pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25019 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · ⚛️ physics.space-ph · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.SR· physics.plasm-ph

Recognition: unknown

Solar Energetic Particle Reflection by Precursor ICMEs: Multi-spacecraft Observations of Bi-Directional Electron Beams at 1 AU

Lucas Liuzzo , Wenwen Wei , Andrew R. Poppe , Christina O. Lee , Vassilis Angelopoulos
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 16:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.space-ph astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph
keywords solar energetic electronsICMEbi-directional beamsshock reflectionparticle propagation1 AU observationsimpulsive events
0
0 comments X

The pith

Precursor ICMEs beyond 1 AU reflect solar energetic electrons, creating counter-streaming beams at Earth.

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

The paper presents multi-spacecraft observations of two impulsive solar energetic electron events at 1 AU showing initial outward beams followed by counter-streaming beams after short delays. It establishes that these second beams traveled paths of 1-2 AU and links them to reflection from the shock fronts of interplanetary coronal mass ejections that passed the spacecraft days earlier and sat beyond 1 AU during the detections. A sympathetic reader would care because the finding identifies a previously under-appreciated Sunward transport route for energetic particles during solar events, with direct bearing on radiation exposure models for spacecraft and astronauts.

Core claim

During both events an initial highly anisotropic outward electron beam was followed by a second beam of counter-streaming electrons whose arrival times at different energies implied path lengths of order 1-2 AU. An ICME had crossed the spacecraft several days before each event and remained beyond 1 AU at the moment the electrons were detected, placing the observed counter-streaming population on trajectories consistent with reflection at the ICME shock front rather than direct solar injection.

What carries the argument

Reflection of the outward electron population at the shock front of a precursor ICME located beyond 1 AU, which reverses direction along connected magnetic field lines and produces the observed counter-streaming beam.

If this is right

  • Bi-directional electron beams at 1 AU can serve as a remote signature of a precursor ICME still located outside Earth's orbit.
  • The same reflection process supplies a mechanism for Sunward particle transport during impulsive solar events.
  • Radiation hazard assessments for astronauts and spacecraft must include possible Sunward arrivals of electrons that have bounced off distant ICME shocks.
  • Particle transport models should incorporate the possibility of shock reflection when predicting fluxes and anisotropies at 1 AU.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar reflection could occur for protons or heavier ions, altering expected arrival directions in some solar energetic particle events.
  • Routine monitoring of ICMEs beyond 1 AU might improve forecasts of when reflected electron beams will reach Earth.
  • Energy-dependent reflection efficiency at the shock could contribute to the inverse velocity dispersion signatures seen in one event.
  • The mechanism may operate more broadly in the inner heliosphere whenever an ICME lies downstream of an observer along a magnetic flux tube.

Load-bearing premise

The measured time delays and 1-2 AU path lengths result specifically from reflection at the precursor ICME shock rather than from scattering, differing injection times, or other propagation effects.

