Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 54 references

The transition from Galactic to extragalactic cosmic rays: the high-energy end of the Galactic spectrum

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the long-sought sources of PeV cosmic rays are likely rare, energetic supernovae, and that resolving the Galactic-to-extragalactic transition requires pinning down the high-energy end of the Galactic proton spectrum.

desk verdict A clear, honest review of the Galactic high-energy spectrum; no new results, but a useful synthesis that is upfront about its own load-bearing uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17881 v1 pith:7DRLW7IM submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.HE

P. Cristofari This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmicrayskneeGalacticcosmic-raysourcessupernovaremnantspevatronsdiffusiveshockaccelerationGalactic-extragalactictransitiongamma-rayemission
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This review paper argues that any successful model of the transition from Galactic to extragalactic cosmic rays must first understand the high-energy tail of the Galactic component: its maximum energy, chemical composition, and propagated spectrum. The author maintains that supernova remnants can supply the bulk of Galactic cosmic rays, but only a rare subclass of core-collapse supernovae, with high explosion energy and low ejecta mass, can accelerate protons into the PeV range and shape the spectrum around the knee. If this is right, the hunt for Galactic sources should focus on this rare class and on disentangling hadronic from leptonic gamma-ray emission in the 100 TeV band. The paper also flags a key uncertainty: the feature usually called the proton knee at 3 to 4 PeV could actually be helium-dominated, which would force a major revision of the pevatron picture.

What carries the argument

The central object is the maximum-energy estimate for shock acceleration at supernova remnants, given by the Hillas criterion E_max ~ xi (R_sh/pc)(u_sh/1000 km/s)(B/muG) TeV, combined with the Bell non-resonant streaming instability for magnetic-field amplification. The review uses this to argue that only rare core-collapse supernovae with high explosion energy, high mass-loss rate, and low ejecta mass can reach the PeV range, and that their rate must be limited to a few percent of the Galactic supernova rate to match the measured all-particle spectrum. This machinery carries the argument by identifying which sources can be proton pevatrons and how many are needed.

What would settle it

Measure the nuclear composition of cosmic rays at the knee with air-shower arrays such as KASCADE-Grande, IceTop, or the Pierre Auger Observatory's low-energy extension; if the flux at 3 to 4 PeV is found to be dominated by helium rather than protons, the rare-supernova proton-pevatron interpretation of the knee must be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central thesis is that the knee region of the cosmic-ray spectrum is not set by the bulk of supernova remnants but by a small population of exceptional ones. Using the Hillas criterion and magnetic-field amplification a la Bell, it shows that ordinary SNRs cannot reach PeV energies, whereas remnants of core-collapse supernovae with high mass-loss rates, total explosion energy above roughly 5e51 erg, and low-mass ejecta (a few solar masses) can. For such objects the maximum proton energy can reach the PeV range, and the rate of such supernovae must be about 1 to 5 percent of the Galactic rate to avoid overproducing the total proton flux. The paper argues that this rare population, not typical SNRs, shapes the transition from a $E^{-2}$.7 to $E^{-3}$ spectrum at the knee, and that the smoothness of the local interstellar spectrum above the knee arises naturally from steep, rigidity-dependent cutoffs rather than sharp ones. It also reviews evidence that many sources detected as pevatrons by LHAASO may be leptonic, so a 100 TeV gamma-ray detection alone does not prove hadronic acceleration.

