Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Prediction of lithium isotope fluxes using data-driven production cross sections

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the AMS-02 lithium excess disappears once unmeasured 6Li and 6He production cross sections are renormalized to laboratory data, leaving no need for an extra primary component.

desk verdict Serious attempt at the lithium excess with real cross-section work, but the claimed consistency with AMS-02 is partly circular because high-energy data are excluded using that same AMS-02 spectrum. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05514 v1 pith:EDX777JX submitted 2025-02-08 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Meng-Jie Zhao , Xiao-Jun Bi , Kun Fang , Xing-Jian Lv , Peng-Fei Yin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords galacticcosmicrayslithiumisotopescosmic-raypropagationsecondarynuclearfragmentationcrosssectionsdiffusion-reaccelerationmodelAMS-026Li/7Liratio
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

The paper tackles a puzzle: AMS-02 measures more lithium in galactic cosmic rays than the standard diffusion model predicts when its propagation parameters are fixed by the boron-to-carbon ratio. Earlier work showed the shortfall can be filled by lithium produced from heavy progenitors such as Ne, Mg, Si, and Fe, but doing so overshoots the data. This paper argues that the overshoot is an artifact of unmeasured cross sections: the semi-empirical parametrization used for these reactions systematically overestimates 6Li and 6He production, and renormalizing the unmeasured channels to available laboratory measurements brings the prediction back into agreement. The result is that the total Li spectrum, and the 6Li and 7Li isotope spectra, match the AMS-02 measurements within the estimated cross-section uncertainties, preserving the standard secondary-production picture with no extra primary lithium component.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a data-driven renormalization of unmeasured production cross sections layered onto the standard diffusion-reacceleration propagation framework. Unmeasured channels—6Li/7Li from heavy projectiles and the short-lived 6He intermediate that decays to 6Li—are added with a semi-empirical parametrization, then multiplied by uniform factors (0.8 for 6Li from Z>8 projectiles, 0.33 for 6Li from Z<6 projectiles, 0.7 for 6He) chosen to match available laboratory measurements, chiefly heavy-fragmentation data at 1.2 GeV/n scaled to plateau energies and two light-projectile channels. The uncertainty treatment counts independently measured channels as uncorrelated and unmeasured channels as correlated, giving cross-section uncertainties of roughly 8–9% for each isotope.

