Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Pitch Angle Measurement Method based on Detector Counts Distribution. -I. Basic conception

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that pitch angle of charged particles can be read from the detector count pattern of GECAM's uncollimated instruments by matching against simulated templates, and demonstrates this on an electron precipitation event…

desk verdict PACD is a genuinely new idea for GECAM-style monitors, but the single-event demonstration is thin and the isotropic-assumption bias is unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06167 v1 pith:ABD5X347 submitted 2025-05-09 astro-ph.IM physics.space-ph

Chenwei Wang , Shaolin Xiong , Hongbo Xue , Yiteng Zhang , Shanzhi Ye , Wei Xu , Jinpeng Zhang , Zhenghua An
show 31 more authors
Ce Cai Peiyi Feng Ke Gong Haoxuan Guo Yue Huang Xinqiao Li Jiacong Liu Xiaojing Liu Xiang Ma Liming Song Wenjun Tan Jin Wang Ping Wang Yue Wang Xiangyang Wen Shuo Xiao Shenlun Xie Yanbing Xu Wangchen Xue Sheng Yang Zhenghang Yu Dali Zhang Wenlong Zhang Peng Zhang Shuangnan Zhang Yanqiu Zhang Yanting Zhang Zhen Zhang Xiaoyun Zhao Chao Zheng Shijie Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMphysics.space-ph
keywords pitchangleGECAMchargedparticleprecipitationdetectorcountsdistributioncosinesimilarityGeant4simulationterrestrialelectronbeamsall-skymonitor
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 proposes that pitch angle of charged particles moving around the geomagnetic field can be measured from the relative counts of an all-sky monitor's differently oriented, uncollimated detectors, without adding collimators or deflectors. The idea adapts the burst-localization technique to particles whose arrival is not parallel: for a particle population present homogeneously around the satellite, only the local magnetic field direction and the particle pitch angle determine the count pattern. Geant4 simulations of electrons emitted around the satellite generate templates at 10-degree pitch-angle steps, and cosine similarity between normalized observed and simulated counts selects the pitch angle. Applied to the GECAM-C event tn240719 200130, the method returns about 90 degrees for the whole event and for each of its two pulses. If the method holds, existing high-energy transient monitors gain a pitch-angle measurement capability they were not designed for, at a time resolution limited mainly by particle flux.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the normalized relative-counts vector across the detector array, with 14 components for GECAM-C (12 GRDs and 2 CPDs), each computed as $(N_{det}-N_{\min})/(N_{\max}-N_{\min})$. The template library comes from Geant4 simulations of electrons uniformly emitted from a spherical surface around the satellite mass model, using a modified shielding physics list, for pitch angles sampled every 10 degrees. Cosine similarity between the observed and simulated normalized vectors selects the measured pitch angle, and using cosine similarity rather than absolute counts keeps the comparison sensitive only to the relative signal pattern, not the overall event intensity.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier is a GECAM event with an independently known pitch angle, for example measured simultaneously by a dedicated particle instrument on a nearby spacecraft, compared against the PACD result; a systematic offset that grows as the event becomes more field-aligned would show the homogeneous-local assumption is doing the work. Another direct test is to simulate a field-aligned, non-isotropic electron beam with a known pitch angle and check whether the homogeneous template library returns the correct angle or a biased one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a multi-detector, full-sky instrument without collimators still encodes pitch-angle information in the distribution of counts among its detectors, and this information can be recovered by template matching. The paper defines the PACD method: normalize each detector's net counts by the detector range, simulate electrons with a given pitch angle uniformly emitted from a spherical surface enclosing the satellite mass model, normalize the simulated counts the same way, and pick the pitch angle whose simulated vector has the highest cosine similarity to the observed vector. The demonstration is the GECAM-C event tn240719 200130, in which only the oppositely paired detectors GRD4 and GRD10 show almost no signal, the pattern expected when the electron velocity lies near their common detector plane. The simulation at pitch angle 90 degrees gives cosine similarity 0.99, with all other tested angles scoring visibly lower, so the paper concludes that the pitch angle of this precipitation event is about 90 degrees, consistent with the satellite being close to the southern magnetic footpoint.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that charged particles are present homogeneously in all space around the satellite, so the only inputs into the count pattern are the local magnetic field direction and the particle pitch angle; if the real flux is directional or field-aligned, the same pitch angle can create a different detector pattern and the template match will be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GECAM-A/B and GECAM-C data can be searched for pitch angles of electron precipitation events, TEBs, and LEPs without requiring new hardware or collimating structures.
  • Because the time resolution is set by particle flux rather than by a rotating scan, bright events can be split into short time bins, allowing the pitch angle evolution inside a single event to be tracked.
  • The 10-degree template spacing caps the pitch-angle precision, and shrinking that spacing directly improves resolution at the cost of increased simulation time.
  • If the homogeneous-local assumption holds, other wide-field monitors such as Fermi/GBM and SVOM/GRM could apply the same technique using their own mass models and magnetic field knowledge.
  • A measured pitch angle near 90 degrees places the satellite near the particle bounce point, linking the count-pattern measurement to the spatial structure of the geomagnetic field line.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would expect the main systematic error to come not from counting statistics but from anisotropic particle flux: a field-aligned beam with a given nominal pitch angle will imprint a different count pattern than a homogeneous population, so the method's accuracy in real precipitation events depends on how isotropic the local flux actually is.
  • A direct calibration test would compare PACD results on GECAM events with simultaneous pitch-angle measurements from a dedicated particle instrument on a passing spacecraft or a conjugate observation; agreement under isotropic conditions and divergence under beam-like conditions would pinpoint the limitation.
  • The reported similarity curve appears flatter at larger angles, so the method may be most discriminating near 90 degrees; building a sensitivity map from the simulated templates would quantify where the method's resolving power is weakest.
  • A natural extension is to add a second model parameter, such as beam width or anisotropy direction, and invert the normalized count vector for both parameters, which would let the method distinguish a true 90-degree population from a broad or bidirectional distribution.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new method, called Pitch Angle based on Counts Distribution (PACD), to infer the pitch angle of charged particles detected by GECAM-style all-sky monitors. The method normalizes the counts of all detectors, computes simulated count templates for different pitch angles under an idealized 'local' assumption (charged particles homogeneously distributed in all space around the satellite), and selects the pitch angle whose template has the highest cosine similarity to the observed normalized count vector. The authors apply PACD to a GECAM-C electron event (tn240719 200130), in which two opposite detectors (GRD4 and GRD10) show almost no signal, and report a derived pitch angle of about 90 degrees. They also perform pulse-resolved fits and find the same result for both pulses. The paper is framed as the first in a series, with extensions and optimizations deferred to future articles.

