adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: Spectral fits to example nonflaring and flaring NICER GTIs. The nonflaring spectrum is shown in blue, and the flaring spectrum is shown in orange. Top panel: unfolded spectrum fit to the tbabs∗(partcov∗xstar)∗zpo model with the photon index free between the two GTIs. Second panel: ratio plot for the tbabs∗ztbabs∗(zpo+zbb) model. Third panel: ratio plot for the tbabs∗(partcov∗xstar)∗zpo) model with the column density of the ionized absorber free. The photon index and the ionization parameter and covering fraction of the ionized absorber are fixed at the best-fit values from the XMM-Newton/NuSTAR fit. Fourth panel: ratio plot for the tbabs∗(partcov∗xstar)∗zpo) model with the photon index of the power law free. The column density, the ionization parameter, and covering fraction of the ionized absorber are fixed at the best-fit values from the XMM-Newton/NuSTAR fit. Bottom panel: ratio plot for the tbabs∗(partcov∗xstar)∗zpo model, but with both the column density of the ionized absorber and the photon index free.
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: Spectral fits to the XMM-Newton observations from 2021 December (Obs. 1, shown in light green) and 2022 January (Obs. 2, shown in dark blue) and the NuSTAR observation from 2022 January (FPMA/FPMB shown in dark/light orange, respectively). Top panel: unfolded spectrum fit to the tbabs∗ztbabs∗(zcut+zbb) model. Second panel: ratio plot for the tbabs∗ztbabs∗zcut model. Clear residuals are seen in the soft part of the spectrum. Third panel: ratio plot for the tbabs∗ztbabs∗(zcut+zbb) model. Bottom panel: ratio plot for the tbabs∗(partcov∗xstar)∗zcut model. Both the partial covering ionized absorber and the blackbody give statistically comparable fits and significant improvement over the cutoff power law alone.
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: Top three panels: NICER light curves in three different energy bands (from top to bottom: 0.3–4 keV, 0.3–2 keV, and 2–4 keV) for AT2019cuk. Each light curve is background-subtracted, rescaled to the rate for 52 detectors, and shown in counts per second. Bottom panel: NICER hardness ratio, defined as the count rate in 2–4 keV divided by the count rate in 0.3–2 keV. The orange dashed line shows the boundary between our definition of flaring vs. nonflaring GTIs, set at a hardness ratio of 0.2. In all four panels, all dark blue circles correspond to nonflaring GTIs, and orange stars correspond to flaring GTIs.
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: Hardness-intensity diagram for the NICER data. Flaring GTIs are shown as orange stars (any point with a hardness ratio greater than 0.24), and nonflaring GTIs are shown as blue circles. The blue arrow shows a representative track for the standard softer-when-brighter behavior seen in AGN (e.g., Sobolewska & Papadakis 2009), which is similar to what is seen in the nonflaring points for AT2019cuk. The orange arrow shows the harder-when-brighter behavior seen in the hard X-ray flares of AT2019cuk, which are starkly different from the standard AGN variability that is expected.
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: Top three panels: NICER (blue circles) and Swift XRT (green “X” symbols) light curves in three different energy bands (from top to bottom: 0.3–4 keV, 0.3–2 keV, and 2–4 keV) for AT2019cuk. Both the NICER and Swift data are binned by GTI. Each light curve is background-subtracted and shown in counts per second. Bottom panel: NICER and Swift hardness ratios, defined as the count rate in 2–4 keV divided by the count rate in 0.3–2 keV. The orange dashed line shows the corresponding hardness ratio cutoff for the flares, defined in Section 3.1. In each panel, the NICER data have been rescaled by a constant factor to account for the effective area difference between the two instruments. There is generally good agreement between the Swift and NICER data after this rescaling, which indicates that AT2019cuk is contributing most of the flux that NICER sees, rather than the interloper. Similarly, there are some relatively hard Swift data points coincident with some of the NICER flares.
