View

FEATURE ARTICLE Earth's Van Allen Radiation Belts: From Discovery
10.1029/2018JA025940
to the Van Allen Probes Era
W. Li1 and M.K. Hudson2,3
1
Center for Space Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA, 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth
College, Hanover, NH, USA, 3High Altitude Observatory, NCAR, Boulder, CO, USA
Abstract Discovery of the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts by instruments flown on Explorer 1 in 1958
was the first major discovery of the Space Age. The observation of distinct inner and outer zones of trapped
Key Points:
• A brief historical background on the
megaelectron volt (MeV) particles, primarily protons at low altitude and electrons at high altitude, led to
discovery of the Van Allen radiation early models for source and loss mechanisms including Cosmic Ray Albedo Neutron Decay for inner zone
belts and their response to solar protons, radial diffusion for outer zone electrons and loss to the atmosphere due to pitch angle scattering.
activity is introduced
• Recent advances in understanding
This scattering lowers the mirror altitude for particles in their bounce motion parallel to the Earth's
mechanisms responsible for magnetic field until they suffer collisional loss. A view of the belts as quasi‐static inner and outer zones of
radiation belt electron acceleration, energetic particles with different sources was modified by observations made during the Solar Cycle 22
transport, and loss are reviewed
• Outstanding challenges for
maximum in solar activity over 1989–1991. The dynamic variability of outer zone electrons was measured by
developing future radiation belt the Combined Radiation Release and Effects Satellite launched in July 1990. This variability is caused by
models are summarized distinct types of heliospheric structure that vary with the solar cycle. The launch of the twin Van Allen
Probes in August 2012 has provided much longer and more comprehensive measurements during the
declining phase of Solar Cycle 24. Roughly half of moderate geomagnetic storms, determined by intensity of
Correspondence to: the ring current carried mostly by protons at hundreds of kiloelectron volts, produce an increase in trapped
W. Li, and M. K. Hudson, relativistic electron flux in the outer zone. Mechanisms for accelerating electrons of hundreds of electron
wenli77@bu.edu
mary.k.hudson@dartmouth.edu volts stored in the tail region of the magnetosphere to MeVenergies in the trapping region are described in
this review: prompt and diffusive radial transport and local acceleration driven by magnetospheric waves.
Such waves also produce pitch angle scattering loss, as does outward radial transport, enhanced when the
Citation:
Li, W., & Hudson, M. K. (2019). Earth's magnetosphere is compressed. While quasilinear simulations have been used to successfully reproduce
Van Allen radiation belts: From many essential features of the radiation belt particle dynamics, nonlinear wave‐particle interactions are
discovery to the Van Allen Probes era. found to be potentially important for causing more rapid particle acceleration or precipitation. The findings
Journal of Geophysical Research: Space
Physics, 124, 8319–8351. https://doi. on the fundamental physics of the Van Allen radiation belts potentially provide insights into
org/10.1029/2018JA025940 understanding energetic particle dynamics at other magnetized planets in the solar system, exoplanets
throughout the universe, and in astrophysical and laboratory plasmas. Computational radiation belt models
Received 11 APR 2019 have improved dramatically, particularly in the Van Allen Probes era, and assimilative forecasting of the
Accepted 14 JUN 2019
Published online 28 NOV 2019 state of the radiation belts has become more feasible. Moreover, machine learning techniques have been
developed to specify and predict the state of the Van Allen radiation belts. Given the potential Space
Weather impact of radiation belt variability on technological systems, these new radiation belt models are
expected to play a critical role in our technological society in the future as much as meteorological models
do today.
Plain Language Summary Discovery of the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts by instruments
flown on Explorer 1 in 1958 was the first major discovery of the Space Age. The dynamic properties of
trapped outer zone electrons and the outer boundary of the inner zone proton population, along with source
populations, have recently been studied in great detail by instruments on National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's Van Allen Probes spacecraft, as well as other data sources like operational spacecraft
designed for navigation and terrestrial weather forecasting. The vulnerability of the myriad of spacecraft that
is strongly affected by space weather disruptions, as compared to 1958, has motivated the radiation belt
community to develop essential improved models for forecasting the space environment we will inhabit in
the 21st century and evaluate its impacts on our technological society. In this paper, we provide a review
on historical background and recent advances in understanding and modeling acceleration, transport, and
loss processes of energetic particles in the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts, followed by outstanding
challenges for developing future radiation belt models. The findings on the fundamental physics of the Van
©2019. American Geophysical Union. Allen radiation belts potentially provide insights into understanding energetic particle dynamics at other
All Rights Reserved.
LI AND HUDSON 8319

Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 10.1029/2018JA025940
magnetized planets in the solar system, exoplanets throughout the universe, as well as in astrophysical and
laboratory plasmas. Given the potential Space Weather impact of radiation belt variability on technological
systems, these new radiation belt models are expected to play a critical role in our technological society in
the future much as meteorological models do today.
1. Introduction to Van Allen Radiation Belts

The Van Allen radiation belts, which consist of relativistic electron and proton populations trapped in the
Earth's magnetic field, were discovered by Geiger counters flown on Explorer 1, launched in January 1958,
designed to study cosmic ray access to Earth (Van Allen et al., 1958). Similar measurements were made by
the Soviet Sputnik 2 spacecraft launched in November 1957 (Baker & Panasyuk, 2017; Vernov & Chudakov,
1960). Energetic electrons in the Van Allen radiation belts are called “killer” electrons, since their strong
radiation can potentially cause satellite anomalies in space through deep‐dielectric charging (Baker, 2001;
Choi et al., 2011). Trapping of energetic particles in the Earth's magnetic field was suggested early
(Christofilos, 1959; Lenchek & Singer, 1962; Northrop & Teller, 1960). However, flux levels far exceeded
instrument design assumptions based on cosmic ray and transient solar particle measurements (Stern,
1996). The high fluxes of trapped particles were identified by the dead‐time saturation of the Geiger coun-
ters on Explorer 1 (Van Allen et al., 1958).
While these first measurements were of the low‐altitude inner zone, the two‐belt structure shown schema-
tically in Figure 1 became the paradigm by the mid‐1960s. Electrons have a two‐zone structure, while mega-
electron volt (MeV) ions are confined to the inner zone because of their larger gyroradii. Inner zone ions are
detrapped when their gyroradius becomes comparable to the local magnetic gradient scale length at an
altitude ~2 Earth radii (RE) in the equatorial plane, while MeV electrons remain trapped at a much larger
radial distance beyond geosynchronous orbit. The two‐zone structure for electrons is due to wave‐particle
interactions, which cause pitch angle scattering loss to the atmosphere (Lyons & Thorne, 1973). Another
important distinction is primarily an atmospheric source for trapped ions and external source for
trapped electrons.
The inner zone proton belt is produced by a combination of Cosmic Ray Albedo Neutron Decay (CRAND;
Singer, 1958), which occurs when cosmic rays scatter off the neutral atmosphere producing neutrons that
decay with a 15‐min half‐life. Solar energetic protons associated with flares and coronal mass ejections
(CMEs; Reames, 2001) also become trapped in the Earth's magnetic field (Hudson et al., 1997; Kress et al.,
2005; Selesnick et al., 2008). These solar energetic protons are the primary source at <50 MeV for the inner
zone (Selesnick et al., 2007) and sometimes produce a long‐lived proton belt distinct from the inner zone
(Blake et al., 1992; Hudson et al., 1997).
The inner zone electron population is periodically refreshed by the transport of electrons from the outer
zone into the inner zone, so‐called slot‐penetrating events. A notable example was the “extreme distortion”
of the radiation belts with multi‐MeV electron transport from the outer zone through the slot region into
the inner zone during the Halloween 2003 storm as observed by Solar Anomalous and Magnetospheric
Particle Explorer (SAMPEX; Baker et al., 2004). During the Van Allen Probes era, however, this replenish-
ment only occurred at energies below ~1 MeV. The measurable inner zone electron fluxes above 1 MeV are
extremely low (Fennell et al., 2015; X. Li, Selesnick, et al., 2015) and can only be detected through pains-
taking removal of instrument backgrounds (Claudepierre et al., 2019). The Van Allen Probes observations
have led to the concept of the “impenetrable barrier” wherein loss to the atmosphere dominates the rate of
inward radial transport above ~1 MeV (Baker et al., 2014; Fennell et al., 2015). In the tens to hundreds of
kiloelectron volt (keV) energy range, sudden enhancements of inner zone electrons are suggested to be
caused by inward radial diffusion (Lyons & Thorne, 1973; Zhao & Li, 2013) and/or enhanced convection
and penetration electric fields (Su et al., 2016; Turner et al., 2017).
The viability of CRAND as an electron source has been uncertain for decades because measurements have
shown that the electron intensity in the inner electron belt can vary greatly, while the neutron decay rate
should be almost constant (Kellogg, 1959; Lenchek et al., 1961). It was only recently recognized that the
decay of low/thermal energy neutrons, which are the majority of the total albedo neutrons produced by
LI AND HUDSON 8320

Figure 1. 2‐D schematic of radiation belts showing two‐zone structure of inner (red) and outer radiation belt (gray). This
figure is adapted from this website (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt).
cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere, contribute to energetic electrons in the inner belt and act as the
dominant source of energetic electrons at the inner edge of the inner belt (X. Li, Selesnick, et al., 2017). More
recent studies confirm that the CRAND‐produced electrons can also be a significant source for the inner belt
and slot region during extended quiet time periods (Xiang et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019).
Kennel and Petschek (1966) set an upper limit on stably trapped electron (and proton) flux due to pitch angle
scattering loss to the atmosphere by circularly polarized electromagnetic waves. These waves called
Electromagnetic Ion Cyclotron (EMIC) and whistler mode waves, predominantly left‐ and right‐hand polar-
ized, respectively, have frequencies Doppler shifted to the proton and electron gyrofrequency by motion of
particles along magnetic field lines. Lyons and Thorne (1973) established this mechanism of pitch angle scat-
tering by right‐hand polarized waves, called plasmaspheric hiss, as responsible for the “slot region” between
inner and outer zones, occurring at an altitude of 1–2 RE in the equatorial plane.
A schematic of the magnetosphere showing arrival of an interplanetary shock is shown in Figure 2. The
outer zone MeV radiation belt electrons overlap with lower‐energy (tens to hundreds of keV) ring current
ions and electrons, with a hotter plasmasheet ion population contributing more than electrons to the total
current. The ring current provides plasma pressure, affecting the magnetic field, while the lower density
radiation belt population does not. Radiation belt electron and ion longitudinal motion is dominated by
an energy‐dependent longitudinal drift, in opposite directions for electrons and ions, rather than sunward
convection shown in Figure 2 which dominates electrons and ions in the magnetotail region. The so‐called
plasmasheet stores primarily solar wind plasma in the antisunward tail region. Trapped electrons (and pro-
tons) undergo gyro‐ and bounce‐motion between hemispheres, as well as longitudinal drift, with an approx-
imate constant of motion called an adiabatic invariant associated with each periodic motion (Schulz &
Lanzerotti, 1974). Transient formation of a new radiation belt has been observed with arrival of an interpla-
netary shock (Blake et al., 1992; Foster et al., 2015; Li et al., 1993).
Outer zone electrons have long been measured at geosynchronous orbit (L = 6.6, where L shell is a para-
meter describing a set of geomagnetic field lines that cross the Earth's magnetic equatorial plane at a number
of RE), where weather, navigation, communications, and national security satellites abound, extending into
a flux peak at L ~ 4. They are also observed close to the atmosphere in their bounce motion on low‐altitude
polar orbiting satellites. The 30‐day averaged fluxes at 2–6 MeV, measured by the SAMPEX satellite in a low‐
altitude polar orbit, are plotted for more than two solar cycles in Figure 3 (X. Li, Schiller, et al., 2013). These
fluxes are highly variable, peaking during the declining phase from solar maximum, indicated by the peak in
sunspot number (Figure 3, top panel). The Dst index, which measures strength of the ring current as a proxy
for enhanced convection earthward from the tail, is overplotted in the lower panel and correlates well
with the inner edge of the outer zone (Tverskaya, 1986). The plasmasphere consists of a low‐energy (eV)
population that corotates with the Earth and is continuously refilled by the topside ionosphere and
LI AND HUDSON 8321

Figure 2. Schematic of 3‐D magnetosphere showing regions of convection and diffusion, location of Van Allen Belts, and
arrival of interplanetary shock with new radiation belt produced by rapid inward radial transport along with enhanced
ultralow frequency waves. This figure is adopted from Mauk et al. (2013) without any change. The link to the license is on
this site (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).
stripped away by changing magnetospheric convection at its outer boundary, typically at L ~ 4 (Goldstein
et al., 2005). This outer boundary or plasmapause is plotted in earlier versions of this figure (Li et al.,
2006). At the “plasmapause” plasma density drops from ~100 to ~1 cm−3. This boundary is correlated
with the inner edge of the outer zone and with different wave modes acting to produce atmospheric loss
inside and outside the plasmapause (Millan & Thorne, 2007). Figure 4 shows the spatial distribution of
some of these wave modes (Reeves et al., 2016) and how the plasmasphere becomes distorted into a
duskside plume of higher‐density material stripped away when the convection electric field, which maps
from solar wind flow past the magnetosphere, increases in strength (Goldstein et al., 2004).
The changing 30‐day averaged flux of electrons with sunspot number and solar wind velocity, also plotted in
the top panel of Figure 3, suggests that distinct solar wind drivers may operate during the declining phase
versus at solar maximum. High‐speed solar wind, modulated by the solar rotation period, is characteristic
of the declining phase of solar activity, while CMEs, more common at solar maximum, produce high‐speed
interplanetary shocks that compress the dayside magnetopause, which separates solar wind flow that has
passed through the Earth's upstream “bow shock” from the region dominated by the Earth's magnetic field.
CMEs are temporal ejections of mass from the solar corona associated with the phenomenon of “magnetic
reconnection” at the Sun, which converts compressed magnetic field energy into plasma kinetic energy in
the complicated magnetic field topology of the Sun. High‐speed streams are spatial structures which map
to coronal holes at the Sun, regions of open magnetic flux and expanding plasma which appear dark in solar
images of the plasma cooling as it expands outward. Both types of structure, which drive geomagnetic activ-
ity and variations in outer zone electron flux (e.g., Baker et al., 2019; Benacquista et al., 2018; Borovsky &
Denton, 2006; Hudson et al., 2008; Kilpua et al., 2015; Reeves et al., 2003; Turner et al., 2019; Yuan &
Zong, 2012), are shown in Figure 5, along with recurring enhancement in radiation belt electron flux at
the solar rotation period measured at geosynchronous orbit (Reeves, 1998).
The launch of the twin Van Allen Probes (renamed from Radiation Belt Storm Probes after launch)
in August 2012 into a ~600 × 33,000‐km orbit with an inclination of ~10° has provided detailed in situ
measurements during the maximum and declining phase of Solar Cycle 24 (Mauk et al., 2013). The two
LI AND HUDSON 8322

Figure 3. (top) Sunspot number (black) and weekly averaged solar wind speed (red). (bottom) Averaged flux of >2 MeV
electrons from SAMPEX over two solar cycles with Dst index (black line) correlated with inner boundary of the outer
radiation belt. This figure is adapted from Li, Schiller, et al. (2013). Similar plots have replaced Dst with modeled plas-
mapause location (Li et al., 2006). SAMPEX = Solar Anomalous and Magnetospheric Particle Explorer.
Figure 4. Illustration of various magnetospheric waves and energetic particles in the equatorial magnetosphere.
Plasmasheet particles are injected toward the Earth from the nightside, followed by azimuthal drift of energetic elec-
trons (red arrow) and ring current ions (blue arrow) in an opposite direction. Ultralow frequency (ULF) waves (blue
curve), which are extensively present in the magnetosphere, transport electrons radially outward or inward through radial
diffusion. The blue‐shaded region represents the high‐density plasmasphere and plumes with the plasmapause marked by
the black outer line. Electromagnetic Ion Cyclotron (EMIC) waves, which are effective in MeV electron precipitation,
typically occur just inside the plasmapause or plumes. Plasmaspheric hiss is typically observed inside the plasmasphere
and plume. Chorus waves are preferentially observed in the low‐density region outside the plasmapause from the mid-
night to the afternoon sector. This figure is adapted from Reeves et al. (2016). VLF = very low frequency.
LI AND HUDSON 8323

spacecraft measure eV–GeV particles, magnetic and electric fields, and waves in nearly identical orbits with
variable separation, and ~9 hr orbital period with 19 month return cadence to the same magnetic local
time (MLT).
This review of our current understanding of the Van Allen radiation belts, based on greatly improved mea-
surements and modeling capability, builds upon earlier reviews (e.g., Baker et al., 2018; Friedel et al., 2002;
Millan & Thorne, 2007; Reeves, 2015; Shprits, Elkington, et al., 2008; Shprits, Subbotin, et al., 2008; Thorne,
2010) and is organized as follows. We focus on reviewing recent advances in understanding physical
mechanisms responsible for driving radiation belt electron dynamics, including acceleration, transport,
and loss. First, diffusive radial transport is discussed in section 2.1, followed by prompt injection on a drift
time scale in section 2.2, and radial loss in section 2.3. In section 3 we review several types of magnetospheric
waves, which play an important role in local acceleration and pitch angle scattering loss of radiation belt
electron dynamics, including whistler mode waves in section 3.1, EMIC waves in section 3.2, other nonlinear
waves in section 3.3, followed by nonlinear wave‐particle interactions in section 3.4. Finally, in section 4, we
briefly summarize our current understanding of physical processes driving radiation belt electron dynamics,
and wrap up with a summary of outstanding challenges for future modeling of the trapped particle radiation
environment at Earth.
2. Radial Transport
2.1. Radial Diffusion
Studies of diffusive transport and energization of radiation belt electrons have a long history going back to
Kellogg (1959), Parker (1960), and Fälthammar (1965, 1968). The radial diffusion equation for the evolution
of phase space density (PSD), f, is a reduction of the six‐dimensional Fokker‐Planck equation to one dimen-
sion, averaging over gyro, bounce, and drift phase, assuming a bounce‐ and drift‐averaged diffusion coeffi-
cient DLL. It is solved at fixed first adiabatic invariant μ = p⊥2/2mB, where p⊥ is the perpendicular
momentum, m is the rest mass, and B is the local magnetic field, and fixed second invariant K which scales
with field line length and parallel momentum (Schulz & Lanzerotti, 1974):