What would settle it

If spacecraft data show no ICME beyond 1 AU at the time of the counter-streaming detections, or if the magnetic connectivity and path lengths fail to match the round-trip distance to any candidate shock, the reflection interpretation would be ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25019 by Andrew R. Poppe, Christina O. Lee, Lucas Liuzzo, Vassilis Angelopoulos, Wenwen Wei.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Radial and azimuthal distribution of Earth and multiple spacecraft throughout the solar system plotted in the Stonyhurst Heliographic coordinate system during the (left) 28 March 2022 and (right) 17 May 2012 events. The black arrows denote the reference longitude of the flares that generated the observed SEEs. Included Parker spiral field lines assume a solar wind velocity of 400 km/s. solar system before … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Observations of a solar energetic electron event on 28 March 2022 by Wind, THEMIS-ARTEMIS P1, P2, and STEREO-A. The magnetic field is displayed in the GSE coordinate system for Wind, P1, and P2, and the RTN coor￾dinate system for STEREO-A. The differential energy fluxes are omnidirectional. To guide the eye, the vertical orange line denotes the time of the flare’s peak X-ray flux, and the white semi-circle… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Normalized energetic electron pitch angle distributions observed by (a) Wind and (b) THEMIS-ARTEMIS at select energies during the 28 March 2022 event. Gray shaded regions within the P1 panels correspond to times when the SST attenuator was activated. The vertical orange line denotes the time of the flare’s peak X-ray flux. event. The exact generation process behind the electron IVD signature (or indeed, ho… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: First-order anisotropy of the energetic electrons observed by Wind and THEMIS-ARTEMIS P1 and P2 dur￾ing the 28 March 2022 event. The gray shading and orange vertical line are as in previous figures. ible for nearly two hours across all energies at each of the spacecraft. In some energy channels, this band ex￾tends for even longer times; see, e.g., the E = 27 keV channel on Wind and E = 31 keV channel on P2… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Timeseries of normalized electron fluxes at select energies observed by (a) Wind and (b) THEMIS-ARTEMIS P1 and P2 during the 28 March 2022 event. Black or red lines correspond to electrons with field-aligned or anti-aligned pitch angles, respectively. Blue shaded regions denote the time ∆t between detections of initial and counter-streaming electrons. The gray shading and orange vertical line are as in pre… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Solar energetic electron spectra dur￾ing the 28 March 2022 event observed by (top) Wind, THEMIS-ARTEMIS (middle) P1, and (bottom) P2. Spectra are shown separately for the (black) field-aligned and (red) anti-field-aligned electrons. See text for further detail. the two populations remaining within a factor of ∼ 1.5. The biggest discrepancy occurs in P1 at lowest energies (below E ≈ 50 keV), which indicates… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panels (a) and (b) display a schematic demonstrating the geometry of the STEREO-A SEE observations on 28 March 2022 in two planes of the RTN coordinate system: (a) the R-T plane and (b) the T-N plane. The four SEPT sensors (SUN, ASUN, NORTH, SOUTH), along with a simplified, example magnetic field line connecting the spacecraft to the flare, are projected onto these planes. The panels are not to scale. Pane… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Solar wind properties from 25 March 2022 through 30 March 2022. (a) OMNI GSE magnetic field, proton density, temperature, and pressure. The orange vertical line denotes the time of the M4.0 flare responsible for the 28 March 2022 SEE event. (b–c) Snapshot of WSA-ENLIL+Cone model results for midnight UTC on (b) 28 March 2022 and (c) 30 March 2022. solar wind at the time) during a SEE event that occurred on … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Observations of a solar energetic electron event on 17 May 2012 by Wind, THEMIS-ARTEMIS P1, and P2. In addition to the magnetic field and differential energy fluxes, the normalized electron pitch angle distributions from the SST instruments at select energies are shown. As in view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Properties of energetic electrons and solar wind conditions during the SEE event on 17 May 2012. (a) Timeseries of normalized electron fluxes at select energies observed by Wind, in the same style as view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present case studies of two impulsive solar energetic electron (SEE) events during which particles at energies from 1-600 keV were detected by THEMIS-ARTEMIS orbiting the Moon, Wind at Earth's first Lagrange point, and (for one event) STEREO-A located at 1 AU, off the Sun-Earth line. The SEEs were initially highly anisotropic, traveling outward along the magnetic field with distinct energy-time dispersion. For one event, the spectra contained inverse velocity dispersion (IVD) signatures, whereby electrons at intermediate energies arrived to the spacecraft before those at higher energies. Similar features were recently discovered within 1 AU for energetic protons; this represents the first IVD detection for energetic electrons at Earth's orbital distance. During both events, a second beam of counter-streaming electrons was detected after a short time. Based on the time-delay in the detections at various energies, the path traveled by these counter-streaming electrons was on the order of 1-2 AU. We show that an interplanetary coronal mass ejection (ICME) passed the spacecraft a few days prior to the onset of each event and was located beyond 1 AU when the SEEs were detected, suggesting that the electrons were part of the same population, but reflected off the shock front of these precursor ICMEs. In the context of solar system exploration, this represents an unidentified hazard for astronaut safety beyond low-Earth orbit: although the initial phase of impulsive SEE events typically stream anti-Sunward, ICMEs located beyond Earth provide a mechanism for hazardous particles to travel Sunward during extreme events.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents multi-spacecraft observations of two impulsive solar energetic electron (SEE) events detected by THEMIS-ARTEMIS, Wind, and STEREO-A at 1 AU. It reports initial highly anisotropic outward beams with energy-time dispersion (including inverse velocity dispersion signatures in one event) followed by delayed counter-streaming beams. The central claim is that the counter-streaming electrons represent the same population reflected from the shock fronts of precursor ICMEs that had passed the spacecraft days earlier and were located beyond 1 AU at detection time, with path lengths estimated at 1-2 AU; implications for Sunward particle hazards during solar system exploration are noted.

