SEP Validation Team
Team Leads: K. Whitman, P. Quinn, H. Bain, I.G. Richardson, M.L. Mays
Scoreboard Leads: M. Dierckxsens, M.L. Mays
See the ISWAT team page for an up to date list of participants.
➡ COSPAR ISWAT: This team is now also a COSPAR ISWAT Team: https://www.iswat-cospar.org/h3-01
➡ Current SHINE 2020-2021 and ESWW SEP Modeling Challenge: the team is soliciting model outputs, see the challenge website for more details
➡ SHINE 2019 SEP Modeling Challenge (Research to Operations): session summary and analysis of submitted results
➡ SHINE and ESWW 2018 community campaign: session presentations and summary
➡ April 2017 working meeting: team agenda [PDF] | solar/heliosphere agenda [PDF] | full agenda
What are the requirements of different users, e.g. satellite operators, aviation and ground-based services?
- What can or should be forecast? Current models mostly focus on predicting the GOES >10 MeV proton flux but certain users may be interested in higher energies or heavier ions.
- Probabilistic forecasts for 24 hour intervals 1-3 days ahead.
- Estimation of SEP effects in retrospective sense are needed for aviation.
- Models that are advanced enough for actionable forecasts.
Working Team Goals
- Evaluate how well different models/techniques can predict historical SEP events throughout the heliosphere.
- Establish metrics agreed upon by the community
- Provide a benchmark against which future models can be assessed against
- Complementary to the SEP Scoreboard activity whose goal is collect and display real-time SEP predictions and ultimately facilitate validation.
Potential Questions to Address
Where do we stand with SEP prediction?
- Using case studies of selected events, can we assess where we stand with SEP prediction?
- How well can the success of SEP models be compared? Is it possible to identify a uniform metric?
- How do we move beyond using case studies for model/data comparisons?
List of Time Intervals in this Study — under discussion
- Proposed: October 2011 – June 2012
- Consider a training set, validation set, and test set. The test set would not be revealed until a later stage and model parameter tweaking would not be allowed.
- Time period should have some overlap with Radiation & Plasma Effects working teams: SEEs, Total Dose, Radiation effects for aviation.
- Time period should include STEREO (to have good CME and SEP observations).
- Initially Focus on SEP events at Earth, later expand to multi-spacecraft even periods
- Have a mix of events: ones that cross certain thresholds, and ones that do not.
- What energy range should be used to select events?
Resources, Presentations, and Past Progress
- SEP Models in the Community and Literature (compiled by Mike Marsh)
- SHINE 2018 session:
- 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)
- Scene setting presentations:
- Marlon Núñez (University of Malaga)- Empirical SEP Models [PDF]
- Janet Luhmann (UC Berkeley)- Physics-based SEP Models [PDF]
- Presentations: campaign event results and discussion
- Dmitry Borovikov - SWMF FLMAPA [PDF]
- Silvia Dalla - SPARX [PDF]
- Junxiung Hu - iPATH [PDF]
- Janet Luhmann - SEPMOD [PDF]
- Ming Zhang - Zhang model [PDF]
- Stephen White & Steve Kahler - AFRL PPS [PDF]
- Arik Posner - REleASE [PDF]
- Hazel Bain - PROTONS & SWPC operational forecast [PDF]
- Marlon Núñez - UMASEP-10 [PDF]
- Ian Richardson - SEPSTER [PDF]
- Not in attendance:
- Alex Engell - SPRINTS [PDF]
- April 2017 working meeting: team agenda [PDF] | solar/heliosphere agenda [PDF] | full agenda