∂f =∂t ¼ L2 ∂=∂L 1=L2 DLL ∂f =∂L –f =τ þ S (1)
Here the reduced PSD f = f (μ, K, Φ) is in terms of adiabatic invariants of the gyro, bounce, and drift motion μ,
K, and Φ. The Roederer L parameter (often written L*) is related to magnetic flux through a drift orbit and
third adiabatic invariant Φ by L = 2πμ/REΦ. L* is the distance from the Earth's center to the field line at the
equator if the magnetic field was adiabatically relaxed to a dipole field. In solving equation (1) at fixed μ and
K, we assume that electromagnetic field variations occur on a timescale longer than the gyro and bounce
motion, but they may vary on the timescale of drift motion. Because the Earth's magnetic field is increasingly
nondipolar at larger L and more so during geomagnetically disturbed conditions, equation (1) is typically
solved using the Roederer L parameter (Roederer, 1970) not dipole L. Here loss to the atmosphere is repre-
sented by a timescale τ, and S is a nominal source term. Solutions to equation (1) require specifying an initial
radial profile of PSD (f) as well as inner and outer boundary conditions at subsequent times.
A positive radial gradient will lead to inward electron transport, increasing electron energy as the first invar-
iant proportional to p⊥2 is conserved as B increases, and vice versa. A loss timescale τ due to pitch angle dif-
fusion is typically introduced, which is a function of energy and L. A source term S, either at the outer
boundary, corresponding to plasma sheet injections which provide a source population beyond geosynchro-
nous orbit, or internal to represent localized gyroresonant heating, can be included on the right‐hand side of
equation (1) (Selesnick & Blake, 2000). The requirement of a global magnetic field model in order to convert
local flux measurements into f complicates attempts to distinguish between internal and external sources
(local acceleration vs. radial transport). A peak in f is often taken as evidence for local heating (Boyd
et al., 2018; Reeves et al., 2013; Thorne et al., 2013a); however, a sudden drop in flux at the outer boundary
due to inward motion of the magnetopause will also produce a local peak (Elkington, 2006; Su et al., 2017).
Fälthammar obtained a strong L dependence for the diffusion coefficient, DLL ~ L10 for magnetic field fluc-
tuations and DLL ~ L6 for electric field fluctuations, times the spectral dependence of power at a given fre-
quency. Power at the drift frequency (and harmonics) causes a random walk in radial location resulting
LI AND HUDSON 8324

Figure 5. (a) Coronal mass ejection image from SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) database. (b) Coronal hole over four solar rotations mapped to recur-
ring geosynchronous electron flux (1.8–3.5 MeV) increases at solar rotation period. This figure is adapted from Reeves (1998).
in inward (outward) diffusion of particles on a positive (negative) radial gradient. Step‐like electrostatic
impulses yield an inverse square dependence of spectral power on frequency (equal to a multiple of the
drift frequency). The explicit inverse square dependence of the Falthammar electrostatic diffusion
coefficient on drift frequency (Schulz & Lanzerotti, 1974) results in the same L10 dependence for electric
and magnetic diffusion for random impulsive drivers, as for example solar wind pressure perturbations.
Brautigam and Albert (2000) modeled the power level as a function of geomagnetic activity using the Kp
activity index and fitting the L dependence to the Fälthammar model to determine diffusion coefficients
DLL that have been widely used. Elkington et al. (2003) followed guiding center test particles in the
equatorial plane of a compressed dipole analytic model with poloidal mode ultralow frequency (ULF)
wave fields (Hughes, 2013) of order 1 mHz, comparable to the drift period of MeV electrons at
geosynchronous orbit. Only the azimuthal electric field contribution was modeled, neglecting the
compressional magnetic perturbation with the radial magnetic perturbation vanishing at the equator. Fei
et al. (2006) extended the analysis to five drift resonances and included the compressional magnetic
perturbation introduced by Perry et al. (2005). They compared magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)‐test
particle simulations in the equatorial plane favorably with solutions to the radial diffusion equation. Perry
et al. (2005) modeled nonequatorially mirroring electrons, incorporating L and frequency dependence of
the wave power based on observations (Bloom & Singer, 1995; Mathie & Mann, 2001), finding the largest
diffusion rate for equatorially mirroring electrons.
Much progress has since been made incorporating both measured electric and magnetic field fluctuations
(Ali et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2016; Ozeke et al., 2014) and those obtained from MHD‐test
particle simulations into calculating both empirical diffusion coefficients parameterized by Kp in the case
of observations, and event specific DLL in MHD‐test particle simulations (Huang et al., 2010; Z. Li,
Hudson, et al., 2017; Tu et al., 2012). All of these studies have used the formalism from Fei et al. (2006)
and Brizard and Chan (2001) which separates DLL into components due to electric and magnetic field fluc-
tuations, respectively. The resulting DLL due to electric field fluctuations is typically much larger than that
derived from magnetic field fluctuations in both types of models using the Brizard and Chan (2001) formal-
ism, which assumes that the ULF wave power is summed over random drift phases at multiples of the elec-
tron drift frequency, and in the case of Li, Selesnick, et al. (2017) with azimuthal mode number m ≥ 1, which
is a measure of the number of wavelengths in the azimuthal direction. A comparison with measurements
from the Magnetic Electron‐Ion Spectrometer (MagEIS) on Van Allen Probes (Blake et al., 2013; Spence
et al., 2013) using DLL from MHD‐test particle simulations is shown in Figure 6 for two CME shock‐driven
storms (Li, Selesnick, et al., 2017). In this simulation, the initial radial profile was based on MagEIS measure-
ments, and local heating, which occurred during the main phase of the storm prior to when the Dst reached
LI AND HUDSON 8325

Figure 6. (a) The 1,000‐MeV/G electron phase space density calculated using radial diffusion model for the March 2015
storm. (b) Error between simulation and MagEIS measurement. (c) Same as Figure 6a but for March 2013 storm. (d) Same
as Figure 6b but for March 2013 storm. Black lines indicate range of Van Allen Probes apogee from 00 UT on 18 March
(bottom line) near Dst minimum to end of event study (top line) when magnetosphere has relaxed. The simulation domain
outside the MagEIS outer boundary is the “ghost cell,” as discussed in Li, Hudson, and Chen (2014) and should be ignored
* *
as it is likely that flux continues to increase at higher L but is set to f = 0 at L = 10. Note that 1,000 MeV/G measurements
*
are at background levels inside L ∼ 2.75. This figure is adapted from Li, Hudson, et al. (2017). MagEIS = Magnetic
Electron‐Ion Spectrometer.
its minimum, was incorporated as well. It is worth noting that it was generally not feasible to calculate PSD
from measurements in adiabatic invariants until the mid‐1990s when modern empirical magnetic field
models became available and computing power was sufficient to numerically calculate the integrals in the
second and third adiabatic invariants efficiently.
2.2. Prompt Injection on Electron Drift Timescale

An extreme example of impulsive acceleration occurred on 24 March 1991 due to a CME‐generated interpla-
netary shock. The magnetopause was compressed inside geosynchronous orbit, producing new electron and
proton radiation belts with energies >13 MeV in the normally empty slot region (Blake et al., 1992). Prompt
injection (and depletion) events have been observed with many CME shock compressions of the dayside
magnetopause by Van Allen Probes (Claudepierre et al., 2017; Schiller et al., 2016). Figure 7 shows one such
event (Foster et al., 2015), where Probe A trailed Probe B, located on the inner and outer edges of the dayside
outer zone, respectively, at the time of interplanetary shock arrival. In Figure 7b Probe A 4.2 MeV flux mea-
sured by the Relativistic Electron Proton Telescope (REPT) on Van Allen Probes (Baker, Kanekal, Hoxie,
Batiste, et al., 2013; Spence et al., 2013) is time shifted to overlay with Probe B measurements in L*. Probe
B at higher L* observed flux increase by over 2 orders of magnitude with characteristic drift echoes due to
rapid radial transport in less than an electron drift period. Probe A detected the resulting drift echoes when
it arrived at higher L*. Figure 7a shows the bipolar azimuthal electric field impulse measured by the Electric
Fields and Waves instrument on Van Allen Probes (Wygant et al., 2013), characteristic of shock compression
LI AND HUDSON 8326

Figure 7. (a) Shock‐induced bipolar electric field signatures (VSC × B subtracted) in the dayside inner magnetosphere
observed by the Electric Field and Wave (EFW) instrument on Van Allen Probe A and B (~10 mV/m). (b) Van Allen
Probe A and Probe B L* profiles of 3.6 MeV REPT electron energy flux overlaid along outbound orbits during 8 October
2013 shock injection. Arrows indicate the 20:22 UT of shock observation at each spacecraft. At shock time, Probe B was at
L* ~ 5, and Probe A was near L* ~ 3.3. This figure is adapted from Foster et al. (2015). REPT = Relativistic Electron Proton
Telescope; RBSP = Radiation Belt Storm Probes,
of the dayside magnetopause and resulting from dBz/dt, where z is the component of the Earth's magnetic
field aligned with the dipole axis (not shown). This signature of bipolar electric field impulse implied by
Faraday's Law was first measured for the 24 March 1991 prompt injection (Wygant et al., 1994).
Figure 8 shows four sequential snapshots of the negative component of the azimuthal electric field from an
MHD simulation, which uses measured solar wind input from L1 for the upstream boundary condition
(Hudson et al., 2017). The impulse is observed to propagate along both flanks of the magnetosphere at what
has been shown to agree with the MHD fast mode speed inside the magnetosphere, accelerating electrons
along the dusk flank, where they are in drift resonance with the azimuthal electric field impulse. This elec-
tric field transports them radially inward accelerating them while conserving their first adiabatic invariant,
as discussed in earlier models (Li et al., 1993). Schiller et al. (2016) examined 88 CME shock events observed
by Van Allen Probes and found that 25% produced enhancements, 14% produced depletions at the location
of Van Allen Probes, and the remainder produced no significant change. For the 17 March 2015 CME shock
compression event, they showed that enhancement was observed by Probe A on the inner edge and deple-
tion was observed by Probe B on the outer edge of the outer zone. These measurements included energy
dependent drift echoes and pitch angle distributions which were reproduced in MHD‐test particle simula-
tions (Hudson et al., 2017).
Despite how common prompt injection events have been in the Van Allen Probes data set (Claudepierre
et al., 2013; Mann et al., 2013) to produce a localized peak in PSD on a drift timescale in the analysis of
Foster et al. (2015), no event of the magnitude of 24 March 1991 has been seen, where the dayside compres-
sion produced an azimuthal electric field estimated to be an order of magnitude larger than that shown in
Figure 7 (Wygant et al., 1994). Since inward radial transport is proportional to the magnitude of this electric
field, electrons are only transported inward by ΔL* ~ 1 in the Van Allen Probes events with subsequent loss
to the inward moving magnetopause, in contrast to the 24 March 1991 event where they remained in the slot
region for years (Looper et al., 2005).
2.3. Radial Loss

Outer zone electron dropout events are a common feature of geomagnetic storms, particularly at higher L
shells (e.g., Green et al., 2004; Matsumura et al., 2011; Millan & Thorne, 2007; Morley et al., 2010; Ni
LI AND HUDSON 8327

Figure 8. Snapshots of a subset of test particles with initial energy 2.0–2.1 MeV, with energy of test particles at time indicated in color scale and EΦ < 0 plotted in
gray scale from MHD‐test particle simulation of 17 March 2015 storm. This figure is adapted from Hudson et al. (2017).
et al., 2013; Onsager et al., 2002; Shprits et al., 2006; Su et al., 2017; Turner et al., 2012; Turner, Angelopoulos,
Li, et al., 2014; Turner, Angelopoulos, Morley, et al., 2014; Ukhorskiy et al., 2015; Xiang et al., 2017). Rapid
radial loss is observed with CME shock‐driven storms (Hudson et al., 2014) and well correlated with the last
closed drift shell during strong magnetopause compression (Albert et al., 2018; Olifer et al., 2018). Drift shell
splitting is enhanced during such events wherein electrons near 90° pitch angle move to larger radial
distance on the dayside conserving their first adiabatic invariant (Roederer, 1967, 1970), and may be
preferentially lost to the magnetopause. Fast inward motion of the magnetopause can produce a negative
PSD gradient which leads to outward radial diffusion (e.g., Shprits et al., 2006), particularly in the
presence of enhanced ULF wave power which follows such compressions (e.g., Hudson et al., 2014, 2015;
Zong et al., 2009; Zong et al., 2017).
Calculating PSD from measured flux using a model magnetic field has allowed for identification of adiabatic
reduction in flux due to buildup of the ring current and outward motion of electrons conserving the mag-
netic flux through a drift orbit, the third adiabatic invariant. The local magnetic field is weakened by the
opposing magnetic field due to the ring current, the so‐called Dst effect (Kim & Chan, 1997). Calculating
PSD decrease for a dropout event 30 September 2012 observed by both Van Allen Probes and the THEMIS
spacecraft with higher apogee (Angelopoulos, 2008), Turner, Angelopoulos, Li, et al. (2014) showed in
Figure 9 a loss by more than 2 orders of magnitude between subsequent orbits occurring first at higher L.
LI AND HUDSON 8328

Since loss occurs on earlier orbits at higher L shells, these measurements suggest loss to the magnetopause,
which is moving inward due to increased solar wind dynamic pressure and southward IMF Bz. Subsequent
loss at lower L and higher energies, as the plasmasphere contracts during enhanced convection, may be due
to pitch angle scattering loss to the atmosphere via interaction with whistler mode waves, EMIC waves, and
other nonlinear waves, as discussed in the next section.
3. Local Energy and Pitch Angle Scattering

In the Earth's inner magnetosphere, there are a variety of higher frequency plasma waves including whistler
mode waves, EMIC waves, and other nonlinear waves, which can interact with radiation belt electrons and
change their dynamics (e.g., Thorne, 2010 and references therein). Figure 4 shows the spatial distribution of
various magnetospheric waves on a global scale. These plasma waves are typically enhanced in association
with injection of plasmasheet particles into the inner magnetosphere during geomagnetically active periods
(Cornwall et al., 1970; Jordanova et al., 2012; Kennel & Petschek, 1966; Kozyra et al., 1997; Li et al., 2008;
Meredith et al., 2003; Thorne et al., 1973). Through interacting with radiation belt electrons, these plasma
waves can violate the first and second adiabatic invariants and change the energy and pitch angle of ener-
getic particles (e.g., Horne & Thorne, 1998).
The dominant methodology of evaluating interactions between the radiation belt electrons and higher‐
frequency waves has been quasilinear theory, where the effects of waves on particles are treated as diffusion
(Schulz & Lanzerotti, 1974). In this approach, the waves are assumed to have small amplitudes with broad-
band structures, and the wave intensities are averaged over time and space. The effects of waves on particles
are incorporated into diffusion coefficients, and the evolution of electron PSD due to wave‐particle interac-
tion is calculated by numerically solving the modified Fokker‐Planck equation (Schulz & Lanzerotti, 1974).
! !
∂f ∂ ∂f 1 ∂ ∂f
¼ L*2 * *−2 *2
DL* L* L L þ sðαÞsinαcosαDαα
∂t ∂L μ;J ∂L* μ;J sðαÞsinαcosα∂αp;L* ∂α p;L*
! !
1 ∂ ∂f 1 ∂ ∂f
þ s ðα ÞsinαcosαD þ p 2
D
sðαÞsinαcosα∂αp;L* ∂pL* ;α p2 ∂pL* ;α ∂αp;L*
αp αp
!
1 ∂ ∂f f
þ 2 p2 Dpp − (2)
p ∂p L* ;α ∂p L* ;α τ
Here f is the electron PSD and t is the time. τ is set as a quarter of the bounce period inside the loss cone and
infinity outside the loss cone, and S(α) is a function related to the bounce period. DL*L* is the radial diffusion
coefficient, and Dαα, Dpp, and Dαp are the bounce and drift averaged diffusion coefficients in pitch angle,
momentum, and mixed terms in pitch angle and momentum.
Although the universal applicability of quasilinear theory is called into question by the presence of discrete,
large‐amplitude chorus (e.g., Cattell et al., 2008; Cully et al., 2008; Kellogg et al., 2011; Tyler et al., 2019;
Wilson et al., 2011), test particle simulations have demonstrated its general validity for small amplitude
and broadband waves (Tao et al., 2011). Moreover, recent multidimensional diffusion simulations repro-
duced the main features of observed radiation belt electron dynamics (Albert et al., 2009; Drozdov et al.,
2015; Fok et al., 2008; Fok et al., 2014; Glauert et al., 2014; W. Li, Ma, et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2018; Shprits
et al., 2009; Thorne et al., 2013a; Tu et al., 2014; Xiao et al., 2014; Zheng et al., 2014). This section provides
a brief summary of our current understanding of the role of these higher‐frequency magnetospheric waves in
outer radiation belt electron dynamics through local energy and pitch angle scattering.
3.1. Whistler Mode Waves

