Last Updated: 09/09/2022

SHINE 2018 SEP Model Challenge

SEP Campaign Materials for SHINE 2018 and ESWW15:

In 2018, the SEP working team led sessions at both the SHINE workshop and European Space Weather Week encouraging SEP modelers to submit and discuss results for 2 community campaign events (July and September 2017).

SHINE 2018 session: Predicting solar energetic particles: community campaign

Session description on SHINE webpage
Organizers: M. Leila Mays (NASA GSFC), Hazel Bain (NOAA SWPC), Ian Richardson (UMD/NASA GSFC)

ESWW15

ESWW15 Topical Discussion Meeting: Validation: SEP Working Team and Scoreboard

Campaign Event Summaries

Full session descriptions

SHINE session description: There are now nearly 20 physics-based or empirical SEP models created by the community, but how well do these models predict SEP events throughout the heliosphere? In the literature, most physics-based models focus on event studies, while empirical models take a statistical approach to build and validate their models. Future performance benchmarks may be established for physics-based models in a systematic, controlled way and for much longer time periods. But as a first step towards this goal, we invite the SEP modeling community to examine two case study campaign periods (defined below) and briefly present their results in the session. We also ask modelers to address the following questions when showing their results: How did your optimized run results differ from the initial run? What aspects of the event does your model capture well, and what aspects were more difficult to capture? What are the next steps for your modeling technique? Modelers using both physics-based and empirical models are encouraged to participate. We also wish to highlight the CCMC SEP Scoreboard which provides a forum for comparing SEP predictions for future and past events.

The following questions will also be discussed:

  1. How successfully can the SEP modeling community characterize these SEP campaign events overall?
  2. Do differences in model assumptions or model types lead to different predictions?
  3. What are the difficulties associated with modeling these two events, and SEP modeling in general?

Campaign events:

  1. 10 September 2017 (GLE 72)
    SEP event start dates and other optional events in this period:
    Earth: 4, 6, 10 September, 2017
    STEREO A: 4, 11, 18 September, 2017
    Mars: 10 September, 2017
  2. 23 July 2017
    SEP event start dates and other optional events in this period:
    Earth: 14 July, 2017
    STEREO A: 23 July, 2017
    The session organizers can provide event context information including CMEs.

Scene Setting Speakers: Janet Luhmann (UC Berkeley) and Marlon Núñez (University of Malaga)

ESWW TDM description:

There are now over 20 physics-based or empirical solar energetic particle (SEP) models developed by the community--but how well do these models predict SEP events throughout the heliosphere? In the literature, most physics-based models focus on event studies, while empirical models take a statistical approach to build and validate their models. The SEP Working Team was established with the goals to:
(1) Evaluate how well different models/techniques can predict historical SEP events throughout the heliosphere;
(2) Establish community metrics; and
(3) Provide a benchmark against which future models/model updates can be assessed against.

Related to this working team, the SEP "Scoreboard" was established to allow a consistent real-time comparison of various operational and research forecasts. The purpose of this TDM is to discuss the following:
* Status of the SEP Working Team and Scoreboard
* Potential performance benchmarks for physics-based models in a systematic, controlled way and for much longer time periods.
* How well do the models predict SEP events throughout the heliosphere and what are the challenges?
* Results from the SHINE session on two community campaign events.

Modelers who were not involved in that session are still welcome to participate in this one. We invite you to model (physics-based or empirical) the two case study events and consider: How did your optimized run results differ from the initial run? What aspects of the event does your model capture well, and what aspects were more difficult to capture? What are the next steps for your modeling technique?

Community campaign events:

  1. 10 September 2017 (GLE 72) SEP event start dates and other optional events in this period: Earth: 4, 6, 10 September STEREO A: 4, 11, 18 September Mars: 10 September
  2. 23 July 2017 SEP event start dates and other optional events in this period: Earth: 14 July STEREO A: 23 July

Sections in this page