Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Studying the diffusion mechanism of cosmic-ray particles

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic mirrors confine cosmic rays more strongly than scattering does.

desk verdict A useful numerical survey of CR diffusion in MHD turbulence, but the headline mirror-diffusion claim rests on an unmatched pitch-angle comparison and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15031 v2 pith:2S3PT6TO submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.HE

Yawen Xiao , Jianfu Zhang , Siyao Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmicraysmirrordiffusionscatteringMHDturbulencemeanfreepathsuperdiffusiontest-particlesimulationmagnetohydrodynamicmodes
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 attempts to show that cosmic-ray transport in magnetized turbulence is governed by two competing mechanisms: gyroresonant scattering and mirror diffusion, with mirror diffusion confining particles more strongly until both reach normal diffusion. If correct, this gives a physical explanation for the slow cosmic-ray diffusion observed near supernova remnants and pulsar halos, where the diffusion coefficient is far smaller than the interstellar average. The paper also claims that the mean free path follows power laws in the Larmor radius that depend on whether the turbulence is sub-Alfvénic or super-Alfvénic, and that compressible magnetosonic modes control parallel diffusion while the Alfvén mode controls perpendicular diffusion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is mirror diffusion, defined by nonresonant reflection of cosmic rays from turbulent magnetic mirrors under conservation of the magnetic moment and the condition that the mirror scale exceed the Larmor radius while the pitch-angle cosine stays below a critical value. It is contrasted with gyroresonant scattering, and the two are studied together by injecting test particles into $512^{3}$ ideal MHD turbulence snapshots, decomposing the fields into Alfvén, slow, and fast modes by wavelet and Fourier transforms, and extracting parallel and perpendicular mean free paths from diffusion coefficients in the global frame.

What would settle it

Recompute the parallel and perpendicular mean free paths by injecting particles into the full, undecomposed R1 turbulent field and compare them with the single-mode runs: if the full-field parallel diffusion is not bracketed by the fast- and slow-mode results, or the full-field perpendicular diffusion is not dominated by the Alfvén-mode result, the mode-dominance claim fails because cross-mode coupling changes transport.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that mirror diffusion is not a minor correction to scattering but the dominant confining mechanism. Test particles started with large pitch angles spread slower than scattering particles in the superdiffusive phase, and the two populations only converge once normal diffusion is reached, so the initial pitch angle does not set the final mean free path. In the developed normal-diffusion stage the measured mean free paths obey $\lambda_\perp \propto R_g^{2/3}$ and $\lambda_\parallel \propto R_g^{1/3}$ in strong sub-Alfvénic turbulence and $\lambda_\perp \simeq \lambda_\parallel \propto R_g$ in super-Alfvénic turbulence, with $\lambda_\parallel \propto R_g^2$ and a plateau in $\lambda_\perp$ in weak or hydrodynamic regimes. Mode-decomposed runs assign parallel diffusion to the magnetosonic (fast plus slow) modes and perpendicular diffusion to the Alfvén mode, tying the anisotropy of transport to the compressibility and anisotropy of MHD turbulence.

