Abstract
The radiation belts and plasma in the Earth’s magnetosphere pose hazards to satellite systems which restrict design and orbit options with a resultant impact on mission performance and cost. For decades the standard space environment specification used for spacecraft design has been provided by the NASA AE8 and AP8 trapped radiation belt models. There are wellknown limitations on their performance, however, and the need for a new trapped radiation and plasma model has been recognized by the engineering community for some time. To address this challenge a new set of models, denoted AE9/AP9/SPM, for energetic electrons, energetic protons and space plasma has been developed. The new models offer significant improvements including more detailed spatial resolution and the quantification of uncertainty due to both space weather and instrument errors. Fundamental to the model design, construction and operation are a number of new data sets and a novel statistical approach which captures first order temporal and spatial correlations allowing for the MonteCarlo estimation of flux thresholds for userspecified percentile levels (e.g., 50th and 95th) over the course of the mission. An overview of the model architecture, data reduction methods, statistics algorithms, user application and initial validation is presented in this paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
T.W. Armstrong, B.L. Colborn, Evaluation of trapped radiation model uncertainties for spacecraft design, NASA/CR2000210072, 2000
D.M. Boscher, S.A. Bourdarie, R.H.W. Friedel, R.D. Belian, Model for the geostationary electron environment: POLE. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 50, 2278–2283 (2003)
S.A. Bourdarie et al., PRBEM data analysis procedure V1.2, COSPAR Panel on Radiation Belt Environment Modeling (PRBEM), 2008, available at http://craterre.onecert.fr/prbem/Data_analysis.pdf
S.A. Bourdarie, A. SicardPiet, R. Friedel, T.P. O’Brien, T. Cayton, B. Blake, D. Boscher, D. Lazaro, Outer electron belt specification model. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 56, 2251–2257 (2009)
D.H. Brautigam, CRRES in review: space weather and its effects on technology. J. Atmos. Sol.Terr. Phys. 64, 1709–1721 (2002)
D.H. Brautigam, J. Bell, CRRESELE documentation, PLTR952128, ADA 301770, Air Force Research Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, MA, 1995
D.H. Brautigam, M.S. Gussenhoven, E.G. Mullen, Quasistatic model of outer zone electrons. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 39, 1797–1803 (1992)
D.H. Brautigam, K.P. Ray, G.P. Ginet, D. Madden, Specification of the radiation belt slot region: comparison of the NASA AE8 model with TSX5/CEASE data. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 51, 3375–3380 (2004)
D.H. Brautigam, B. Dichter, S. Woolf, E. Holeman, A. Ling, D. Wrazen, Compact environmental anomaly sensor (CEASE): response functions, AFRLVSHATR20061030, Air Force Research Laboratory, 2006
J. Cabrera, J. Lemaire, Using invariant altitude (hinv) for mapping of the radiation belt fluxes in the lowaltitude environment. Space Weather 5, S04007 (2007). doi:10.1029/2006SW000263
T.C. Cayton, Objective comparison of CRRES MEA electron spectra using response functions for the SOPA aboard S/C 1989046, LAUR078023, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 2007
T.E. Cayton, R.D. Belian, Numerical modeling of the synchronous orbit particle analyzer (SOPA, Version 2) the Flew on S/C 1990095, Los Alamos Technical Report, LA14335, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 2007