Load-bearing premise

The whole discussion assumes that the spectral feature at 3 to 4 PeV is actually the proton knee, even though the paper itself notes that it could be helium-dominated or located near 700 TeV instead.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the rare-supernova scenario is correct, searches for Galactic cosmic-ray sources should prioritize identifying remnants of high-energy, low-ejecta core-collapse supernovae, not the most common SNRs.
  • The rate of such rare supernovae is constrained to roughly 1 to 5 percent of the Galactic supernova rate, which can be tested by surveys of supernova remnants and their explosion energies.
  • Distinguishing hadronic from leptonic emission requires gamma-ray instruments with good angular and spectral resolution in the 100 TeV range, since a hard 100 TeV spectrum does not uniquely imply proton acceleration.
  • Measurements of the composition at the knee, especially whether the 3 to 4 PeV feature is proton-dominated or helium-dominated, will directly affect which sources are considered viable pevatrons.
  • If the knee is a rigidity-dependent cutoff, the local interstellar spectrum above the knee should be a smooth superposition of nuclear knees, not a single sharp break.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would be to model the full cosmic-ray spectrum with rare, high-energy SNe and ask whether the predicted anisotropies and small-scale structure match current limits; the paper does not perform this exercise.
  • If the 3 to 4 PeV knee turns out to be helium-dominated, the search for proton pevatrons would shift to lower energies (around 700 TeV), and the role of rare SNe would need to be recast in terms of helium acceleration.
  • The argument implies that the gamma-ray horizon for hadronic sources is set by the ratio E_gamma ~ E_p/10, so instruments with sensitivity above 100 TeV, like future extensions of LHAASO, could indirectly map the proton cutoff energy of individual remnants.
  • The paper's logic suggests that mixed-source models, where wind termination shocks contribute a few percent of the flux, become more attractive because they can explain the 22Ne/20Ne ratio without invoking rare SNe for all of the high-energy tail.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a concise review of the high-energy end of the Galactic cosmic-ray spectrum, with the stated goal of clarifying the Galactic contribution to the transition to extragalactic cosmic rays. The author argues that the maximum energy, chemical composition, and propagated spectrum of the Galactic component are essential inputs for models of the ankle and the Galactic-to-extragalactic transition. The review focuses on the proton knee and its potential Galactic sources, concluding that supernova remnants (SNRs) can plausibly power the bulk of Galactic cosmic rays, but that only rare core-collapse SNRs with high explosion energy and low ejecta mass can accelerate protons to the PeV range. It also summarizes the roles of massive stars, superbubbles, and wind termination shocks, and lists open questions, including the possibility that the observed 3-4 PeV feature is not the proton knee but is dominated by heavier nuclei.

Significance. As a proceedings-style review, the paper does not present new derivations, but it offers a useful and readable synthesis of current knowledge and open questions about the high-energy Galactic cosmic-ray spectrum. Its main positive contributions are (i) the explicit framing of the Galactic-to-extragalactic transition as being dependent on the high-energy Galactic component; (ii) a clear presentation of the evidence that only a rare subclass of SNRs can act as proton pevatrons; and (iii) an honest treatment of observational ambiguities, particularly the disagreement between ARGO-YBJ and KASCADE on the proton knee energy and the possibility that the 3-4 PeV feature is helium-dominated. The paper is well referenced and transparent about the model dependence of its central scenario. If accepted after minor revisions, it will serve as a useful entry point for researchers entering the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 1 and Section 2.1] The Introduction states as established fact that the proton knee is at ~3-4 PeV, while Section 2.1 correctly notes that ARGO-YBJ reports a value around 700 TeV and that the proton knee energy is 'still open to discussion.' Section 5 then concedes that the 3-4 PeV feature could be helium-dominated, in which case 'all the above discussions should need revision.' Because the review's narrative about proton pevatrons and rare SNRs depends on identifying the 3-4 PeV feature with the proton knee, the introduction should be reworded to present this identification as the commonly adopted but not yet settled interpretation, rather than as a measured fact. This inconsistency between sections weakens the clarity of the review's central argument and should be fixed.
  2. [Section 5] The 'wild hypothesis' that the 3-4 PeV feature is helium-dominated is dismissed in a single sentence, yet it is potentially the most consequential open question for the review's conclusions. The author should spell out the concrete implications of this hypothesis: if the proton knee is actually at ~700 TeV, the required maximum proton energy for Galactic accelerators is relaxed and the case for a rare, very high-energy SNR population is weakened; if the feature is the helium knee, the discussion of proton pevatrons should be reframed in terms of rigidity-dependent nuclear knees. Providing this analysis would turn the concession into a substantive contribution rather than a caveat.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase 'at the of Earth's atmosphere' is missing a word; it should read 'at the top of Earth's atmosphere' or similar.
  2. [Section 1] The expression 'accounting for about ~90%' is redundant; 'about' and '~' convey the same meaning. Use one of them.
  3. [Section 1] The second knee energy is given as '~1-5×10^17 PeV', which is dimensionally wrong; the units should be eV, i.e., '1-5×10^17 eV'.
  4. [Section 2.1] The experiment name is misspelled as 'ARGO-YBL' in the text; the correct name is ARGO-YBJ.
  5. [Throughout] The text contains several LaTeX spacing artifacts (e.g., 'di ffusive', 'ber exponentially suppressed') and informal expressions (e.g., 'wild hypothesis', 'superpevatrons' with a footnote). A careful proofreading pass is needed before publication.
  6. [Figure 2] The caption lists the model parameters but does not define the curves Nacc, Nad, Nesc, and Ninj. Since the figure is central to the rare-SNR scenario, a brief parenthetical explanation of these components would make it accessible to non-specialists.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a review that synthesizes prior models and observational data; self-citations are present but not load-bearing, and the paper explicitly flags its main observational contingency.