Whistler mode chorus waves are typically observed in the low‐density region outside the plasmapause
(e.g., Burtis & Helliwell, 1969; Koons & Roeder, 1990; Tsurutani & Smith, 1974) and often exhibit coher-
ent, discrete elements, such as rising or falling tones with subpacket structures (Burton & Holzer, 1974;
Crabtree et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2014; Li et al., 2012; Santolík et al., 2009, 2003, 2014). Chorus waves are
LI AND HUDSON 8329

known to play a dual role in radiation belt electron dynamics by (1)

accelerating electrons through efficient energy diffusion and (2) preci-
pitating electrons into the upper atmosphere through pitch angle scat-
tering (e.g., Bortnik & Thorne, 2007; Horne & Thorne, 1998; Kletzing
et al., 2013; Ni et al., 2016; Thorne et al., 2010). In particular, chorus
waves are suggested as effective drivers of local acceleration (Horne
et al., 2005; Horne & Thorne, 1998; Miyoshi et al., 2003; Summers
et al., 2002, 1998; Summers et al., 2007a; Summers et al., 2007b;
Thorne et al., 2013a), leading to growing radial peaks in electron
PSD in the heart of the outer radiation belt, which were reported by
numerous satellite observations (Boyd et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2007;
Green & Kivelson, 2004; Ma et al., 2016a; Ma et al., 2018; Reeves
et al., 2013). To quantify the effects of chorus waves on radiation belt
electrons, chorus wave properties (e.g., intensity, wave normal angle,
etc.) on a global scale are required as inputs. Before the Van Allen
Probes era, empirical chorus wave distributions based on satellite wave
Figure 9. Van Allen Probes (RBSP) REPT electron PSD distributions in L* measurements (Agapitov et al., 2013, 2018; Li et al., 2011, 2009;
1/2
for first and second invariant μ = 2024 MeV/G and K = 0.172 G RE. Meredith et al., 2012; Meredith, Horne, et al., 2003) were used to cal-
Different colors correspond to different inbound (solid) or outbound culate diffusion coefficients driven by chorus waves. Over the past sev-
(dashed) orbit passes from Probe‐A (triangles) and Probe‐B (circles), with eral years, new techniques have been developed to infer event‐specific
the times labeled for each pass corresponding to the start time of the pass.
Each curve has been numbered also for ease of identification. The black
chorus wave distributions over an extensive region by using the elec-
dashed line shows the pre‐dropout average distribution. This figure is tron measurements from multiple Low‐Earth‐Orbiting (LEO) satellites
adapted from Turner, Angelopoulos, Li, et al. (2014). RBSP = Radiation Belt (e.g., POES/MetOp; Chen et al., 2014; W. Li, Ni, et al., 2013; Ni
Storm Probes; REPT = Relativistic Electron Proton Telescope; PSD = phase et al., 2014). Moreover, machine learning techniques have been devel-
space density; ECT = Energetic Particle, Composition, and Thermal Plasma. oped to construct global chorus wave distributions based on solar wind
parameters and/or geomagnetic indices (e.g., Bortnik et al., 2018; Kim
et al., 2013). By including the local acceleration driven by chorus waves based on the wave distribution
constructed using the LEO satellite electron precipitations, quasilinear simulation results reproduced the
essential features of the observed MeV electron acceleration in the heart of the outer radiation belt, par-
ticularly in the region where growing radial peaks in electron PSD were observed (e.g., Li, Ma, et al.,
2016; Ma et al., 2018; Thorne et al., 2013a; Tu et al., 2014).
Figure 10 shows an example during a radiation belt electron acceleration event, which occurred on 9 October
2012, where chorus‐driven local acceleration was able to reproduce the electron acceleration in rates, timing,
energy dependence, and pitch angle distribution (Thorne et al., 2013a). However, in other locations away
from the growing peaks in electron PSD, chorus‐driven local acceleration alone underestimates the observed
electron acceleration (e.g., W. Li, Thorne, et al., 2014; W. Li, Ma, et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2018). Figure 11 shows
the comparison between observation and simulation during storm time (top panels) and non–storm time
electron acceleration events (bottom panels), where Ma et al. (2018) performed 3‐D diffusion simulations
to evaluate the relative roles of chorus‐driven local acceleration and ULF‐driven radial diffusion. During
the storm time acceleration event chorus waves play a dominant role in accelerating electrons near the grow-
ing PSD peaks (Figure 11b) but underestimate electron acceleration at locations away from the peaks. The
simulation result including both chorus waves and radial diffusion (Figure 11d) is most consistent with the
observation, since radial diffusion is important for redistributing electrons from the growing peaks to other
locations. During the non–storm time acceleration event, where chorus wave intensity was much weaker,
radial diffusion played a dominant role in electron acceleration (Figure 11g). However, the simulation result
including the combined effects of both local acceleration and radial diffusion (Figure 11h) is most consistent
with the observation (Figure 11e).
In another non–storm time acceleration event (21 April 2017), Zhao et al. (2018) suggest that the accel-
eration mechanism for ultrarelativistic electrons in the outer belt is energy‐dependent: Local accelera-
tion plays the dominant role in 3–5 MeV electron enhancement, whereas inward radial diffusion is
the main acceleration mechanism for ~7 MeV electrons. Moreover, Jaynes et al. (2018) reported an
ultrarelativistic electron acceleration up to ~8 MeV during a period following the 17 March 2015 geo-
magnetic storm, when chorus waves were very weak, but ULF waves played a primary role in
LI AND HUDSON 8330

Figure 10. Overview of the radiation belt electron acceleration driven by chorus waves during the 9 October 2012 geomag-
netic storm. (a) Interplanetary magnetic field in the z direction in the Geocentric Solar Magnetospheric coordinate. (b)
Magnetic amplitude of chorus waves integrated over 0.1–0.5 fce, measured by Van Allen Probes, where fce represents
electron cyclotron frequency. (c) The ration between the precipitated and trapped flux for 30–100 keV electrons observed
by multiple POES/MetOp satellites near the dawn sector, representing the intensity evolution of chorus waves. (d)
Increase of electron PSD at 90° pitch angle as a functin of Universal Time observed by Van Allen Probes. (e)–(g) Observed
evolution of relativistic electron PSD as a function of pitch angle with 8‐hr time intervals at L = 5. (h)–(k) Same as panels
(d)–(g) but for the diffusion simulation results. This figure is adapted from Thorne et al. (2013a). PSD = phase space
density.
transporting electrons from higher to lower L shells, thus leading to multi‐MeV electron acceleration.
Interestingly, Boyd et al. (2018) analyzed over 80 outer radiation belt electron acceleration events
using Van Allen Probes and THEMIS electron data and found that ~87% of acceleration events
indicate growing radial peaks in electron PSD, suggesting acceleration by local heating, while
redistribution of PSD by radial transport is evident in many of the events with peaks in PSD (Li,
Hudson, et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2018; Reeves et al., 2013).
Wave normal distributions of chorus waves are found to exhibit two major peaks, either quasi‐parallel or
highly oblique, very close to the resonance cone (Agapitov et al., 2013, 2015; W. Li, Santolik, et al., 2016).
Analytic formulae for quasilinear diffusion coefficients for highly oblique whistler mode waves are devel-
oped using wave electric field intensity for highly oblique chorus (Albert, 2017). Landau resonant
LI AND HUDSON 8331

Figure 11. Comparison between the observed and simulated electron flux during storm‐time and nonstormtime acceleration event. (a) Observed electron flux after
acceleration during the storm‐time acceleration event near 2013‐03‐18/00 UT. (b) Simulated electron flux by including local acceleration driven by chorus, (c) radial
diffusion, and (d) combination of local acceleration and radial diffusion. (e)–(h) Same as panels (a)–(d) but for non‐stormtime acceleration event. This figure is
adapted from Ma et al. (2018).
interactions with highly oblique chorus result in trapping of keV electrons and their acceleration up to a few
hundred keV (Agapitov et al., 2015; Artemyev, Vasiliev, et al., 2014; Artemyev, Agapitov, et al., 2016; Shklyar
& Matsumoto, 2009).
Inside the plasmasphere, there exist broadband whistler mode waves, called plasmaspheric hiss, with fre-
quencies over 20–4,000 Hz (W. Li, Ma, et al., 2015; Malaspina et al., 2016; Meredith et al., 2018, 2004;
Thorne et al., 1973). Hiss plays an important role in controlling radiation belt electron dynamics inside
the plasmasphere by causing electron precipitation into the upper atmosphere through pitch angle scatter-
ing (Li, Ma, et al., 2015; Lyons & Thorne, 1973; Ma, Li, et al., 2016a; Meredith et al., 2007, 2006; Ni et al.,
2013; Thorne et al., 2013b). In particular, hiss is known to be essential for creating the slot region between
the inner and outer electron radiation belt (e.g., Lyons & Thorne, 1973). Moreover, pitch angle scattering loss
due to hiss is responsible for the energy‐dependent decay of the long‐lived “storage ring” (Thorne et al.,
2013b), which was formed in association with the rapid outward movement of the plasmapause, as reported
by Baker, Kanekal, Hoxie, Henderson, et al. (2013). Interestingly, an exceedingly sharp inner boundary was
found to be present at L ~ 2.8 for the ultrarelativistic electrons (Baker et al., 2014). Slow inward radial diffu-
sion combined with weak, but persistent pitch angle scattering due to hiss (Baker et al., 2014), and very low
frequency transmitters (Foster et al., 2016) are suggested to produce this “impenetrable barrier.” Figure 12
reveals a general morphology of radiation belt electron fluxes dependent on energy and L shell during
quiet and active conditions (Reeves et al., 2016). During active conditions electrons exhibit a “V”‐shaped
feature (bottom right panel in Figure 12) due to electron injection into the slot region, whereas during quiet
conditions an “S”‐shaped structure is formed (bottom left panel in Figure 12). This “S”‐shaped structure is
well reproduced by energy‐dependent pitch angle scattering caused by plasmaspheric hiss together
with ULF‐driven radial diffusion (Ma, Li, et al., 2016a; Ripoll et al., 2017). More recently, hiss‐driven pitch
angle scattering is found to account for the frequently observed reversed electron energy spectrum with
abundant high‐energy and fewer lower‐energy electrons with a flux dip at several hundred keV (Zhao
et al., 2019).
Whistler mode waves are often observed in plasmaspheric plumes (Chan & Holzer, 1976; Hayakawa et al.,
1986; Li et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2019; Su et al., 2018; Tsurutani et al., 2015), which are composed of plasma
LI AND HUDSON 8332

Figure 12. Radiation belt electron flux during quiet and active conditions. (top) Electron flux as a function of L shell for various energies during quiet (left) and
active conditions (right). (bottom) 2‐D electron flux as a function of L shell and energy during quiet (left) and active conditions (right). The outer belt exhibit an
“S”‐shaped structure with energy‐dependent inner boundary during quiet conditions, whereas during active times electron fluxes are enhanced in the slot region
indicating a “V”‐shaped structure. This figure is adapted from Reeves et al. (2016).
being drained from the reservoir of plasmaspheric plasma and extending into the more tenuous outer mag-
netosphere (Chen & Wolf, 1972; Elphic et al., 1996; Goldstein et al., 2004; Grebowsky, 1970; Weiss et al.,
1997). Whistler mode waves in plumes are found to exhibit broadband emissions or discrete rising tones
(Nakamura et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2019; Su et al., 2018; Teng et al., 2019) and typically have stronger wave
amplitudes, up to 1.5 nT (Su et al., 2018) than typical plasmaspheric hiss (Shi et al., 2019). Due to larger wave
amplitudes and higher ratio of plasma to electron cyclotron frequency in plumes (compared to plasmasphere
or plasmasheet), pitch angle scattering loss driven by whistler mode waves in plumes could be stronger than
plasmaspheric hiss, particularly at lower energy (W. Li et al., 2019), suggesting their potential importance in
energetic electron loss process (e.g., Summers et al., 2008; W. Zhang, Fu, et al., 2018).
Equatorial magnetosonic waves are highly oblique whistler mode waves that typically occur below the
lower‐hybrid resonant frequency and are observed both inside and outside the plasmasphere (Boardsen
et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2016b; Nemec et al., 2006; Santolík et al., 2004). Magnetosonic waves are suggested
to be another potential mechanism of accelerating radiation belt electrons through Landau resonance and
transit‐time scattering (Bortnik et al., 2015; Bortnik & Thorne, 2010; Horne et al., 2007; J. Li, Ni, et al.,
2014). However, Ma, Li, et al. (2016b) showed that the acceleration timescale based on the statistical magne-
tosonic wave distribution is typically longer (approximately several days) than that of chorus waves (less
than a day; Albert, 2005; Horne et al., 2005; Thorne et al., 2013a). Interestingly, magnetosonic waves are
found to be responsible for forming butterfly pitch angle distributions (with a flux dip at 90° pitch angle)
of energetic electrons from a few hundred keV to a few MeV (e.g., Zhao et al., 2014) through Landau reso-
nance (Hua et al., 2019; J. Li, Ni, et al., 2016; J. Li, Bortnik, et al., 2016; Ma, Li, et al., 2016b; Xiao et al.,
2015) or bounce resonance (Maldonado et al., 2016).
LI AND HUDSON 8333

The efficiency of both local heating and inward radial transport as mechanisms for producing MeV
electrons in the outer radiation belt depends on the presence of a seed population of hundreds of keV
electrons in the tail, which are transported radially inward by enhanced convection or substorm
injections, both of which are enhanced during strong solar wind driving conditions. Recent studies
have shown that this transport is highly structured azimuthally in the form of Bursty Bulk Flows
(Angelopoulos et al., 1992), which have been reproduced in models ranging from empirical magnetic
fields with self‐consistent electric fields (Gabrielse et al., 2017) to MHD (Wiltberger et al., 2015) and
MHD‐test particle simulations (Eshetu et al., 2019; Li, Hudson, et al., 2015; Sorathia et al., 2018). Rapid
transport of the seed electron population from the tail may be highly structured azimuthally in Bursty
Bulk Flows, as an example shown in Figure 13. Enhanced convection transports both the source popula-
tion of tens of keV electrons which excite whistler mode chorus on the dawnside (e.g., W. Li et al., 2008)
shown schematically in Figure 4, and the seed population of 100 s of keV electrons, which are most effi-
ciently accelerated by chorus waves (e.g., Horne & Thorne, 1998; Thorne et al., 2013a). Realistic and
dynamic seed electron populations are found to be critical for accurately modeling radiation belt electron
dynamics (e.g., Boyd et al., 2014; Jaynes et al., 2015; Tu et al., 2014).
3.2. EMIC Waves

EMIC waves are intense electromagnetic emissions, which typically occur in distinct frequency bands below
ion cyclotron frequencies (Engebretson et al., 2002; Erlandson & Ukhorskiy, 2001; Fraser et al., 2010; Min
et al., 2012; Usanova et al., 2008), and sometimes exhibit discrete, coherent structures (e.g., Engebretson
et al., 2015; Nakamura et al., 2014; Pickett et al., 2010). EMIC waves are known to play an important role
in precipitating energetic electrons into the upper atmosphere through pitch angle scattering (Jordanova
et al., 2008; Kersten et al., 2014; Li et al., 2007; Miyoshi et al., 2008; Shprits et al., 2016, 2017; Su et al.,
2017; Summers & Thorne, 2003; Thorne & Kennel, 1971; Usanova et al., 2014; Xiang et al., 2017; Zhang
et al., 2016). A number of multisatellite conjunction analyses provided direct evidence of energetic electron
precipitation driven by EMIC waves (Blum et al., 2013; Capannolo et al., 2018; Z. Li, Millan, et al., 2014;
Miyoshi et al., 2008; Qin et al., 2018). EMIC‐driven precipitation loss may be highly localized, as shown
by the measurements from the Balloon Array for Radiation belt Relativistic Electron Losses (BARREL)
and LEO satellites, even when waves are broadly detected (Blum et al., 2015; Capannolo et al., 2019;
Woodger et al., 2018). The evolution of electron PSD also exhibits the deepening minima at relativistic elec-
tron energies, indicating localized pitch angle scattering driven by EMIC waves (e.g., Capannolo et al., 2018;
Shprits et al., 2017; Turner, Angelopoulos, Morley, et al., 2014; Xiang et al., 2017). Figure 14 shows an exam-
ple of electron PSD evolution (Shprits et al., 2017), where the deepening minimum in PSD is evident for
higher energies (3,500 MeV/G), but not for lower energies (700 MeV/G), which is consistent with the tradi-
tional understanding of effective pitch angle scattering loss at higher energies (greater than a few MeV) due
to EMIC waves. By statistically analyzing 4 years of electron PSD data from Van Allen Probes, Xiang et al.
(2018) found that EMIC wave scattering is the dominant dropout mechanism at low L* (< ~4.5), whereas
dropouts at high L* (> ~4.5) are due to a combination of EMIC wave scattering and magnetopause shadow-
ing effect aided by outward radial diffusion. Although EMIC waves are responsible for driving relativistic
electron loss mainly below ~60° of equatorial pitch angles (Kersten et al., 2014; Summers & Thorne, 2003;
Usanova et al., 2014), the combined effect of EMIC waves and whistler mode waves, including plasma-
spheric hiss, whistler mode waves in plumes, and chorus, can further deplete energetic electrons which mir-
ror near the magnetic equator (Li et al., 2007; Mourenas et al., 2016; Shprits et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017).
The energy of electrons, which can be lost into the upper atmosphere due to EMIC‐driven pitch angle scat-
tering, depends on various parameters including the ratio of plasma frequency to electron cyclotron fre-
quency (fpe/fce), cold ion composition, and wave frequency spectrum (e.g., Albert, 2003; Li et al., 2007;
Summers & Thorne, 2003), explaining why electron precipitation is observed with EMIC waves in conjunc-
tion studies only ~20% of the time (Qin et al., 2018). The minimum energy of radiation belt electrons subject
to efficient EMIC‐driven pitch angle scattering (Emin) is previously found to be larger than ~2 MeV (e.g.,
Jordanova et al., 2008; Meredith et al., 2003) but sometimes could extend to a few hundred keV when fpe/
fce is relatively large and wave frequency is close to the ion cyclotron frequency based on the cold plasma
theory (e.g., Li et al., 2007; Ukhorskiy et al., 2010). However, warm plasma effects caused by the presence
of ring current ions (He+ and H+) account for wave damping near the ion cyclotron frequency, thus
LI AND HUDSON 8334

Figure 13. Snapshots of the MHD‐test particle simulations of Bursty Bulk Flow injections driven by idealized solar wind
input. The red circle is geosynchronous orbit. Inward radial transport is seen to be azimuthally localized in dipolarization
flux bundles with energization due both to drift and gyrobetatron acceleration. This figure is adapted from Eshetu et al.
(2019).
increasing Emin to >1 MeV (Chen et al., 2011; Silin et al., 2011). Interestingly, recent satellite observations
indicate that Emin could be lower than previously thought (Clilverd et al., 2015; Hendry et al., 2017;
Rodger et al., 2015). In particular, Hendry et al. (2017) reported that the dominant energy of the peak
precipitating electron flux is ~300 keV with only 11% probability of having peak energy over 1–4 MeV.
Nonresonant scattering by EMIC waves, due to the spatial edge associated with EMIC wave packets, is
suggested to potentially lower Emin down to a few hundred keV (Chen et al., 2016), which may explain
the observed Emin peaking at ~300 keV. Furthermore, bounce resonance scattering by EMIC waves is
suggested to play a role in shaping ~10–100 keV electron dynamics (Blum et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2018),
while their quantitative role in electron precipitation loss needs further investigation (e.g., Denton
et al., 2019).
3.3. Other Nonlinear Waves

Time domain structures (TDS) are packets of electric field spikes, which have a duration of hundreds of
microseconds and contain a local parallel electric field (e.g., Mozer et al., 2015, 2014). TDS frequently occur
in the Earth's inner magnetosphere particularly near plasma boundaries (e.g., Malaspina et al., 2015).
Parallel electric fields in TDS can accelerate energetic electrons from 10–100 eV to keV energies
(Artemyev, Vasiliev, et al., 2014; Mozer et al., 2014; Osmane & Pulkkinen, 2014) or even hundreds of
kkeV (Mozer et al., 2016) and produce field‐aligned pitch angle distribution of energetic electrons, consistent
with the Van Allen Probes observation (Mozer et al., 2015; Vasko et al., 2015). Therefore, TDS provide an
additional seed electron population that can be further accelerated to MeV energies by chorus waves (e.g.,
Horne et al., 2005; Ma, Mourenas, et al., 2016). Although electron scattering rates driven by TDS may not
be evaluated by the standard quasilinear theory, analytical formulae have been developed to describe local
LI AND HUDSON 8335