Significance. If the method is valid, it would give GECAM and similar wide-field monitors a pitch-angle measurement capability that they were not designed for, with potentially high time resolution, which is genuinely useful for studying TEBs, LEPs, and precipitation events. The paper has several strengths: it uses a full Geant4 mass model with a validated physics list, it exploits the in-situ CPT magnetometer data on SATech-01 rather than relying solely on a field model, and it demonstrates a pulse-resolved analysis that is unusual for this class of instruments. The central idea is plausible and the geometric intuition behind the 90-degree result is visually supported by the near-null pair. However, the presented validation rests on a single event and on idealized simulation assumptions whose impact on the inferred angle is not quantified; the feasibility claim is therefore stronger than the evidence currently presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 4] The template simulations are generated under the explicit assumption that the charged particle population is 'local', i.e., homogeneously present in all space surrounding the satellite, so that the normalized count vector depends only on the local magnetic field direction and the pitch angle. The paper acknowledges this as an idealized limitation in Section 4, but it does not quantify how deviations from this assumption bias the inferred pitch angle. For a unidirectional or loss-cone beam, the count pattern also depends on the arrival direction; in particular, a beam traveling in the plane containing the GRD4/GRD10 detector pair would produce nulls on both opposite detectors for a range of pitch angles relative to the local magnetic field. The observed null pair in Section 3 is therefore not uniquely diagnostic of 90 degrees unless the local-isotropic model is assumed. The central claim of the paper would be substantially strengthened by a set of anisotropic-population simulations (e.g., unidirectional beams, loss-cone distributions) showing that the count-vector-to-pitch-angle mapping remains one-to-one, or by quantifying the resulting bias.
  2. [Section 3 and Figs. 4-6] The pitch angle is selected by maximizing the cosine similarity defined in Eq. (2), yet the paper reports no statistical or systematic uncertainty on the cosine similarities or on the derived pitch angle. For the full event, the reported values are 0.99 at 90 degrees, 0.94 at 80 degrees and 0.95 at 100 degrees; the pulse-resolved fits show similar separations. Since the selection rule is 'closest to 1', the statement that 'no other simulation results with the same high similarity' exist is not established without an error estimate that demonstrates the 0.04-0.05 difference is significant relative to counting statistics and template systematics. The discussion in Section 2 explicitly states that resolution depends on signal significance, but no quantitative relation is given. The paper should provide error bars on the cosine similarities (e.g., via Poisson realizations of the observed counts) and on the resulting pitch angle.
  3. [Section 2 and Fig. 4] The simulated templates assume a uniform incident electron energy distribution from 1 to 2000 keV, while the true energy spectrum of tn240719 200130 is not constrained in the paper. Because the relative detector response depends on electron energy through scattering and absorption in the satellite mass model and through the detector efficiency, the normalized count pattern and the resulting cosine similarities may depend on the assumed spectral shape. The paper should show that the inferred pitch angle is stable under plausible alternative spectra (e.g., power-law or the spectrum implied by the observed GRD/CPD count ratios), or explicitly characterize the spectral sensitivity of the method. Without this, the 90-degree result could be partly an artifact of the uniform-spectrum template.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] There is a typo in 'normalized by the same process in Equation,1' where the comma should be a period or the equation reference should be formatted consistently.
  2. [Table 1] The column headers 'I', 'D', 'theta_a', and 'phi_a' are not defined in the caption or in the text; the reader must infer that they are inclination, declination, and the payload-coordinate angles, but these definitions should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Section 3] The phrase 'the detector plane of GRD4 and GRD10' is ambiguous: it could mean the plane of a detector surface or the plane containing the detector normal and another axis; this should be clarified because the geometric argument about the null pair depends on it.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The abbreviations TEB and LEP appear in the abstract without expansion; while they are defined later in the Introduction, it would be clearer to spell them out at first use in the abstract as well.
  5. [Section 3] The sentence 'Since the best resolution of relativistic electron pitch angle observations is no better than 9 degrees thus far [17]' would benefit from specifying whether this refers to measurement resolution, sampling, or model resolution, as that affects the choice of the 10-degree simulation grid.
  6. [Section 4] The claim that the time resolution of PACD is 'mainly determined by the flux of charged particles' is plausible but is not quantitatively demonstrated; a short example with expected count rates and achievable time binning would make the claim more concrete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PACD is a forward-model template fit whose pitch-angle estimate comes from independent Geant4 simulations, not from the observed counts themselves.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard forward-model parameter estimation. Templates are generated by Geant4 for electrons emitted uniformly from a sphere around the satellite mass model at fixed pitch angles, using the local magnetic-field direction from the independent CPT magnetometer (or IGRF) as input. The observed normalized detector-count vector is then compared with these templates via cosine similarity, and the pitch angle of the best-matching template is reported. The pitch angle is the parameter being estimated, and it is not inserted into the normalization equation (Eq. 1) or into the similarity measure (Eq. 2) in a way that would force the 90-degree result. The simulation templates are not fitted to the event: the energy distribution is a stated uniform 1-2000 keV assumption, and no pitch-angle-dependent parameter is adjusted to the data before matching. The paper's only self-citation of note, the GECAM localization method [22], is explicitly described as inspiration ('inspired by the counts distribution localization method for astrophysical bursts') and is not load-bearing for the validity of the pitch-angle measurement. The CPT magnetic-field reference [36] is also by the authors, but it is an independent onboard measurement rather than a derived result of this paper. The main limitation is physical rather than circular: the 'local' assumption that charged particles are present homogeneously around the satellite is idealized, and Section 4 explicitly acknowledges 'numerous limitations' including 'a unimodal pitch angle distribution, uniform energy distribution, and so on.' Under a directional or loss-cone beam the same normalized pattern could in principle map to a different pitch angle, so the 90-degree conclusion for tn240719 200130 is only as strong as that idealized model. That is a model-validity or robustness concern, not a case of the prediction being equivalent to its input by construction. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no known empirical pattern is merely relabeled. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's output depends on two unmeasured distributional choices (energy spectrum and spatial homogeneity) plus a discrete sampling grid. No new physical entities are proposed. The central claim is only as strong as these assumptions; the paper itself flags them as limitations.

