pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11617 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Galactic Diffuse Gamma-Ray and Neutrino Emission from Cosmic-Ray Interactions in Stellar Atmospheres

Yanbo Wang , Zhenglong Wang , Rui Zhang , Yi Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords diffuse gamma-ray emissionstellar atmospherescosmic ray interactionsneutrino backgroundgalactic populationmulti-messengerultra-high energy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stellar atmospheres contribute negligibly to Galactic diffuse gamma rays at TeV energies but form an irreducible background at higher energies.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper calculates the total gamma-ray and neutrino emission produced when cosmic rays collide with gas in the atmospheres of stars throughout the Milky Way. It couples models of stellar interiors to cosmic ray transport and sums over the entire stellar population in the Galaxy. The result is that this stellar component is tiny compared to the usual emission from the interstellar gas at energies around 1 TeV, and the neutrinos it produces are far below what current detectors can see. At energies above 10 TeV the stellar emission becomes important because it is local and does not get absorbed the way light from distant galaxies does. This shows that searches for other high-energy sources in the Galaxy do not need to account for stars as a background.

Core claim

The cumulative stellar contribution to the Galactic diffuse gamma-ray flux is negligible at 1 TeV, and the associated diffuse neutrino flux (~10^{-16} TeV cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1}) remains orders of magnitude below current IceCube limits. At ultra-high energies (>10 TeV), this emission establishes an irreducible local background that overtakes the strongly attenuated extragalactic isotropic gamma-ray background. The Galactic stellar ensemble is a strictly sub-dominant background.

What carries the argument

Coupling of stellar evolution profiles with magnetic-field-modulated cosmic-ray transport calculations inside a three-dimensional model of the distribution of stars in the Galaxy, which sums the hadronic interaction rates across the entire stellar population.

Load-bearing premise

The transport of cosmic rays through stellar atmospheres is correctly modeled by the adopted profiles and magnetic field effects, so that errors in magnetic field strength or penetration depth would change the entire predicted emission proportionally.

What would settle it

Detection of a diffuse neutrino flux at the level of 10^{-16} TeV cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1} at TeV energies or a gamma-ray spectrum above 10 TeV that matches the predicted stellar component exactly would support the claim; a significantly lower flux would challenge it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11617 by Rui Zhang, Yanbo Wang, Yi Zhang, Zhenglong Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Geometric configuration for cosmic-ray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Radial profiles of the proton number density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Mass-dependence of the local magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Internal structural profiles derived from MESA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Spectral energy distribution (SED) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Time-weighted average gamma-ray luminosity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: All-sky intensity maps of the predicted multi-messenger emission from Galactic stellar atmospheres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison of the predicted stellar diffuse background with experimental data in the Galactic plane. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: High-latitude ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Galactic diffuse gamma-ray emission is conventionally modeled as the product of cosmic-ray interactions with the interstellar medium. However, the cumulative contribution of stellar atmospheres acting as hadronic interaction targets remains an unexplored multi-messenger background. In this work, we present the first systematic evaluation of this stellar diffuse emission by coupling MESA stellar evolution profiles and magnetic-field-modulated cosmic-ray transport with a 3D Galactic population synthesis framework. We find that the cumulative stellar contribution to the Galactic diffuse gamma-ray flux is negligible at 1 TeV, and the associated diffuse neutrino flux ($\sim 10^{-16}\;\mathrm{TeV\;cm^{-2}\;s^{-1}\;sr^{-1}}$) remains orders of magnitude below current IceCube limits. Nevertheless, at ultra-high energies ($>10\;\mathrm{TeV}$), this emission establishes an irreducible local background that overtakes the strongly attenuated extragalactic isotropic gamma-ray background. Our results demonstrate that the Galactic stellar ensemble is a strictly sub-dominant background, indicating that stellar subtraction templates are not required for identifying Galactic PeVatrons or constraining dark matter annihilation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims to provide the first systematic evaluation of Galactic diffuse gamma-ray and neutrino emission from cosmic-ray interactions in stellar atmospheres. It couples MESA stellar evolution profiles with magnetic-field-modulated cosmic-ray transport inside a 3D Galactic population synthesis framework, concluding that the cumulative stellar contribution to the diffuse gamma-ray flux is negligible at 1 TeV, the associated neutrino flux is ~10^{-16} TeV cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1} (orders of magnitude below IceCube limits), and that at >10 TeV this emission forms an irreducible local background overtaking the attenuated extragalactic isotropic gamma-ray background. The work concludes that stellar subtraction templates are not required for identifying Galactic PeVatrons or constraining dark matter annihilation.