Y. Chen, R.H.W. Friedel, G.D. Reeves, T. Onsager, M.F. Thomsen, Multisatellite determination of the relativistic electron phase space density at geosynchronous orbit: methodology and results during geomagnetically quiet times. J. Geophys. Res. 110, A10210 (2005). doi:10.1029/2004JA010895
E.J. Daly, J. Lemaire, D. Heynderickx, D.J. Rodgers, Problems with models of the radiation belts. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 43, 403–415 (1996)
B.K. Dichter, F.A. Hanser, B. Sellers, J.L. Hunerwadel, High energy electron fluxmeter. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 40, 242–245 (1993)
B. Efron, R. Tibshirani, An Introduction to the Bootstrap (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 1993)
D. Evans, M.S. Greer, Polar orbiting environmental satellite space environment monitor—2. Instrument descriptions and archive data documentation, NOAA Tech. Mem. 1.4, Space Environ. Lab., Boulder, CO, 2004
M. Evans, N. Hastings, B. Peacock, Statistical Distributions, 3rd edn. (Wiley, Hoboken, 2000)
J.F. Fennell, J.B. Blake, D. Heynderickx, N. Crosby, HEO observations of the radiation belt electron fluxes: comparison with model predictions and a source for model updates. Eos Trans. AGU 84, #SH52A05 (2003)
R.H.W. Friedel, S. Bourdarie, T. Cayton, Intercalibration of magnetospheric energetic electron data. Space Weather 3, S09B04 (2005). doi:10.1029/2005SW000153
S.F. Fung, Recent developments in the NASA trapped radiation models, in Radiation Belts: Models and Standards, ed. by J.F. Lemaire, D. Heynderickx, D.N. Baker. Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 97 (AGU, Washington, 1996), pp. 79–91
G.P. Ginet, T.P. O’Brien, AE9/AP9 trapped radiation and plasma models requirements specification, Aerospace Technical Report, TOR2010(3905)3, 2010
G.P. Ginet, S.L. Huston, C.J. Roth, T.P. O’Brien, T.B. Guild, The trapped proton environment in Medium Earth Orbit (MEO). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 57, 3135–3142 (2010)
G. Ginet, T. O’Brien, J. Mazur, C. Groves, W. Olson, G. Reeves, AE(P)9: the next generation radiation specification models, in Proceedings of the GOMACTech08 Conference, 17–20 March, Las Vegas, NV (2008)
G.P. Ginet, B.K. Dichter, D.H. Brautigam, D. Madden, Proton flux anisotropy in low Earth orbit. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 54, 1975–1980 (2007)
GOES IM Data Book, DRL 1010801 ed. Space Systems Loral, Aug. 31, 1996, GOES/SEM information [online]. Available: http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/goes/text/goes.databook.html
T. Guild, T.P. O’Brien, J. Mazur, M. Looper, Onorbit intercalibration of proton observations during solar particle events, Aerospace Report No. TOR2007(3905)22, Aerospace Corporation, 2009
M.S. Gussenhoven, E.G. Mullen, M.D. Violet, C. Hein, J. Bass, D. Madden, CRRES high energy proton flux maps. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 40(6), 1450–1457 (1993)
M.S. Gussenhoven, E.G. Mullen, D.H. Brautigam, NearEarth radiation model deficiencies as seen on CRRES. Adv. Space Res. 14, 927–941 (1994)
F.A. Hanser, Analyze data from CRRES payloads AFGL701/Dosimeter and AFGL7014/Fluxmeter, PLTR952103, Phillips Laboratory, AFMC, Hanscom AFB, MA, 1995
D. Heynderickx, M. Kruglanski, V. Pierrard, J. Lemaire, M.D. Looper, J.B. Blake, A low altitude trapped proton model for solar minimum conditions based on SAMPEX/PET data. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 46, 1475–1480 (1999)