free parameters (3)
  • Incident electron energy distribution = Uniform from 1 to 2000 keV (chosen, not fitted)
    Section 2: 'The energy of the incident electrons in the simulation is uniformly sampled from 1 to 2000 keV.' This arbitrary spectrum modifies the relative detector responses and is not derived from the event's measured spectrum.
  • Pitch angle sampling interval = 10 degrees
    Chosen as the step size in the simulation grid, justified by the 9-degree best prior resolution in ref [17]; the paper does not characterize the resolution of the new method itself.
  • Min-max normalization of detector counts = (Ndet - Nmin)/(Nmax - Nmin)
    Equation 1: this choice highlights relative differences but is sensitive to outlier detectors and discards absolute count information, which can inflate similarity for low-count events.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Charged particles are homogeneously distributed around the satellite ('local' assumption)
    Section 2: necessary for the simulated count distribution to be a function of pitch angle alone; anisotropic fluxes would break the template.
  • domain assumption Pitch angle distribution is unimodal and narrow
    Section 4: the method selects a single best pitch angle; a multimodal distribution would not be recovered and could yield an averaged, misleading angle.
  • domain assumption The event is caused by electrons, not protons or photons
    Section 3: identification is based on similarity of GRD and CPD lightcurves; no quantitative particle type discrimination is provided.
  • domain assumption Geant4 simulation with modified Shielding Physics List reproduces real detector response
    Section 2: the physics list was used for Insight-HXMT and GECAM-D simulations, but no in-flight calibration is shown for this measurement.
  • standard math Cosine similarity is a valid goodness-of-fit metric
    Equation 2: standard metric, but no statistical threshold or uncertainty is defined; the reported cos values (0.99 vs 0.94) are not tested for significance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pitch Angle Measurement Method based on Detector Counts Distribution. -I. Basic conception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ABD5X347