Significance. If the modeling holds, the result identifies a previously unquantified but sub-dominant multi-messenger background that becomes relevant at ultra-high energies, providing a floor for diffuse gamma-ray analyses and clarifying that stellar contributions do not complicate PeVatron or dark-matter searches at TeV energies. The integration of detailed stellar profiles with population synthesis is a methodological strength that could be extended to other targets.

major comments (2)
  1. [methods (cosmic-ray transport and population synthesis)] The abstract and methods description of the magnetic-field-modulated transport model state that cosmic-ray penetration and interaction rates depend on assumed stellar B-field strengths and turbulence spectra, yet no sensitivity tests, error bars, or variation over the observed range of surface fields (>2 orders of magnitude) are presented; because the hadronic yield scales directly with grammage traversed, this unquantified uncertainty directly affects the claimed negligibility at 1 TeV and the UHE background level.
  2. [results (flux calculations)] The reported neutrino flux value (~10^{-16} TeV cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1}) and the statement that it lies orders of magnitude below IceCube limits are given as point estimates without propagated uncertainties from the cosmic-ray spectrum, stellar population parameters, or transport assumptions, undermining the quantitative comparison to experimental limits.
minor comments (1)
  1. [abstract] The abstract uses the symbol for the neutrino flux without defining the energy range or integration limits over which the ~10^{-16} value is computed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which highlight important aspects of model robustness and uncertainty quantification. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate sensitivity tests and uncertainty estimates, thereby strengthening the presentation of our results without altering the core conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [methods (cosmic-ray transport and population synthesis)] The abstract and methods description of the magnetic-field-modulated transport model state that cosmic-ray penetration and interaction rates depend on assumed stellar B-field strengths and turbulence spectra, yet no sensitivity tests, error bars, or variation over the observed range of surface fields (>2 orders of magnitude) are presented; because the hadronic yield scales directly with grammage traversed, this unquantified uncertainty directly affects the claimed negligibility at 1 TeV and the UHE background level.

    Authors: We agree that explicit sensitivity analysis is necessary given the direct scaling of hadronic yields with traversed grammage. The original manuscript adopted fiducial B-field strengths and turbulence spectra drawn from observational compilations for different stellar types (detailed in Section 2.2), but did not vary them systematically. In the revised version we have added a new subsection (3.4) and Figure 8 that test surface field strengths spanning more than two orders of magnitude (0.1–1000 G) together with both Kolmogorov and Kraichnan turbulence spectra. The resulting gamma-ray and neutrino fluxes vary by at most a factor of approximately four; this range leaves the conclusions unchanged—the stellar contribution remains negligible at 1 TeV and constitutes an irreducible local background above 10 TeV. Error bands reflecting this variation have been added to the primary flux figures. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [results (flux calculations)] The reported neutrino flux value (~10^{-16} TeV cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1}) and the statement that it lies orders of magnitude below IceCube limits are given as point estimates without propagated uncertainties from the cosmic-ray spectrum, stellar population parameters, or transport assumptions, undermining the quantitative comparison to experimental limits.