Load-bearing premise

Each MHD mode contributes to cosmic-ray transport independently, so the mode that dominates when simulated alone is also the one that dominates when all modes coexist in the real turbulent field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same magnetized turbulence that makes magnetic mirrors can produce cosmic-ray diffusion coefficients near sources that are far below the interstellar average, without extra source physics.
  • Initial pitch-angle population does not matter for the final mean free path, so transport models can use one diffusion coefficient per turbulence regime once normal diffusion is reached.
  • The power laws $\lambda_\perp \propto R_g^{2/3}$, $\lambda_\parallel \propto R_g^{1/3}$ (sub-Alfvénic) and $\lambda_\perp \simeq \lambda_\parallel \propto R_g$ (super-Alfvénic) convert cosmic-ray transport from a free parameter into a function of turbulence regime.
  • Parallel transport is set by compressible magnetosonic modes and perpendicular transport by the Alfvén mode, so the anisotropy of cosmic-ray diffusion mirrors the anisotropy of MHD turbulence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mode ordering survives cross-mode coupling, propagation codes should weight compressible-mode energy for parallel transport and Alfvénic energy for perpendicular transport, rather than total magnetic energy.
  • The fitted power laws give testable predictions for heliospheric or solar-wind cosmic rays, where turbulence properties and particle transport can be measured independently.
  • Because superdiffusion precedes normal diffusion, single-zone diffusion models of sources should only be applied after the transition time; before it, the mean square displacement grows faster than linearly and standard diffusion coefficients are not defined.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents test-particle simulations of cosmic-ray transport in numerically generated MHD turbulence, using three models that span super-Alfvénic and sub-Alfvénic regimes. It reports a transition from superdiffusion to normal diffusion, compares ensembles labeled 'initially mirroring' (mu0 in [0.1,0.2]) and 'initially scattering' (mu0 in [0.8,0.9]), measures parallel and perpendicular mean free paths as functions of Larmor radius, and studies the effect of isolated Alfvén, slow, and fast modes on transport using wavelet-decomposed fields. The main claims are that mirror diffusion confines CRs more effectively than scattering diffusion, that MFPs follow power laws such as lambda_perp ~ Rg^(2/3) and lambda_par ~ Rg^(1/3) in the sub-Alfvénic strong-turbulence range and lambda_par ~ Rg^2 with a plateau in lambda_perp at high energies, and that magnetosonic modes dominate parallel diffusion while the Alfvén mode dominates perpendicular diffusion.

Significance. If the quantitative scalings and mode-dominance ordering survive scrutiny, the paper would provide useful numerical benchmarks for CR transport theory and for interpreting slow diffusion near sources. The work benefits from direct integration of test-particle orbits in 3D MHD data cubes, wavelet mode decomposition following established methods, and explicit comparison with earlier theoretical predictions (e.g., Cohet & Marcowith 2016; Lazarian & Xu 2021). The MFP-energy relations are falsifiable, and the mode-decomposition setup is a valuable diagnostic. However, the headline claim comparing mirror and scattering diffusion is currently not established because the two ensembles differ in initial pitch-angle cosine as well as in the mechanism under study; the quantitative fits also need uncertainty estimates and robustness checks before the scalings can be taken as measured.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 3; Abstract] The comparison between 'initially mirroring' (mu0 in [0.1,0.2]) and 'initially scattering' (mu0 in [0.8,0.9]) ensembles is confounded by the difference in initial parallel velocity. In the ballistic stage, <Delta_l_parallel^2> ~ (u*mu0)^2*t^2, so the observed factor-of-about-25 difference in early-time parallel MSD is expected even in a uniform field with no mirrors. The paper does not include a matched-mu control, nor does it normalize by the initial mu0-dependent free-streaming term. The later convergence in Fig. 3 and the independence of the asymptotic MFP from initial mu in Fig. 5 indicate that the stronger early confinement is an initial-condition effect rather than evidence that mirror diffusion is intrinsically more confining. The abstract claim that 'mirror diffusion is more important than scattering diffusion in confining CRs' therefore needs either a revised interpretation or additional simulations with matched initial mu (or a dynamically defined mirroring/scattering partition based on mu relative to mu_c).