Figure 14. (a) Time evolution of phase space density (PSD) for relativistic (μ = 700 MeV/G) and (b) ultrarelativistic elec-
1/2
trons (μ = 3,500 MeV/G) for K = 0.1 G RE, measured by RBSP‐B. (c and d) The corresponding energy as a function of L*
for the given μ. This figure is adapted from Shprits et al. (2017).
electron scattering by TDS (Vasko et al., 2017). Calculated scattering rates from TDS are found to drive pitch
angle scattering of >5 keV electrons and potentially provide efficient electron heating (Vasko et al., 2017).
Broadband electromagnetic oscillations with large‐amplitude electric fields are often observed in the inner
magnetosphere (Chaston et al., 2015) and may occur as kinetic field line resonances on the closed field lines
(Chaston et al., 2014; Lotko et al., 1998). The effect of these interactions on particle transport can be evalu-
ated from a quasilinear approach. Simulations based on quasilinear theory indicate that kinetic field line
resonances can drive radial transport of trapped electrons from ~100 keV to several MeV, thus potentially
leading to acceleration or dropout of energetic electrons in the outer radiation belt through drift‐bounce
resonance (Chaston et al., 2017).
3.4. Nonlinear Wave‐Particle Interactions

Although quasilinear theory has been used to reproduce the essential features of the observed radiation belt
electron variation, there is growing evidence that nonlinear interactions between waves and electrons are
potentially important for affecting electron dynamics in the heart of the outer radiation belt (e.g., Albert,
2002; Bortnik et al., 2008; Foster et al., 2017; Inan et al., 1978; Omura et al., 2007, 2015; Omura & Zhao,
2012; Yoon, 2011). As discussed in sections 3.1 and 3.2, magnetospheric waves, such as chorus and EMIC
waves, often exhibit coherent, discrete structures (e.g., Pickett et al., 2010; Santolík et al., 2003), for which
the quasilinear approach may not be valid. In contrast to the quasilinear approach, where particles experi-
ence stochastic motion by interacting with incoherent small‐amplitude waves, the nonlinear approach
involves interactions switching from being stochastic to deterministic within a bounce period when indivi-
dual particles are locked in phase with the coherent waves. These nonlinear effects include phase trapping
that leads to a rapid, dramatic increase in pitch angle and energy, and phase bunching effects, accounting for
decreased pitch angle and energy (e.g., Albert, 2002; Bortnik et al., 2008; Inan et al., 1978). Nonlinear inter-
actions between the rising tone chorus and energetic electrons are suggested to lead to the electron micro-
bursts observed by various LEO satellites (e.g., Breneman et al., 2017; Hikishima et al., 2010; Lorentzen
et al., 2001; O'Brien et al., 2004; Shumko et al., 2018).
LI AND HUDSON 8336

Figure 15. Test particle simulation results for chorus waves with or without amplitude modulation. (a) An observed
chorus wave element and (b) the modeled wave including amplitude modulation. (c) The amplitude of Bx and By com-
ponents of the chorus wave element, and (d) expanded view during the period within two dashed vertical lines in panel (c).
(e) Test particle simulation result showing electron pitch angle distribution in response to a constant amplitude and (f)
realistic wave amplitude modulation. This figure is adapted from Tao, Bortnik, Thorne, et al. (2012).
The nonlinear scattering of particles due to a single frequency whistler mode wave has a long history of
investigation (e.g., Albert, 2002; Bell, 1984; Bortnik et al., 2008; Inan et al., 1978; Omura et al., 2007). The
comparison between quasilinear theory and test particle simulation result for interactions between whistler
mode waves and electrons indicates that for small wave amplitudes, the diffusion coefficients from test
particle simulation and quasilinear theory agree closely, whereas for large‐amplitude waves, the diffusion
coefficients from the test particle simulation saturate and are inconsistent with the quasilinear diffusion
coefficients (Bortnik et al., 2016; Tao et al., 2011; Tao, Bortnik, Albert, & Thorne, 2012). Test particle
simulations with a whistler mode wave, which has a single frequency and a constant amplitude, show that
a small fraction of energetic electrons can be accelerated to approximately MeV through a singlephase
trapping process (Albert, 2002; Bortnik et al., 2008; Omura et al., 2007). However, realistic chorus wave pack-
ets are found to exhibit rising or falling tones with subpacket structures (e.g., Li et al., 2012; Santolík et al.,
2003, 2014), and most of them have short wave packet length (<10 wave periods; X. Zhang, Thorne, et al.,
2018). When realistic wave packets with amplitude modulation or the features of short wave packets are
incorporated into test particle simulations, the nonlinear effects caused by single‐frequency waves with a
constant wave amplitude are reduced, since amplitude modulation and short wave packets cause detrapping
of trapped resonant electrons (Bortnik, Thorne, et al., 2016; Mourenas et al., 2018; Omura & Zhao, 2012; Tao,
Bortnik, Thorne, et al., 2012; Zhang, Thorne, et al., 2018). Figure 15 shows the comparison of test particle
simulation results with and without including realistic chorus wave amplitude modulation (Bortnik,
Thorne, et al., 2016; Tao, Bortnik, Thorne, et al., 2012). The phase trapping effects of electrons in response
to the realistic wave packet (Figure 15f) becomes much weaker in terms of both the number of electrons
and the degree of scattering compared to that of a wave with a constant wave amplitude (Figure 15e). Tao
et al. (2014) used a series of realistic chorus wave elements to compare electron distribution functions
from test particle simulations and quasilinear simulation and found that in addition to chorus wave
amplitudes, the discreteness parameter plays an important role in determining the effectiveness of
nonlinear interactions.
LI AND HUDSON 8337

Figure 16. A schematic illustration summarizing the acceleration and loss processes of outer radiation belt electrons. (top)
3‐D structure of the Van Allen radiation belts and the twin Van Allen Probes. (middle) Physical processes leading to
radiation belt electron acceleration and transport. (bottom) Physical mechanisms driving radiation belt electron loss and
transport. The figure in the top panel was produced by Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. EMIC = Electromagnetic Ion Cyclotron.
The nonlinear interactions between EMIC waves and radiation belt electrons have been under active inves-
tigation over the past decade. Albert and Bortnik (2009) developed analytical expressions to describe electron
scattering caused by a single‐frequency EMIC wave with a constant wave amplitude (2 nT) and showed that
the nonlinear interactions, particularly phase bunching, typically lead to advection toward larger pitch
angles, which is expected to reduce the overall loss rate of trapped radiation belt electrons. However, other
studies (Kubota et al., 2015; Omura & Zhao, 2013) suggested that nonlinear interactions caused by rising
tone EMIC waves account for rapid precipitation of relativistic electrons from hundreds of keV to several
MeV through phase trapping, which guide high pitch angle electrons to lower pitch angles within a second.
More recently, Kubota and Omura (2017) found that the combined effects of nonlinear wave trapping and
scattering at low pitch angle due to interaction with rising tone EMIC waves with wave amplitude variation
cause efficient relativistic electron precipitation within several seconds. Moreover, using a Markov chain
description of stochastic processes, Zheng et al. (2019) demonstrated that electron loss rate is not signifi-
cantly affected by phase bunching or phase trapping due to broadband EMIC waves, while for strong
EMIC waves electron flux is larger near the loss cone than the quasilinear theory calculation, and peculiar
negative PSD slopes can develop inside the loss cone. As discussed above, the nonlinear interactions between
EMIC waves and energetic electrons have not been conclusive yet and need further investigations.
LI AND HUDSON 8338

4. Summary and Outstanding Challenges

Over the Van Allen Probes era, significant advances have been made in understanding and modeling
the physical processes controlling the Earth's radiation belt electron dynamics. Figure 16 shows a sche-
matic illustration summarizing our current understanding of outer radiation belt electron acceleration
and losses. Electron injections due to substorms or enhanced convection, inward radial diffusion, and
time domain structures play an important role in providing seed electron populations (~100 s keV),
which can be further accelerated to MeV through local acceleration. Rapid transport of seed electron
population from the tail may be highly structured azimuthally in bursty bulk flows, as shown in
MHD‐test particle simulations in Figure 13. The most efficient local heating is provided by whistler
mode chorus waves through diffusive or nondiffusive scattering, which leads to growing radial peaks
in electron phase space density in the heart of the outer radiation belt. Subsequently, radial diffusion
due to ULF waves plays an essential role in redistributing electrons, thus accounting for further accel-
eration (deceleration), if the transport is directed radially inward (outward). Regarding the loss mechan-
isms, in association with the increase in solar wind dynamic pressure, which compresses the
magnetopause location closer to the Earth, the trapped radiation belt electrons are lost to the magneto-
pause, and create a negative radial gradient in electron phase space density. The following outward
radial diffusion caused by ULF waves further depletes the radiation belt electrons by transporting them
from lower to higher radial distance. Local precipitation loss due to pitch angle scattering of various
magnetospheric waves (e.g., EMIC waves, chorus, hiss, etc.) is important for precipitating trapped radia-
tion belt electrons into the upper atmosphere. The combination of magnetopause shadowing and preci-
pitation loss leads to efficient dropouts of radiation belt electrons, creating multiple localized peaks in
electron phase space density. In the above localized electron scattering processes, nonlinear wave‐
particle interactions are potentially important for causing enhanced electron acceleration or precipita-
tion. The inner zone electron population is periodically refreshed by the transport of electrons from
the outer zone into the inner zone, so‐called slot‐penetrating events and slow inward radial diffusion
(e.g., Selesnick et al., 2016; Su et al., 2016; Turner et al., 2017). Recent studies (e.g., Li, Selesnick,
et al., 2017), however, indicate that the decay of low/thermal energy neutrons, which are the majority
of the total albedo neutrons produced by cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere, contributes to
energetic electrons in the inner belt and acts as the dominant source of energetic electrons at the inner
edge of the inner belt.
In the Van Allen Probes era, the importance of local heating has been widely accepted, especially dur-
ing active times, while radial transport remains a successful paradigm for long‐term behavior between
intervals of strong solar wind driving. New models that combine both have been successful in reprodu-
cing the combined effects of both types of acceleration and loss (e.g., Ma et al., 2018; Tu et al., 2014).
The accuracy of such models for specific events depends on a variety of inputs including (1) radial dif-
fusion coefficients, which can be specified by ground magnetometer measurements of ULF wave power
in the millihertz frequency range (e.g., Ozeke et al., 2014) and MHD simulations driven by measured
upstream solar wind input (e.g., Z. Li, Hudson, et al., 2016); (2) chorus wave power specification over
L* and MLT. The latter has been specified using electron precipitation measurements by the current
suite of LEO satellites (POES/MetOp). The next generation of such spacecraft will not carry sensors
to provide such measurements; however, this critical data set, which provides a proxy for whistler mode
chorus wave power at multiple longitudes (Chen et al., 2014; Li, Ni, et al., 2013; Ni et al., 2014), may be
replaced in the era of CubeSat technology, much like global imaging has been. Broader spatial coverage
as has been achieved with balloon platforms like BARREL (Millan et al., 2013) or multiple LEO satel-
lites can illuminate the more spatially localized precipitation due to EMIC waves (Capannolo et al.,
2019; Woodger et al., 2018), highly sensitive to background plasma density and ion composition
(Albert, 2003; Li et al., 2007; Min et al., 2015; Summers & Thorne, 2003).
Data assimilation has a potential role to play in future radiation belt modeling (Kellerman et al., 2014; Koller
et al., 2007; Kondrashov et al., 2011; Reeves et al., 2012; Shprits et al., 2013, 2015) as more data sets become
available to constrain the 3‐D diffusion model (equation (2)). The availability of measurements from the
Global Positioning System constellation (Morley et al., 2016), for example, provides a much higher time
cadence than Van Allen Probes, useful for determining the outer radial boundary condition on PSD
(Olifer et al., 2018). Diffusive models require inner and outer boundary conditions in each dimension and
LI AND HUDSON 8339

an initial profile (radial, angular, and energy spectra). Therefore, the high quality of the energy and pitch
angle measurements made by Van Allen Probes has enabled the transition to PSD versus flux as the data pro-
duct directly becomes available to incorporate into solutions of equation ((2)).
Machine learning techniques are potentially very useful to specify and predict the state of the Earth's magne-
tospheric environment by taking advantage of the rich source of multiple satellite data (e.g., Bortnik et al.,
2016; Bortnik et al., 2018; Chu et al., 2017a, 2017b; Ling et al., 2010). The global, time‐varying distributions
of plasma density and magnetospheric waves were constructed using machine learning techniques (e.g.,
Bortnik et al., 2018; Bortnik, Thorne, et al., 2016; Chu et al., 2017a, 2017b; Zhelavskaya et al., 2017), and were
demonstrated to capture their essential dynamics. However, the machine learning techniques alone are
insufficient for some physical quantities (e.g., ultrarelativistic electron fluxes), which are a data‐starved envir-
onment (Bortnik et al., 2018). Therefore, it is important to combine the machine learning techniques with
physics‐based models in novel ways to specify and predict the state of the radiation belt electrons over a broad
range of energies and regions.
Although significant advances have been made in understanding nonlinear interactions between magneto-
spheric waves and particles, it is still challenging to properly incorporate the nonlinear effects into global
radiation belt modeling. Modeling nonlinear wave‐particle interactions requires the inclusion of nondiffu-
sive terms into a general kinetic equation to describe the evolution of particle distribution (Artemyev,
Neishtadt, et al., 2016; Artemyev et al., 2018; Artemyev, Vasiliev, et al., 2014; Kubota & Omura, 2018;
Mourenas et al., 2018; Omura et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2019). Global radiation belt models will need to find
innovative ways of including the effects of realistic waves, particularly the short, intense wave packets that
are prevalent in the outer radiation belt, into global radiation belt simulations.
The incorporation of nonlinear wave effects including time domain structures into global models remains as
a challenge. Different from quasilinear diffusion simulation for chorus waves, the electron nonlinear inter-
action with TDS cannot be described in quasilinear theory, because the single interaction leads to an electron
energy change comparable to the initial energy (Artemyev, Agapitov, et al., 2014). One possible way to incor-
porate this nonlinear interaction into the Fokker‐Planck simulation is to determine the probabilities of par-
ticle trapping by TDS and introduce an additional operator into the Fokker‐Planck equation (Artemyev,
Agapitov, et al., 2014).
Overall, in spite of major advances that have been made over the Van Allen Probes era, there still remain
outstanding open questions in radiation belt physics and challenges in radiation belt modeling. In addition
to some of these challenges discussed above, another big challenge is how to couple radiation belt models
into the global geospace models for space weather forecasting by properly incorporating the coupling of
radiation belt physics with other systems (e.g., solar wind, tail plasmasheet, plasmasphere, and ionosphere).
We hope that future investigations will address these open questions and outstanding challenges by combin-
Acknowledgments ing multisatellite data sets with ground‐based resources (e.g., the SuperMAG database of worldwide ground
The authors would like to gratefully magnetometer data, http://supermag.jhuapl.edu/) and the state‐of‐the‐art modeling tools, such as those
acknowledge Richard M. Thorne (25 available for runs on demand which are continuously updated at the Community Coordinated Modeling
July 1942 to 12 July 2019), who was a
distinguished professor at UCLA and a Center (https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/). The rapid evolution of computational resources will enable the incor-
pioneering scientist in radiation belt poration of new physical processes only now under investigation into future global models. Given the poten-
physics. W. L. acknowledges the NASA tial Space Weather impact of radiation belt variability on technological systems, these new radiation belt
Grants NNX17AD15G, NNX17AG07G,
NNX15AI96G, 80NSSC19K0845, the models are expected to play a critical role in our technological society in the future much as meteorological
AFOSR Grant FA9550‐15‐1‐0158, the models do today.
NSF Grants AGS‐1723588 and AGS‐
1847818, and the Alfred P. Sloan
Research Fellowship FG‐2018‐10936.
Contribution from M. K. H. was
supported by NASA Grant References
NNX15AF54G and JHU/APL under Agapitov, O., Artemyev, A., Krasnoselskikh, V., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., Mourenas, D., Breuillard, H., et al. (2013). Statistics of whistler‐mode
NASA Contracts NNN16AA09T and waves in the outer radiation belt: Cluster STAFF‐SA measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 3407–3420.
NNN06AA01C to U. M. N. and U. N. H. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50312
with subcontracts to Dartmouth Agapitov, O. V., Artemyev, A. V., Mourenas, D., Mozer, F. S., & Krasnoselskikh, V. (2015). Nonlinear local parallel acceleration of electrons
College. Since this is a review paper, no through Landau trapping by oblique whistler mode waves in the outer radiation belt. Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 10,140–10,149.
data were directly used to produce new https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066887
figures other than adopting figures from Agapitov, O. V., Mourenas, D., Artemyev, A. V., Mozer, F. S., Hospodarsky, G., Bonnell, J., & Krasnoselskikh, V. (2018). Synthetic empirical
previously published papers, which are chorus wave model from combined Van Allen Probes and Cluster statistics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 297–314.
cited accordingly. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024843
LI AND HUDSON 8340