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: NICER spectral fits to the ionized absorption model with a variable photon index (i.e., tbabs∗(partcov∗xstar)∗zpo). In each panel, the dark blue circles are the nonflaring data, and orange stars are the flaring data (as defined by the hardness ratio cut detailed in Section 3.1). The left panel shows all of the NICER data, with each point corresponding to a single NICER GTI, whereas the right panel shows a histogram of the flaring and nonflaring data over the entire observing period. Top panel: hard X-ray luminosity in the 2–4 keV band. Middle panel: photon index of the power-law component. The horizontal light green dashed line shows the best-fit value for Γ from the XMM-Newton/NuSTAR fit, with the shaded region showing the errors. There is generally good consistency between the nonflares and the XMM-Newton/NuSTAR value, but the flaring data have significantly lower photon indices on average. Bottom panel: reduced χ 2 statistic. Both the flares and the nonflares are similarly well fit by this model.
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: Top panel: NICER 2–4 keV light curves for the AT2019cuk field of view. Bottom panel: effective ARF weight, defined as the mean of the weighting for each detector at the location of AT2019cuk divided by the mean of the weighting for each detector at the location of the interloper, both of which are computed using nicerarf. In both panels, the blue circles represent nonflaring GTIs, and the orange stars represent flaring GTIs, defined by the hardness ratio cut detailed in Section 3.1. The right panel shows histograms for both the 2–4 keV rate and the effective ARF weight for the two different populations (flaring vs. nonflaring) in their respective colors. As the flares and nonflares have similar effective ARF weights, it is evident that the flares are not a result of pointing differences or jitter.
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: Left: distribution of photon indices as a function of time for both NICER (blue) and Swift XRT (green) observations. Both sets of data are fit with an absorbed blackbody plus power-law model, but in the Swift fitting, the column density of the absorber and the blackbody temperature are both fixed at the value of the XMM-Newton/NuSTAR fits due to limited spectral constraints. Any upward/downward facing triangles indicate lower/upper limits, respectively, where the upper limit of Γ was set at 3, and the lower limit was set at 0. Right: histogram of photon indices across all observations with both NICER (blue) and Swift (green). The distributions are similar, with both extending down to quite low photon indices compared to standard AGN. In both panels, the orange dashed line is the XMM-Newton/NuSTAR value for the same model, with the shaded area showing the uncertainty on that value.
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: NICER instrument parameters for the flares and nonflares. The rows correspond to: (1) Hard count rate (2–4 keV), (2) Exposure time for the GTI, (3) Raw high-energy count rate (15–18 keV), (4) Satellite latitude, (5) NICER sunshine factor, (6) Undershoots, (7) Overshoots, and (8) cutoff rigidity (COR). In all eight panels, the blue circles correspond to nonflaring data points, and orange stars correspond to flares, as defined in Section 3.1. In the lower five panels, corresponding to NICER instrumental parameters, the error bars indicate the minimum and maximum values of each parameter reached during a given GTI. The rightmost panels are normalized distributions for the nonflares in blue and the flares in orange for each of the eight parameters previously described. No clear difference in seen between flares and nonflares, indicating that none of these NICER instrument parameters are responsible for the flaring behavior.
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: Top three panels: Swift XRT light curves in three different energy bands (from top to bottom: 0.3–4 keV, 0.3–2 keV, and 2–4 keV). Each light curve is grouped by GTI, is background-subtracted, and shown in counts per second. The blue circles and green squares correspond to AT2019cuk and the interloper, respectively. Fourth panel: Swift hardness ratio, defined as the count rate in 2–4 keV divided by the count rate in 0.3–2 keV. The two sources have relatively comparable hardness ratios, meaning that the hard X-ray flares seen in NICER are not likely due to picking up more flux from the interloper. Bottom panel: ratio of the 0.3–4 keV count rates of AT2019cuk and the interloper. The black dashed line shows an equal 0.3–4 keV rate between the two sources, and any data points above the line indicate that AT2019cuk was brighter than the interloper. In combination with the difference in the response at the location of the interloper (see Figure 11), the bottom panel shows decisively that the interloper contributes at worst roughly half of the observed NICER rate for AT2019cuk.