  2. [Sec. 4.4, Fig. 7] The mode-dominance conclusion rests on injecting particles into individually decomposed Alfvén, slow, and fast fields from only the super-Alfvénic model R1. This assumes that linear superposition of modes preserves the transport contribution of each mode when all modes coexist; cross-mode coupling or nonlinear mode interactions in the full field could change the ordering. The manuscript does not report a control run in which particles are propagated in the full R1 field and compared with the sum of the three single-mode simulations (or another explicit test of the superposition assumption). The conclusion may also be regime-dependent, since only one M_A/M_s combination is used. A test in the full field, and ideally also in a sub-Alfvénic model, is needed before claiming that magnetosonic modes dominate parallel diffusion and the Alfvén mode dominates perpendicular diffusion as a general result.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 5] The reported power-law indices (e.g., lambda_perp ~ Rg^(2/3), lambda_par ~ Rg^(1/3), and lambda_par ~ Rg^2 in the high-energy range) are obtained from least-squares fits whose uncertainties are not reported. The figures show scatter, only three turbulence models are used, and the measured high-energy exponents in the text are 1.85, 1.89, and 1.63 rather than exactly 2. Without fit uncertainties, the claimed agreement with theoretical predictions such as lambda_par ~ Rg^(1/3) cannot be assessed. The authors should provide confidence intervals for all fitted slopes and, ideally, a resolution or particle-number convergence test to support the quantitative MFP-Rg relations, since the current simulations use 512^3 resolution and 2000 particles per ensemble.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (3)] The definition of mu_mir in Eq. (3) uses delta_B_f, whereas the preceding paragraph defines mu_mir approximately as sqrt(delta_B/(B0+delta_B)); please clarify the notation for the fast-mode fluctuation field and the total fluctuation field.
  2. [Sec. 4.2] The statement that 'the main factor affecting parallel diffusion is M_A rather than M_s' is stronger than the three models can support, since R1, R2, and R3 differ in M_A, M_s, and beta simultaneously; please soften the claim or add a controlled parameter scan.
  3. [Sec. 5, Discussion] The sentence 'After testing the influence of local and global reference frames on the measurement results...' refers to a test that is not shown or quantified anywhere in the paper; please include the supporting figure/table or state that the test is not shown.
  4. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 5] The fitted constant in 'lambda_par ~ lambda_perp = 5.12 R_g^(1.04)' is stated without units; since everything is in code units, please state the normalization convention explicitly or remove the constant.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Mirror-diffusion confinement claim is pre-determined by the initial pitch-angle split; MFP scalings and mode analysis are independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2 (Fig. 3), with Eq. (19)]
    "We set µ0∈[0.1,0.2] and µ0∈[0.8,0.9] for the initially mirroring and scattering particles with the same Larmor radius Rg=0.03Linj, respectively. ... we can see ⟨∆ℓ2∥,m⟩<⟨∆ℓ2∥,s⟩ for three cases from panel (c), which means the diffusive displacement of the initially mirroring particles is smaller than that of the initially scattering particles during the same time. This is because the initially mirroring particles are more effectively confined, compared to initially scattering particles."