Albert, J. M. (2002). Nonlinear interaction of outer zone electrons with VLF waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 29(8), 1275. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2001GL013941
Albert, J. M. (2003). Evaluation of quasi‐linear diffusion coefficients for EMIC waves in a multispecies plasma. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 108(A6), 1249. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009792
Albert, J. M. (2005). Evaluation of quasi‐linear diffusion coefficients for whistler mode waves in a plasma with arbitrary density ratio.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, A03218. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010844
Albert, J. M. (2017). Quasi‐linear diffusion coefficients for highly oblique whistler mode waves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space
Physics, 122, 5339–5354. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024124
Albert, J. M., & Bortnik, J. (2009). Nonlinear interaction of radiation belt electrons with electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves. Geophysical
Research Letters, 36, L12110. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038904
Albert, J. M., Meredith, N. P., & Horne, R. B. (2009). Three‐dimensional diffusion simulation of outer radiation belt electrons during the 9
October 1990 magnetic storm. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, A09214. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014336
Albert, J. M., Selesnick, R. S., Morley, S. K., Henderson, M. G., & Kellerman, A. C. (2018). Calculation of last closed drift shells for the 2013
GEM radiation belt challenge events. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 9597–9611. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018JA025991
Ali, A. F., Malaspina, D. M., Elkington, S. R., Jaynes, A. N., Chan, A. A., Wygant, J., & Kletzing, C. A. (2016). Electric and magnetic radial
diffusion coefficients using the Van Allen probes data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 9586–9607. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2016JA023002
Angelopoulos, V. (2008). The THEMIS mission. Space Science Reviews, 141(1‐4), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214‐008‐9336‐1
Angelopoulos, V., Baumjohann, W., Kennel, C. F., Coroniti, F. V., Kivelson, M. G., Pellat, R., et al. (1992). Bursty bulk flows in the inner
central plasma sheet. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(A4), 4027–4039. https://doi.org/10.1029/91JA02701
Artemyev, A., Agapitov, O., Mourenas, D., Krasnoselskikh, V., Shastun, V., & Mozer, F. (2016). Oblique whistler‐mode waves in the Earth's
inner magnetosphere: Energy distribution, origins, and role in radiation belt dynamics. Space Science Reviews, 200, 261–355. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11214‐016‐0252‐5
Artemyev, A. V., Agapitov, O. V., Mozer, F., & Krasnoselskikh, V. (2014). Thermal electron acceleration by localized bursts of electric field
in the radiation belts. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 5734–5739. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061248
Artemyev, A. V., Neishtadt, A. I., Vasiliev, A. A., & Mourenas, D. (2016). Kinetic equation for nonlinear resonant wave‐particle interaction.
Physics of Plasmas, 23(9), 090701. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4962526
Artemyev, A. V., Neishtadt, A. I., Vasiliev, A. A., & Mourenas, D. (2018). Long‐term evolution of electron distribution function due to
nonlinear resonant interaction with whistler mode waves. Journal of Plasma Physics, 84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022377818000260
Artemyev, A. V., Vasiliev, A. A., Mourenas, D., Agapitov, O. V., Krasnoselskikh, V., Boscher, D., & Rolland, G. (2014). Fast transport of
resonant electrons in phase space due to nonlinear trapping by whistler waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 5727–5733. https://doi.
org/10.1002/2014GL061380
Baker, D., Kanekal, S. G., Hoxie, V. C., Batiste, S., Bolton, M., Li, X., et al. (2013). The relativistic electron‐proton telescope (REPT)
instrument on board the Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP) spacecraft: Characterization of Earth's radiation belt high‐energy particle
populations. Space Science Reviews, 179(1–4), 337–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214‐012‐9950‐9
Baker, D. N. (2001). Satellite anomalies due to space storms. In I. A. Daglis (Ed.), Space storms and space weather hazards, NATO Science
Series (Series II: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry) (Vol. 38, pp. 285–311). Dordrecht: Springer.
Baker, D. N., Erickson, P. J., Fennell, J. F., Foster, J. C., Jaynes, A. N., & Verronen, P. T. (2018). Space Science Reviews, 214, 17. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11214‐017‐0452‐7
Baker, D. N., Hoxie, V., Zhao, H., Jaynes, A. N., Kanekal, S., Li, X., & Elkington, S. (2019). Multiyear measurements of radiation belt
electrons: Acceleration, transport, and loss. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 2588–2602. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018JA026259
Baker, D. N., Jaynes, A. N., Hoxie, V. C., Thorne, R. M., Foster, J. C., Li, X., et al. (2014). An impenetrable barrier to ultrarelativistic elec-
trons in the Van Allen radiation belts. Nature, 515(7528), 531–534. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13956
Baker, D. N., Kanekal, S. G., Hoxie, V. C., Henderson, M. G., Li, X., Spence, H. E., et al. (2013). A long‐lived relativistic electron storage ring
embedded in Earth's outer Van Allen belt. Science, 340(6129), 186–190. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1233518
Baker, D. N., Kanekal, S. G., Li, X., Monk, S. P., Goldstein, J., & Burch, J. L. (2004). An extreme distortion of the Van Allen belt arising from
the “Halloween” solar storm in 2003. Nature, 432(7019), 878–881. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03116
Baker, D. N., & Panasyuk, M. (2017). Discovering Earth's radiation belts. Physics Today, 70(12), 46. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3791
Bell, T. F. (1984). The nonlinear gyroresonance interaction between energetic electrons and coherent VLF waves propagating at an arbi-
trary angle with respect to the Earth's magnetic field. Journal of Geophysical Research, 89(A2), 905–918. https://doi.org/10.1029/
JA089iA02p00905
Benacquista, R., Boscher, D., Rochel, S., & Maget, V. (2018). Variations of the electron fluxes in the terrestrial radiation belts due to the
impact of corotating interaction regions and interplanetary coronal mass ejections. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123,
1191–1199. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024796
Blake, J. B., Carranza, P. A., Claudepierre, S. G., Clemmons, J. H., Crain, W. R., Dotan, Y., et al. (2013). The Magnetic Electron Ion
Spectrometer (MagEIS) instruments aboard the Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP) spacecraft. Space Science Reviews, 179(1‐4), 3–27.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214‐012‐9908‐y
Blake, J. B., Kolasinski, W. A., Fillius, R. W., & Mullen, E. G. (1992). Injection of electrons and protons with energies of tens of MeV into L <
3 on 24 March 1991. Geophysical Research Letters, 19(8), 821–824. https://doi.org/10.1029/92GL00624
Bloom, R. M., & Singer, H. J. (1995). Diurnal trends in geomagnetic noise power in the Pc 2 through Pc 5 bands at low geomagnetic lati-
tudes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 100(A8), 14,943–14,953. https://doi.org/10.1029/95JA01332
Blum, L. W., Artemyev, A., Agapitov, O., Mourenas, D., Boardsen, S., & Schiller, Q. (2019). EMIC wave‐driven bounce resonance scattering
of energetic electrons in the inner magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 2484–2496. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2018JA026427
Blum, L. W., Halford, A., Millan, R. M., Bonnell, J. W., Goldstein, J., Usanova, M., et al. (2015). Observations of coincidence EMIC wave
activity and duskside energetic electron precipitation on 18–19 January 2013. Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 5727–5735. https://doi.
org/10.1002/2015GL065245
Blum, L. W., Schiller, Q., Li, X., Millan, R., Halford, A., & Woodger, L. (2013). New conjunctive CubeSat and balloon measurements
to quantify rapid energetic electron precipitation. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 5833–5837. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2013GL058546
LI AND HUDSON 8341

Boardsen, S. A., Hospodarsky, G. B., Kletzing, C. A., Engebretson, M. J., Pfaff, R. F., Wygant, J. R., et al. (2016). Survey of the frequency
dependent latitudinal distribution of the fast magnetosonic wave mode from Van Allen Probes electric and magnetic field instrument
and integrated science waveform receiver plasma wave analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 2902–2921. https://
doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021844
Borovsky, J. E., & Denton, M. H. (2006). Differences between CME‐driven storms and CIR‐driven storms. Journal of Geophysical Research,
121, A07S08. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JA011447
Bortnik, J., Chu, X., Ma, Q., Li, W., Zhang, X., Thorne, R. M., et al. (2018). Artificial neural networks for determining magnetospheric
conditions. In Machine Learning Techniques for Space Weather (pp. 279–300). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐811788‐
0.00011‐1
Bortnik, J., Li, W., Thorne, R. M., & Angelopoulos, V. (2016). A unified approach to inner magnetospheric state prediction. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 2423–2430. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021733
Bortnik, J., & Thorne, R. M. (2007). The dual role of ELF/VLF chorus waves in the acceleration and precipitation of radiation belt electrons.
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar ‐ Terrestrial Physics, 69, 378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2006.05.030
Bortnik, J., & Thorne, R. M. (2010). Transit time scattering of energetic electrons due to equatorially confined magnetosonic waves. Journal
of Geophysical Research, 115, A07213. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015283
Bortnik, J., Thorne, R. M., & Inan, U. S. (2008). Nonlinear interaction of energetic electrons with large amplitude chorus. Geophysical
Bortnik, J., Thorne, R. M., Li, W., & Tao, X. (2016). Chorus waves in geospace and their influence on radiation belt dynamics in
waves, particles and storms in Geospace. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/
9780198705246.003.0009
Bortnik, J., Thorne, R. M., Ni, B., & Li, J. (2015). Analytical approximation of transit time scattering due to magnetosonic waves.
Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 1318–1325. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062710
Boyd, A. J., Spence, H. E., Claudepierre, S. G., Fennell, J. F., Blake, J. B., Baker, D. N., et al. (2014). Quantifying the radiation belt seed
population in the March 17, 2013 electron acceleration event. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 2275–2281. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2014GL059626
Boyd, A. J., Turner, D. L., Reeves, G. D., Spence, H. E., Baker, D. N., & Blake, J. B. (2018). What causes radiation belt enhancements: A
survey of the Van Allen Probes Era. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 5253–5259. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077699
Brautigam, D., & Albert, J. (2000). Radial diffusion analysis of outer radiation belt electrons during the October 9, 1990, magnetic storm.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(A1), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA900344
Breneman, A. W., Crew, A., Sample, J., Klumpar, D., Johnson, A., Agapitov, O., et al. (2017). Observations directly linking relativistic
electron microbursts to whistler mode chorus: Van Allen Probes and FIREBIRD II. Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 11,265–11,272.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075001
Brizard, A. J., & Chan, A. A. (2001). Relativistic bounce‐averaged quasilinear diffusion equation for low‐frequency electromagnetic fluc-
tuations. Physics of Plasmas, 8, 4762–4771. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1408623
Burtis, W. J., & Helliwell, R. A. (1969). Banded chorus—A new type of VLF radiation observed in the magnetosphere by OGO 1 and OGO 3.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 74(11), 3002–3010. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA074i011p03002
Burton, R. K., & Holzer, R. E. (1974). The origin and propagation of chorus in the outer magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research,
79(7), 1014–1023. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA079i007p01014
Capannolo, L., Li, W., Ma, Q., Shen, X.‐C., Zhang, X.‐J., Redmon, R. J., et al. (2019). Energetic electron precipitation: Multi‐event analysis of
its spatial extent during EMIC wave activity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 2466–2483. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018JA026291
Capannolo, L., Li, W., Ma, Q., Zhang, X.‐J., Redmon, R. J., Rodriguez, J. V., et al. (2018). Understanding the driver of energetic electron
precipitation using coordinated multisatellite measurements. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 6755–6765. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018GL078604
Cattell, C., Wygant, J. R., Goetz, K., Kersten, K., Kellogg, P. J., von Rosenvinge, T., et al. (2008). Discovery of very large amplitude whistler‐
mode waves in Earth's radiation belts. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L01105. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032009
Chan, K.‐W., & Holzer, R. E. (1976). ELF hiss associated with plasma density enhancements in the outer magnetosphere. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 81(13), 2267–2274. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA081i013p02267
Chaston, C. C., Bonnell, J. W., Kletzing, C. A., Hospodarsky, G. B., Wygant, J. R., & Smith, C. W. (2015). Broadband low‐frequency elec-
tromagnetic waves in the inner magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 8603–8615. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2015JA021690
Chaston, C. C., Bonnell, J. W., Wygant, J. R., Mozer, F., Bale, S. D., Kersten, K., et al. (2014). Observations of kinetic scale field line reso-
nances. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058507
Chaston, C. C., Bonnell, J. W., Wygant, J. R., Reeves, G. D., Baker, D. N., Melrose, D. B., & Cairns, I. H. (2017). Radial transport of radiation
belt electrons in kinetic field‐line resonances. Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 8140–8148. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074587
Chen, A. J., & Wolf, R. A. (1972). Effects on the plasmasphere of a time varying convection electric field. Planetary and Space Science, 20,
483–509.
Chen, L., Thorne, R. M., & Bortnik, J. (2011). The controlling effect of ion temperature on EMIC wave excitation and scattering. Geophysical
Chen, L., Thorne, R. M., Bortnik, J., & Zhang, X.‐J. (2016). Nonresonant interactions of electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves with relati-
vistic electrons. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 9913–9925. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA022813
Chen, Y., Reeves, G. D., & Friedel, R. H. W. (2007). The energization of relativistic electrons in the outer Van Allen radiation belt. Nature
Physics, 3(9), 614–617. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys655
Chen, Y., Reeves, G. D., Friedel, R. H. W., & Cunningham, G. S. (2014). Global time‐dependent chorus maps from low‐Earth‐orbit electron
precipitation and Van Allen Probes data. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 755–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL059181
Choi, H.‐S., Lee, J., Cho, K.‐S., Kwak, Y.‐S., Cho, I.‐H., Park, Y.‐D., et al. (2011). Analysis of GEO spacecraft anomalies: Space weather
relationships. Space Weather, 9, S06001. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010SW000597
Christofilos, N. C. (1959). The Argus experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research, 64(8), 869–875. https://doi.org/10.1029/
JZ064i008p00869
Chu, X., Bortnik, J., Li, W., Ma, Q., Denton, R., Yue, C., et al. (2017b). A neural network model of three‐dimensional dynamic electron
density in the inner magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 9183–9197. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2017JA024464
LI AND HUDSON 8342

Chu, X. N., Bortnik, J., Li, W., Ma, Q., Angelopoulos, V., & Thorne, R. M. (2017a). Erosion and refilling of the plasmasphere during a
geomagnetic storm modeled by a neural network. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 7118–7129. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2017JA023948
Claudepierre, S. G., Mann, I. R., Takahashi, K., Fennell, J. F., Hudson, M. K., Blake, J. B., et al. (2013). Van Allen Probes observation of
localized drift resonance between poloidal mode ultra‐low frequency waves and 60 keV electrons. Geophysical Research Letters, 40,
4491–4497. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50901
Claudepierre, S. G., O'Brien, T. P., Fennell, J. F., Blake, J. B., Clemmons, J. H., Looper, M. D., et al. (2017). The hidden dynamics of rela-
tivistic electrons (0.7–1.5 MeV) in the inner zone and slot region. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 3127–3144. https://
doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023719
Claudepierre, S. G., O'Brien, T. P., Looper, M. D., Blake, J. B., Fennell, J. F., Roeder, J. L., et al. (2019). A revised look at relativistic electrons
in the Earth's inner radiation zone and slot region. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 934–951. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018JA026349
Clilverd, M. A., Duthie, R., Hardman, R., Hendry, A. T., Rodger, C. J., Raita, T., et al. (2015). Electron precipitation from EMIC
waves: A case study from 31 May 2013. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 3618–3631. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2015JA021090
Cornwall, J. M., Coroniti, F. V., & Thorne, R. M. (1970). Turbulent loss of ring current protons. Journal of Geophysical Research, 75,
4699–4709. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA075i025p04699
Crabtree, C., Tejero, E., Ganguli, G., Hospodarsky, G. B., & Kletzing, C. A. (2017). Bayesian spectral analysis of chorus
subelements from the Van Allen Probes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 6088–6106. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2016JA023547
Cully, C. M., Bonnell, J. W., & Ergun, R. E. (2008). THEMIS observations of long‐lived regions of large‐amplitude whistler waves in the
inner magnetosphere. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L17S16. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033643
Denton, R. E., Ofman, L., Shprits, Y. Y., Bortnik, J., Millan, R. M., Rodger, C. J., et al. (2019). Pitch angle scattering of sub‐MeV relativistic
electrons by electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 5610–5626. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2018JA026384
Drozdov, A. Y., Shprits, Y. Y., Orlova, K. G., Kellerman, A. C., Subbotin, D. A., Baker, D. N., et al. (2015). Energetic, relativistic, and
ultrarelativistic electrons: Comparison of long‐term VERB code simulations with Van Allen Probes measurements. Journal of
Elkington, S. R. (2006). A Review of ULF Interactions with Radiation Belt Electrons. In K. Takahashi, P. J. Chi, R. E. Denton, & R. L. Lysak
(Eds.), Magnetospheric ULF waves: Synthesis and new directions, Geophysical Monograph Series. https://doi.org/10.1029/169GM12
Elkington, S. R., Hudson, M. K., & Chan, A. A. (2003). Resonant acceleration and diffusion of outer zone electrons in an asymmetric
geomagnetic field. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(A3), 1116. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA009202
Elphic, R. C., Weiss, L. A., Thomsen, M. F., McComas, D. J., & Moldwin, M. B. (1996). Evolution of plasmaspheric ions at geosynchronous
orbit during times of high geomagnetic activity. Geophysical Research Letters, 23(16), 2189–2192. https://doi.org/10.1029/96GL02085
Engebretson, M. J., Peterson, W. K., Posch, J. L., Klatt, M. R., Anderson, B. J., Russell, C. T., et al. (2002). Observations of two types
of Pc 1–2 pulsations in the outer dayside magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(A12), 1451. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2001JA000198
Engebretson, M. J., Posch, J. L., Wygant, J. R., Kletzing, C. A., Lessard, M. R., Huang, C. L., et al. (2015). Van Allen probes, NOAA, GOES,
and ground observations of an intense EMIC wave event extending over 12 h in magnetic local time. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Space Physics, 120, 5465–5488. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021227
Erlandson, R. E., & Ukhorskiy, A. J. (2001). Observations of electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves during geomagnetic storms: Wave
occurrence and pitch angle scattering. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106(A3), 3883–3895. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JA000083
Eshetu, W. W., Lyons, J. G., Hudson, M. K., & Wiltberger, M. J. (2019). Simulations of electron energization and injection by BBFs using
high resolution LFM MHD fields. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 1222–1238. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025789
Fälthammar, C.‐G. (1965). Effects of time‐dependent electric fields on geomagnetically trapped radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research,
70(11), 2503–2516. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ070i011p02503
Fälthammar, C.‐G. (1968). Radial diffusion by violation of the third adiabatic invariant. In B. M. McCormac (Ed.), Earth's Particles and
Fields. Reinhold, New York: NATO Advanced Study Institute.
Fei, Y., Chan, A. A., Elkington, S. R., & Wiltberger, M. J. (2006). Radial diffusion and MHD particle simulations of relativistic electron
transport by ULF waves in the September 1998 storm. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, A12209. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2005JA011211
Fennell, J. F., Claudepierre, S. G., Blake, J. B., O'Brien, T. P., Clemmons, J. H., Baker, D. N., et al. (2015). Van Allen Probes show that the
inner radiation zone contains no MeV electrons: ECT/MagEIS data. Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 1283–1289. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2014GL062874
Fok, M.‐C., Buzulukova, N. Y., Chen, S.‐H., Glocer, A., Nagai, T., Valek, P., & Perez, J. D. (2014). The comprehensive inner magnetosphere‐
ionosphere model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 7522–7540. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020239
Fok, M.‐C., Horne, R. B., Meredith, N. P., & Glauert, S. A. (2008). Radiation belt environment model: Application to space weather now-
casting. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, A03S08. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JA012558
Foster, J. C., Erickson, P. J., Baker, D. N., Jaynes, A. N., Mishin, E. V., Fennel, J. F., et al. (2016). Observations of the impenetrable barrier,
the plasmapause, and the VLF bubble during the 17 March 2015 storm. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 5537–5548.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA022509
Foster, J. C., Erickson, P. J., Omura, Y., Baker, D. N., Kletzing, C. A., & Claudepierre, S. G. (2017). Van Allen Probes observations of prompt
MeV radiation belt electron acceleration in nonlinear interactions with VLF chorus. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122,
324–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023429
Foster, J. C., Wygant, J. R., Hudson, M. K., Boyd, A. J., Baker, D. N., Erickson, P. J., & Spence, H. E. (2015). Shock‐induced prompt rela-
tivistic electron acceleration in the inner magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 1661–1674. https://doi.
org/10.1002/2014JA020642
Fraser, B. J., Grew, R. S., Morley, S. K., Green, J. C., Singer, H. J., Loto'aniu, T. M., & Thomsen, M. F. (2010). Storm time observations of
electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves at geosynchronous orbit: GOES results. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, A05208. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2009JA014516
Friedel, R. H. W., Reeves, G. D., & Obara, T. (2002). Relativistic electron dynamics in the inner magnetosphere—A review. Journal of
Atmospheric and Solar ‐ Terrestrial Physics, 64, 265.
LI AND HUDSON 8343