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: Left: GTI-based hard X-ray light curves (2–4 keV) for both the real NICER observations (top) and the simulated NICER observations (bottom) with the same distribution exposure times as the real observations. The simulated data are based on the joint XMM-Newton/NuSTAR fit with the partial covering warm absorber. The real data show clear, strong flares that are not present in the simulated data, indicating that the flares are not due to noise induced from counting statistics. Right: distribution of hardness ratios for both the real (dark blue line) and simulated (light green line) data. There is a clear skew in the real data toward harder spectra.
Paper: Unusual Hard X-Ray Flares Caught in NICER Monitoring of the Binary Supermassive Black Hole Candidate AT2019cuk/Tick Tock/SDSS J1430+2303
Authors: Megan Masterson, Erin Kara, Dheeraj R. Pasham, Daniel J. D'Orazio, Dominic J. Walton, Andrew C. Fabian, Matteo Lucchini, Ronald A. Remillard, Zaven Arzoumanian, Otabek Burkhonov, Hyeonho Choi, Shuhrat A. Ehgamberdiev, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, Muryel Guolo, Myungshin Im, Yonggi Kim, Davron O. Mirzaqulov, Gregory S. H. Paek, Hyun-Il Sung, Joh-Na Yoon
Figure caption: Schematics for potential flare scenarios. Panel (A): flares driven by intrinsic changes in the X-ray corona. Increased magnetic activity in the X-ray corona can lead to magnetic reconnection events causing the observed spectrum to harden. Panel (B): flares driven by changes in the line-of-sight absorption. The flares correspond to an increase in mass accretion rate, which drives a simultaneous increase in the observed luminosity and a wind that increases the observed column density of the absorber. Panel (C): flares are the result of gravitational self-lensing in a binary SMBH.
Paper: Observational Evidence for Large-scale Gas Heating in a Galaxy Protocluster at z = 2.30
Authors: Chenze Dong, Khee-Gan Lee, Metin Ata, Benjamin Horowitz, Rieko Momose
Figure caption: Series of smoothed slice plots with thickness 2 h −1 Mpc (150.095 < R.A. < 150.125) that include the COSTCO-I galaxy protocluster, which is marked with a star. From top to bottom, the panels show the transmission of CLAMATO, the density contrast of one COSTCO-constrained simulation, the transmission of the corresponding COSTCO-FGPA Lyα forest mock, and the mean Lyα transmission averaged over all realizations. The abscissa (x-axis) is along the LOS dimension, while the ordinate (z-axis) is along increasing decl. in the transverse plane. All of the maps are smoothed with a 4 h −1 Mpc Gaussian kernel, while the circles indicate the r = 15 h −1 Mpc sphere over which we average in Section 3.2. In addition, we mark with dashed circles two other extended structures around the COSTCO-III (at z = 2.18) and CC2.2 (at z = 2.22) protoclusters, even though their barycenters are outside the plane of the slices shown here.
Paper: Observational Evidence for Large-scale Gas Heating in a Galaxy Protocluster at z = 2.30
Authors: Chenze Dong, Khee-Gan Lee, Metin Ata, Benjamin Horowitz, Rieko Momose
Figure caption: Top row: transmission–density relation of the whole CLAMATO volume. Bottom row: transmission–density relation of the 4.5 h −1 Mpc sphere centered at COSTCO-I. Left column: relations of underlying matter density vs. δ  F  after applying the FGPA and redshift-space distortions to the COSTCO matter density field. Middle column: same after applying sight-line sampling and Wiener reconstruction. Right column: Wiener-reconstructed Lyα flux as seen in the real CLAMATO data. The gray lines indicate the FGPA relation τ ∝ (1 + δ)1.6. All data are spatially smoothed with a 4 h −1 Mpc Gaussian kernel.