@misc{pith2026250506167,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pitch Angle Measurement Method based on Detector Counts Distribution. -I. Basic conception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ABD5X347}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06167}
}
abstract

As an X-ray and gamma-ray all-sky monitor aiming for high energy astrophysical transients, Gravitational-wave high-energy Electromagnetic Counterpart All-sky Monitor (GECAM) has also made a series of observational discoveries on burst events of gamma-rays and particles in the low Earth orbit. Pitch angle is one of the key parameters of charged particles traveling around geomagnetic field. However, the usage of the GECAM-style instruments to measure the pitch angle of charged particles is still lacking. Here we propose a novel method for GECAM and similar instruments to measure the pitch angle of charged particles based on detector counts distribution. The basic conception of this method and simulation studies are described. With this method, the pitch angle of a peculiar electron precipitation event detected by GECAM-C is derived to be about 90$^\circ$, demonstrating the feasibility of our method. We note that the application of this method on GECAM-style instruments may open a new window for studying space particle events, such as Terrestrial Electron Beams (TEBs) and Lightning-induced Electron Precipitations (LEPs).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nature 312, 740–742 (1984)

    Voss, H.D., Imhof, W.L., Walt, M., Mobilia, J., Gaines, E.E., Rea- gan, J.B., Inan, U.S., Helliwell, R.A., Carpenter, D.L., Katsufrakis, J.P.: Lightning-induced Electron Precipitation. Nature 312, 740–742 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1038/312740a0

    work page doi:10.1038/312740a0 1984

  2. [2]

    Investigation of NWC-induced electron precipitation and theoretical simulation

    Zhang, Z.X., Li, X.Q., Wang, C.Y., Chen, L.J.: North west cape-induced electron precipitation and theoretical simulation. Chinese Physics B 25(11), 119401 (2016) https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00665 [physics.space- ph]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1056/25/11/119401

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Geophysical Research Letters 48(17), 2021–093879 (2021) https://arxiv.org/abs/https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ pdf/10.1029/2021GL093879

    Shumko, M., Blum, L.W., Crew, A.B.: Duration of individual relativistic electron microbursts: A probe into their scattering mech- anism. Geophysical Research Letters 48(17), 2021–093879 (2021) https://arxiv.org/abs/https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ pdf/10.1029/2021GL093879. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093879. e2021GL093879 2021GL093879

    doi:10.1029/2021gl093879 2021

  4. [4]

    Nature Communications 13, 1611 (2022)

    Zhang, X.J., Artemyev, A., Angelopoulos, V., Tsai, E., Wilkins, C., Kasa- hara, S., Mourenas, D., Yokota, S., Keika, K., Hori, T., Miyoshi, Y., Shinohara, I., Matsuoka, A.: Superfast precipitation of energetic electrons in the radiation belts of the Earth. Nature Communications 13, 1611 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29291-8

    doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29291-8 2022

  5. [5]