Gabrielse, C., Angelopoulos, V., Harris, C., Artemyev, A., Kepko, L., & Runov, A. (2017). Extensive electron transport and energization via
multiple, localized dipolarizing flux bundles. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 5059–5076. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2017JA023981
Gao, X., Li, W., Thorne, R. M., Bortnik, J., Angelopoulos, V., Lu, Q., et al. (2014). New evidence for generation mechanisms of discrete and
hiss‐like whistler mode waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 4805–4811. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060707
Glauert, S. A., Horne, R. B., & Meredith, N. P. (2014). Three‐dimensional electron radiation belt simulations using the BAS radiation belt
model with new diffusion models for chorus, plasmaspheric hiss, and lightning‐generated whistlers. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Goldstein, J., Kanekal, S., Baker, D. N., & Sandel, B. R. (2005). Dynamic relationship between the outer radiation belt and the plasmapause
during March–May 2001. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L15104. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023431
Goldstein, J., Sandel, B. R., Thomsen, M. F., Spasojevic, M., & Reiff, P. H. (2004). Simultaneous remote sensing and in situ observations of
plasmaspheric drainage plumes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, A03202. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010281
Grebowsky, J. M. (1970). Model study of plasmapause motion. Journal of Geophysical Research, 75(22), 4329–4333. https://doi.org/10.1029/
JA075i022p04329
Green, J. C., & Kivelson, M. G. (2004). Relativistic electrons in the outer radiation belt: Differentiating between acceleration mechanisms.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, A03213. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010153
Green, J. C., Onsager, T. G., O'Brien, T. P., & Baker, D. N. (2004). Testing loss mechanisms capable of rapidly depleting relativistic electron
flux in the Earth's outer radiation belt. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, A12211. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010579
Hayakawa, M. Y., Tanaka, S. S., Sazhin, T. O., & Kurita, K. (1986). Characteristics of dawnside mid‐latitude VLF emissions associated with
substorms as deduced from the two‐stationed direction finding measurement. Planetary and Space Science, 24, 225–243.
Hendry, A. T., Rodger, C. J., & Clilverd, M. A. (2017). Evidence of sub‐MeV EMIC‐driven electron precipitation. Geophysical Research
Letters, 44, 1210–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071807
Hikishima, M., Omura, Y., & Summers, D. (2010). Microburst precipitation of energetic electrons associated with chorus wave generation.
Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L07103. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042678
Horne, R. B., & Thorne, R. M. (1998). Potential waves for relativistic electron scattering and stochastic acceleration during magnetic storms.
Geophysical Research Letters, 25(15), 3011–3014. https://doi.org/10.1029/98GL01002
Horne, R. B., Thorne, R. M., Glauert, S. A., Meredith, N. P., Pokhotelov, D., & Santolík, O. (2007). Electron acceleration in the Van Allen
radiation belts by fast magnetosonic waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L17107. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030267
Horne, R. B., Thorne, R. M., Shprits, Y. Y., Meredith, N. P., Glauert, S. A., Smith, A. J., et al. (2005). Wave acceleration of electrons in the
Van Allen radiation belts. Nature, 437, 227–230. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03939
Hua, M., Ni, B., Li, W., Gu, X., Fu, S., Shi, R., et al. (2019). Evolution of radiation belt electron pitch angle distribution due to combined
scattering by plasmaspheric hiss and magnetosonic waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 3033–3042. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018GL081828
Huang, C.‐L., Spence, H. E., Hudson, M. K., & Elkington, S. R. (2010). Modeling radiation belt radial diffusion in ULF wave fields: 2.
Estimating rates of radial diffusion using combined MHD and particle codes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, A06216. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2009JA014918
Huang, C.‐L., Spence, H. E., Singer, H. J., & Hughes, W. J. (2010). Modeling radiation belt radial diffusion in ULF wave fields: 1.
Quantifying ULF wave power at geosynchronous orbit in observations and in global MHD model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115,
A06215. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014917
Hudson, M., Jaynes, A., Kress, B. T., Li, Z., Patel, M., Shen, X.‐C., et al. (2017). Simulated prompt acceleration of multi‐MeV electrons by the
17 March 2015 interplanetary shock. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 10,036–10,046. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2017JA024445
Hudson, M., Paral, J., Kress, B. T., Wiltberger, M., Baker, D. N., Foster, J. C., et al. (2015). Modeling CME‐shock driven storms in 2012–2013:
MHD‐test particle simulation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 1168–1181. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020833
Hudson, M. K., Baker, D. N., Goldstein, J., Kress, B. T., Paral, J., Toffoletto, F., & Wiltburger, M. (2014). Simulated magnetopause losses and
Van Allen Probe flux dropouts. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059222
Hudson, M. K., Elkington, S. R., Lyon, J. G., Marchenko, V. A., Roth, I., Temerin, M., et al. (1997). Simulations of radiation belt formation
during storm sudden commencements. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102(A7), 14,087–14,102. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA03995
Hudson, M. K., Kress, B. T., Mueller, H. R., Zastrow, J. A., & Blake, J. B. (2008). Relationship of the Van Allen radiation belts to solar wind
drivers. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar‐Terrestrial Physics, 70, 708–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/jastp.2007.11.003
Hughes, W. J. (2013). Magnetospheric ULF waves: A tutorial with a historical perspective. In M. J. Engebretson, K. Takahashi, & M. Scholer
(Eds.), Solar Wind Sources of Magnetospheric Ultra‐Low‐Frequency Waves, Geophysical Monograph Series. https://doi.org/10.1029/
GM081p0001
Inan, U. S., Bell, T. F., & Helliwell, R. A. (1978). Nonlinear pitch angle scattering of energetic electrons by coherent VLF waves in the
magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 83(A7), 3235–3253. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA083iA07p03235
Jaynes, A. N., Ali, A. F., Elkington, S. R., Malaspina, D. M., Baker, D. N., Li, X., et al. (2018). Fast diffusion of ultrarelativistic
electrons in the outer radiation belt: 17 March 2015 storm event. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 10,874–10,882. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2018GL079786
Jaynes, A. N., Baker, D. N., Singer, H. J., Rodriguez, J. V., Loto'aniu, T. M., Ali, A. F., et al. (2015). Source and seed populations for rela-
tivistic electrons: Their roles in radiation belt changes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 7240–7254. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2015JA021234
Jordanova, V. K., Albert, J., & Miyoshi, Y. (2008). Relativistic electron precipitation by EMIC waves from self‐consistent global simulations.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, A00A10. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013239
Jordanova, V. K., Welling, D. T., Zaharia, S. G., Chen, L., & Thorne, R. M. (2012). Modeling ring current ion and electron dynamics and
plasma instabilities during a high‐speed stream driven storm. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, A00L08. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2011JA017433
Kellerman, A. C., Shprits, Y. Y., Kondrashov, D., Subbotin, D., Makarevich, R. A., Donovan, E., & Nagai, T. (2014). Three‐dimensional data
assimilation and reanalysis of radiation belt electrons: Observations of a four‐zone structure using five spacecraft and the VERB code.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 8764–8783. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020171
Kellogg, P. J. (1959). Van Allen radiation of solar origin. Nature, 183, 1295.
Kellogg, P. J., Cattell, C. A., Goetz, K., Monson, S. J., & Wilson, L. B. (2011). Large amplitude whistlers in the magnetosphere observed with
Wind‐Waves. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, A09224. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015919
LI AND HUDSON 8344

Kennel, C. F., & Petschek, H. E. (1966). Limit on stably trapped particle fluxes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 71(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/
10.1029/JZ071i001p00001
Kersten, T., Horne, R. B., Glauert, S. A., Meredith, N. P., Fraser, B. J., & Grew, R. S. (2014). Electron losses from the radiation belts caused by
EMIC waves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 8820–8837. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020366
Kilpua, E. K. J., Hietala, H., Turner, D. L., Koskinen, H. E. J., Pulkkinen, T. I., Rodriguez, J. V., et al. (2015). Unraveling the drivers of the
storm time radiation belt response. Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 3076–3084. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063542
Kim, H.‐J., & Chan, A. A. (1997). Fully adiabatic changes in storm time relativistic electron fluxes. Journal of Geophysical Research,
102(A10), 22,107–22,116. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA01814
Kim, K.‐C., Shprits, Y., Lee, J., & Hwang, J. (2013). Empirically modeled global distribution of magnetospheric chorus amplitude using an
artificial neural network. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 6243–6253. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50595
Kletzing, C. A., Kurth, W. S., Acuna, M., MacDowall, R. J., Torbert, R. B., Averkamp, T., et al. (2013). The Electric and Magnetic Field
Instrument Suite and Integrated Science (EMFISIS) on RBSP. Space Science Reviews, 179(1‐4), 127–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214‐
013‐9993‐6
Koller, J., Chen, Y., Reeves, G. D., Friedel, R. H. W., Cayton, T. E., & Vrugt, J. A. (2007). Identifying the radiation belt source region by data
assimilation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, A06244. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA012196
Kondrashov, D., Ghil, M., & Shprits, Y. (2011). Lognormal Kalman filter for assimilating phase space density data in the radiation belts.
Space Weather, 9, S11006. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000726
Koons, H. C., & Roeder, J. L. (1990). A survey of equatorial magnetospheric wave activity between 5 and 8 RE. Planetary and Space Science,
38(10), 1335–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032‐0633(90)90136‐E
Kozyra, J. U., Nagy, A. F., & Slater, D. W. (1997). High‐altitude energy source(s) for stable auroral red arcs. Reviews of Geophysics, 35(2),
155–190. https://doi.org/10.1029/96RG03194
Kress, B. T., Hudson, M. K., & Slocum, P. L. (2005). Impulsive solar energetic ion trapping in the magnetosphere during geomagnetic
storms. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L06108. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022373
Kubota, Y., & Omura, Y. (2017). Rapid precipitation of radiation belt electrons induced by EMIC rising tone emissions localized in long-
itude inside and outside the plasmapause. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2016JA023267
Kubota, Y., & Omura, Y. (2018). Nonlinear dynamics of radiation belt electrons interacting with chorus emissions localized in longitude.
Kubota, Y., Omura, Y., & Summers, D. (2015). Relativistic electron precipitation induced by EMIC‐triggered emissions in a dipole mag-
netosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 4384–4399. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021017
Lenchek, A. M., & Singer, S. F. (1962). Geomagnetically trapped protons from cosmic‐ray albedo neutrons. Journal of Geophysical Research,
67(4), 1263–1287. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ067i004p01263
Lenchek, A. M., Singer, S. F., & Wentworth, R. C. (1961). Geomagnetically trapped electrons from cosmic ray albedo neutrons. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 66, 4027–4046.
Li, J., Bortnik, J., Thorne, R. M., Li, W., Ma, Q., Baker, D. N., et al. (2016). Ultrarelativistic electron butterfly distributions created by parallel
acceleration due to magnetosonic waves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 3212–3222. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2016JA022370
Li, J., Ni, B., Ma, Q., Xie, L., Pu, Z., Fu, S., et al. (2016). Formation of energetic electron butterfly distributions by magnetosonic waves via
Landau resonance. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 3009–3016. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067853
Li, J., Ni, B., Xie, L., Pu, Z., Bortnik, J., Thorne, R. M., et al. (2014). Interactions between magnetosonic waves and radiation belt electrons:
Comparisons of quasilinear calculations with test particle simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 4828–4834. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2014GL060461
Li, W., Bortnik, J., Thorne, R. M., & Angelopoulos, V. (2011). Global distribution of wave amplitudes and wave normal angles of
chorus waves using THEMIS wave observations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, A12205. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2011JA017035
Li, W., Ma, Q., Thorne, R. M., Bortnik, J., Kletzing, C. A., Kurth, W. S., et al. (2015). Statistical properties of plasmaspheric hiss derived from
Van Allen Probes data and their effects on radiation belt electron dynamics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120,
3393–3405. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021048
Li, W., Ma, Q., Thorne, R. M., Bortnik, J., Zhang, X. J., Li, J., et al. (2016). Radiation belt electron acceleration during the 17 March 2015
geomagnetic storm: Observations and simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 5520–5536. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2016JA022400
Li, W., Ni, B., Thorne, R. M., Bortnik, J., Green, J. C., Kletzing, C. A., et al. (2013). Constructing the global distribution of chorus wave
intensity using measurements of electrons by the POES satellites and waves by the Van Allen Probes. Geophysical Research Letters, 40,
4526–4532. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50920
Li, W., Santolik, O., Bortnik, J., Thorne, R. M., Kletzing, C. A., Kurth, W. S., & Hospodarsky, G. B. (2016). New chorus wave properties near
the equator from Van Allen Probes wave observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 4725–4735. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2016GL068780
Li, W., Shen, X.‐C., Ma, Q., Capannolo, L., Shi, R., Redmon, R. J., et al. (2019). Quantification of energetic electron precipitation driven by
plume whistler mode waves, plasmaspheric hiss, and exohiss. Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 3615–3624. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2019GL082095
Li, W., Shprits, Y. Y., & Thorne, R. M. (2007). Dynamic evolution of energetic outer zone electrons due to wave‐particle interactions during
storms. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, A10220. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JA012368
Li, W., Thorne, R. M., Angelopoulos, V., Bortnik, J., Cully, C. M., Ni, B., et al. (2009). Global distribution of whistler‐mode chorus waves
observed on the THEMIS spacecraft. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L09104. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL037595
Li, W., Thorne, R. M., Bortnik, J., Tao, X., & Angelopoulos, V. (2012). Characteristics of hiss‐like and discrete whistler‐mode emissions.
Li, W., Thorne, R. M., Ma, Q., Ni, B., Bortnik, J., Baker, D. N., et al. (2014). Radiation belt electron acceleration by chorus waves
during the 17 March 2013 storm. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 4681–4693. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2014JA019945
Li, W., Thorne, R. M., Meredith, N. P., Horne, R. B., Bortnik, J., Shprits, Y. Y., & Ni, B. (2008). Evaluation of whistler mode chorus
amplification during an injection event observed on CRRES. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, A09210. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2008JA013129
LI AND HUDSON 8345

Li, X., Baker, D. N., O'Brien, T. P., Xie, L., & Zong, Q. G. (2006). Correlation between the inner edge of outer radiation belt electrons and the
innermost plasmapause location. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L14107. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026294
Li, X., Roth, I., Temerin, M., Wygant, J. R., Hudson, M. K., & Blake, J. B. (1993). Simulation of the prompt energization and transport
of radiation belt particles during the March 24, 1991 SSC. Geophysical Research Letters, 20, 2423–2426. https://doi.org/10.1029/
93GL02701
Li, X., Schiller, Q., Blum, L., Califf, S., Zhao, H., Tu, W., et al. (2013). First results from CSSWE CubeSat: Characteristics of relativistic
electrons in the near‐Earth environment during the October 2012 magnetic storms. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118,
6489–6499. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019342
Li, X., Selesnick, R., Schiller, Q., Zhang, K., Zhao, H., Baker, D. N., & Temerin, M. A. (2017). Measurement of electrons from albedo neutron
decay and neutron density in near‐Earth space. Nature, 552, 382–385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24642
Li, X., Selesnick, R. S., Baker, D. N., Jaynes, A. N., Kanekal, S. G., Schiller, Q., et al. (2015). Upper limit on the inner radiation belt MeV
electron intensity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 1215–1228. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020777
Li, Z., Hudson, M., & Chen, Y. (2014). Radial diffusion comparing a THEMIS statistical model with geosynchronous measurements as
input. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 1863–1873. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019320
Li, Z., Hudson, M., Kress, B., & Paral, J. (2015). Three‐dimensional test particle simulation of the 17–18 March 2013 CME shock‐driven
storm. Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 14. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064627
Li, Z., Hudson, M., Paral, J., Wiltberger, M., & Turner, D. (2016). Global ULF wave analysis of radial diffusion coefficients using a global
MHD model for the 17 March 2015 storm. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 6196–6206. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2016JA022508
Li, Z., Hudson, M., Patel, M., Wiltberger, M., Boyd, A., & Turner, D. (2017). ULF wave analysis and radial diffusion calculation using a
global MHD model for the 17 March 2013 and 2015 storms. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 7353–7363. https://doi.
org/10.1002/2016JA023846
Li, Z., Millan, R. M., Hudson, M. K., Woodger, L. A., Smith, D. M., Chen, Y., et al. (2014). Investigation of EMIC wave scattering as the cause
for the BARREL 17 January 2013 relativistic electron precipitation event: A quantitative comparison of simulation with observations.
Ling, A. G., Ginet, G. P., Hilmer, R. V., & Perry, K. L. (2010). A neural network–based geosynchronous relativistic electron flux forecasting
model. Space Weather, 8, S09003. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010SW000576
Liu, W., Tu, W., Li, X., Sarris, T., Khotyaintsev, Y., Fu, H., et al. (2016). On the calculation of electric diffusion coefficient of radiation belt
electrons with in situ electric field measurements by THEMIS. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 1023–1030. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2015GL067398
Looper, M., Blake, J., & Mewaldt, R. (2005). Response of the inner radiation belt to the violent Sun‐Earth connection events of October–
November 2003. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L03S06. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021502
Lorentzen, K. R., Blake, J. B., Inan, U. S., & Bortnik, J. (2001). Observations of relativistic electron microbursts in association with VLF
chorus. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106(A4), 6017–6027. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JA003018
Lotko, W., Streltsov, A. V., & Carlson, C. W. (1998). Discrete auroral arc, electrostatic shock and suprathermal electrons powered by dis-
persive, anomalously resistive field line resonance. Geophysical Research Letters, 25, 4449–4452. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998GL900200
Lyons, L. R., & Thorne, R. M. (1973). Equilibrium structure of radiation belt electrons. Journal of Geophysical Research, 78, 2142.
Ma, Q., Li, W., Bortnik, J., Thorne, R. M., Chu, X., Ozeke, L. G., et al. (2018). Quantitative evaluation of radial diffusion and local accel-
eration processes during GEM challenge events. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 1938–1952. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2017JA025114
Ma, Q., Li, W., Thorne, R. M., Bortnik, J., Kletzing, C. A., Kurth, W. S., & Hospodarsky, G. B. (2016b). Electron scattering by magnetosonic
waves in the inner magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021992
Ma, Q., Li, W., Thorne, R. M., Bortnik, J., Reeves, G. D., Kletzing, C. A., et al. (2016a). Characteristic energy range of electron scattering due
to plasmaspheric hiss. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 11,737–11,749. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023311
Ma, Q., Mourenas, D., Artemyev, A., Li, W., Thorne, R. M., & Bortnik, J. (2016). Strong enhancement of 10–100 keV electron fluxes by
combined effects of chorus waves and time domain structures. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 4683–4690. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2016GL069125
Malaspina, D. M., Jaynes, A. N., Boulé, C., Bortnik, J., Thaller, S. A., Ergun, R. E., et al. (2016). The distribution of plasmaspheric hiss wave
power with respect to plasmapause location. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 7878–7886. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069982
Malaspina, D. M., Wygant, J. R., Ergun, R. E., Reeves, G. D., Skoug, R. M., & Larsen, B. A. (2015). Electric field structures and waves at
plasma boundaries in the inner magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 4246–4263. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2015JA021137
Maldonado, A. A., Chen, L., Claudepierre, S. G., Bortnik, J., Thorne, R. M., & Spence, H. (2016). Electron butterfly distribution modulation
by magnetosonic waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 3051–3059. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068161
Mann, I. R., Lee, E. A., Claudepierre, S. G., Fennell, J. F., Degeling, A., Rae, I. J., et al. (2013). Discovery of the action of a geophysical
synchrotron in the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts. Nature Communications, 4(1), 2795. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3795
Mathie, R. A., & Mann, I. R. (2001). On the solar wind control of Pc5 ULF pulsation power at mid‐latitudes: Implications for MeV
electron acceleration in the outer radiation belt. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106, 29,783–29,796. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2001JA000002
Matsumura, C., Miyoshi, Y., Seki, K., Saito, S., Angelopoulos, V., & Koller, J. (2011). Outer radiation belt boundary location relative to the
magnetopause: Implications for magnetopause shadowing. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, A06212. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2011JA016575
Mauk, B., Fox, N. J., Kanekal, S., Kessel, R., Sibeck, D., & Ukhorskiy, A. (2013). Science objectives and rationale for the radiation belt storm
probes mission. Space Science Reviews, 179, 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214‐012‐9908‐y
Meredith, N. P., Horne, R. B., Glauert, S. A., & Anderson, R. R. (2007). Slot region electron loss timescales due to plasmaspheric hiss and
lightning‐generated whistlers. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, A08214. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JA012413
Meredith, N. P., Horne, R. B., Glauert, S. A., Thorne, R. M., Summers, D., Albert, J. M., & Anderson, R. R. (2006). Energetic outer zone
electron loss timescales during low geomagnetic activity. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, A05212. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2005JA011516
Meredith, N. P., Horne, R. B., Kersten, T., Li, W., Bortnik, J., Sicard, A., & Yearby, K. H. (2018). Global model of plasmaspheric hiss
from multiple satellite observations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 4526–4541. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018JA025226
LI AND HUDSON 8346