What would settle it

Measure the 6Li production cross sections from Ne, Mg, Si, and other projectiles heavier than oxygen on hydrogen at 1–10 GeV/n; if the values do not sit near the 80% rescaling of the parametrization used here, or show strong energy dependence, the predicted 6Li flux and the claimed agreement with AMS-02 would break.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the previously reported lithium excess is nuclear rather than astrophysical. Adding the missing heavy-projectile channels with a semi-empirical parametrization and then renormalizing the unmeasured reactions to available data—0.8 for 6Li from projectiles heavier than oxygen, 0.33 for 6Li from projectiles lighter than carbon, and 0.7 for 6He—produces a total Li spectrum consistent with AMS-02 and 6Li/7Li spectra consistent with the preliminary AMS-02 isotope measurements inside the cross-section uncertainties. The 7Li spectrum fits well once the missing channels are added, and the renormalization mostly lowers the 6Li prediction. The paper concludes that no extra primary lithium component is required and that the propagation consistency of Li, Be, and B is recovered.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single rescale factor per class of unmeasured reactions—0.8 for 6Li from projectiles heavier than oxygen, 0.33 for 6Li from projectiles lighter than carbon, and 0.7 for 6He—correctly describes every channel in that class at all energies; if that uniformity fails, the predicted 6Li flux shifts by several percent and the claimed agreement with AMS-02 disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the renormalization is right, the standard secondary-production framework explains the AMS-02 lithium flux without adding a primary lithium component.
  • The updated model predicts 6Li and 7Li isotope fluxes that agree with the preliminary AMS-02 isotope data inside the cross-section uncertainty bands, with only a slight 6Li overestimate near 7 GV.
  • The dominant uncertainty in both isotopes comes from unmeasured channels involving Ne, Mg, Si, and Fe; measuring those at GeV/n energies would shrink the cross-section uncertainty from about 9% to about 6%, comparable to the AMS-02 data errors.
  • Because B and Be are already reproduced with the same propagation parameters, the lithium agreement closes the loop on the propagation consistency of the Li-Be-B group.
  • The same data-driven approach can be extended to heavier secondary groups, which the paper notes as a route toward the F and Si anomalies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the uniform rescale factors imply a sharp empirical prediction—individual unmeasured channels should cluster near 0.8, 0.33, and 0.7 times the parametrization values; laboratory spot checks of a few channels would confirm or falsify this regularity.
  • Beyond the paper: full AMS-02 isotope data across the 1–100 GV range will test the rigidity-independence of the rescaling; a growing discrepancy in the 6Li/7Li ratio would reopen the case for a primary lithium component.
  • Beyond the paper: if the pattern holds, other cosmic-ray secondary anomalies may also be nuclear rather than astrophysical, so cross-section measurements should be prioritized alongside new propagation models.
  • Beyond the paper: the per-class renormalization scheme could be applied to unmeasured channels of other secondary species, such as F, P, Sc, Ti, and V, providing a systematic way to separate cross-section systematics from source effects.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the Galactic cosmic-ray lithium flux excess found in the AMS-02 data under the standard propagation framework. Using propagation parameters from the authors' earlier B/C, B/O, and Be-isotope analysis, they add previously missing Li-production channels from heavy projectiles (Ne, Mg, Si, Fe) and 6He 'ghost' decays using the Tsao-Silberberg (TS00) parametrization. Because the unmeasured channels are overestimated, they renormalize the TS00 cross sections by class-specific factors (0.8 for Z>8 to 6Li, 0.33 for Z<6 to 6Li, 0.7 for 6He) based on a few laboratory data sets, and discard high-energy C/O-to-6Li data points that are inconsistent with AMS-02. The resulting 6Li and 7Li spectra are consistent with the preliminary AMS-02 isotope measurements within the authors' cross-section uncertainty estimates, and the total Li, Be, and B spectra are mutually consistent. The paper concludes that the Li excess is fully explained by secondary production with updated cross sections, with no primary Li component.