full rationale

This is a review/proceedings article rather than a derivation. It fits no parameters and presents no new prediction that reduces by construction to an input. The central statements about rare supernova remnants reaching the PeV range and the correspondingly low Galactic rate cite the author's prior modeling work (Cristofari et al. 2020, Cristofari et al. 2021, 2022; Morlino et al. 2021), and Figure 2 reproduces a spectrum from Cristofari et al. 2020. This is self-citation, but the cited models are anchored to external data (LIS measurements, LHAASO, ARGO-YBJ, KASCADE) and are not invoked as an unexamined uniqueness theorem. The paper's Section 5 explicitly acknowledges that if the 3-4 PeV feature is helium-dominated rather than the proton knee, then 'all the above discussions should need revision'; that is an openly admitted assumption, not a circular reduction. No equation in the text equates a predicted quantity with an input by definition, and the paper even notes that a rare-SN-only explanation of the entire LIS is 'not a satisfying solution.' The closest issue is reliance on the author's prior model for the illustrative Figure 2 and for the rare-SN rate, which is minor and not load-bearing in the sense of forcing the conclusion. Therefore no specific circular step is identified; the score of 2 reflects only the presence of several self-citations in a review whose central claim retains independent, externally referenced content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review does not fit new data, so the central claim rests on the standard domain assumptions of cosmic-ray source models: diffusive shock acceleration, Hillas/Bell maximum-energy estimates, and a rigidity-dependent knee. The four parameters listed are inputs for the illustrative Figure 2 from prior work, not fitted here. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • SN explosion energy E_SN = 6 x 10^51 erg
    Input for the illustrative core-collapse SN model in Fig. 2, taken from Cristofari et al. 2020; not fitted in this paper.
  • Mass-loss rate Mdot = 10^-5 Msun/yr
    Input for the illustrative model in Fig. 2, taken from prior work; chosen by hand.
  • Acceleration efficiency xi = 5%
    Input for the illustrative model in Fig. 2, taken from prior work; chosen by hand.
  • SN rate nu_SN = 0.06 per century
    Rate used for the rare supernova class in Fig. 2; from prior work.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Diffusive shock acceleration at strong shocks produces non-thermal particle spectra close to E^-2 in momentum.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to explain the rigidity-dependent knee and in Section 3 to justify SNR injection spectra, without derivation.
  • domain assumption The maximum energy reachable at an accelerator is set by the Hillas criterion and, for SNRs, by Bell-type magnetic field amplification.
    Section 3 uses these to estimate Emax and to argue that PeV energies require exceptional explosion parameters.
  • domain assumption The Galactic cosmic-ray spectrum below the knee is dominated by protons and nuclei accelerated by Galactic sources, with a rigidity-dependent knee.
    This is the working framework of Sections 1 and 2, although the paper flags ARGO-YBJ's lower knee value and the helium-knee hypothesis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The transition from Galactic to extragalactic cosmic rays: the high-energy end of the Galactic spectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7DRLW7IM