Meredith, N. P., Horne, R. B., Sicard‐Piet, A., Boscher, D., Yearby, K. H., Li, W., & Thorne, R. M. (2012). Global model of lower band and
upper band chorus from multiple satellite observations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, A10225. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2012JA017978
Meredith, N. P., Horne, R. B., Thorne, R. M., & Anderson, R. R. (2003). Favored regions for chorus‐driven electron acceleration to relati-
vistic energies in the Earth's outer radiation belt. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(16), 1871. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017698
Meredith, N. P., Horne, R. B., Thorne, R. M., Summers, D., & Anderson, R. R. (2004). Substorm dependence of plasmaspheric hiss. Journal
Meredith, N. P., Thorne, R. M., Horne, R. B., Summers, D., Fraser, B. J., & Anderson, R. R. (2003). Statistical analysis of relativistic electron
energies for cyclotron resonance with EMIC waves observed on CRRES. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(A6), 1250. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2002JA009700
Millan, R. M., McCarthy, M. P., Sample, J. G., Smith, D. M., Thompson, L. D., McGaw, D. G., et al. (2013). The Balloon Array for RBSP
Relativistic Electron Losses (BARREL). Space Science Reviews, 179(1–4), 503–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214‐013‐9971‐z
Millan, R. M., & Thorne, R. M. (2007). Review of radiation belt relativistic electron loss. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar ‐ Terrestrial
Physics, 69, 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2006.06.019
Min, K., Lee, J., Keika, K., & Li, W. (2012). Global distribution of EMIC waves derived from THEMIS observations. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 117, A05219. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JA017515
Min, K., Liu, K., Bonnell, J. W., Breneman, A. W., Denton, R. E., Funsten, H. O., et al. (2015). Study of EMIC wave excitation using direct
ion measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 2702–2719. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020717
Miyoshi, Y., Morioka, A., Obara, T., Misawa, H., Nagai, T., & Kasahara, Y. (2003). Rebuilding process of the outer radiation belt during the 3
November 1993 magnetic storm: NOAA and Exos‐D observations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(A1), 1004. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2001JA007542
Miyoshi, Y., Sakaguchi, K., Shiokawa, K., Evans, D., Albert, J., Connors, M., & Jordanova, V. (2008). Precipitation of radiation belt electrons
by EMIC waves, observed from ground and space. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L23101. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL035727
Morley, S. K., Friedel, R. H. W., Cayton, T. E., & Noveroske, E. (2010). A rapid, global and prolonged electron radiation belt dropout
observed with the Global Positioning System constellation. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L06102. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2010GL042772
Morley, S. K., Sullivan, J. P., Henderson, M. G., Blake, J. B., & Baker, D. N. (2016). The Global Positioning System constellation as a space
weather monitor: Comparison of electron measurements with Van Allen Probes data. Space Weather, 14, 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2015SW001339
Mourenas, D., Artemyev, A. V., Ma, Q., Agapitov, O. V., & Li, W. (2016). Fast dropouts of multi‐MeV electrons due to combined effects of
EMIC and whistler mode waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 4155–4163. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068921
Mourenas, D., Zhang, X.‐J., Artemyev, A. V., Angelopoulos, V., Thorne, R. M., Bortnik, J., et al. (2018). Electron nonlinear resonant
interaction with short and intense parallel chorus wave packets. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 4979–4999. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025417
Mozer, F. S., Agapitov, O. V., Artemyev, A., Drake, J. F., Krasnoselskikh, V., Lejosne, S., & Vasko, I. (2015). Time domain structures: What
and where they are, what they do, and how they are made. Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 3627–3638. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2015GL063946
Mozer, F. S., Agapitov, O. V., Krasnoselskikh, V., Lejosne, S., Reeves, G. D., & Roth, I. (2014). Direct observation of radiation‐belt electron
acceleration from electron‐volt energies to megavolts by nonlinear whistlers. Physical Review Letters, 113(3), 035001. https://doi.org/
10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.035001
Mozer, F. S., Artemyev, A., Agapitov, O. V., Mourenas, D., & Vasko, I. (2016). Near‐relativistic electron acceleration by Landau trapping in
time domain structures. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 508–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067316
Nakamura, S., Omura, Y., Machida, S., Shoji, M., Nosé, M., & Angelopoulos, V. (2014). Electromagnetic ion cyclotron rising tone emissions
observed by THEMIS probes outside the plasmapause. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 1874–1886. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2013JA019146
Nakamura, S., Omura, Y., & Summers, D. (2018). Fine structure of whistler mode hiss in plasmaspheric plumes observed by the Van Allen
Probes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 9055–9064. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025803
Nemec, F., Santolik, O., Gereova, K., Macusova, E., Laakso, H., de Conchy, Y., et al. (2006). Equatorial noise: Statistical study of its loca-
lization and the derived number density. Advances in Space Research, 37, 610–616.
Ni, B., Bortnik, J., Thorne, R. M., Ma, Q., & Chen, L. (2013). Resonant scattering and resultant pitch angle evolution of relativistic
electrons by plasmaspheric hiss. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 7740–7751. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2013JA019260
Ni, B., Li, W., Thorne, R. M., Bortnik, J., Green, J. C., Kletzing, C. A., et al. (2014). A novel technique to construct the global distribution of
whistler mode chorus wave intensity using low‐altitude POES electron data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119,
5685–5699. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA019935
Ni, B., Shprits, Y. Y., Friedel, R. H. W., Thorne, R. M., Daae, M., & Chen, Y. (2013). Responses of Earth's radiation belts to solar wind
dynamic pressure variations in 2002 analyzed using multisatellite data and Kalman filtering. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space
Physics, 118, 4400–4414. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50437
Ni, B., Thorne, R. M., Zhang, X., Bortnik, J., Pu, Z., Xie, L., et al. (2016). Origins of the Earth's diffuse auroral precipitation. Space Science
Reviews, 200(1‐4), 205–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214‐016‐0234‐7
Northrop, T. G., & Teller, E. (1960). Stability of the adiabatic motion of charged particles in the Earth's field. Physics Review, 117(1), 215–225.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.117.215
O'Brien, T. P., Looper, M. D., & Blake, J. B. (2004). Quantification of relativistic electron microburst losses during the GEM storms.
Olifer, L., Mann, I. R., Morley, S. K., Ozeke, L. G., & Choi, D. (2018). On the role of last closed drift shell dynamics in driving fast losses and
Van Allen radiation belt extinction. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 3692–3703. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018JA025190
Omura, Y., Furuya, N., & Summers, D. (2007). Relativistic turning acceleration of resonant electrons by coherent whistler mode waves in a
dipole magnetic field. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, A06236. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA012243
Omura, Y., Miyashita, Y., Yoshikawa, M., Summers, D., Hikishima, M., Ebihara, Y., & Kubota, Y. (2015). Formation process of relativistic
electron flux through interaction with chorus emissions in the Earth's inner magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space
LI AND HUDSON 8347

Omura, Y., & Zhao, Q. (2012). Nonlinear pitch angle scattering of relativistic electrons by EMIC waves in the inner magnetosphere. Journal
Omura, Y., & Zhao, Q. (2013). Relativistic electron microbursts due to nonlinear pitch angle scattering by EMIC triggered emissions.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 5008–5020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50477
Onsager, T. G., Rostoker, G., Kim, H.‐J., Reeves, G. D., Obara, T., Singer, H. J., & Smithtro, C. (2002). Radiation belt electron flux dropouts:
Local time, radial, and particle‐energy dependence. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(A11), 1382. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2001JA000187
Osmane, A., & Pulkkinen, T. I. (2014). On the threshold energization of radiation belt electrons by double layers. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Space Physics, 119, 8243–8248. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020236
Ozeke, L. G., Mann, I. R., Murphy, K. R., Jonathan Rae, I., & Milling, D. K. (2014). Analytic expressions for ULF wave radiation belt radial
diffusion coefficients. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 1587–1605. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019204
Parker, E. N. (1960). Geomagnetic fluctuations and the form of the outer zone of the Van Allen radiation belt. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 65, 3117.
Perry, K., Hudson, M., & Elkington, S. (2005). Incorporating spectral characteristics of Pc5 waves into three‐dimensional radiation
belt modeling and the diffusion of relativistic electrons. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, A03215. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2004JA010760
Pickett, J. S., Grison, B., Omura, Y., Engebretson, M. J., Dandouras, I., Masson, A., et al. (2010). Cluster observations of EMIC triggered
emissions in association with Pc1 waves near Earth's plasmapause. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L09104. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2010GL042648
Qin, M., Hudson, M., Millan, R., Woodger, L., & Shekhar, S. (2018). Statistical investigation of the efficiency of EMIC waves in precipitating
relativistic electrons. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 6223–6230. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025419
Reames, D. V. (2001). SEPS: Space weather hazard in interplanetary space. In P. Song, H. J. Singer, & G. L. Siscoe (Eds.), 101107Space
Weather. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.
Reeves, G. D. (1998). Relativistic electrons and magnetic storms: 1992–1995. Geophysical Research Letters, 25(11), 1817–1820. https://doi.
org/10.1029/98GL01398
Reeves, G. D. (2015). Radiation belt electron acceleration and role of magnetotail. In A. Keiling, C. M. Jackman, & P. A. Delamere (Eds.),
Magnetotails in the solar system, Geophysical Monograph Series. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118842324.ch20
Reeves, G. D., Chen, Y., Cunningham, G. S., Friedel, R. W. H., Henderson, M. G., Jordanova, V. K., et al. (2012). Dynamic Radiation
Environment Assimilation Model: DREAM. Space Weather, 10, S03006. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000729
Reeves, G. D., Friedel, R. H. W., Larsen, B. A., Skoug, R. M., Funsten, H. O., Claudepierre, S. G., et al. (2016). Energy‐dependent dynamics of
keV to MeV electrons in the inner zone, outer zone, and slot regions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 397–412.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021569
Reeves, G. D., McAdams, K. L., Friedel, R. H. W., & O'Brien, T. P. (2003). Acceleration and loss of relativistic electrons during geomagnetic
storms. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(10), 1529. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL016513
Reeves, G. D., Spence, H. E., Henderson, M. G., Morley, S. K., Friedel, R. H. W., Funsten, H. O., et al. (2013). Electron acceleration in the
heart of the Van Allen radiation belts. Science, 341(6149), 991–994. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237743
Ripoll, J.‐F., Santolík, O., Reeves, G. D., Kurth, W. S., Denton, M. H., Loridan, V., et al. (2017). Effects of whistler mode hiss waves in March
2013. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 7433–7462. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024139
Rodger, C. J., Hendry, A. T., Clilverd, M. A., Kletzing, C. A., Brundell, J. B., & Reeves, G. D. (2015). High‐resolution in situ obser-
vations of electron precipitation‐causing EMIC waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 9633–9641. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2015GL066581
Roederer, J. G. (1967). On the adiabatic motion of energetic particles in a model magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 72(3),
981–992. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ072i003p00981
Roederer, J. G. (1970). Dynamics of geomagnetically trapped radiation. New York: Springer.
Santolík, O., Gurnett, D. A., Pickett, J. S., Chum, J., & Cornilleau‐Wehrlin, N. (2009). Oblique propagation of whistler mode waves in the
chorus source region. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, A00F03. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014586
Santolík, O., Gurnett, D. A., Pickett, J. S., Parrot, M., & Cornilleau‐Wehrlin, N. (2003). Spatio‐temporal structure of storm‐time chorus.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(A7), 1278. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009791
Santolík, O., Kletzing, C. A., Kurth, W. S., Hospodarsky, G. B., & Bounds, S. R. (2014). Fine structure of large‐amplitude chorus wave
packets. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058889
Santolík, O., Nemec, F., Gereova, K., Macusova, E., de Conchy, Y., & Cornilleau‐Wehrlin, N. (2004). Systematic analysis of equatorial noise
below the lower hybrid frequency. Annales de Geophysique, 22, 2587–2595.
Schiller, Q., Kanekal, S. G., Jian, L. K., Li, X., Jones, A., Baker, D. N., et al. (2016). Prompt injections of highly relativistic electrons induced
by interplanetary shocks: A statistical study of Van Allen Probes observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 12,317–12,324. https://
doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071628
Schulz, M., & Lanzerotti, L. J. (1974). Particle diffusion in the radiation belts. In Physics and Chemistry in Space (Vol. 7). Berlin:
Springer.
Selesnick, R. S., & Blake, J. B. (2000). On the source location of radiation belt relativistic electrons. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(A2),
2607–2624. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA900445
Selesnick, R. S., Looper, M. D., & Mewaldt, R. A. (2007). A theoretical model of the inner proton radiation belt. Space Weather, 5, S04003.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006SW000275
Selesnick, R. S., Looper, M. D., & Mewaldt, R. A. (2008). A model of the secondary radiation belt. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113,
A11221. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013593
Selesnick, R. S., Su, Y.‐J., & Blake, J. B. (2016). Control of the innermost electron radiation belt by large‐scale electric fields. Journal of
Shi, R., Li, W., Ma, Q., Green, A., Kletzing, C. A., Kurth, W. S., et al. (2019). Properties of whistler mode waves in Earth's plasmasphere and
plumes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 1035–1051. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA026041
Shklyar, D., & Matsumoto, H. (2009). Oblique whistler‐mode waves in the inhomogeneous magnetospheric plasma: Resonant interactions
with energetic charged particles. Surveys in Geophysics, 30, 55–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712‐009‐9061‐7
Shprits, Y., Kellerman, A., Kondrashov, D., & Subbotin, D. (2013). Application of a new data operator‐splitting data assimilation technique
to the 3‐D VERB diffusion code and CRRES measurements. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 4998–5002. https://doi.org/10.1002/
grl.50969
LI AND HUDSON 8348