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper resolves a long-standing anomaly in cosmic-ray secondary production without invoking exotic primary lithium components, within a standard propagation framework. The strengths include a transparent channel-by-channel ranking of Li production (Tables III and IV), a clear uncertainty taxonomy (A-D qualities), and explicit falsifiable predictions for 6Li and 7Li spectra and for future cross-section measurements. The prediction is not a pure refit of the AMS-02 Li data, since the rescale factors are anchored to laboratory cross-section measurements. However, the current version is not fully reproducible because the updated cross-section files are promised only 'in the published version,' and the circularity concern in the data selection (below) tempers the strength of the claimed consistency.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Fig. 7] The decision to discard the high-energy 12C+p→6Li and 16O+p→6Li data of Ko99, Ko02, and Ba05 is justified in the text by consistency with the AMS-02 6Li result presented in Sec. III ('the discarded data ... should be disfavored by the AMS-02 observations'). Since these channels together contribute roughly 53% of the 6Li flux (Table III: 16O 27.5% plus 12C 26.0%), this is a load-bearing selection made using the very dataset the paper aims to predict. The reference to the Be-isotope analysis of Ref. [18] provides a potential external justification, but no quantitative demonstration is given here. I request either a robustness test computing the Li spectrum with these data included, or an explicit external criterion (e.g., consistency with the Be/B ratio and the Be data used in Ref. [18]) to justify their exclusion.
  2. [Sec. II B 1 and Appendix B, Fig. 3] The central prediction rests on global rescale factors (0.8 for Z>8 to 6Li, 0.33 for Z<6 to 6Li, 0.7 for 6He) that are 'roughly determined' from very few laboratory points. The 0.33 factor is derived from two light-projectile measurements, and the 0.8 factor from He06 data at 1.2 GeV/n scaled to plateau using the TS00 energy dependence. The uncertainty in these factors is not propagated into the cross-section uncertainty estimates of Sec. II B 2: Eq. (7) only includes data errors and the nominal TS00 scatter, not the uncertainty of the rescaling itself. Since the modifications change the 6Li flux by up to 8.5% (Fig. 5), a sensitivity study varying each factor by, say, ±0.1 is needed to establish that the claimed consistency with AMS-02 is robust.
  3. [Sec. II B 2, Eq. (7)] The error propagation treats A, B, and C-quality channels as uncorrelated. However, all C-quality channels in a given class share the same rescale factor derived from the same data (e.g., He06 for Z>8; the light-projectile data for Z<6), so their uncertainties are at least partially correlated. Treating them as uncorrelated, while D-quality channels are added linearly as correlated, can underestimate the total uncertainty shown as the purple band in Fig. 4. I ask the authors to assess the effect of this correlation on the quoted (+9.2%, -8.1%) and (+9.9%, -8.4%) uncertainties, or to justify the uncorrelated assumption for the rescale-factor component.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II A and Table I] Please clarify whether the propagation parameters in Table I are re-derived in this work or taken verbatim from Ref. [18]. The text says 'almost the same setup' but Figure 1 labels them 'best-fit' and Sec. II A discusses fitting B/C with updated cross sections, which is ambiguous.
  2. [Appendix A] The sentence 'In the published version of the paper, we will attach ancillary files in Supplemental Material' indicates that the updated cross-section files are not included in the current version, making the data-driven analysis not fully reproducible; please provide these files with the submission.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The axis label 'AP' is not defined; please spell out that it is the projectile mass number. Also clarify in the caption how the dotted lines correspond to the three rescale factors listed as '[TS00]Li6*(0.33/1/0.8)'.
  4. [Acknowledgments] There is a typo: 'Grandt' should be 'Grant'.
  5. [Sec. III, Fig. 4] For 7Li the red and green lines coincide because no modification is applied to the 7Li channels; please state this explicitly so the reader does not infer that the rescaling changes the 7Li prediction.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