S.L. Huston, Space environment and effects: trapped proton model, NASA/CR2002211784, NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center, Huntsville, AL, 2002
S.L. Huston, G.A. Kuck, K.A. Pfitzer, Low altitude trapped radiation model using TIROS/NOAA data, in Radiation Belts: Models and Standards, ed. by J.F. Lemaire, D. Heynderickx, D.N. Baker. Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 97 (AGU, Washington, 1996), pp. 119–124
S. Huston, G. Ginet, T.P. O’Brien, T. Guild, D. Madden, R. Friedel, AE/AP9 radiation specification model: an update, in Proceedings of the GOMACTech08 Conference, 17–18 March, Orlando, FL (2009)
IGRF, The international geomagnetic reference field, 2012. Available at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/IAGA/vmod/
IRBEM, The international radiation belt environmental modeling library, 2012. Available at http://irbem.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/irbem/web/index.html
C.E. Jordan, Empirical models of the magnetospheric magnetic field. Rev. Geophys. 32, 139–157 (1994)
W.R. Johnston, C.D. Lindstrom, G.P. Ginet, Characterization of radiation belt electron energy spectra from CRRES observations, Abstract #SM33C1925, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 2010
W.R. Johnston, C.D. Lindstrom, G.P. Ginet, CRRES medium electron sensor A (MEA) and high energy electron fluxmeter (HEEF): crosscalibrated data set, AFRL, 2011, available at ftp://virbo.org/johnston/crres/MEAHEEFCC.pdf
W.R. Johnston et al., AE9/AP9/SPM radiation environment model, Technical Documentation, in preparation to be released as an Air Force Research Laboratory Technical Report, 2013
J. Koller, S. Zaharia, LANL^{∗} V2.0: global modeling and validation. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 669–675 (2011). doi:10.5194/gmd46692011
J. Koller, G.D. Reeves, R.H.W. Friedel, LANL^{∗} V1.0: a radiation belt drift shell model suitable for realtime and reanalysis applications. Geosci. Model Dev. 2, 113–122 (2009)
H.C. Koons, J.E. Mazur, R.S. Selesenick, J.B. Blake, J.F. Fennell, J.L. Roeder, P.C. Anderson, The impact of the space environment on space systems, in 6th Spacecraft Charging Technology Conference, AFRL Tech. Report No. AFRLVSTR20001578, pp. 7–11, Air Force Research Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, MA, 2000
J.M. Lauenstein, J.L. Barth, D.G. Sibeck, Toward the development of new standard radiation belt and space plasma models for spacecraft engineering. Space Weather 3, S08B03 (2005). doi:10.1029/2005SW000160. Presentations from the workshop are available online at http://lwsscience.gsfc.nasa.gov/RB_meeting1004.htm
A.M. Lenchek, S.F. Singer, Effects of the finite gyroradii of geomagnetically trapped protons. J. Geophys. Res. 67, 4073–4075 (1962)
J. Mazur, L. Friesen, A. Lin, D. Mabry, N. Katz, Y. Dotan, J. George, J.B. Blake, M. Looper, M. Redding, T.P. O’Brien, J. Cha, A. Birkitt, P. Carranza, M. Lalic, F. Fuentes, R. Galvan, M. McNab, The relativistic proton spectrometer (RPS) for the radiation belt storm probes mission. Space Sci Rev. (2012, this issue). doi:10.1007/s1121401299269
J.P. McCollough, J.L. Gannon, D.N. Baker, M. Gehmeyr, A statistical comparison of commonly used external magnetic field models. Space Weather 6, S10001 (2008). doi:10.1029/2008SW000391
C.E. McIlwain, Coordinates for mapping the distribution of magnetically trapped particles. J. Geophys. Res. 6, 3681 (1961)
J.D. Meffert, M.S. Gussenhoven, CRRESPRO documentation, PLTR942218, ADA 284578, Phillips Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, MA, 1994