Significance. If the reflection interpretation is confirmed, the work would identify a previously under-appreciated mechanism by which precursor ICMEs can redirect hazardous SEEs Sunward at 1 AU, with direct relevance to astronaut safety beyond low-Earth orbit. The multi-spacecraft dataset and the first reported IVD signatures for energetic electrons at Earth's orbital distance constitute clear observational strengths that constrain inner-heliospheric transport models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and main interpretation] Abstract and interpretation section: The claim that counter-streaming electrons followed round-trip paths of 1-2 AU to reflect off ICME shocks located beyond 1 AU rests on timing delays but lacks explicit quantitative comparison of observed energy-dependent arrival times against expected travel times (2 × magnetic path length / v(E)) for 1-600 keV electrons. Without such calculations or error estimates, the correspondence between path length, ICME position, and delays remains unverified and cannot yet exclude scattering, different injection onsets, or non-reflective propagation effects.
  2. [ICME positioning and timing] Position and timing analysis: The assertion that each precursor ICME 'was located beyond 1 AU when the SEEs were detected' is central to the reflection scenario, yet the manuscript provides no details on the radial extrapolation method, shock standoff distance, or magnetic connectivity mapping used to place the ICME at the required location at the precise detection epoch.
  3. [Discussion of bi-directional beams] Alternative explanations: While the text notes that the counter-streaming beams arrive after the outward beam, it does not quantitatively test or rule out competing interpretations (e.g., pitch-angle scattering into the anti-sunward direction or separate injections) using the reported anisotropies, spectra, or multi-spacecraft timing differences.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from explicit listing of event dates and precise spacecraft heliocentric longitudes to allow readers to assess the geometric configuration immediately.
  2. [Figures and methods] Figure captions and text should clarify whether path-length estimates incorporate Parker spiral curvature or assume radial propagation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and positive evaluation of the significance of our multi-spacecraft observations. We have carefully considered each major comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative analyses and details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and main interpretation] Abstract and interpretation section: The claim that counter-streaming electrons followed round-trip paths of 1-2 AU to reflect off ICME shocks located beyond 1 AU rests on timing delays but lacks explicit quantitative comparison of observed energy-dependent arrival times against expected travel times (2 × magnetic path length / v(E)) for 1-600 keV electrons. Without such calculations or error estimates, the correspondence between path length, ICME position, and delays remains unverified and cannot yet exclude scattering, different injection onsets, or non-reflective propagation effects.