High-energy C/O→6Li data are discarded using the AMS-02 6Li spectrum that the paper then claims to predict, making the agreement partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A, discussion of Fig. 7 (12C+p→6Li and 16O+p→6Li channels)]
    "Considering that the cross section would not change rapidly above the plateau energy, we discarded some high-energy data (purple points) which are significantly larger. These group’s data ([Ko99], [Ko02], and [Ba05] [63–65]) are also disfavored by our previous estimation of Be isotopes [18], which await to be verified by more high-energy measurements. ... According to the 6Li result shown in Sec. III, the discarded data and the parametrization results of [TS00] should be disfavored by the AMS-02 observations."

    The discarded high-energy points belong to 12C+p→6Li and 16O+p→6Li, which together produce about 53% of the 6Li flux (Table III: 26.022% and 27.478%). The paper justifies the cut by “the 6Li result shown in Sec. III”, i.e., by the agreement of the model with the AMS-02 6Li spectrum that is then presented as a prediction in Sec. III. Removing data because they would break the agreement with the target dataset, and then reporting agreement with that same dataset, makes the consistency claim partly circular. The [18] Be-isotope argument provides an external check, but the explicit AMS-02-based sentence is a genuine input-selection circularity.

full rationale

The paper’s central renormalization factors (0.8 for Z>8, 0.33 for Z<6, 0.7 for 6He) are derived from laboratory cross-section measurements ([He06], [We96]) and from interpolations, not from the AMS-02 Li data, so the prediction is not simply a refit of the target. However, one load-bearing input-selection step is circular: high-energy Ko99/Ko02/Ba05 cross-section points are discarded with the explicit justification that the AMS-02 observations disfavor them, and those same observations are then used to validate the predicted Li spectrum. Because the affected channels dominate 6Li production, the claimed consistency is partially by construction. No other pattern of circularity is present: the propagation parameters come from B/C, B/O, and Be fits in prior work by the same group, which are external to the Li target. The overall score is 5: a genuine, localized circular step in the data selection, with substantial independent content remaining in the cross-section renormalization.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction is underpinned by the GALPROP transport model, fitted propagation and injection parameters from previous work, and a set of empirically motivated rescaling factors for unmeasured cross sections. The three new rescale factors (0.8, 0.33, 0.7) are the main new free parameters. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (6)
  • 6Li production rescale factor for Z > 8 projectiles = 0.8
    Set in Sec. II B 1 and Appendix B to match measured 6Li yields from heavy projectiles, chiefly Herbach et al. (2006); applied uniformly to all unmeasured Z>8 channels.
  • 6Li production rescale factor for Z < 6 projectiles = 0.33
    Determined by fitting the 9Be and 11B data points, then applied to all unmeasured light projectiles except 7Li, 9Be, and 11B. This is a large extrapolation from two constraints.
  • 6He production rescale factor for all projectiles = 0.7
    Set to 0.7 to match heavy-projectile data, with no direct light-projectile data; applied to all unmeasured 6He channels.
  • Solar modulation potential phi = 0.72 GV
    Fitted in Ref. [18] using Voyager LIS data and adopted here; strongly affects the low-energy predicted flux.
  • Propagation parameter set (D0, delta1, delta2, Rh, zh, VA, eta) = D0=5.197e28 cm2/s, d1=0.45, d2=0.215, Rh=280 GV, zh=5.674 kpc, VA=17.809 km/s, eta=-0.484
    Inherited from the prior B/C, B/O, and Be fit in Ref. [18]; the lithium prediction depends on these diffusion, convection, and reacceleration parameters.
  • Injection spectral indices and source abundances for primary nuclei = Table II values for C, N, O, Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si, S, Fe
    Each species' broken power-law injection (nu0, Rbr, nu1) and abundance are fit to AMS-02 and Voyager spectra; these determine the progenitor fluxes for lithium production.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The diffusion-reacceleration transport model with broken power-law diffusion and momentum diffusion is the correct framework.
    Adopted in Sec. II A from the standard GALPROP setup; if the transport model is wrong, the lithium prediction changes independently of cross sections.
  • domain assumption All observed lithium is secondary, produced by fragmentation in the ISM, with no primary lithium component.
    The paper explains the lithium excess entirely through missing cross-section contributions and renormalization, excluding primary-lithium interpretations.
  • domain assumption GALPROP's one-step and multistep reaction network, after the paper's additions, is complete for lithium production.
    Sec. II A relies on GALPROP v57's nuclear reaction network; missing additional channels would shift the prediction.
  • ad hoc to paper The TS00 parametrization provides correct energy dependence for scaling the 1.2 GeV/n Herbach data to plateau energies.
    Appendix B states 'we adopted the energy dependencies given by [TS00] to scale the [He06] data from 1.2 GeV/n to plateau energies'; this scaling is unvalidated for heavy fragments.
  • ad hoc to paper A single global renormalization factor per channel class applies to all unmeasured reactions in that class.
    Sec. II B 1 applies factors 0.8, 0.33, and 0.7 uniformly to all unmeasured channels in each class; no per-channel data support this uniformity.
  • ad hoc to paper Discarding the high-energy Ko99/Ko02/Ba05 cross-section data is justified.
    Appendix A labels these points 'not used'; the justification includes disagreement with Be estimates and consistency with the AMS-02 lithium data being predicted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prediction of lithium isotope fluxes using data-driven production cross sections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EDX777JX

@misc{pith2026250205514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prediction of lithium isotope fluxes using data-driven production cross sections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EDX777JX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05514}
}
abstract