@misc{pith2026241117881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The transition from Galactic to extragalactic cosmic rays: the high-energy end of the Galactic spectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7DRLW7IM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17881}
}
abstract

Understanding the transition from Galactic to extragalactic cosmic rays (CRs) is essential to make sense of the Local cosmic ray spectrum. Several models have been proposed to account for this transition in the 0.1 - 10 $\times 10^{18}$ eV range. For instance: ankle models, where the change from a steep Galactic component to a hard extragalactic spectrum occurs in the $4-10 \times 10^{18}$ eV region, dip models, where the interactions of CR protons with the CMB producing electron-positron pairs shape the ankle, or mixed composition models, in which extragalactic CRs are composed of nuclei of various types. In all these scenarios, the low-energy part of the transition involves the high-energy part of the Galactic component. Therefore, any information on the Galactic component, such as maximum energy, chemical composition, and spectrum after propagation, is crucial to understanding the Galactic-extragalactic transition. We briefly review the high-energy part of the CR spectrum expected from the best potential sources of Galactic CRs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17881 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The local interstellar proton spectra. Data compiled by C. Evoli https://github.com/carmeloevoli particle acceleration at strong shocks of SNRs, for which the maximum energy of the accelerated particle is ex￾pected to be rigidity dependent. In addition, it has been argued that very sharp cut-offs for the spectra of the differ￾ent nuclei fail to produce a smooth LIS above the proton knee and that steep spectra above … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proton spectrum from a core-collapse SN with total explosion energy ESN = 6 × 1051 erg, Mass-loss rate M˙ = 10−5 M⊙/yr and efficiency ξ = 5 %, the SN rate is νSN = 0.06/century. The black dot-dashed line corresponds to a naive estimate of all accelerated protons. The dotted green lines correspond to par￾ticles trapped inside the SNR and suffering adiabatic losses and released at the end of the adiabatic phase. The o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The He and proton spectra measured by various exper￾iments. The blue and red lines are very wild extrapolations of the proton and Helium trends to higher energies. Data compiled by C. Evoli https://github.com/carmeloevoli The next years will be absolutely determinant for the search of the Galactic CR sources. Instruments capable of characterizing the gamma-ray spectra in the 100 TeV range, e.g., CTA, will be of spec… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1143/ptp/8.5.571

    Hayakawa S., 1952, PThPh, 8, 571. doi:10.1143/ptp/8.5.571

    doi:10.1143/ptp/8.5.571 1952

  2. [2]

    A., Ackermann M., Ajello M., Allafort A., Antolini E., Atwood W

    Abdo A. A., Ackermann M., Ajello M., Allafort A., Antolini E., Atwood W. B., Axelsson M., et al., 2010, ApJS, 188, 405. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/188/2/405

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/188/2/405 2010

  3. [3]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.231101

    Berezinsky V ., Gazizov A., Kachel- rieß M., 2006, PhRvL, 97, 231101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.231101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.231101 2006

  4. [4]

    V ., Khan E., Goriely S., 2005, A&A, 443, L29

    Allard D., Parizot E., Olinto A. V ., Khan E., Goriely S., 2005, A&A, 443, L29. doi:10.1051 /0004- 6361:200500199

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    M., 2007, APh, 27,

    Hooper D., Sarkar S., Taylor A. M., 2007, APh, 27,

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Aloisio R., Berezinsky V ., Gazizov A., 2011, APh, 34,

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    R., Anchordo- qui L

    Unger M., Farrar G. R., Anchordo- qui L. A., 2015, PhRvD, 92, 123001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.123001 2015