    Authors: We agree that providing explicit calculations would strengthen the interpretation. In the original manuscript, the path length estimate of 1-2 AU was derived from the observed time delays between the outward and counter-streaming beams across multiple energies, consistent with round-trip travel. However, to address this concern, we will add a new figure or table in the revised manuscript that compares the observed arrival time differences at various energies (1-600 keV) to the expected travel times calculated as 2 × path_length / v(E), including uncertainty estimates based on the timing resolution and energy binning. This will allow direct verification of the correspondence and help rule out alternative effects. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [ICME positioning and timing] Position and timing analysis: The assertion that each precursor ICME 'was located beyond 1 AU when the SEEs were detected' is central to the reflection scenario, yet the manuscript provides no details on the radial extrapolation method, shock standoff distance, or magnetic connectivity mapping used to place the ICME at the required location at the precise detection epoch.

    Authors: The manuscript does describe the passage of the ICME days prior using in-situ data from the spacecraft and notes its position beyond 1 AU at the time of the SEE events based on propagation models. However, we acknowledge the need for more explicit methodological details. In the revision, we will expand the relevant section to include: (1) the specific radial extrapolation method employed (e.g., using constant speed assumption or drag-based models), (2) estimates of shock standoff distance from the ICME leading edge, and (3) the magnetic connectivity mapping approach used to confirm the shock's location relative to the field lines connected to the spacecraft at the detection time. This will provide the quantitative basis for the positioning. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion of bi-directional beams] Alternative explanations: While the text notes that the counter-streaming beams arrive after the outward beam, it does not quantitatively test or rule out competing interpretations (e.g., pitch-angle scattering into the anti-sunward direction or separate injections) using the reported anisotropies, spectra, or multi-spacecraft timing differences.

    Authors: The manuscript argues for the reflection interpretation based on the multi-spacecraft timing consistency, the energy-dependent delays matching the path length, and the presence of the precursor ICME. We did not provide a dedicated quantitative section ruling out alternatives. To strengthen this, we will add in the discussion a quantitative assessment: comparing the observed pitch-angle distributions and spectra to expectations from scattering models (e.g., expected isotropization timescales), and using the timing differences across spacecraft to argue against separate injections or local scattering. This will explicitly address why the reflection scenario is favored. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; observational timing and positioning inferences are independent of the conclusion

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on direct multi-spacecraft timing measurements of electron arrival delays (yielding estimated path lengths of 1-2 AU) combined with independent prior-passage data locating an ICME beyond 1 AU at the detection epoch. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are presented that reduce by construction to the target interpretation; the reflection suggestion is an inference from the observed delays and ICME positions rather than a self-definitional or self-citation load-bearing step. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks (spacecraft ephemerides and particle time-of-flight calculations) with no renaming of known results or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions in space plasma physics about particle propagation along field lines and accurate ICME tracking from prior observations, with no free parameters fitted to the current data and no new entities postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Electrons propagate along magnetic field lines with negligible scattering over the observed timescales and distances.
    Invoked to interpret time delays as direct reflection path lengths of 1-2 AU.
  • domain assumption The position and propagation speed of the precursor ICME can be reliably extrapolated from earlier observations to confirm it lies beyond 1 AU during the electron event.
    Required to place the reflection site outside Earth's orbit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5626 in / 1508 out tokens · 54128 ms · 2026-05-07T16:49:55.703951+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H., Ogilvie, K

    Acu˜ na, M. H., Ogilvie, K. W., Baker, D. N., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 5, doi: 10.1007/BF00751323

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00751323 1995

  2. [2]

    The THEMIS Mission

    Angelopoulos, V. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 141, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9336-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9336-1 2008

  3. [3]

    The ARTEMIS Mission

    Angelopoulos, V. 2011, Space Science Reviews, 165, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9687-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9687-2 2011

  4. [4]

    , Cruce , P

    Angelopoulos, V., Cruce, P., Drozdov, A., et al. 2019, Space Science Reviews, 215, 9, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0576-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0576-4 2019

  5. [5]

    2004, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 66, 1295, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2004.03.018

    Arge, C., Luhmann, J., Odstrcil, D., Schrijver, C., & Li, Y. 2004, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 66, 1295, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2004.03.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2004.03.018 2004

  6. [6]

    Cohen, C. M. S., Leske, R. A., Christian, E. R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad37f8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad37f8 2024