Galactic cosmic rays (CRs) generally share common propagation features, leading to consistent spectral observations of secondary nuclei such as Li, Be, and B. However, the Li spectrum predicted by the CR diffusion coefficient inferred from B/C is significantly lower than the latest measurement of AMS-02. This anomaly may be attributed to the missing contributions from the heavy nuclei components in cosmic rays. By including these missing contributions the excess of the Li spectrum disappears. However, another inconsistency still exists since the calculated Li spectrum is now overestimated compared to the data. In this work, we update the cross-section model used to calculate the Li production according to more cross-section measurements. We find that the cross sections of these added reactions are systematically overestimated, and should be renormalized to the interpolations of available data. As a result, our prediction of the total Li spectrum is consistent with the measurement without discrepancy, and our prediction of the $\rm^6Li$ and $\rm^7Li$ spectra are consistent with the preliminary measurements of AMS-02 within the cross-section uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05514 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. B/C and B/O ratio calculated with the best-fit pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left: The primary spectra calculated with the best-fit parameters, compared with the experimental data of AMS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The cross sections of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The decreasing fraction of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Cross-section measurements and the data-driven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Cross-section measurements of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    FLUKA cross sections for cosmic-ray interactions with the DRAGON2 code

    P. de la Torre Luque, M. N. Mazziotta, A. Ferrari, F. Loparco, P. Sala, and D. Serini, JCAP 07 (07), 008, arXiv:2202.03559 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    Since the propagation parameters were determined in Ref

    modification The default cross-section models developed in GAL- PROP code are [GAL12] and [GAL22], partly based on their fits of a compilation of cross-section measurements and code evaluations, and partly based on the Web- ber’s [43] or Silberberg’s [23] parametrization with semi- empirical formulas. Since the propagation parameters were determined in Re...

    work page

  3. [2]

    For 6Li production: The cross sections of Z > 8 projectiles are rescaled by 80%, except for 27Al, 48Ti, 56Fe and 58Ni

    work page

  4. [3]

    For 6Li production: The cross sections of Z < 6 projectiles are rescaled by 33%, except for 7Li, 9Be and 11B

    work page

  5. [4]

    The production of 7Li is not modified since the avail- able data fit well with [TS00]’s prediction (center panel)

    For 6He production: The cross sections of all pro- jectiles are rescaled by 70%, except for 14N, 12C, 16O, 27Al, 48Ti, 56Fe and 58Ni. The production of 7Li is not modified since the avail- able data fit well with [TS00]’s prediction (center panel). The cross sections of other reaction channels are auto- matically renormalized to their available measuremen...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Here we follow a data analysis routine introduced in our previous work [18, 49], which was used to analyze the cross-section uncertainty of the F, B, and Be production

    ranking of contribution It is essential to quantify the uncertainties associated with each production channel. Here we follow a data analysis routine introduced in our previous work [18, 49], which was used to analyze the cross-section uncertainty of the F, B, and Be production. Firstly, we list the important reaction channels of Li isotopes arranged by t...

    work page

  7. [6]

    V. L. Ginzburg and V. S. Ptuskin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 161 (1976), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 48, 675–676 (1976)]

    work page 1976

  8. [7]

    Trotta, G

    R. Trotta, G. J´ ohannesson, I. V. Moskalenko, T. A. Porter, R. R. d. Austri, and A. W. Strong, Astrophys. J. 729, 106 (2011), arXiv:1011.0037 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 77 references
  1. [8]

    G´ enolini et al

    Y. G´ enolini et al. , Phys. Rev. D 99, 123028 (2019), arXiv:1904.08917 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Yuan, Sci

    Q. Yuan, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, 49511 (2019), arXiv:1805.10649 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Adriani et al

    O. Adriani et al. (PAMELA), Science 332, 69 (2011), arXiv:1103.4055 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Aguilar et al