    Geo- physical Research Letters 38(2) (2011) https://arxiv.org/abs/https:// agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2010GL046259

    Briggs, M.S., Connaughton, V., Wilson-Hodge, C., Preece, R.D., Fishman, G.J., Kippen, R.M., Bhat, P.N., Paciesas, W.S., Chaplin, V.L., Meegan, C.A., von Kienlin, A., Greiner, J., Dwyer, J.R., Smith, D.M.: Electron- positron beams from terrestrial lightning observed with fermi gbm. Geo- physical Research Letters 38(2) (2011) https://arxiv.org/abs/https:// ...

    doi:10.1029/2010gl046259 2011

  6. [6]

    Geophysical Research Letters 50(14), 2022–102325 (2023) https://arxiv.org/abs/https:// agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2022GL102325

    Zhao, Y., Liu, J.C., Xiong, S.L., Xue, W.C., Yi, Q.B., Lu, G.P., Xu, W., Lyu, F.C., Sun, J.C., Peng, W.X., Zheng, C., Zhang, Y.Q., Cai, C., Xiao, S., Xie, S.L., Wang, C.W., Tan, W.J., An, Z.H., Chen, G., Du, Y.Q., Huang, Y., Gao, M., Gong, K., Guo, D.Y., He, J.J., Li, B., Li, G., Li, X.Q., Li, X.B., Liao, J.Y., Liang, J., Liang, X.H., Liu, Y.Q., Ma, X., Q...

    2023

  7. [7]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 124(12), 10580–10591 (2019) https://arxiv.org/abs/https:// agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2019JA026749

    Stanbro, M., Briggs, M.S., Roberts, O.J., Cramer, E., Dwyer, J.R., Holzworth, R.H., Mailyan, B.G., Xiong, S.L.: A fermi gamma-ray burst monitor event observed as a terrestrial gamma-ray flash and terrestrial electron beam. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 124(12), 10580–10591 (2019) https://arxiv.org/abs/https:// agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja026749 2019

  8. [8]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 124(12), 10497–10511 (2019) https://arxiv.org/abs/https:// agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2019JA027071

    Sarria, D., Kochkin, P., Østgaard, N., Lehtinen, N., Mezentsev, A., Marisaldi, M., Carlson, B.E., Maiorana, C., Albrechtsen, K., Neu- bert, T., Reglero, V., Ullaland, K., Yang, S., Genov, G., Qureshi, B.H., Budtz-Jørgensen, C., Kuvvetli, I., Christiansen, F., Chanrion, O., Heumesser, M., Dimitriadou, K., Navarro-Gonz´ alez, J., Connell, P., Eyles, C.: The...

    work page 2019

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Geophysical Research Letters 35(21), 21102 (2008)

    Bortnik, J., Thorne, R.M., Inan, U.S.: Nonlinear interaction of ener- getic electrons with large amplitude chorus. Geophysical Research Letters 35(21), 21102 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL035500

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    Geophysical Research Letters 47(4), 2019–086487 (2020) https://arxiv.org/abs/https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ pdf/10.1029/2019GL086487

    Ni, B., Yan, L., Fu, S., Gu, X., Cao, X., Xiang, Z., Zhang, Y.: Dis- tinct formation and evolution characteristics of outer radiation belt electron butterfly pitch angle distributions observed by van allen probes. Geophysical Research Letters 47(4), 2019–086487 (2020) https://...

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Journal of Geo- physical Research: Space Physics 106(A11), 25979–25997 (2001) https://arxiv.org/abs/https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/ 10.1029/2001JA900052

    Hoshino, M., Mukai, T., Terasawa, T., Shinohara, I.: Suprathermal electron acceleration in magnetic reconnection. Journal of Geo- physical Research: Space Physics 106(A11), 25979–25997 (2001) https://arxiv.org/abs/https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/ 10.1029/2001JA...

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 115(A1) (2010) https://arxiv.org/abs/https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/ 10.1029/2009JA014553

    Wang, R., Lu, Q., Huang, C., Wang, S.: Multispacecraft observa- tion of electron pitch angle distributions in magnetotail reconnection. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 115(A1) (2010) https://arxiv.org/abs/https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/ 10.1029/...

