/775 event's flare SXR flux can be inferred from its >200 MeV fluence using GLE-based scaling, and Hudson et al. (2024) recalibration is correct.
    Section 2, where X400+/-200 is derived from Cliver et al. (2020) and rescaled.
  • domain assumption The radionuclide-based reconstructions of ESPE integral fluences (Koldobskiy et al. 2023) are accurate and the four events indeed have solar origin.
    Used as the benchmark for comparison in Figs. 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption A single power-law spectral shape is a sufficient approximation for the integral fluence from >10 MeV to >1 GeV.
    The paper acknowledges a double power-law or rollover is more realistic (Section 2, Appendix C), but adopts the simpler form for the worst-case estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimating solar radiation environment extremes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWL6J47H

@misc{pith2026250205903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimating solar radiation environment extremes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWL6J47H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05903}
}
abstract

Extreme Solar Energetic Particle Events (ESPEs) were identified almost a decade ago, providing context for super events unleashed by our host star, the Sun. Their assumed solar origin drives the question of their ``worst-case" impact, which could be profound, multifaceted, and devastating for our technological society. A methodology that directly relates the soft X-ray flux $F_{SXR}$ of the driving solar flare of a Solar Energetic Particle event to its ``worst-case" integral fluence spectrum has recently been proposed by Papaioannou et al. (2023). We employ this method to the ESPEs that have been confirmed in cosmogenic radionuclide records up to date, retrieve their ``worst-case" integral spectrum, and compare the latter to the actual -- independently obtained -- recent reconstructions based on the radionuclide records. We first show that our method allows us to estimate the integral fluence spectra of one of the paleo events, i.e., AD774/775, one of the strongest ESPEs found within the cosmogenic radionuclide records so far. We then implement a mean ESPE utilizing four confirmed paleo ESPEs (i.e., AD993/994, AD774/775, 660 BCE, and 7176 BCE) and test the resulting spectrum against the estimated one. Finally, we test the same methodology for a series of strong SEPs recorded on the Earth's surface as Ground Level Enhancements (GLEs). In all investigated cases, the recent re-calibration of $F_{SXR}$ by Hudson et al. (2024) is considered. We conclude that the methodology can adequately estimate the ``worst-case" integral fluence spectra for both strong and extreme SEP events, quantifying their impact up to an integral energy of $\sim$ E $>$ 1 GeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05903 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Statistical distribution of the F30 proton fluence obtained using a total of 392 SEP events recorded from 1955 to 2023 onboard space￾craft (magenta bars) and the ESPEs of the past (light blue bar). The black dashed line corresponds to the cumulative distribution function (CDF). The blue trace (right ordinate axis) corresponds to the empir￾ical Complementary CDF (CCDF) and gives the probability P(> F30) of having a S… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The integral fluence spectra of the AD774/775 event. Blue and black filled squares display the estimations based on the cosmogenic radionuclide data (Usoskin et al. 2021; Koldobskiy et al. 2023, , re￾spectively). While the magenta ribbon reflects the spectrum derived by Koldobskiy et al. (2023), the orange ribbon is obtained as a “worst case" upper limit integral fluence spectra based on an X600 solar flare by em￾pl… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The integral fluence spectrum for GLEs from 1956-2017. Each line is a Band fit (see Eq. (2)) to the values presented in Table B.1. The orange range depicts the “worst case" estimated integral fluence spectrum for the lower and the highest re-calibrated FS XR values of the associated solar flares for GLE71 (lower) and GLE65 (higher). Note that the results are represented by their obtained PL fit, per case, excluding … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Aschwanden , M. J. 2002, , 101, 1

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    1993, , 413, 281

    Band , D., Matteson , J., Ford , L., et al. 1993, , 413, 281

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Brehm , N., Christl , M., Knowles , T. D. J., et al. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 1196

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    V., Richardson , I

    Cane , H. V., Richardson , I. G., & von Rosenvinge , T. T. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 115, A08101

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Cliver , E. W. & Dietrich , W. F. 2013, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 3, A31

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    W., Hayakawa , H., Love , J

    Cliver , E. W., Hayakawa , H., Love , J. J., & Neidig , D. F. 2020, , 903, 41

    work page 2020

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    W., Schrijver , C

    Cliver , E. W., Schrijver , C. J., Shibata , K., & Usoskin , I. G. 2022, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 19, 2