A. Milillo, S. Orsini, I.A. Daglis, Empirical model of proton flux in the equatorial inner magnetosphere: development. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 25713–25729 (2001)
J. Niehof, Diamagnetic cavities and energetic particles in the Earth’s magnetospheric cusps. PhD Thesis, Boston University, 2011
T.P. O’Brien, A framework for nextgeneration radiation belt models. Space Weather 3, S07B02 (2005). doi:10.1029/2005SW000151
T.P. O’Brien, Documentation of C inversion library, 2010, available as part of IRBEMLIB at http://irbem.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/irbem/web/index.html
T.P. O’Brien, Adding multiple time lags to AE9/AP9 V1.0, Aerospace Report No. TOR2012(1237)3, 2012a
T.P. O’Brien, Data cleaning guidelines for AE9/AP9 data sets, Aerospace Report No. TOR2012(1237)4, 2012b
T.P. O’Brien, T.B. Guild, Trapped electron model 2 (TEM2), Aerospace Report No. TR2010(3905)2, Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA, 2010
W.P. Olson, K.A. Pfitzer, Magnetospheric magnetic field modeling, Annual Scientific Report, Air Force Office of Scientific Research contract F4462075C0033, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co., Huntington Beach, CA, 1977
W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, B.P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in C, 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992)
Radiation models for engineering and operations, session at the 2007 NOAA Space Weather Workshop. Presentations from the workshop are available at: http://helios.sec.noaa.gov/sww/index.html, 2007
Radiation Specifications Forum, 2007. Website at: http://lwsset.gsfc.nasa.gov/RadSpecsForum.htm
G.D. Reeves, Y. Chen, G.S. Cunningham, R.W.H. Friedel, M.G. Henderson, V.K. Jordanova, J. Koller, S.K. Morley, M.F. Thomsen, S. Zaharia, Dynamic radiation environment assimilation model: DREAM. Space Weather 10, S03006 (2012). doi:10.1029/2011SW000729
C.J. Rodger et al., Use of POES SEM2 observations to examine radiation belt dynamics and energetic electron precipitation into the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 115, A04202 (2010). doi:10.1029/2008JA014023
J.L. Roeder, M.W. Chen, J.F. Fennell, R. Friedel, Empirical models of the lowenergy plasma in the inner magnetosphere. Space Weather 3, S12B06 (2005). doi:10.1029/2005SW000161
J.G. Roederer, Dynamics of Geomagnetically Trapped Radiation (Springer, New York, 1970)
C.J. Roth et al., AE9/AP9/SPM radiation environment model. User’s guide, in preparation to be released as an Air Force Research Laboratory Technical Report, 2013
J.A. Sauvaud, T. Moreau, R. Maggiolo, J.P. Treilhou, C. Jacquey, A. Cros, J. Coutelier, J. Rouzaud, E. Penou, M. Gangloff, Highenergy electron detection onboard DEMETER: the IDP spectrometer, description and first results on the inner belt. Planet. Space Sci. 54, 502–511 (2006)
D.M. Sawyer, J.I. Vette, AP8 trapped proton model environment for solar maximum and minimum, NSSDC/WDCAR&S 7606, Natl. Space Sci. Data Cent., Greenbelt, MD, 1976
M. Schulz, Canonical coordinates for radiation belt modeling, in Radiation Belts: Models and Standards, ed. by J.F. Lemaire, D. Heynderickx, D.N. Baker. Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 97 (AGU, Washington, 1996), pp. 153–160
R.S. Selesnick, M.D. Looper, R.A. Mewaldt, A theoretical model of the inner proton radiation belt. Space Weather 5, S04003 (2007). doi:10.1029/2006SW00275
S.M. Seltzer, Updated calculations for routine spaceshielding radiation dose estimates: SHIELDOSE2. Gaithersburg, MD, NIST Publication NISTIR 5477, 1994