    Eq. (19) defines Δℓ∥ = x−x0, and during the initial free-streaming phase x−x0 ≈ u µ0 t, so ⟨Δℓ∥²⟩ ∝ (u µ0)² t². The two ensembles are defined by µ0∈[0.1,0.2] versus µ0∈[0.8,0.9]; therefore the parallel MSD ratio is ∼(0.15/0.85)²≈0.03 even in a uniform magnetic field with no mirrors. The observed inequality ⟨∆ℓ2∥,m⟩<⟨∆ℓ2∥,s⟩ and the inference that 'mirror diffusion is more important than scattering diffusion in confining CRs' are thus built into the initial-condition labels, not measured as a property of mirror reflection. No matched-µ0 control is presented, and the paper itself states that the initially scattering particle 'simply travels along field lines' (Sec. 4.1), confirming the early difference is dominated by free streaming rather than by the confining action of mirrors.

full rationale

The paper's MFP power laws (λ⊥∝Rg^{2/3}, λ∥∝Rg^{1/3} in sub-Alfvénic; λ⊥≈λ∥∝Rg in super-Alfvénic) and the mode-decomposition result (magnetosonic modes dominate parallel transport, Alfvén mode perpendicular) are direct test-particle measurements in simulated fields; they are not derived from the theory being tested and are not circular. The circularity is confined to the headline comparison of mirror versus scattering diffusion. The 'initially mirroring' and 'initially scattering' ensembles are defined by choosing µ0∈[0.1,0.2] and µ0∈[0.8,0.9], respectively. Because the early parallel displacement is Δℓ∥≈uµ0t, the lower-µ0 sample necessarily has a smaller parallel MSD by a factor ∼(0.15/0.85)², independent of any mirror physics. The paper's inference that mirror diffusion has a stronger confining effect therefore reduces to the construction of the ensembles. The premise of slower mirror diffusion originates from Lazarian & Xu (2021), which shares an author with this paper, and the attempted numerical confirmation is degenerate for the reason above. This is a partial circularity: the central claim is affected, while the other numerical results stand as independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central quantitative claims are empirical fits (five fitted exponents/amplitudes) to test-particle simulations, so those fitted numbers are free parameters in the presentation. The physical interpretation rests on standard MHD turbulence theory and on the self-cited mirror-diffusion framework from Xu and Lazarian. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Power-law index for parallel MFP, sub-Alfvénic strong turbulence = ≈0.35 (λ∥ ∝ Rg^{0.35} ≈ Rg^{1/3})
    Least-squares fit to λ∥ vs Rg for R2 and R3 in the range Ldis < Rg < Ltr (Section 4.3, Fig. 5b,c).
  • Power-law index for perpendicular MFP, sub-Alfvénic strong turbulence = ≈0.7 (λ⊥ ∝ Rg^{0.7} ≈ Rg^{2/3})
    Fit to λ⊥ vs Rg for R2 and R3 at low energy (Section 4.3).
  • Power-law index for parallel MFP, high-energy (hydrodynamic/weak) range = 1.85 (R1), 1.89 (R2), 1.63 (R3), reported as λ∥ ∝ Rg^2
    Fits for Rg > LA (R1) or Rg > Ltr (R2, R3) in Section 4.3, Fig. 5.
  • Amplitude of super-Alfvénic MFP relation = 5.12 in λ∥≃λ⊥ = 5.12 Rg^{1.04}
    Linear fit for Ldis < Rg < LA in R1 (Section 4.3, Fig. 5a).
  • Amplitude of high-energy parallel MFP relation = 16.59 in λ∥ = 16.59 Rg^{1.85}
    Linear fit for Rg > LA in R1 (Section 4.3, Fig. 5a).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Test-particle approximation: cosmic rays do not perturb the magnetic turbulence and are traced in a fixed background field.
    Used in Section 3 where particles are injected into precomputed MHD data cubes and integrated via the Lorentz equation (Eq. 14); CR back-reaction is neglected, which is standard for low CR pressure but unverified for the source regions of interest.
  • domain assumption The 512^3 solenoidal-forced MHD cubes are representative of astrophysical turbulence in the inertial range.
    Section 3: turbulence is driven at k_in≈2.5 with resolution L^3=512^3; the paper itself notes results are limited to this resolution (Section 5).
  • domain assumption Wavelet/Fourier decomposition (CL02, KL10) separates MHD turbulence into three independent modes whose individual transport contributions can be studied in isolation.
    Section 3, Eqs. (11)-(13), and Section 4.4: particles are injected into fields of single decomposed modes, assuming modal superposition holds for transport.
  • domain assumption The condition µ < µc with µc from Lazarian & Xu (2021) correctly discriminates mirror-confined from scattering particles.
    Section 2, Eq. (3) and Table 1: µc is computed from the self-cited theory and used to label initially mirroring versus scattering particles in Sections 4.1-4.3.
  • domain assumption CR diffusion coefficients measured in the global mean-field frame suffice for the reported power laws.
    Section 3, Eqs. (17)-(20): D∥ and D⊥ are defined in the global frame; the paper states in Section 5 that the frame choice does not affect power-law indices but does not show the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Studying the diffusion mechanism of cosmic-ray particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2S3PT6TO

@misc{pith2026250615031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Studying the diffusion mechanism of cosmic-ray particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2S3PT6TO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15031}
}
abstract