  7. [7]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    Ding, Z., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Kollhoff, A., et al. 2025a, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 696, A199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553806

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553806

  8. [8]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    Ding, Z., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., Chen, Y., et al. 2025b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556098

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556098

  9. [9]

    Domingo, V., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 72, 81, doi: 10.1007/BF00768758

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00768758 1995

  10. [10]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    Dresing, N., G´ omez-Herrero, R., Heber, B., et al. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 567, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423789

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423789 2014

  11. [11]

    2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1058810

    Gieseler, J., Dresing, N., Palmroos, C., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1058810

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.1058810 2023

  12. [12]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/L30

    Gopalswamy, N., Xie, H., Akiyama, S., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/L30

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/l30 2013

  13. [13]

    , year = 1995, month = feb, volume =

    Harten, R., & Clark, K. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 23, doi: 10.1007/BF00751324

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00751324 1995

  14. [14]

    L., Kucera, T

    Kaiser, M. L., Kucera, T. A., Davila, J. M., et al. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 136, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0 2008

  15. [15]

    P., Christe, S., & Lin, R

    Krucker, S., Kontar, E. P., Christe, S., & Lin, R. P. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, L109, doi: 10.1086/519373

    work page doi:10.1086/519373 2007

  16. [16]

    E., Lin, R

    Krucker, S., Larson, D. E., Lin, R. P., & Thompson, B. J. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 519, 864, doi: 10.1086/307415

    work page doi:10.1086/307415 1999

  17. [17]

    Lario, D., Aran, A., & Decker, R. B. 2009, Solar Physics, 260, 407, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9463-1 17

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9463-1 2009

  18. [18]

    E., Lillis, R

    Larson, D. E., Lillis, R. J., Lee, C. O., et al. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 195, 153, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0218-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0218-z 2015

  19. [19]

    W., Hewitt, J., et al

    Laurenza, M., Cliver, E. W., Hewitt, J., et al. 2009, Space Weather, 7, doi: 10.1029/2007SW000379

    work page doi:10.1029/2007sw000379 2009

  20. [20]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 905, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abca87

    Li, G., Wu, X., Zhao, L., & Yao, S. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 905, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abca87

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abca87 2020

  21. [21]

    2025, National Science Review, 12, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaf348

    Li, Y., Guo, J., Pacheco, D., et al. 2025, National Science Review, 12, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaf348

    work page doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaf348 2025

  22. [22]

    1974, Space Science Reviews, 16, 189, doi: 10.1007/BF00240886

    Lin, R. 1974, Space Science Reviews, 16, 189, doi: 10.1007/BF00240886

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00240886 1974

  23. [23]

    Lin, R. P. 1985, Solar Physics, 100, 537, doi: 10.1007/BF00158444

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00158444 1985

  24. [24]

    P., Anderson, K

    Lin, R. P., Anderson, K. A., Ashford, S., et al. 1995, Space Science Reviews, 71, 125, doi: 10.1007/BF00751328

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00751328 1995

  25. [25]

    R., Lee, C

    Liuzzo, L., Poppe, A. R., Lee, C. O., & Angelopoulos, V. 2024, Geophysical Research Letters, 51, doi: 10.1029/2024GL110228

    work page doi:10.1029/2024gl110228 2024

  26. [26]

    2023, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, 1, doi: 10.1029/2023GL103990

    Angelopoulos, V. 2023, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, 1, doi: 10.1029/2023GL103990

    work page doi:10.1029/2023gl103990 2023

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    McComas, D. J., Alexander, N., Angold, N., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 187, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0059-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0059-1 2016

  28. [28]

    P., Carlson, C

    McFadden, J. P., Carlson, C. W., Larson, D., et al. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 141, 277, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9440-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9440-2 2008

  29. [29]