V.P. Shabansky, Some processes in the magnetosphere. Space Sci. Rev. 12(3), 299–418 (1971)
A. SicardPiet, S. Bourdarie, D. Boscher, R.H.W. Friedel, M. Thomsen, T. Goka, H. Matsumoto, H. Koshiishi, A new international geostationary electron model: IGE2006, from 1 keV to 5.2 MeV. Space Weather 6, S07003 (2008). doi:10.1029/2007SW000368
J.D. Sullivan, Geometrical factor and directional response of single and multielement particle telescopes. Nucl. Instrum. Methods 95(1), 5–11 (1971)
M.F. Thomsen, D.J. McComas, G.D. Reeves, L.A. Weiss, An observational test of the Tsyganenko (T89a) model of the magnetic field. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 24827–24836 (1996)
M.F. Thomsen, M.H. Denton, B. Lavraud, M. Bodeau, Statistics of plasma fluxes at geosynchronous orbit over more than a full solar cycle. Space Weather 5, S03004 (2007). doi:10.1029/2006SW000257
A.L. Vampola, The ESA outer zone electron model update, in Environment Modelling for SpaceBased Applications, Symposium Proceedings (ESA SP392), ed. by W. Burke, T.D. Guyenne, 18–20 September 1996 (ESTEC, Noordwijk, 1996), p. 151
J.I. Vette, The NASA/National Space Science Data Center Trapped Radiation Environment Model Program (TREMP) (1964–1991), NSSDC/WDCAR&S 9129, Natl. Space Sci. Data Cent., Greenbelt, MD, 1991a
J.I. Vette, The AE8 trapped electron model environment, NSSDC/WDCAR&S 9124, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, 1991b
D.S. Wilks, Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences, 2nd edn. (Academic Press, Burlington, 2006)
G.L. Wrenn, A.J. Sims, Internal charging in the outer zone and operational anomalies, in Radiation Belts: Models and Standards, ed. by J.F. Lemaire, D. Heynderickx, D.N. Baker. Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 97 (AGU, Washington, 1996), pp. 275–278
M.A. Xapsos, G.P. Summers, E.A. Burke, Probability model for peak fluxes of solar proton events. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 45(6), 2948–2953 (1998)
M.A. Xapsos, G.P. Summers, J.L. Barth, E.G. Stassinopoulos, E.A. Burke, Probability model for worst case solar proton event fluences. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 46(6), 1481–1485 (1999)
Acknowledgements
Many people have been involved in building AE9/AP9/SPM. Much credit is due Clark Groves for getting the project started. The authors especially wish to thank Joe Mazur, Bern Blake, Jim Roeder and Joe Fennell for technical advice on the HEO, ICO and POLAR/CAMMICE data; Richard Selesnick for cleaning and analysis of the SAMPEX/PET and POLAR/HISTp data and for his physicsbased proton belt climatology model; Jon Niehof and Jack Scudder for access to their versions of the POLAR/MICS and POLAR/HYDRA data; JeanAndre Sauvaud for use of the DEMETER data; Don Brautigam, Sebastien Bourdarie, Daniel Boscher, Jay Albert, Kara Perry, Brian Wie and Seth Claudepierre for technical assistance; Bill Olson, Dave Byers, James Metcalf, Michael Starks, Tim Alsruhe and Geoff Reeves for project management; Bob Weigel and Mike Xapsos for ViRBO and LWSSET website support; Sharon Benedict for graphics support; Dave Chenette and Michael Bodeau for helping define the requirements; and the “short list” of engineers and scientists who tested the beta versions and provided valuable feedback all along the way. This work was supported through Air Force contracts FA871805C0036, FA871810C001, FA872105C0002 and FA880209C0001 and NASA grant NNG05GM22G.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A: Acronyms
 ACE:

Advanced Composition Explorer (satellite)
 BDDII:

Burst Detector Dosimeter II
 CAMMICE:

Charge and Mass Magnetospheric Ion Composition Experiment
 CEASE:

Compact Environment Anomaly Sensor
 CPME:

Charged Particle Measurement Experiment
 CRRES:

Combined Radiation and Release Experiment (satellite)
 DD:

Displacement Damage
 DEMETER:

Detection of ElectroMagnetic Emissions Transmitted from Earthquake Regions (satellite)
 Dos:

Dosimeter
 EPAM:

Electron, Proton, and Alpha Monitor
 GEO:

Geosynchronous Orbit
 GPS:

Global Positioning System (satellite)
 HEEF:

High Energy Electron Fluxmeter
 HEOF1:

Highly Elliptical Orbit—Flight 1 (satellite)
 HEOF3:

Highly Elliptical Orbit—Flight 3 (satellite)
 HISTe:

High Sensitivity Telescope—electrons
 HISTp:

High Sensitivity Telescope—protons
 HYDRA:

Hot Plasma Analyzer
 ICO:

Intermediate Circular Orbit (satellite)
 IGE:

International Geostationary Electron (model)
 IDP:

Instrument for Particle Detection
 IPS:

Imaging Proton Spectrometer
 LANLGEO:

Los Alamos National LaboratoryGeosynchronous Orbit satellite
 LEO:

LowEarth Orbit
 MEA:

Medium Energy Analyzer
 MEO:

MediumEarth Orbit
 MICS:

Magnetospheric Ion Composition Sensor
 MPA:

Magnetospheric Plasma Analyzer
 PET:

Proton/Electron Telescope
 PROTEL:

Proton Telescope
 SAMPEX:

Solar Anomalous and Magnetospheric Particle Explorer (satellite)
 SCATHA:

Spacecraft Charging at High Altitudes (satellite)
 SC3:

High Energy Particle Spectrometer
 SEE:

Single event effects
 SEM:

Space Environment Monitor
 SOPA:

Synchronous Orbit Particle Analyzer
 Tel:

Telescope
 TIROS:

Television Infrared Observation Satellite (satellite)
 TSX5:

TriServices Experiment5 (satellite)
Appendix B: Construction of the Flux Maps, Principal Components and Time Evolution Matrices
Described in this appendix are the methods used to build the flux maps and components of the autoregression scheme (Eq. (7)) introduced in Sect. 5 and illustrated in Fig. 5. Much of the theory underlying the V1.0 architecture can be found in O’Brien (2005), O’Brien and Guild (2010) and Johnston et al. (2013). A good deal of statistical analysis is needed to build the autoregressive model and only a cursory overview is given here. Interested readers are referred to Wilks (2006) for information on the basic techniques and O’Brien (2012a) for the application to radiation belt models.
As mentioned in Sect. 5 the statistical quantities tracked in the flux maps are the 50th and the 95th percentile unidirectional flux values m50 and m95, respectively. Actually, the variable m95′=m95−m50 is used instead of m95 so the restriction that m95>m50 imposed on the analysis takes the simple form m95′>0. Hereinafter the ′ will be dropped. From these two quantities the entire particle distribution can be determined by assuming a twoparameter functional form for the distribution function.
For each satellite data set the unidirectional flux measurements are sorted into a set of time sequential maps where the spatial bins are defined by the coordinate grid and the time bin for each map is one day for electrons and 7 days for protons. Note that the term “spatial” is used in a general sense to denote all the nontemporal coordinates including energy. For each satellite pass through a spatial bin during the time bin a value for the flux and variance is computed as a weighted average of the j and dlnj measurements during the pass. Weights are determined by the relative values of dlnj which themselves are computed from a crosscalibration procedure discussed in Sect. 4.3. Bin pass average values are then averaged for each time bin. These preliminary maps can be spatially sparse as only coordinate bins through which the satellite passes will contain values. With the tracked percentile values defined as the vector \(\underline{\theta}= (m50, m95)\) and their deviations about the average \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) as \(\delta\underline{\theta} = \underline{\theta}  \bar{\underline{\theta}}\), the average value and the covariance matrix \(\mathrm{cov}(\delta\underline{\theta})\) are computed for each bin by using a bootstrap technique over the set of time averaged values. With the bootstrap a random selection of time binned values is chosen, with replacement, to equal the original set size. Each selected value is perturbed randomly in a manner constrained by its standard deviation (in a lognormal sense) and the resultant set sorted to obtain a value for \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}_{i}\) in each spatial bin i (hereafter the subscript i will be dropped to avoid notational overload). Repeating this process 200 times yields a distribution of \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) estimates that are used to compute an average \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) and a 2×2 local \(\mathrm{cov}(\delta\underline{\theta})\). This process is performed for each spatial bin for each sensor data set.
The fillingin procedure using the templates is as follows. A realization of \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) on the sparse grid described above is constructed by randomly perturbing the original \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) values consistent with a normal distribution characterized by \(\mathrm{cov}(\delta\underline{\theta})\) in each bin. From this realization the quantity \(\Delta\underline{\theta} = \underline{\bar{\theta}}  \underline{\theta}^{(0)}\), where \(\underline{\theta}^{(0)}\) is the template estimate, is computed. The \(\Delta\underline{\theta}\) grid is filled in first by using energy interpolation and extrapolation, and then applying nearestneighbor averaged and smoothed before being added to the original sparse \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) grid to produce an estimate for the full \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) grid. This process is repeated 10 times for each template and the distribution of \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) obtained is used to compute a new best estimate of the \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) and \(\mathrm{cov}(\delta\underline{\theta})\) over the entire grid for each satellite.
To compute the final \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) map, denoted as the generalized vector \(\bar{\underline{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}\) with a single index covering all the (E,K,Φ or h _{ min }) grid, the individual satellite \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) maps are averaged with weighting by the standard deviations computed from \(\mathrm{cov}(\delta\underline{\theta})\) in each bin. The maps are then smoothed. The final covariance \(\mathrm{cov}(\delta\underline{\boldsymbol{\theta}})\) is then captured by computing the “anomaly matrix” S where the number of rows in S are the number of grid points (i.e. equal to the number of values in \(\bar{\underline{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}\)) and each column of S is a normalized bootstrap realization of \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) on the grid obtained by selecting a set of random sensor groups, randomly perturbing \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) in each bin assuming a normal distribution of \(\underline{\bar{\theta}}\) characterized by \(\mathrm{cov}(\delta\underline{\theta})\) and averaging the result. This layer of bootstrapping captures the uncertainties of measurement errors, spatial interpolation and extrapolation and the temporal coverage limitations of a finite set of sensors. By construction, \(\mathrm{cov}(\delta\mathbf{\underline{\theta}})=\mathbf{SS}^{T}\)where T represents the transpose operation. Nominally, \(\mathrm{cov}(\delta\underline{\boldsymbol{\theta}})\) would be a very large matrix of size N×N, where N is twice the number of grid points (∼50,000 for AE9/AP9). By constructing S of 50 bootstrap realizations, a number found to be sufficient, only an N×50 matrix need be computed and stored. Singular value decomposition of S keeping only the number of dimensions needed to recompute 90 % of the total variance further reduces the stored matrix size to N×10.