    2022

  2. [10]

    W., Tylka, A

    Cliver, E. W., Tylka, A. J., Dietrich, W. F., & Ling, A. G. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 32

    2014

  3. [11]

    & Giacalone, J

    Desai, M. & Giacalone, J. 2016, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 13, 1

    2016

  4. [12]

    2000, , 537, 1073

    Dr \"o ge , W. 2000, , 537, 1073

    2000

  5. [13]

    Ellison , D. C. & Ramaty , R. 1985, , 298, 400

    1985

  6. [14]

    E., Herbst , K., Strauss , R

    Engelbrecht , N. E., Herbst , K., Strauss , R. D. T., et al. 2024, , 964, 89

    2024

  7. [15]

    2018, in Extreme Events in Geospace

    Gopalswamy , N. 2018, in Extreme Events in Geospace. Origins, Predictability, and Consequences, ed. N. Buzulukova , 37--63

    2018

  8. [16]

    Hambaryan, V. V. & Neuhäuser, R. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 32

    2013

  9. [17]

    L., et al

    Herbst, K., Bartenschlager, A., Grenfell, J. L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 164

    2024

  10. [18]

    A., Vourlidas , A., & Stenborg , G

    Howard , R. A., Vourlidas , A., & Stenborg , G. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1264226

    2023

  11. [19]

    2024, Solar Physics, 299, 39

    Hudson, H., Cliver, E., White, S., et al. 2024, Solar Physics, 299, 39

    2024

  12. [20]

    I., Meshalkina , N

    Kiselev , V. I., Meshalkina , N. S., & Grechnev , V. V. 2022, , 297, 53

    2022

  13. [21]

    & Dalla, S

    Klein, K.-L. & Dalla, S. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 212, 1107

    2017

  14. [22]

    & Trottet , G

    Klein , K.-L. & Trottet , G. 2001, , 95, 215

    2001

  15. [23]

    2023, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 128, e2022JA031186

    Koldobskiy , S., Mekhaldi , F., Kovaltsov , G., & Usoskin , I. 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 128, e2022JA031186

    2023

  16. [24]

    A., & Usoskin, I

    Koldobskiy, S., Raukunen, O., Vainio, R., Kovaltsov, G. A., & Usoskin, I. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 647, A132

    2021

  17. [25]

    Kouloumvakos , A., Papaioannou , A., Waterfall , C. O. G., et al. 2024, , 682, A106

    2024

  18. [26]

    2014, Scientific Reports, 4, 3728

    Liu, Y., Zhang, Z.-f., Peng, Z.-c., et al. 2014, Scientific Reports, 4, 3728

    2014

  19. [27]

    K., & DeVore , C

    Masson , S., Antiochos , S. K., & DeVore , C. R. 2013, , 771, 82

    2013

  20. [28]

    2015, Nature communications, 6, 1

    Mekhaldi, F., Muscheler, R., Adolphi, F., et al. 2015, Nature communications, 6, 1

    2015

  21. [29]

    A., Looper , M

    Mewaldt , R. A., Looper , M. D., Cohen , C. M. S., et al. 2012, , 171, 97

    2012

  22. [30]

    & Poluianov , S

    Mishev , A. & Poluianov , S. 2021, , 296, 129

    2021

  23. [31]

    2013, Nature Communications, 4, 1748

    Miyake , F., Masuda , K., & Nakamura , T. 2013, Nature Communications, 4, 1748

    2013

  24. [32]

    2012, , 486, 240

    Miyake , F., Nagaya , K., Masuda , K., & Nakamura , T. 2012, , 486, 240

    2012

  25. [33]

    2019, Extreme Solar Particle Storms, 2514-3433 (IOP Publishing)

    Miyake, F., Usoskin, I., & Poluianov, S., eds. 2019, Extreme Solar Particle Storms, 2514-3433 (IOP Publishing)

    2019

  26. [34]

    2024, , 691, L8

    Mohan , A., Gopalswamy , N., Raju , H., & Akiyama , S. 2024, , 691, L8

    2024

  27. [35]

    V., Liu , Y., DeRosa , M

    Nitta , N. V., Liu , Y., DeRosa , M. L., & Nightingale , R. W. 2012, , 171, 61

    2012

  28. [36]

    2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 116, 5961

    O'Hare , P., Mekhaldi , F., Adolphi , F., et al. 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 116, 5961