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.021302

    Globus N., Allard D., Parizot E., 2015, PhRvD, 92, 021302. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.021302

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.021302 2015

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.081301

    de Marco D., Stanev T., 2005, PhRvD, 72, 081301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.081301

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    doi:10.1238/Physica.Topical.085a00117

    Waxman E., 2000, PhST, 85, 117. doi:10.1238/Physica.Topical.085a00117

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1051/epjconf/201921004003

    Kachelrieß M., 2019, EPJWC, 210, 04003. doi:10.1051/epjconf/201921004003

    2019

  4. [12]

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.09.007

    Aloisio R., Berezinsky V ., Gazizov A., 2012, APh, 39, 129. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.09.007

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2014.10.023

    Parizot E., 2014, NuPhS, 256, 197. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2014.10.023

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.3390/universe7090324

    Cristofari P., 2021, Univ, 7, 324. doi:10.3390/universe7090324

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Cao Z., Catalanotti S., Chen S

    Bartoli B., Bernardini P., Bi X. J., Cao Z., Catalanotti S., Chen S. Z., Chen T. L., et al., 2015, PhRvD, 92, 092005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.092005

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Badea A

    Antoni T., Apel W. D., Badea A. F., Bekk K., Bercuci A., Blümer J., Bozdog H., et al., 2005, APh, 24, 1. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2005.04.001

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Agudo I., Al Samarai I., Alfaro R., Alfaro J., Alispach C., et al., 2019, scta.book

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium, Acharya B. S., Agudo I., Al Samarai I., Alfaro R., Alfaro J., Alispach C., et al., 2019, scta.book. doi:10.1142/10986

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Cao Z., della V olpe D., Liu S., Editors, :, Bi X., Chen Y ., et al., 2019, arXiv, arXiv:1905.02773

    2019

  11. [19]

    doi:10.22323/1.395.0023

    Hinton J., SWGO Collaboration, 2022, icrc.conf, 23. doi:10.22323/1.395.0023

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.3390/universe7110432

    Chadwick P., 2021, Univ, 7, 432. doi:10.3390/universe7110432

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    A., An Q., Axikegu B., Bai Y

    Cao Z., Aharonian F. A., An Q., Axikegu B., Bai Y . X., Bao Y . W., Bastieri D., et al., 2021, Natur, 594,

    2021

  14. [22]

    doi:10.3847 /2041- 8213/ac66cf

    de Oña Wilhelmi E., López-Coto R., Amato E., Aha- ronian F., 2022, ApJL, 930, L2. doi:10.3847 /2041- 8213/ac66cf

    2022

  15. [23]

    A., 2009, A&A, 497, 17

    Vannoni G., Gabici S., Aharonian F. A., 2009, A&A, 497, 17. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200809744

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    A., 2021, ApJL, 908, L49

    Breuhaus M., Hahn J., Romoli C., Reville B., Giac- inti G., Tuffs R., Hinton J. A., 2021, ApJL, 908, L49. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe41a

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    M., 2005, JPhG, 31, R95

    Hillas A. M., 2005, JPhG, 31, R95. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/31/5/R02

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    doi:10.1007 /s00159- 011-0049-110.48550/arXiv.1112.0576

    Vink J., 2012, A&ARv, 20, 49. doi:10.1007 /s00159- 011-0049-110.48550/arXiv.1112.0576

    2012 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gabici S., Gaggero D., Zandanel F., 2016, arXiv, arXiv:1610.07638

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    R., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550

    Bell A. R., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x

    2004

  21. [29]

    M., Bell A

    Schure K. M., Bell A. R., 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1174. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt137110.48550/arXiv.1307.6575

    2013

  22. [30]

    M., Bell A

    Schure K. M., Bell A. R., 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2802. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt208910.48550/arXiv.1310.7027

    2014

  23. [31]