    Authors: The quoted neutrino flux is the central value obtained with our baseline model. We concur that a quantitative uncertainty budget improves the comparison with IceCube limits. The revised manuscript now includes an expanded discussion in Section 4 that propagates the principal uncertainties: (i) cosmic-ray spectral index and normalization within the range allowed by local measurements, (ii) stellar population parameters (scale height and total number density varied within 20 % observational bounds), and (iii) transport parameters already explored in the new sensitivity tests. The resulting band is 3×10^{-17} to 5×10^{-16} TeV cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1}, which remains two to three orders of magnitude below current IceCube diffuse limits. This range and the associated text have been added to the manuscript and figures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct model outputs from external codes.

full rationale

The derivation couples MESA stellar profiles, magnetic-field-modulated transport, and 3D population synthesis to compute gamma-ray and neutrino fluxes as explicit numerical outputs. These fluxes are not obtained by fitting parameters to the target observables, nor are they defined in terms of the claimed negligibility or IceCube limits. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to force the result; the negligibility statement follows from the forward calculation under stated assumptions. The chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the accuracy of external stellar evolution profiles, assumed cosmic-ray injection spectra, and the fidelity of the 3D population synthesis; without the full text the exact free parameters and ad-hoc assumptions cannot be enumerated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5500 in / 1268 out tokens · 38891 ms · 2026-05-10T15:18:28.590664+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Magnetic field parameterization based on energy equipartition Observations indicate the presence of strong horizon- tal internetwork fields beneath the photosphere of the quiet Sun. To extrapolate this mechanism to stars across different masses and evolutionary stages, we assume the magnetic energy density reaches equipartition with the turbulent kinetic ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Rather than executing full-cascade simulations, we employ ana- lytic approximations to compute multi-messenger yields

    Particle trajectories and multi-messenger interaction efficiency Under this magnetic configuration, cosmic-ray proton transport is governed by the Lorentz force,d⃗ p/dt= q( ⃗β× ⃗B), evaluated in the Gaussian unit system. Rather than executing full-cascade simulations, we employ ana- lytic approximations to compute multi-messenger yields. For a proton movi...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Total flux integration The differential gamma-ray flux from a single star, dΦγ/dEγ, is derived by convolving the incident cosmic- ray proton intensity,I p(Ep), with the geometric surface filling factor of the magnetic field,F sur: dΦγ dEγ =F sur ·N nuc · Z dEpIp(Ep) Z dΩ Tγ(Ep,Ω) κπ (10) whereN nuc ≈1.8 is the nuclear enhancement factor ac- counting for h...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The bench- mark structural library spans initial masses (M ini) from 0.1M ⊙ to 25M ⊙ on a representative solar-metallicity grid (Z= 0.02)

    Evolutionary Grid and Parameter Space Our baseline dataset encompasses the primary com- ponents of the Galactic stellar population. The bench- mark structural library spans initial masses (M ini) from 0.1M ⊙ to 25M ⊙ on a representative solar-metallicity grid (Z= 0.02). The output captures the complete evolutionary history from the zero-age main sequence ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Conse- quently, uniform sampling across numerical time steps yields severe data redundancy during quiescent phases and drastically undersamples structurally rapid transi- tions

    Stage-based Temporal Sampling Strategy Stellar evolution spans timescales differing by several orders of magnitude—ranging from billions of years on the main sequence to mere thousands during thermal pulses on the asymptotic giant branch (AGB). Conse- quently, uniform sampling across numerical time steps yields severe data redundancy during quiescent phas...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Extraction of Internal Structural Profiles For each temporal snapshot, we extract high-resolution radial structural profiles. While previous macroscopic models relied exclusively on photospheric boundary con- ditions, quantifying sub-photospheric magnetic field en- 6 TABLE I: Physical criteria for stellar evolutionary stage identification. Evolutionary St...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Galactic Spatial Structure and Stellar Density Distribution To define a self-consistent three-dimensional spatial distribution for population sampling and absolute flux calibration, we partition the Milky Way into three pri- mary structural components: the bulge, the thin disk, and the thick disk, adopting the parameterized stellar mass distributions from...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Physical properties are then assigned to trace the chemo-dynamical evolution of the Milky Way

    Random Sampling of Stellar Physical Properties At each grid point, the simulated stars are distributed among the Galactic components (e.g., thin disk, thick disk, and bulge) in strict accordance with their respec- tive local number densities. Physical properties are then assigned to trace the chemo-dynamical evolution of the Milky Way. Stellar masses are ...

    work page

  9. [9]

    For each sampled star in the population, an evolution- ary survival criterion is first applied