    M. Aguilar et al. (AMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 021101 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Consolandi (AMS), in 25th European Cosmic Ray Symposium (2016) arXiv:1612.08562 [astro-ph.HE]

    C. Consolandi (AMS), in 25th European Cosmic Ray Symposium (2016) arXiv:1612.08562 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Aguilar et al

    M. Aguilar et al. (AMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 251101 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    Aguilar et al

    M. Aguilar et al. (AMS), Phys. Rept. 894, 1 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Aguilar et al

    M. Aguilar et al. (AMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 02101 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 127, 159901 (2021)]

    2021

  9. [16]

    M. J. Boschini et al. , Astrophys. J. 889, 167 (2020), arXiv:1911.03108 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    P. D. L. T. Luque, M. N. Mazziotta, F. Loparco, F. Gargano, and D. Serini, JCAP 07, 010, arXiv:2102.13238 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Weinrich, Y

    N. Weinrich, Y. G´ enolini, M. Boudaud, L. Derome, and D. Maurin, Astron. Astrophys. 639, A131 (2020), arXiv:2002.11406 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Korsmeier and A

    M. Korsmeier and A. Cuoco, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103016 (2021), arXiv:2103.09824 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kawanaka and S

    N. Kawanaka and S. Yanagita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 041103 (2018), arXiv:1707.00212 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Maurin, E

    D. Maurin, E. F. Bueno, Y. G´ enolini, L. Derome, and M. Vecchi, Astron. Astrophys. 668, A7 (2022), arXiv:2203.00522 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Zhao, X.-J

    M.-J. Zhao, X.-J. Bi, K. Fang, and P.-F. Yin, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083036 (2024), arXiv:2402.04659 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Derome, Cosmic-ray lithium and beryllium iso- topes with ams02, https://indico.desy.de/event/ 27991/contributions/101805/ (2021)

    L. Derome, Cosmic-ray lithium and beryllium iso- topes with ams02, https://indico.desy.de/event/ 27991/contributions/101805/ (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Wei, Properties of cosmic beryllium isotopes, https:// agenda.infn.it/event/28874/contributions/170166/ (2022)

    J. Wei, Properties of cosmic beryllium isotopes, https:// agenda.infn.it/event/28874/contributions/170166/ (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Lv, X.-J

    X.-J. Lv, X.-J. Bi, K. Fang, P.-F. Yin, and M.-J. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123030 (2024), arXiv:2409.07139 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Aguilar et al

    M. Aguilar et al. (AMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 261001 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Silberberg, C

    R. Silberberg, C. H. Tsao, and A. F. Barghouty, Astro- phys. J. 501, 911 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    A. W. Strong and I. V. Moskalenko, Astrophys. J. 509, 212 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807150

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko, and O. Reimer, Astro- phys. J. 537, 763 (2000), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 541, 1109 (2000)], arXiv:astro-ph/9811296

    2000 arXiv

  23. [31]

    T. A. Porter, G. Johannesson, and I. V. Moskalenko, Astrophys. J. Supp. 262, 30 (2022), arXiv:2112.12745 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    E. S. Seo and V. S. Ptuskin, Astrophys. J. 431, 705 (1994)

    1994

  25. [33]

    Amin (NA61/SHINE), PoS ICRC2021, 102 (2021), arXiv:2107.12275 [nucl-ex]

    N. Amin (NA61/SHINE), PoS ICRC2021, 102 (2021), arXiv:2107.12275 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Amin (NA61/SHINE), PoS ICRC2023, 075 (2023)

    N. Amin (NA61/SHINE), PoS ICRC2023, 075 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    W. R. Webber, J. C. Kish, and D. A. Schrier, Phys. Rev. C 41, 533 (1990). 10

    1990

  28. [36]

    Zeitlin, A

    C. Zeitlin, A. Fukumura, L. Heilbronn, Y. Iwata, J. Miller, and T. Murakami, Phys. Rev. C 64, 024902 (2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    Zeitlin, S