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Geophysi- cal Research Letters 35(2) (2008) https://arxiv.org/abs/https:// agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007GL032430

    Dwyer, J.R., Grefenstette, B.W., Smith, D.M.: High-energy elec- tron beams launched into space by thunderstorms. Geophysi- cal Research Letters 35(2) (2008) https://arxiv.org/abs/https:// agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007GL032430. https: //doi.org/10.1029/20...

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    AIP Conference Proceed- ings 1118(1), 84–91 (2009) https://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs

    Carlson, B.E., Lehtinen, N.G., Inan, U.S.: Observations of terrestrial gamma-ray flash electrons. AIP Conference Proceed- ings 1118(1), 84–91 (2009) https://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs. aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/1118/1/84/12060991/84 1 online.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3137717

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    Radiation Detection Technology and Methods 3(3), 22 (2019)

    Li, X.Q., Xu, Y.B., An, Z.H., Liang, X.H., Wang, P., Zhao, X.Y., Wang, H.Y., Lu, H., Ma, Y.Q., Shen, X.H., Wen, X.Y., Wang, H., Zhang, D.L., Shi, F., Peng, W.X., Gao, M., Yu, X.X., Wang, J.Z., Zhang, Y.J., Zhang, J.L., Zhang, J., Li, H.X., Zeng, J.R., Nan, Y.F.: The high-energ...

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Space Science Reviews 216(5), 103 (2020) https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.07747 [physics.space-ph]

    Angelopoulos, V., Tsai, E., Bingley, L., Shaffer, C., Turner, D.L., Runov, A., Li, W., Liu, J., Artemyev, A.V., Zhang, X.-J., Strangeway, R.J., Wirz, R.E., Shprits, Y.Y., Sergeev, V.A., Caron, R.P., Chung, M., Cruce, P., Greer, W., Grimes, E., Hector, K., Lawson, M.J., Leneman...

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Earth and Space Science 11(7), 2024–003641 (2024) https://arxiv.org/abs/https: //agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2024EA003641

    Reid, R.A., Berland, G., Marshall, R.: Coded aperture imag- ing for electron pitch angle observations. Earth and Space Science 11(7), 2024–003641 (2024) https://arxiv.org/abs/https: //agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2024EA003641. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EA0...

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Space Science Reviews 179(1-4), 423–484 (2013)

    Funsten, H.O., Skoug, R.M., Guthrie, A.A., MacDonald, E.A., Baldonado, J.R., Harper, R.W., Henderson, K.C., Kihara, K.H., Lake, J.E., Larsen, B.A., Puckett, A.D., Vigil, V.J., Friedel, R.H., Henderson, M.G., Niehof, Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 16 J.T., Reeves, G.D., Th...

    2013

  11. [19]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 92, 351 (1994)

    Gehrels, N., Chipman, E., Kniffen, D.: The Compton Gamma Ray Obser- vatory. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 92, 351 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1086/191978

    1994 doi

  12. [20]

    : The fermi gamma-ray burst monitor

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P., Bissaldi, E., Briggs, M.S., Connaughton, V., Diehl, R., Fishman, G., Greiner, J., Hoover, A.S., et al. : The fermi gamma-ray burst monitor. The Astrophysical Journal 702(1), 791 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 121(5), 4698–4704 (2016) https://arxiv.org/abs/https:// agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015JA021881

    Sarria, D., Blelly, P.-L., Briggs, M.S., Forme, F.: Studying the time histogram of a terrestrial electron beam detected from the opposite hemisphere of its associated tgf. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 121(5), 4698–4704 (2016) https://arxiv.org/abs/https:// ag...

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 265(1), 17 (2023) https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.15570 [astro-ph.IM]

    Zhao, Y., Xue, W.-C., Xiong, S.-L., Wang, Y.-H., Liu, J.-C., Luo, Q., Zhang, Y.-Q., Sun, J.-C., Zhao, X.-Y., Cai, C., Xiao, S., Huang, Y., Li, X.-B., Zhang, Z., Liao, J.-Y., Yang, S., Qiao, R., Guo, D.-Y., Zheng, C., Yi, Q.-B., Xie, S.-L., Guo, Z.-W., Li, C.-Y., Wang, C.-W., T...