Shprits, Y. Y., Drozdov, A. Y., Spasojevic, M., Kellerman, A. C., Usanova, M. E., Engebretson, M. J., et al. (2016). Wave‐induced loss
of ultra‐relativistic electrons in the Van Allen radiation belts. Nature Communications, 7(1), 12,883. https://doi.org/10.1038/
ncomms12883
Shprits, Y. Y., Elkington, S. R., Meredith, N. P., & Subbotin, D. A. (2008). Review of modeling of loses and sources of relativistic electrons in
the outer radiation belt. I: Radial transport. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar ‐ Terrestrial Physics, 70, 1679–1693. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jastp.2008.06.008
Shprits, Y. Y., Kellerman, A., Aseev, N., Drozdov, A. Y., & Michaelis, I. (2017). Multi‐MeV electron loss in the heart of the radiation belts.
Shprits, Y. Y., Kellerman, A. C., Drozdov, A. Y., Spence, H. E., Reeves, G. D., & Baker, D. N. (2015). Combined convective and diffusive
simulations: VERB‐4D comparison with 17 March 2013 Van Allen Probes observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 9600–9608.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065230
Shprits, Y. Y., Subbotin, D., & Ni, B. (2009). Evolution of electron fluxes in the outer radiation belt computed with the VERB code. Journal
Shprits, Y. Y., Subbotin, D. A., Meredith, N. P., & Elkington, S. R. (2008). Review of modeling of loses and sources of relativistic electrons in
the outer radiation belt. II: Local acceleration and loss. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar ‐ Terrestrial Physics, 70, 1694–1713. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jastp.2008.06.014
Shprits, Y. Y., Thorne, R. M., Friedel, R., Reeves, G. D., Fennell, J., Baker, D. N., & Kanekal, S. G. (2006). Outward radial diffusion driven by
losses at magnetopause. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, A11214. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA011657
Shumko, M., Turner, D. L., O'Brien, T. P., Claudepierre, S. G., Sample, J., Hartley, D. P., et al. (2018). Evidence of microbursts observed near
the equatorial plane in the outer van Allen radiation belt. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 8044–8053. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018GL078451
Silin, I., Mann, I. R., Sydora, R. D., Summers, D., & Mace, R. L. (2011). Warm plasma effects on electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave MeV
electron interactions in the magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, A05215. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA016398
Singer, S. F. (1958). Radiation belt' and trapped cosmic ray albedo. Physical Review Letters, 1, 173.
Sorathia, K. A., Ukhorskiy, A. Y., Merkin, V. G., Fennell, J. F., & Claudepierre, S. G. (2018). Modeling the depletion and recovery of the
outer radiation belt during a geomagnetic storm: Combined MHD and test particle simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space
Spence, H. E., Reeves, G. D., Baker, D. N., Blake, J. B., Bolton, M., Bourdarie, S., et al. (2013). Science goals and overview of the Energetic
Particle, Composition, and Thermal Plasma (ECT) Suite on NASA's Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP) Mission. Space Science Reviews,
179(1‐4), 311–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214‐013‐0007‐5
Stern, D. P. (1996). A brief history of magnetospheric physics during the space age. Reviews of Geophysics, 34(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/
10.1029/95RG03508
Su, Y.‐J., Selesnick, R. S., & Blake, J. B. (2016). Formation of the inner electron radiation belt by enhanced large‐scale electric fields. Journal
of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 8508–8522. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA022881
Su, Z., Gao, Z., Zheng, H., Wang, Y., Wang, S., Spence, H. E., et al. (2017). Rapid loss of radiation belt relativistic electrons by EMIC waves.
Su, Z., Liu, N., Zheng, H., Wang, Y., & Wang, S. (2018). Large‐amplitude extremely low frequency hiss waves in plasmaspheric plumes.
Summers, D., Ma, C., Meredith, N. P., Horne, R. B., Thorne, R. M., Heynderickx, D., & Anderson, R. R. (2002). Model of the energization of
outer‐zone electrons by whistler‐mode chorus during the October 9, 1990 geomagnetic storm. Geophysical Research Letters, 29(24), 2174.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL016039
Summers, D., Ni, B., & Meredith, N. P. (2007a). Timescales for radiation belt electron acceleration and loss due to resonant wave‐particle
interactions: 1. Theory. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, A04206. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA011801
Summers, D., Ni, B., & Meredith, N. P. (2007b). Timescales for radiation belt electron acceleration and loss due to resonant wave‐particle
interactions: 2. Evaluation for VLF chorus, ELF hiss, and electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112,
A04207. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA011993
Summers, D., Ni, B., Meredith, N. P., Horne, R. B., Thorne, R. M., Moldwin, M. B., & Anderson, R. R. (2008). Electron scattering by
whistler‐mode ELF hiss in plasmaspheric plumes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, A04219. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2007JA012678
Summers, D., & Thorne, R. M. (2003). Relativistic electron pitch‐angle scattering by electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves during geo-
magnetic storms. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(A4), 1143. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009489
Summers, D., Thorne, R. M., & Xiao, F. (1998). Relativistic theory of wave‐particle resonant diffusion with application to electron accel-
eration in the magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 103(A9), 20,487–20,500. https://doi.org/10.1029/98JA01740
Tao, X., Bortnik, J., Albert, J. M., Liu, K., & Thorne, R. M. (2011). Comparison of quasilinear diffusion coefficients for parallel pro-
pagating whistler mode waves with test particle simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L06105. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2011GL046787
Tao, X., Bortnik, J., Albert, J. M., & Thorne, R. M. (2012). Comparison of bounce‐averaged quasilinear diffusion coefficients for parallel
propagating whistler mode waves with test particle simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, A10205. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2012JA017931
Tao, X., Bortnik, J., Albert, J. M., Thorne, R. M., & Li, W. (2014). Effects of discreteness of chorus waves on quasilinear diffusion‐based
modeling of energetic electron dynamics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 8848–8857. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2014JA020022
Tao, X., Bortnik, J., Thorne, R. M., Albert, J. M., & Li, W. (2012). Effects of amplitude modulation on nonlinear interactions between
electrons and chorus waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L06102. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051202
Teng, S., Li, W., Tao, X., Shen, X.‐C., & Ma, Q. (2019). Characteristics of rising tone whistler mode waves inside the Earth's
plasmasphere, plasmaspheric plumes, and plasmatrough. Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 7121–7130. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2019GL083372
Thorne, R. M. (2010). Radiation belt dynamics: The importance of wave‐particle interactions. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L22107.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044990
Thorne, R. M., & Kennel, C. F. (1971). Relativistic electron precipitation during magnetic storm main phase. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 76(19), 4446–4453. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA076i019p04446
LI AND HUDSON 8349

Thorne, R. M., Li, W., Ni, B., Ma, Q., Bortnik, J., Baker, D. N., et al. (2013b). Evolution and slow decay of an unusual narrow ring of
relativistic electrons near L ~ 3.2 following the September 2012 magnetic storm. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 3507–3511. https://doi.
org/10.1002/grl.50627
Thorne, R. M., Li, W., Ni, B., Ma, Q., Bortnik, J., Chen, L., et al. (2013a). Rapid local acceleration of relativistic radiation‐belt electrons by
magnetospheric chorus. Nature, 504(7480), 411–414. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12889
Thorne, R. M., Ni, B., Tao, X., Horne, R. B., & Meredith, N. P. (2010). Scattering by chorus waves as the dominant cause of the Earth's diffuse
aurora. Nature, 467, 943–946. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09467
Thorne, R. M., Smith, E. J., Burton, R. K., & Holzer, R. E. (1973). Plasmaspheric hiss. Journal of Geophysical Research, 78, 1581–1596.
https://doi.org/10.1029/JA078i010p01581
Tsurutani, B. T., Falkowski, B. J., Pickett, J. S., Santolik, O., & Lakhina, G. S. (2015). Plasmaspheric hiss properties: Observations from
Polar. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020518
Tsurutani, B. T., & Smith, E. J. (1974). Postmidnight chorus: A substorm phenomenon. Journal of Geophysical Research, 79, 118.
Tu, W., Cunningham, G. S., Chen, Y., Morley, S. K., Reeves, G. D., Blake, J. B., et al. (2014). Event‐specific chorus wave and electron seed
population models in DREAM3D using the Van Allen Probes. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2013GL058819
Tu, W., Elkington, S. R., Li, X., Liu, W., & Bonnell, J. (2012). Quantifying radial diffusion coefficients of radiation belt electrons based on
global MHD simulation and spacecraft measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, A10210. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2012JA017901
Turner, D. L., Angelopoulos, V., Li, W., Bortnik, J., Ni, B., Ma, Q., et al. (2014). Competing source and loss mechanisms due to wave‐particle
interactions in Earth's outer radiation belt during the 30 September to 3 October 2012 geomagnetic storm. Journal of Geophysical
Turner, D. L., Angelopoulos, V., Morley, S. K., Henderson, M. G., Reeves, G. D., Li, W., et al. (2014). On the cause and extent of outer
radiation belt losses during the 30 September 2012 dropout event. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 1530–1540.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019446
Turner, D. L., Kilpua, E. K. J., Hietala, H., Claudepierre, S. G., O'Brien, T. P., Fennell, J. F., et al. (2019). The response of Earth's electron
radiation belts to geomagnetic storms: Statistics from the Van Allen Probes era including effects from different storm drivers. Journal of
Turner, D. L., O'Brien, T. P., Fennell, J. F., Claudepierre, S. G., Blake, J. B., Jaynes, A. N., et al. (2017). Investigating the source of near‐
relativistic and relativistic electrons in Earth's inner radiation belt. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 695–710. https://
doi.org/10.1002/2016JA023600
Turner, D. L., Shprits, Y., Hartinger, M., & Angelopoulos, V. (2012). Explaining sudden losses of outer radiation belt electrons during
geomagnetic storms. Nature Physics, 8, 208–212.
Tverskaya, L. V. (1986). On the boundary of electron injection into the magnetosphere. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 26(5), 864–865.
Tyler, E., Breneman, A., Cattell, C., Wygant, J., Thaller, S., & Malaspina, D. (2019). Statistical distribution of whistler‐mode waves in the
radiation belts with large magnetic field amplitudes and comparison to large electric field amplitudes. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Ukhorskiy, A. Y., Shprits, Y. Y., Anderson, B. J., Takahashi, K., & Thorne, R. M. (2010). Rapid scattering of radiation belt electrons by
storm‐time EMIC waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L09101. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042906
Ukhorskiy, A. Y., Sitnov, M. I., Millan, R. M., Kress, B. T., Fennell, J. F., Claudepierre, S. G., & Barnes, R. J. (2015). Global storm time
depletion of the outer electron belt. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 2543–2556. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2014JA020645
Usanova, M. E., Drozdov, A., Orlova, K., Mann, I. R., Shprits, Y., Robertson, M. T., et al. (2014). Effect of EMIC waves on relativistic and
ultrarelativistic electron populations: Ground‐based and Van Allen Probes observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 1375–1381.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL059024
Usanova, M. E., Mann, I. R., Rae, I. J., Kale, Z. C., Angelopoulos, V., Bonnell, J. W., et al. (2008). Multipoint observations of magnetospheric
compression‐related EMIC Pc1 waves by THEMIS and CARISMA. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L17S25. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2008GL034458
Van Allen, J. A., Ludwig, G. H., Ray, E. C., & McIlwain, C. E. (1958). Observation of high intensity radiation by satellites 1958 Alpha and
Gamma. Journal of Jet Propulsion, 28, 588–592.
Vasko, I. Y., Agapitov, O. V., Mozer, F. S., & Artemyev, A. V. (2015). Thermal electron acceleration by electric field spikes in the outer
radiation belt: Generation of field‐aligned pitch angle distributions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 8616–8632.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021644
Vasko, I. Y., Agapitov, O. V., Mozer, F. S., Artemyev, A. V., Krasnoselskikh, V. V., & Bonnell, J. W. (2017). Diffusive scattering of electrons
by electron holes around injection fronts. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 3163–3182. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2016JA023337
Vernov, S. N., & Chudakov, A. E. (1960). Investigations of cosmic radiation and of the terrestrial corpuscular radiation by means of rockets
and satellites. Soviet Physics Uspekhi, 3, 230–250.
Wang, Q., Fu, S., Ni, B., Cao, X., Gu, X., & Huang, H. (2018). Bounce resonance scattering of ring current electrons by H+ band EMIC
waves. Physics of Plasmas, 25, 082903. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5043522
Weiss, L., Lambour, R., Elphic, R., & Thomsen, M. (1997). Study of plasmaspheric evolution using geosynchronous observations and global
modeling. Geophysical Research Letters, 24, 599–602. https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL00351
Wilson, L. B., Cattell, C. A., Kellogg, P. J., Wygant, J. R., Goetz, K., Breneman, A., & Kersten, K. (2011). The properties of large amplitude
whistler mode waves in the magnetosphere: Propagation and relationship with geomagnetic activity. Geophysical Research Letters, 38,
L17107. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048671
Wiltberger, M., Merkin, V., Lyon, J. G., & Ohtani, S. (2015). High‐resolution global magnetohydrodynamic simulation of bursty bulk flows.
Woodger, L. A., Millan, R. M., Li, Z., & Sample, J. G. (2018). Impact of background magnetic field for EMIC wave‐driven electron preci-
pitation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 8518–8532. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025315
Wygant, J., Bonnell, J., Goetz, K., Ergun, R., Mozer, F., Bale, S., & Tao, J. B. (2013). The electric field and waves instruments on the
Radiation Belt Storm Probes mission. Space Science Reviews, 179(1–4), 183–220.
Wygant, J., Mozer, F., Temerin, M., Blake, J., Maynard, N., Singer, H., & Smiddy, M. (1994). Large amplitude electric and magnetic field
signatures in the inner magnetosphere during injection of 15 MeV electron drift echoes. Geophysical Research Letters, 21(16), 1739–1742.
LI AND HUDSON 8350

Xiang, Z., Li, X., Selesnick, R., Temerin, M. A., Ni, B., Zhao, H., et al. (2019). Modeling the quasi‐trapped electron fluxes from cosmic ray
albedo neutron decay (CRAND). Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 1919–1928. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL081730
Xiang, Z., Tu, W., Li, X., Ni, B., Morley, S. K., & Baker, D. N. (2017). Understanding the mechanisms of radiation belt dropouts observed by
Van Allen Probes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 9858–9879. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024487
Xiang, Z., Tu, W., Ni, B., Henderson, M. G., & Cao, X. (2018). A statistical survey of radiation belt dropouts observed by Van Allen Probes.
Xiao, F., Yang, C., He, Z., Su, Z., Zhou, Q., He, Y., et al. (2014). Chorus acceleration of radiation belt relativistic electrons during March 2013
geomagnetic storm. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 3325–3332. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA019822
Xiao, F., Yang, C., Su, Z., Zhou, Q., He, Z., He, Y., et al. (2015). Wave‐driven butterfly distribution of Van Allen belt relativistic electrons.
Nature Communications, 6, 8590. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9590
Yoon, P. H. (2011). Large‐amplitude whistler waves and electron acceleration. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L12105. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2011GL047893
Yuan, C. J., & Zong, Q. G. (2012). Quantitative aspects of variations of 1.5–6.0 MeV electrons in the outer radiation belt during magnetic
storms. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, A11208. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50564
Zhang, K., Li, X., Zhao, H., Schiller, Q., Khoo, L. Y., Xiang, Z., et al. (2019). Cosmic Ray Albedo Neutron Decay (CRAND) as a source of
inner belt electrons: Energy spectrum study. Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 544–552. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080887
Zhang, W., Fu, S., Gu, X., Ni, B., Xiang, Z., Summers, D., et al. (2018). Electron scattering by plasmaspheric hiss in a nightside plume.
Zhang, X.‐J., Li, W., Ma, Q., Thorne, R. M., Angelopoulos, V., Bortnik, J., et al. (2016). Direct evidence for EMIC wave scattering of rela-
tivistic electrons in space. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 6620–6631. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA022521
Zhang, X.‐J., Mourenas, D., Artemyev, A. V., Angelopoulos, V., & Thorne, R. M. (2017). Contemporaneous EMIC and whistler mode waves:
Observations and consequences for MeV electron loss. Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 8113–8121. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2017GL073886
Zhang, X.‐J., Thorne, R., Artemyev, A., Mourenas, D., Angelopoulos, V., Bortnik, J., et al. (2018). Properties of intense field‐aligned lower‐
band chorus waves: Implications for nonlinear wave‐particle interactions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123,
5379–5393. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025390
Zhao, H., Baker, D. N., Li, X., Jaynes, A. N., & Kanekal, S. G. (2018). The acceleration of ultrarelativistic electrons during a small to
moderate storm of 21 April 2017. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 5818–5825. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078582
Zhao, H., & Li, X. (2013). Modeling energetic electron penetration into the slot region and inner radiation belt. Journal of Geophysical
Zhao, H., Li, X., Blake, J. B., Fennell, J. F., Claudepierre, S. G., Baker, D. N., et al. (2014). Peculiar pitch angle distribution of relativistic
electrons in the inner radiation belt and slot region. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 2250–2257. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059725
Zhao, H., Ni, B., Li, X., Baker, D. N., Johnston, W. R., Zhang, W., et al. (2019). Plasmaspheric hiss waves generate a reversed energy
spectrum of radiation belt electrons. Nature Physics, 15, 367–372. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567‐018‐0391‐6
Zhelavskaya, I. S., Shprits, Y. Y., & Spasojevic, M. (2017). Empirical modeling of the plasmasphere dynamics using neural networks.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 11,227–11,244. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024406
Zheng, L., Chan, A. A., Albert, J. M., Elkington, S. R., Koller, J., Horne, R. B., et al. (2014). Three‐dimensional stochastic modeling of
radiation belts in adiabatic invariant coordinates. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 7615–7635. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2014JA020127
Zheng, L., Chen, L., & Zhu, H. (2019). Modeling energetic electron nonlinear wave‐particle interactions with electromagnetic ion cyclotron
waves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 3436–3453. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA026156
Zong, Q., Rankin, R., & Zhou, X. (2017). The interaction of ultra‐low‐frequency Pc3‐5 waves with charged particles in Earth's magneto-
sphere. Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 1, 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41614‐017‐0011‐4
Zong, Q.‐G., Zhou, X.‐Z., Wang, Y. F., Li, X., Song, P., Baker, D. N., et al. (2009). Energetic electron response to ULF waves induced by
interplanetary shocks in the outer radiation belt. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, A10204. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014393
LI AND HUDSON 8351

View

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

View

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEATURE ARTICLE Earth's Van Allen Radiation Belts: From Discovery

LI AND HUDSON 8319

1. Introduction to Van Allen Radiation Belts

LI AND HUDSON 8320

LI AND HUDSON 8321

LI AND HUDSON 8322

LI AND HUDSON 8323

LI AND HUDSON 8324

LI AND HUDSON 8325

2.2. Prompt Injection on Electron Drift Timescale

LI AND HUDSON 8326

2.3. Radial Loss

LI AND HUDSON 8327

LI AND HUDSON 8328

3. Local Energy and Pitch Angle Scattering

3.1. Whistler Mode Waves

LI AND HUDSON 8329

known to play a dual role in radiation belt electron dynamics by (1)

LI AND HUDSON 8330

LI AND HUDSON 8331

LI AND HUDSON 8332

LI AND HUDSON 8333

3.2. EMIC Waves

LI AND HUDSON 8334

3.3. Other Nonlinear Waves

LI AND HUDSON 8335

3.4. Nonlinear Wave‐Particle Interactions

LI AND HUDSON 8336

LI AND HUDSON 8337

LI AND HUDSON 8338

4. Summary and Outstanding Challenges

LI AND HUDSON 8339

LI AND HUDSON 8340

LI AND HUDSON 8341

LI AND HUDSON 8342

LI AND HUDSON 8343

LI AND HUDSON 8344

LI AND HUDSON 8345

LI AND HUDSON 8346

LI AND HUDSON 8347

LI AND HUDSON 8348

LI AND HUDSON 8349

LI AND HUDSON 8350

LI AND HUDSON 8351

You might also like