Paper: Observational Evidence for Large-scale Gas Heating in a Galaxy Protocluster at z = 2.30
Authors: Chenze Dong, Khee-Gan Lee, Metin Ata, Benjamin Horowitz, Rieko Momose
Figure caption: Distribution of ﹩{\delta }_{F}^{\mathrm{pc}}﹩ derived from the method in Section 3.2. We include all nine protoclusters in the overlap of CLAMATO and COSTCO volumes. The blue histogram is the distribution of ﹩{\delta }_{F}^{\mathrm{pc}}﹩ in 1140 COSTCO-FGPA mock realizations, the orange line marks the ﹩{\delta }_{F}^{\mathrm{pc}}﹩ of the corresponding protoclusters in the observed CLAMATO, and the gray vertical dashed line represents ﹩{\delta }_{F}^{\mathrm{pc}}=0﹩. We highlight COSTCO-I with bold text (center panel); the mocks for this structure are clearly inconsistent with the CLAMATO measurement.
Paper: Observational Evidence for Large-scale Gas Heating in a Galaxy Protocluster at z = 2.30
Authors: Chenze Dong, Khee-Gan Lee, Metin Ata, Benjamin Horowitz, Rieko Momose
Figure caption: Distribution of ﹩{\delta }_{F}^{{\rm{w}}}﹩ values from Wiener-filtered Lyα absorption maps in the CLAMATO field. The orange histogram is the distribution of different realizations from the COSTCO-FGPA reconstructions, while the blue histogram is for the actual CLAMATO data. The distributions agree reasonably well in the low-transmission regime (﹩{\delta }_{F}^{{\rm{w}}}\lesssim 0﹩), which traces overdensities.
Paper: Time Dependence of 50–250 MeV Galactic Cosmic-Ray Protons between Solar Cycles 24 and 25, Measured by the High-energy Particle Detector on board the CSES-01 Satellite
Authors: M. Martucci, R. Ammendola, D. Badoni, S. Bartocci, R. Battiston, S. Beolè, W. J. Burger, D. Campana, G. Castellini, P. Cipollone, S. Coli, L. Conti, A. Contin, M. Cristoforetti, G. D'Angelo, C. De Donato, C. De Santis, A. Di Luca, F. M. Follega, G. Gebbia, R. Iuppa, A. Lega, M. Lolli, N. Marcelli, G. Masciantonio, M. Mergè, M. Mese, C. Neubüser, F. Nozzoli, A. Oliva, G. Osteria, L. Pacini, F. Palma, F. Palmonari, B. Panico, A. Parmentier, S. Perciballi, F. Perfetto, P. Picozza, M. Pozzato, G. M. Rebustini, E. Ricci, M. Ricci, S. B. Ricciarini, U. Savino, Z. Sahnoun, V. Scotti, A. Sotgiu, R. Sparvoli, P. Ubertini, V. Vilona, V. Vitale, S. Zoffoli, P. Zuccon, O. P. M. Aslam, M. D. Ngobeni, M. S. Potgieter
Figure caption: Time profile of GCR protons measured by HEPD-01 in 10 energy intervals (upper panel) between 2018 and 2022. Error bars take into account both statistical and systematic uncertainties. Sunspot number (red) and HCS tilt angle values (blue) as a function of time, in the same period (bottom panel).