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Radia- tion Detection Technology and Methods (2022)

    Li, X.Q., Wen, X.Y., An, Z.H., C., C., Chang, Z., Chen, G.: The technology for detection of gamma-ray burst with gecam satellite. Radia- tion Detection Technology and Methods (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s41605-021-00288-z

    2022

  16. [24]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 1056, 168586 (2023) https://arxiv.org/abs/2303

    Zhang, D.L., Zheng, C., Liu, J.C., An, Z.H., Wang, C.W., Wen, X.Y., Li, X.Q., Sun, X.L., Gong, K., Liu, Y.Q., Liu, X.J., Yang, S., Peng, W.X., Qiao, R., Guo, D.Y., Feng, P.Y., Zhang, Y.Q., Xue, W.C., Tan, W.J., Cai, Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template 17 C., Xiao, S., Yi, Q.B....

    2023

  17. [25]

    Experimental Astronomy 57(3), 26 (2024)

    Wang, C.W., Zhang, J., Zheng, S.J., Xiong, S.L., An, Z.H., Peng, W.X., Zhao, H.S., Zhao, X.Y., Zheng, C., Feng, P.Y., Gong, K., Guo, D.Y., Li, X.Q., Liu, J.C., Liu, Y.Q., Tan, W.J., Wang, Y., Xue, W.C., Yang, S., Zhang, D.L., Zhang, F., Zhang, Y.Q.: Simulation of the in-flight...

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters 962(1), 2 (2024) https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.10522 [astro-ph.HE]

    Zheng, C., Zhang, Y.-Q., Xiong, S.-L., Li, C.-K., Gao, H., Xue, W.-C., Liu, J.-C., Wang, C.-W., Tan, W.-J., Peng, W.-X., An, Z.-H., Cai, C., Ge, M.- Y., Guo, D.-Y., Huang, Y., Li, B., Li, T.-P., Li, X.-B., Li, X.-Q., Li, X.-F., Liao, J.-Y., Liu, C.-Z., Lu, F.-J., Ma, X., Qiao,...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy 67(8), 289511 (2024) https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2403.12851 [astro-ph.HE]

    Zhang, Y.Q., Xiong, S.L., Mao, J.R., Zhang, S.N., Xue, W.-C., Zheng, C., Liu, J.-C., Zhang, Z., Wang, X.-L., Ge, M.-Y., Yi, S.-X., Song, L.-M., An, Z.-H., Cai, C., Li, X.-Q., Peng, W.-X., Tan, W.-J., Wang, C.-W., Wen, X.-Y., Wang, Y., Xiao, S., Zhang, F., Zhang, P., Zheng, S.-...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters 972(2), 25 (2024) https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03229 [astro-ph.HE]

    Zhang, Y.Q., Lin, H.X., Xiong, S.L., Li, Z., Ge, M.Y., Wang, C.W., Yi, S.X., Zhang, Z., Zhang, S.N., Song, L.M., Zheng, C., Xue, W.C., Liu, J.C., Tan, W.J., Wang, Y., Zhang, W.L.: Relation between the keV–MeV and TeV Emission of GRB 221009A and Its Implications. The Astrophys-...

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 268(1), 5 (2023) https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07079 [astro-ph.HE]

    Xiao, S., Yang, J.-J., Luo, X.-H., Xiong, S.-L., Qu, Y.-H., Zhang, S.- N., Xue, W.-C., Li, X.-B., Tuo, Y.-L., Dong, A.-J., Zhao, R.-S., Dang, S.-J., Shang, L.-H., Ma, Q.-B., Cai, C., Wang, J., Wang, P., Li, C.- K., Yi, S.-X., Zhang, Z., Ge, M.-Y., Zheng, S.-J., Song, L.-M., Pe...

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society517(3), 3854– 3863 (2022) https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.08003 [astro-ph.HE]

    Xie, S.L., Cai, C., Xiong, S.L., Yu, Y.W., Zhang, Y.Q., Lin, L., Zhang, Z., Xue, W.C., Liu, J.C., Zhao, Y., Xiao, S., Zheng, C., Yi, Q.-B., Zhang, P., Wang, P., Qiao, R., Peng, W.-X., Huang, Y., Ma, X., Zhao, X.-Y., Li, X.-B., Zheng, S.-J., Ge, M.-Y., Li, C.-K., Li, X.-Q., Wen...