The end result of the process is a flux map \(\bar{\underline{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}\) of the 50th and 95th percentile unidirectional flux values with the anomaly matrix S allowing for computation of the spatial error covariance across the entire grid. With the assumed Weibull or lognormal distribution functions the mean or any percentile level flux can be computed from \(\bar{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\). Uncertainties in these values can be calculated from \(\mathrm{cov} (\delta\mathbf{\underline{\theta}}) = \mathbf{SS}^{T}\) and represent estimates of the combined uncertainty imposed by imprecise measurements, lack of spatial and temporal coverage, and the templates used for interpolation and extrapolation.
To determine the quantities involved in autoregression equation (Eq. (7)) it is first necessary to estimate the spatial (Σ) and spatiotemporal (\(\hat{\mathbf{R}}\)) covariance matrices for the flux. Although there is certainly considerable error in computing the spatial and spatiotemporal covariance matrices it will be neglected hereinafter because only a loworder model of the dynamics is sought and the uncertainty in the flux values due to measurement and space weather is tracked through flux maps and associated covariance.
The starting point is the set of timeaverage fluxes in each spatial bin for each satellite. Randomly selecting two bins (possibly from different sensors), we compute a “Gaussian” correlation coefficient at several different time lags. The timeaveraged flux values in each bin are transformed to Gaussianequivalent variables z _{ i } according to the relation,
where Ψ (often denoted Φ in the statistical literature) is the cumulative distribution of a standard Gaussian with unit variance and a zero average, F _{ i } is the empirical cumulative distribution within the ith bin, and k is the index of the sort list of k=1 to N _{ i } fluxes j _{ i,k } within the bin. This transformation is independent of the choice of Weibull or lognormal distributions. By transforming to the Gaussianequivalent variables the formalism of multivariate normal distributions can be used to develop the autoregressive prediction model. In particular, the spatial and temporal covariance matrices are defined as,
where z is the vector of z _{ i } values spanning the entire grid, τ _{ k } is the kth time lag and the 〈⋯〉 notation represents the average. Because of limited spatial and temporal coverage, the initial estimates of the covariance matrices is incomplete. They are filled in using a 100point nearest neighbors average.
To reduce the substantial storage requirements of what is nominally a N×N dimensional matrix a principal component decomposition of Σ is employed, i.e.,
where \(\mathbf{Q}=[\hat{\mathbf{q}}_{1}, \hat{\mathbf{q}}_{2}, \ldots,\hat{\mathbf{q}}_{N_{q}}]\) is a matrix of the i=1,2,…,N _{ q } principal component eigenvectors \(\hat{\mathbf{q}}_{i}\) and q is the state vector of principal component amplitudes representing a particular realization of z. Σ contains many noise factors, which we remove by excluding any principal component that explains less than 1 % of the variance. Using the remaining N _{ q }∼10 principal components the spatiotemporal covariance can be expressed as,
where R _{ k }=〈q(t)q ^{T}(t−τ _{ k })〉. When k=0 then τ _{ k }=0 by definition and R=I, the identity matrix, so that R _{0}=Σ. In summary, the procedure to obtain the spatiotemporal covariance matrices from the data is to (a) compute elements of Σ and each \(\hat{\mathbf{R}}\) from time averages in spatial bins (Eqs. (9) and (10)), (b) fill in the missing elements of Σ and \(\hat{\mathbf{R}}\) via nearest neighbors averaging, (c) determine the principal components Q of Σ (Eq. (12)), and (d) determine each R _{ k } using Eq. (13).
The autoregressive timeevolution equation (Eq. (7)) of order N _{ G } is used to advance the N _{ q } principal component amplitudes in time. An expression for the expectation value 〈q(t)q ^{T}(t−τ)〉 can be derived from the timeevolution equation,
where R _{ m−k }=〈q(t−τ _{ m })q ^{T}(t−τ _{ k })〉 and the CC ^{T} term arises from 〈η(t)q ^{T}(t)〉 because η(t) is uncorrelated with all prior q(t). With the R matrices determined from the data, Eq. (14) can be inverted to obtain G and C (O’Brien 2012a).
Statistically realistic flux profiles are generated by choosing at t=0 a scenariospecific random seed which determines the initial principal component amplitudes q(0) and a set of flux conversion parameters, i.e. the \(\underline{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\) percentiles characterizing the distribution computed from the flux map \(\bar{\underline{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}\) with a random perturbation added consistent with the global spatial error covariance cov(δ θ) encoded in the anomaly matrix S. A time history of the q(t) is generated with Eq. (7), the Gaussian equivalent fluxes z(t) determined from Eq. (11) and the physical flux values j(t) from the leftside of Eq. (8) using the conversion parameters given by \(\underline{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ginet, G.P., O’Brien, T.P., Huston, S.L. et al. AE9, AP9 and SPM: New Models for Specifying the Trapped Energetic Particle and Space Plasma Environment. Space Sci Rev 179, 579–615 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s112140139964y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s112140139964y
Keywords
 Radiation belt modeling
 Energetic trapped particles
 Space environment climatology
 Space weather