    C. Zeitlin, S. B. Guetersloh, L. H. Heilbronn, A. Fuku- mura, Y. Iwata, J. Miller, and T. Murakami, Nucl. Phys. A 784, 341 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Zeitlin, J

    C. Zeitlin, J. Miller, S. Guetersloh, L. Heilbronn, A. Fukumura, Y. Iwata, T. Murakami, S. Blattnig, R. Norman, and S. Mashnik, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034909 (2011), arXiv:1102.2848 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J´ ohannesson et al

    G. J´ ohannesson et al. , Astrophys. J. 824, 16 (2016), arXiv:1602.02243 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    V. H. M. Phan, F. Schulze, P. Mertsch, S. Recchia, and S. Gabici, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 141101 (2021), arXiv:2105.00311 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Aguilar et al

    M. Aguilar et al. (AMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 211102 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Aguilar et al

    M. Aguilar et al. (AMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 041104 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Aguilar et al

    M. Aguilar et al. (AMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 211002 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    A. C. Cummings, E. C. Stone, B. C. Heikkila, N. Lal, W. R. Webber, G. J´ ohannesson, I. V. Moskalenko, E. Or- lando, and T. A. Porter, Astrophys. J. 831, 18 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    M. J. Boschini et al. , Astrophys. J. 933, 147 (2022), arXiv:2202.09928 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    L. J. Gleeson and W. I. Axford, Astrophys. J. 154, 1011 (1968)

    1968

  39. [47]

    W. R. Webber, N. Lal, and B. Heikkila, Measurements in interstellar space of galactic cosmic ray isotopes of li, be, b and n, ne nuclei between 40-160 mev/nuc by the crs instrument on voyager 1 (2018), arXiv:1810.08589 [physics.space-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    W. R. Webber, J. C. Kish, and D. A. Schrier, Phys. Rev. C 41, 566 (1990)

    1990

  41. [49]

    Weinrich, M

    N. Weinrich, M. Boudaud, L. Derome, Y. Genolini, J. Lavalle, D. Maurin, P. Salati, P. Serpico, and G. Weymann-Despres, Astron. Astrophys. 639, A74 (2020), arXiv:2004.00441 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    De La Torre Luque, M

    P. De La Torre Luque, M. N. Mazziotta, F. Loparco, F. Gargano, and D. Serini, JCAP 03, 099, arXiv:2101.01547 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    C. M. Herbach et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 765, 426 (2006)

    2006

  44. [52]

    Ramaty, B

    R. Ramaty, B. Kozlovsky, and R. E. Lingenfelter, Astro- phys. J. 488, 730 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9610255

    1997 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Evoli, D

    C. Evoli, D. Gaggero, A. Vittino, M. Di Mauro, D. Grasso, and M. N. Mazziotta, JCAP 07, 006, arXiv:1711.09616 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Zhao, X.-J

    M.-J. Zhao, X.-J. Bi, and K. Fang, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063020 (2023), arXiv:2209.03799 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Silberberg and C

    R. Silberberg and C. H. Tsao, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 25, 315 (1973)

    1973

  48. [56]

    Genolini, D

    Y. Genolini, D. Maurin, I. V. Moskalenko, and M. Unger, Phys. Rev. C 98, 034611 (2018), arXiv:1803.04686 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    E. F. Bueno, L. Derome, Y. G´ enolini, D. Maurin, V. Tatischeff, and M. Vecchi, Astron. Astrophys. 688, A17 (2024), arXiv:2208.01337 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    I. V. Moskalenko, S. G. Mashnik, and A. W. Strong, in 27th International Cosmic Ray Conference (2001) arXiv:astro-ph/0106502

    2001 arXiv

  51. [59]

    I. V. Moskalenko and S. G. Mashnik, in 28th Interna- tional Cosmic Ray Conference (2003) pp. 1969–1972, arXiv:astro-ph/0306367