    2022

  23. [31]

    The Astronomer’s Telegram 15682, 1 (2022)

    Wang, C.W., Xiong, S.L., Zhang, Y.Q., Liu, J.C., Zheng, C., Xue, W.C., Tan, W.J., Xie, S.L., Yi, Q.B., Zhao, Y., Wang, Y., Cai, C., Xiao, S., Huang, Y., Ma, X., Qiao, R., Wang, P., Zhao, X.Y., Zhang, P., Li, X.Q., Wen, X.Y., Peng, W.X., Song, L.M., Zheng, S.J., Du, Y.Q., Guo, ...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy 66(5), 259611 (2023)

    Zhao, H.-S., Li, D., Xiong, S.-L., Zhang, Y.-Q., Su, Y., Chen, W., Zhao, Y., Li, X.-B., Liu, J.-C., Peng, W.-X., Qiao, R., Li, X.-Q., Wen, X.-Y., Song, L.-M., Zheng, S.-J., Song, X.-Y., Zhao, X.-Y., Huang, Y., Zhang, S.-N., Xiao, S., Cai, C., An, Z.-H., Chen, C., Chen, G., Che...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Radiation Detection Technology and Methods 6(1), 43–52 (2022)

    An, Z.H., Sun, X.L., Zhang, D.L., Yang, S., Li, X.Q., Wen, X.Y., Gong, K., Liang, X.H., Liu, X.J., Liu, Y.Q., Li, Y.G., Xiong, S.L., Xu, Y.B., Zhang, F., Zhao, X.Y., Cai, C., Chang, Z., Chen, G., Chen, C., Du, Y.Y., Feng, P.Y., Gao, M., Gao, R., Guo, D.Y., He, J.J., Hou, D.J.,...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Radiation Detection Technology and Methods 6(1), 53–62 (2022)

    Xu, Y.B., Li, X.Q., Sun, X.L., Yang, S., Wang, H., Peng, W.X., Liang, X.H., Gong, K., Liu, Y.Q., Guo, D.Y., Zhao, X.Y., Li, C.Y., An, Z.H., He, J.J., Liu, X.J., Wen, X.Y., Xiong, S.L., Zhang, F., Zhang, D.L., Zhang, C.Y., Cai, C., Chang, Z., Chen, G., Chen, C., Du, Y.Y., Gao, ...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Science in China E: Technological Sciences67(1), 240–258 (2024)

    Zhang, X., Chen, W., Zhu, X., Meng, N., He, J., Bi, X., Zhang, Y., Shi, Q., Li, F., Liu, R., Feng, Z., Liu, L., Li, J., Wu, H., Xu, D., Li, T., Huang, J., Liu, S., Li, T., Yu, X., Gao, Y., Zhou, H., Ban, H., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Yang, Y., He, T., Duan, X., Chen, X., Wang, Y.,...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Science China Technological Sciences68, 1220601– 1122060116 (2025)

    Xue, H., Song, W., Zhao, H., Zhang, Y., Ye, S., Wang, J., Tao, R., Sang, P., Chen, K., Bi, X., Cheng, B., Zhou, B., Xue, Y., Tang, Y., Liu, L., Li, J., Zhu, X., Li, B., Liu, J., Li, L.: High-precision magnetic field measurement system based on a coherent population trapping ma...

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    Earth, Planets and Space 73(1), 49 (2021)

    Alken, P., Th´ ebault, E., Beggan, C.D., Amit, H., Aubert, J., Baeren- zung, J., Bondar, T.N., Brown, W.J., Califf, S., Chambodut, A., Chulliat, A., Cox, G.A., Finlay, C.C., Fournier, A., Gillet, N., Grayver, A., Ham- mer, M.D., Holschneider, M., Huder, L., Hulot, G., Jager, T...

    2021

  30. [38]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 506(3), 250–303 (2003)

    Agostinelli, S., Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Araujo, H., Arce, P., Asai, M., Axen, D., Banerjee, S., Barrand, G., Behner, F., Bellagamba, L., Boudreau, J., Broglia, L., Brunengo, A., Burkhardt, H., Chauvie, S., Chuma, J., Chytracek, R., Cooperman, G., Cosmo, G., D...

    2003

  31. [39]

    Astrophysics and Space Science 360, 13 (2015) https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.02997 [astro-ph.IM]

    Xie, F., Zhang, J., Song, L.-M., Xiong, S.-L., Guan, J.: Simulation of the in-flight background for HXMT/HE. Astrophysics and Space Science 360, 13 (2015) https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.02997 [astro-ph.IM]. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10509-015-2559-1

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.