    I., Klein, K., Trottet, G., et al

    Miroshnichenko, L. I., Klein, K., Trottet, G., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 110, doi: 10.1029/2004JA010936 M¨ uller-Mellin, R., B¨ ottcher, S., Falenski, J., et al. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 136, 363, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9204-4 N´ u˜ nez, M. 2011, Space Weather, 9, doi: 10.1029/2010SW000640

    work page doi:10.1029/2004ja010936 2005

  30. [30]

    APACrefauthors \ 2003 08

    Odstrcil, D. 2003, Advances in Space Research, 32, 497, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(03)00332-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0273-1177(03)00332-6 2003

  31. [31]

    E., & King, J

    Papitashvili, N. E., & King, J. H. 2020, Space Physics Data Facility. https://spase-metadata.org/NASA/NumericalData/ OMNI/HighResolutionObservations/Version1/PT1M P´ erez-Peraza, J., M´ arquez-Adame, J. C., Miroshnichenko, L., & Velasco-Herrera, V. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 3262, doi: 10.1002/2017JA025030

    work page doi:10.1002/2017ja025030 2020

  32. [32]

    2007, Space Weather, 5, doi: 10.1029/2006SW000268

    Posner, A. 2007, Space Weather, 5, doi: 10.1029/2006SW000268

    work page doi:10.1029/2006sw000268 2007

  33. [33]

    M., Kliem, B., et al

    Purkhart, S., Veronig, A. M., Kliem, B., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A259, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450092

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450092 2024

  34. [34]

    1999, Space Sci

    Reames, D. 1999, Space Sci. Rev., 90, doi: 10.1023/A:1005105831781

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005105831781 1999

  35. [35]

    Reames, D. V. 2021, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 978, Solar Energetic Particles (Cham: Springer International Publishing), doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-66402-2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66402-2 2021

  36. [36]

    G., & Cane, H

    Richardson, I. G., & Cane, H. V. 2010, Solar Physics, 264, 189, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9568-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9568-6 2010

  37. [37]

    L., Andries, J., et al

    Riley, P., Mays, M. L., Andries, J., et al. 2018, Space Weather, 16, 1245, doi: 10.1029/2018SW001962

    work page doi:10.1029/2018sw001962 2018

  38. [38]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 639, 1186, doi: 10.1086/499419

    Ruffolo, D., Tooprakai, P., Rujiwarodom, M., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 639, 1186, doi: 10.1086/499419

    work page doi:10.1086/499419 2006

  39. [39]

    W., Evenson, P., & Pyle, R

    Saiz, A., Ruffolo, D., Bieber, J. W., Evenson, P., & Pyle, R. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 672, 650, doi: 10.1086/523663

    work page doi:10.1086/523663 2008

  40. [40]

    2008, Space Science Reviews, 136, 227, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9174-6

    Sauvaud, J.-A., Larson, D., Aoustin, C., et al. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 136, 227, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9174-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9174-6 2008

  41. [41]

    C., Reames, D

    Tan, L. C., Reames, D. V., & Ng, C. K. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 661, 1297, doi: 10.1086/516626

    work page doi:10.1086/516626 2007

  42. [42]

    and Reames, Donald V

    Wang, L. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 701, 1753, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1753

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/1753 2009

  43. [43]

    K., Zhao, L., & Zhang, M

    Torres, J., Chan, P. K., Zhao, L., & Zhang, M. 2025, Space Weather, 23, doi: 10.1029/2024SW003921

    work page doi:10.1029/2024sw003921 2025

  44. [44]

    P., & Krucker, S

    Wang, L., Lin, R. P., & Krucker, S. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, 727, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/2/121 2011

  45. [45]

    O., Dresing, N., et al

    Wei, W., Lee, C. O., Dresing, N., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 973, L52, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad78df

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad78df 2024

  46. [46]

    Wilson, L. B. 2021, lynnbwilsoniii/wind 3dp pros: Space Plasma Missions IDL Software Library, [Software]. Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4451330

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4451330 2021