Paper: Time Dependence of 50–250 MeV Galactic Cosmic-Ray Protons between Solar Cycles 24 and 25, Measured by the High-energy Particle Detector on board the CSES-01 Satellite
Authors: M. Martucci, R. Ammendola, D. Badoni, S. Bartocci, R. Battiston, S. Beolè, W. J. Burger, D. Campana, G. Castellini, P. Cipollone, S. Coli, L. Conti, A. Contin, M. Cristoforetti, G. D'Angelo, C. De Donato, C. De Santis, A. Di Luca, F. M. Follega, G. Gebbia, R. Iuppa, A. Lega, M. Lolli, N. Marcelli, G. Masciantonio, M. Mergè, M. Mese, C. Neubüser, F. Nozzoli, A. Oliva, G. Osteria, L. Pacini, F. Palma, F. Palmonari, B. Panico, A. Parmentier, S. Perciballi, F. Perfetto, P. Picozza, M. Pozzato, G. M. Rebustini, E. Ricci, M. Ricci, S. B. Ricciarini, U. Savino, Z. Sahnoun, V. Scotti, A. Sotgiu, R. Sparvoli, P. Ubertini, V. Vilona, V. Vitale, S. Zoffoli, P. Zuccon, O. P. M. Aslam, M. D. Ngobeni, M. S. Potgieter
Figure caption: GCR proton spectra by HEPD-01 between 2018 October 26 and 2018 November 23 (left panel) and between 2021 November 18 and 2021 December 15 (right panel), together with proton data—in the same time intervals—from the EPHIN detector on board SOHO and the IS⊙IS suite on board the Parker Solar Probe.
Paper: Time Dependence of 50–250 MeV Galactic Cosmic-Ray Protons between Solar Cycles 24 and 25, Measured by the High-energy Particle Detector on board the CSES-01 Satellite
Authors: M. Martucci, R. Ammendola, D. Badoni, S. Bartocci, R. Battiston, S. Beolè, W. J. Burger, D. Campana, G. Castellini, P. Cipollone, S. Coli, L. Conti, A. Contin, M. Cristoforetti, G. D'Angelo, C. De Donato, C. De Santis, A. Di Luca, F. M. Follega, G. Gebbia, R. Iuppa, A. Lega, M. Lolli, N. Marcelli, G. Masciantonio, M. Mergè, M. Mese, C. Neubüser, F. Nozzoli, A. Oliva, G. Osteria, L. Pacini, F. Palma, F. Palmonari, B. Panico, A. Parmentier, S. Perciballi, F. Perfetto, P. Picozza, M. Pozzato, G. M. Rebustini, E. Ricci, M. Ricci, S. B. Ricciarini, U. Savino, Z. Sahnoun, V. Scotti, A. Sotgiu, R. Sparvoli, P. Ubertini, V. Vilona, V. Vitale, S. Zoffoli, P. Zuccon, O. P. M. Aslam, M. D. Ngobeni, M. S. Potgieter
Figure caption: Evolution of HEPD-01 GCR protons as a function of energy and time between 2018 and 2022 (CRs 2207-2255). It is clear how spectra slowly rise before 2020 July, to start decreasing from the second half of 2020 onward.
Paper: Time Dependence of 50–250 MeV Galactic Cosmic-Ray Protons between Solar Cycles 24 and 25, Measured by the High-energy Particle Detector on board the CSES-01 Satellite
Authors: M. Martucci, R. Ammendola, D. Badoni, S. Bartocci, R. Battiston, S. Beolè, W. J. Burger, D. Campana, G. Castellini, P. Cipollone, S. Coli, L. Conti, A. Contin, M. Cristoforetti, G. D'Angelo, C. De Donato, C. De Santis, A. Di Luca, F. M. Follega, G. Gebbia, R. Iuppa, A. Lega, M. Lolli, N. Marcelli, G. Masciantonio, M. Mergè, M. Mese, C. Neubüser, F. Nozzoli, A. Oliva, G. Osteria, L. Pacini, F. Palma, F. Palmonari, B. Panico, A. Parmentier, S. Perciballi, F. Perfetto, P. Picozza, M. Pozzato, G. M. Rebustini, E. Ricci, M. Ricci, S. B. Ricciarini, U. Savino, Z. Sahnoun, V. Scotti, A. Sotgiu, R. Sparvoli, P. Ubertini, V. Vilona, V. Vitale, S. Zoffoli, P. Zuccon, O. P. M. Aslam, M. D. Ngobeni, M. S. Potgieter
Figure caption: HEPD-01 data on CR 2233 (2020 July) together with three proton spectra from the PAMELA detector—2006 June (black), 2009 December (red), and February 2014 (green). As can be seen, the spectrum from HEPD-01 is higher than the one from 2009 by PAMELA.