    2003 arXiv

  52. [60]

    W. R. Webber, J. C. Kish, and D. A. Schrier, Phys. Rev. C 41, 547 (1990)

    1990

  53. [61]

    W. R. Webber, A. Soutoul, J. C. Kish, J. M. Rockstroh, Y. Cassagnou, R. Legrain, and O. Testard, Phys. Rev. C 58, 3539 (1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    W. R. Webber, A. Soutoul, J. C. Kish, and J. M. Rock- stroh, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series144, 153 (2003)

    2003

  55. [63]

    Otuka et al

    N. Otuka et al. , Nucl. Data Sheets 120, 272 (2014), arXiv:2002.07114 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    W. R. Webber, J. C. Kish, J. M. Rockstroh, Y. Cassag- nou, R. Legrain, A. Soutoul, O. Testard, and C. Tull, The Astrophysical Journal 508, 949 (1998)

    1998

  57. [65]

    Reeder, Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry 27, 1879 (1965)

    P. Reeder, Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry 27, 1879 (1965)

    1965

  58. [66]

    Read and V

    S. Read and V. Viola, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 31, 359 (1984)

    1984

  59. [67]

    Napolitani, K

    P. Napolitani, K. H. Schmidt, A. S. Botvina, F. Rej- mund, L. Tassan-Got, and C. Villagrasa, Phys. Rev. C 70, 054607 (2004), arXiv:nucl-ex/0406006

    2004 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Korejwo, T

    A. Korejwo, T. Dzikowski, M. Giller, J. Wdowczyk, V. V. Perelygin, and A. V. Zarubin, J. Phys. G26, 1171 (2000)

    2000

  61. [69]

    Korejwo, M

    A. Korejwo, M. Giller, T. Dzikowski, V. V. Perelygin, and A. V. Zarubin, J. Phys. G 28, 1199 (2002)

    2002

  62. [70]

    E. K. Bazarov, V. V. Glagolev, V. V. Lugovoi, S. L. Lutpullaev, K. Olimov, V. I. Petrov, A. A. Yuldashev, and B. S. Yuldashev, JETP Lett. 81, 140 (2005)

    2005

  63. [71]

    F. Yiou, C. Seide, and R. Bernas, Journal of Geophysical Research 74, 2447 (1969)

    1969

  64. [72]

    Dostrovsky, R

    I. Dostrovsky, R. Davis, A. M. Poskanzer, and P. L. Reeder, Phys. Rev. 139, B1513 (1965)

    1965

  65. [73]

    Silberberg and C

    R. Silberberg and C. H. Tsao, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 25, 335 (1973)

    1973

  66. [74]

    Silberberg, C

    R. Silberberg, C. H. Tsao, and J. R. Letaw, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series 58, 873 (1985). Appendix A: CROSS SECTION DA T A In our previous work [18], we introduced data-driven parametrization by using the evaluation routine imple- mented in the GALPROP code. Th...

    1985

  67. [75]

    The cross-section data assembled in the file were taken from multiple cross-section measurements published before 2003

    isotope cs.dat: The isotopic cross-section database file is built in the GALPROP code [53, 54] for normalizing the parametrization formulae, such as WNEW code by Webber [55–57] or YIELDX code by Tsao and Silberberg [23]. The cross-section data assembled in the file were taken ...

    2003

  68. [76]

    By querying the EXFOR database, we can add most of the measurements published so far

    EXFOR (Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data): The website 5 is an extensive database containing experimental data [58], as well as bibliographic in- formation, experimental setup, and source of un- certainties. By querying the EXFOR database, we can add most of the measurements ...

  69. [77]

    galtoolslib/ nuclei

    NA61/SHINE: Additional measurements are re- ported by the NA61/SHINE Collaboration [28, 29]. The recent pilot run provided precise high-energies measurements of cross sections from the C projec- tile at 13.5 GeV/n, which is valuable for constrain- ing the uncertainties of the ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.