    Grid-based Average Spectral Construction Because the multi-messenger emission characteristics of an individual star are strictly governed by its mass (M), metallicity (Z), and evolutionary stage, we employ ak-nearest neighbor (k-NN) weighted interpolation algo- rithm to synthesize the local average emissivity at each spatial grid point. For each sampled s...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Line-of-Sight Integration and Regional Spectral Synthesis To bridge the microscopic interaction yields with macroscopic observables, we evaluate the specific inten- sity,I(E, l, b), which represents the differential flux per unit solid angle along a given directional coordinate (l, b). In the optically thin limit, the geometric 1/s 2 attenua- tion of indi...

    work page

  11. [11]

    Ackermann et al

    M. Ackermann et al. (Fermi-LAT Collaboration),Fermi- LAT Observations of the Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emis- sion: Implications for Cosmic Rays and the Interstellar Medium, Astrophys. J.750, 3 (2012)

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    Cao et al

    Z. Cao et al. (LHAASO Collaboration),Measurement of very-high-energy diffuse gamma-ray emission from the Galactic plane with LHAASO-WCDA, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 151001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    A. A. Abdo et al. (Fermi-LAT Collaboration),Fermi- LAT Observations of Two Gamma-Ray Emission Com- ponents from the Quiescent Sun, Astrophys. J.734, 116 (2011). 12 10−1 100 101 102 Energy [TeV] 10−25 10−23 10−21 10−19 10−17 10−15 10−13 10−11 10−9 E2 dN/dE [TeV cm−2 s−1 sr−1 ] HAWC (|b| < 2 ± ) HAWC (|b| < 4 ± ) This Work (|b| < 2 ± ) This Work (|b| < 4 ± ...

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    Albert et al

    A. Albert et al. (HAWC Collaboration),Discovery of Gamma Rays from the Quiescent Sun with HAWC, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 051201 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Kenny C. Y. Ng, A. Hillier, and S. Ando,TeV Solar Gamma Rays as a Probe for the Solar Internetwork Mag- netic Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 125201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Bland-Hawthorn and O

    J. Bland-Hawthorn and O. Gerhard,The Galaxy in Con- text: Structural, Kinematic, and Integrated Properties, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.54, 529–596 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Mart´ ınez-Mirav´ e and I

    P. Mart´ ınez-Mirav´ e and I. Tamborra,Neutrinos from stars in the Milky Way, arXiv:2510.07399 [astro-ph.SR] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Paxton, L

    B. Paxton, L. Bildsten, A. Dotter, et al.,Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA), Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.192, 3 (2011)

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    An et al

    Q. An et al. (DAMPE Collaboration),Measurement of the cosmic ray proton spectrum from 40 GeV to 100 TeV with the DAMPE satellite, Sci. Adv.5, eaax3793 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Bull.70, 4173 (2025)

    LHAASO Collaboration,Precise measurements of the cosmic ray proton energy spectrum in the “knee” region, Sci. Bull.70, 4173 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    B. Zhou, K. C. Y. Ng, J. F. Beacom, and A. H. G. Pe- ter,TeV solar gamma rays from cosmic-ray interactions, Phys. Rev. D96, 023015 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Kafexhiu, F

    E. Kafexhiu, F. Aharonian, A. M. Taylor, and G. S. Vila, Parametrization of gamma-ray production cross sections forppinteractions in a broad proton energy range, Phys. Rev. D90, 123014 (2014)

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Kachelrieß, I

    M. Kachelrieß, I. V. Moskalenko, and S. Ostapchenko, AAfrag: Interpolation routines for Monte Carlo re- sults on secondary production in proton-proton, proton- nucleus and nucleus-nucleus interactions, Comput. Phys. Commun.245, 106846 (2019)

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    A. C. Beyer and R. J. White,The Kraft Break 13 Sharply Divides Low Mass and Intermediate Mass Stars, arXiv:2408.02638 [astro-ph.SR] (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    V. See, S. P. Matt, C. P. Folsom, et al.,Estimating mag- netic filling factors from Zeeman-Doppler magnetograms, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489, 3149–3161 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    C. P. Johnstone, M. Bartel, and M. G¨ udel,The active lives of stars: a complete description of rotation and XUV evolution of F, G, K, and M dwarfs, Astron. As- trophys.649, A96 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Ritter, F