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2020.102492

    Cristofari P., Blasi P., Amato E., 2020, APh, 123, 102492. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2020.102492

    2020

  24. [32]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab690

    Morlino G., Blasi P., Peretti E., Cristofari P., 2021, MNRAS, 504, 6096. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab690

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03498-z

    doi

  26. [34]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140448

    Cristofari P., Blasi P., Caprioli D., 2021, A&A, 650, A62. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140448

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Cristofari P., Blasi P., Caprioli D., 2022, ApJ, 930,

    2022

  28. [36]

    doi:10.1088 /0004- 637X/718/1/3110.48550/arXiv.1006.0034

    Ptuskin V ., Zirakashvili V ., Seo E.-S., 2010, ApJ, 718, 31. doi:10.1088 /0004- 637X/718/1/3110.48550/arXiv.1006.0034

    2010

  29. [37]

    doi:10.1051 /0004- 6361/20111744810.48550/arXiv.1112.4343

    Prantzos N., 2012, A&A, 538, A80. doi:10.1051 /0004- 6361/20111744810.48550/arXiv.1112.4343

    2012

  30. [38]

    doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021151

    Tatische ff V ., Gabici S., 2018, ARNPS, 68, 377. doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021151

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6182

    doi

  32. [40]

    R., Wiedenbeck M

    Binns W. R., Wiedenbeck M. E., Arnould M., Cummings A. C., George J. S., Goriely S., Israel M. H., et al., 2005, ApJ, 634, 351. doi:10.1086/49695910.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0508398

    2005

  33. [41]

    A., 1980, ApJ, 237, 236

    Casse M., Paul J. A., 1980, ApJ, 237, 236. doi:10.1086/157863

    1980 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Montmerle T., 1983, SSRv, 36, 173

    Cesarsky C. J., Montmerle T., 1983, SSRv, 36, 173. doi:10.1007/BF00167503

    1983 doi

  35. [43]

    A., 1982, ApJ, 258, 860

    Casse M., Paul J. A., 1982, ApJ, 258, 860. doi:10.1086/160132

    1982 doi

  36. [44]

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0724-0

    Aharonian F., Yang R., de Oña Wilhelmi E., 2019, NatAs, 3, 561. doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0724-0

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    M., 2001, SSRv, 99, 317

    Bykov A. M., 2001, SSRv, 99, 317. doi:10.1023/A:1013817721725

    2001 doi

  38. [46]

    doi:10.1051 /0004- 6361/20091352010.48550/arXiv.0911.4457

    Ferrand G., Marcowith A., 2010, A&A, 510, A101. doi:10.1051 /0004- 6361/20091352010.48550/arXiv.0911.4457

    2010

  39. [47]

    J., Forman M., 1982, ApJ, 253, 188

    V oelk H. J., Forman M., 1982, ApJ, 253, 188. doi:10.1086/159623

    1982 doi

  40. [48]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac543

    Vieu T., Gabici S., Tatische ff V ., Ravikularaman S., 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1275. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac543

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    C., Duprat J., Gabici S., Recchia S., 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1321

    Tatische ff V ., Raymond J. C., Duprat J., Gabici S., Recchia S., 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1321. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2533

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    doi:10.1142/S0218271819300222

    Gabici S., Evoli C., Gaggero D., Lipari P., Mertsch P., Orlando E., Strong A., et al., 2019, IJMPD, 28, 1930022-339. doi:10.1142/S0218271819300222

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Tatische ff V ., 2004, A&A, 424, 747

    Parizot E., Marcowith A., van der Swaluw E., Bykov A. M., Tatische ff V ., 2004, A&A, 424, 747. doi:10.1051 /0004- 6361:2004126910.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405531

    2004

  44. [52]

    B., Sharma P., Eichler D., 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3159

    Gupta S., Nath B. B., Sharma P., Eichler D., 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3159. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa286

    2020 doi

  45. [199]

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.10.008

    2006 doi

  46. [620]

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.12.008

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.