    2019

  29. [37]

    I., Mekhaldi , F., Adolphi , F., et al

    Paleari , C. I., Mekhaldi , F., Adolphi , F., et al. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 214

    2022

  30. [38]

    2023, NMDB@Athens: Proceedings of the hybrid symposium on cosmic ray studies with neutron detectors, September 26-30, 2022, 2, 113

    Papaioannou, A. 2023, NMDB@Athens: Proceedings of the hybrid symposium on cosmic ray studies with neutron detectors, September 26-30, 2022, 2, 113

    2023

  31. [39]

    2023, , 671, A66

    Papaioannou , A., Herbst , K., Ramm , T., et al. 2023, , 671, A66

    2023

  32. [40]

    Papaioannou , A., Herbst , K., Ramm , T., Lario , D., & Veronig , A. M. 2024, , 690, A60

    2024

  33. [41]

    2016, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 6, A42

    Papaioannou , A., Sandberg , I., Anastasiadis , A., et al. 2016, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 6, A42

    2016

  34. [42]

    2022, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 12, 24

    Papaioannou , A., Vainio , R., Raukunen , O., et al. 2022, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 12, 24

    2022

  35. [43]

    2025, Space Science Reviews

    Papaioannou, A., Vainio, R., Strauss, R., et al. 2025, Space Science Reviews

    2025

  36. [44]

    2020, , 216, 131

    Patsourakos , S., Vourlidas , A., T \"o r \"o k , T., et al. 2020, , 216, 131

    2020

  37. [45]

    2012, , 173, 535

    Petrosian , V. 2012, , 173, 535

    2012

  38. [46]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249

    Rauer , H., Catala , C., Aerts , C., et al. 2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249

    2014

  40. [48]

    J., et al

    Raukunen , O., Vainio , R., Tylka , A. J., et al. 2018, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 8, A04

    2018

  41. [49]

    Reames , D. V. 1999, , 90, 413

    1999

  42. [50]

    Reames , D. V. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1254266

    2023

  43. [51]

    G., von Rosenvinge , T

    Richardson , I. G., von Rosenvinge , T. T., Cane , H. V., et al. 2014, , 289, 3059

    2014

  44. [52]

    Ross, S. M. 2014, in Introduction to Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists (Fifth Edition), fifth edition edn. (Boston: Academic Press)

    2014

  45. [53]

    & Klein , K

    Salas-Matamoros , C. & Klein , K. L. 2015, , 290, 1337

    2015

  46. [54]

    2016, , 833, L8

    Takahashi , T., Mizuno , Y., & Shibata , K. 2016, , 833, L8

    2016

  47. [55]

    2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 4

    Temmer , M. 2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 4

    2021

  48. [56]

    C., Melott, A

    Thomas, B. C., Melott, A. L., Arkenberg, K. R., & Snyder II, B. R. 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 1237

    2013

  49. [57]

    L., Dudok de Wit , T., & Miteva , R

    Trottet , G., Samwel , S., Klein , K. L., Dudok de Wit , T., & Miteva , R. 2015, , 290, 819

    2015

  50. [58]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, A17

    Usoskin, I., Koldobskiy, S., Kovaltsov, G., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, A17

    2020

  51. [59]

    2021, in Proceedings of 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference PoS(ICRC2021), Vol

    Usoskin, I., Koldobskiy, S., Kovaltsov, G., et al. 2021, in Proceedings of 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference PoS(ICRC2021), Vol. 395, 1319

    2021

  52. [60]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 552, L3

    Usoskin, I., Kromer, B., Ludlow, F., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 552, L3

    2013

  53. [61]

    2023, , 219, 73

    Usoskin , I., Miyake , F., Baroni , M., et al. 2023, , 219, 73

    2023

  54. [62]

    Usoskin , I. G. & Kovaltsov , G. A. 2021, , 48, e94848

    2021

  55. [63]

    Waterfall , C. O. G., Dalla , S., Raukunen , O., et al. 2023, Space Weather, 21, e2022SW003334

    2023

  56. [64]

    Yashiro , S., Akiyama , S., Gopalswamy , N., & Howard , R. A. 2006, , 650, L143

    2006

  57. [65]

    P., Howard , R

    Zhang , J., Dere , K. P., Howard , R. A., Kundu , M. R., & White , S. M. 2001, , 559, 452

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.