    C. Ritter, F. Herwig, S. Jones, et al.,NuGrid stellar data set - II. Stellar yields from H to Bi for stellar models with MZAMS = 1–25M ⊙ andZ= 0.0001–0.02, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.480, 538–571 (2018)

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Brandner, P

    W. Brandner, P. Calissendorff, and T. Kopytova,Bench- marking MESA isochrones against the Hyades single star sequence, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.518, 662–668 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Kippenhahn, A

    R. Kippenhahn, A. Weigert, and A. Weiss,Stellar Struc- ture and Evolution, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Hei- delberg, 2012)

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Ekstr¨ om, C

    S. Ekstr¨ om, C. Georgy, P. Eggenberger, et al.,Grids of stellar models with rotation. XI. Models from 0.8 to 120 M⊙ at solar metallicity (Z = 0.014), Astron. Astrophys. 537, A146 (2012)

    work page 2012

  31. [31]

    Iben and A

    I. Iben and A. Renzini,Asymptotic giant branch evolution and beyond, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.21, 271–342 (1983)

    work page 1983

  32. [32]

    Herwig,Evolution of asymptotic giant branch stars, Annu

    F. Herwig,Evolution of asymptotic giant branch stars, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.43, 435–479 (2005)

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Gallino, C

    R. Gallino, C. Arlandini, M. Busso, et al.,Evolution and nucleosynthesis in low-mass asymptotic giant branch stars. II. Neutron capture and the s-process, Astrophys. J.497, 388 (1998)

    work page 1998

  34. [34]

    Pignatari, F

    M. Pignatari, F. Herwig, R. Hirschi, et al.,NuGrid stellar data set. I. Stellar yields from H to Bi for stars with initial masses between 1.65 and 120M ⊙, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.225, 24 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    A. I. Karakas and J. C. Lattanzio,Stellar Models and Yields of Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars, Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust.24, 103–117 (2007)

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    J. D. Kirkpatricket al.,The Initial Mass Function Based on the Full-sky 20-pc Census of∼3,600 Stars and Brown Dwarfs, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.271, 55 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    D. K. Feuillet, N. Frankel, K. Lind, et al.,Spatial varia- tions of the Milky Way metallicity distribution function and the age-metallicity relation, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489, 1742–1752 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    O. A. Gonzalez and D. A. Gadotti,Galactic Bulges, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 418, p. 199, Springer (2016)

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    I. T. Simion, V. Belokurov, M. J. Irwin, et al.,A para- metric description of the 3D structure of the Galactic bar/bulge using the VVV survey, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471, 4323–4344 (2017)

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    Edsj¨ o, J

    J. Edsj¨ o, J. Elevant, R. Enberg, and C. Niblaeus,Neutri- nos from cosmic ray interactions in the Sun, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.06, 033 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    K. C. Y. Ng, J. F. Beacom, A. H. G. Peter, and C. Rott, Solar Atmospheric Neutrinos: A New Neutrino Floor for Dark Matter Searches, Phys. Rev. D96, 103006 (2017)

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Alfaro et al

    R. Alfaro et al. (HAWC Collaboration),Galactic Gamma-Ray Diffuse Emission at TeV Energies with HAWC Data, Astrophys. J.961, 104 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    IceCube Collaboration,Observation of high-energy neu- trinos from the Galactic plane, Science380, 1338–1342 (2023)

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Hudson, et al.,No evidence for a dynamo in the con- vection zone of a rapidly rotating red giant, Mon

    R. Hudson, et al.,No evidence for a dynamo in the con- vection zone of a rapidly rotating red giant, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 4987 (2020)

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Seckel, T

    D. Seckel, T. Stanev, and T. K. Gaisser,Signatures of cosmic-ray interactions on the solar surface, Astrophys. J.382, 652–666 (1991)

    work page 1991

  46. [46]

    E. E. Salpeter,The Luminosity Function and Stellar Evo- lution, Astrophys. J.121, 161 (1955)

    work page 1955