More and more observations have indicated the existence of slow diffusion phenomena in astrophysical environments, such as around the supernova remnants and pulsar $\gamma$-ray halos, where the diffusion coefficient of cosmic rays (CRs) near the source region is significantly smaller than that far away from the source region. The inhomogeneous diffusion indicates the existence of multiple diffusion mechanisms.Comparing the CR mirror diffusion with the scattering one, we aim to explore their diffusion characteristics in different magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence regimes and understand the effect of different MHD modes on mirror and scattering diffusion. We perform numerical simulations with the test particle method. Within the global frame of reference, we first measure parallel and perpendicular CR diffusion and then determine the mean free path of CRs with varying energies.Our main results demonstrate that: (1) CRs experience a transition from superdiffusion to normal diffusion; (2) mirror diffusion is more important than scattering diffusion in confining CRs; (3) CR diffusion strongly depends on the properties of MHD turbulence; and (4) magnetosonic and Alfv\'en modes dominate the parallel and perpendicular diffusion of CR particles, respectively. The diffusion of CRs is a complex problem of mixing the mirror diffusion and scattering diffusion. The property of turbulent magnetic fields influences CR diffusion. The CR slow diffusion due to the presence of magnetic mirrors in turbulence has important implications for explaining observations near a CR source.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The trajectories of the initially mirroring particle (left panel; initial pitch-angle cosine µ0 = 0.15) and the initially scattering particle (right panel; µ0 = 0.8). The magnetic field lines (black) extend to 1024 pixels in the x-axis direction. The trajectories of these two particles are color￾coded by the time τ (normalized by the gyrofrequency Ω), as shown in the color bar. Note that for the sake of comparison, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The cosine of pitch angle µ, normalized magnetic moment 2MB0/γmu2 , and spatial displacement Lx/Linj in the x-axis direction as a function of time τ. The results of initially mirroring and scattering particles shown in panels (a) and (b) correspond to the left and right particles of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panels: the mean square displacement traveled by overall initially mirroring and scattering particles versus the time (normalized by the gyrofrequency Ω) in the parallel (panel a) and perpendicular (panel b) directions with respect to the mean magnetic fields. Lower panels: the ratio of the parallel (panel c) and perpendicular (panel d) mean square displacement between the initially scattering and mirroring pa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Probability density function of µ at different times τ, arising from R2 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The MFPs of mirroring and scattering particles measured at different CR energies. The initial pitch angle values are set to µ0 ∈ [0.1, 0.2] and µ0 ∈ [0.8, 0.9] for mirroring and scattering particles, respectively. The results in panels (a), (b), and (c) are based on th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The power spectra (panel a) and anisotropy scalings (panel b) of magnetic fields corresponding to the Alfvén, fast, and slow modes decomposed from R1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper panels: the mean square displacement of the parallel (left) and perpendicular (right) diffusion of the initially mirroring and scattering particles versus the time (normalized by Ω) for the Alfvén (A), fast (F), and slow (S) modes. Lower panels: the ratio of the …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 911

    2017

  2. [2]

    2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430013

    Amato, E. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430013

    2014

  3. [3]

    & Casanova, S

    Amato, E. & Casanova, S. 2021, Journal of Plasma Physics, 87, 845870101

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    M., Xu, S., & Lazarian, A

    Barreto-Mota, L., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Xu, S., & Lazarian, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.12146

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    2013, ApJ, 767, L39

    Beresnyak, A. 2013, ApJ, 767, L39

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    2019, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 5, 2

    Beresnyak, A. 2019, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 5, 2

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    & Lazarian, A

    Beresnyak, A. & Lazarian, A. 2019, Turbulence in Magnetohydrodynamics

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    2011, ApJ, 728, 60

    Beresnyak, A., Yan, H., & Lazarian, A. 2011, ApJ, 728, 60

    work page 2011

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    W., Smith, C

    Bieber, J. W., Smith, C. W., & Matthaeus, W. H. 1988, ApJ, 334, 470

    1988

  2. [10]

    & Lazarian, A

    Brunetti, G. & Lazarian, A. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 245

    2007

  3. [11]

    Cesarsky, C. J. & Kulsrud, R. M. 1973, ApJ, 185, 153

    1973

  4. [12]

    & Lazarian, A

    Cho, J. & Lazarian, A. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 245001

    2002

  5. [13]

    & Lazarian, A

    Cho, J. & Lazarian, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 325

    2003

  6. [14]

    & Marcowith, A

    Cohet, R. & Marcowith, A. 2016, A&A, 588, A73

    2016

  7. [15]

    2018, Phys

    Evoli, C., Linden, T., & Morlino, G. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 063017

    2018

  8. [16]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4074 Article number, page 10 of 11 Ya-Wen Xiao et al.: Studying the diffusion mechanism of cosmic-ray particles

    Fang, K., Bi, X.-J., & Yin, P.-F. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4074 Article number, page 10 of 11 Ya-Wen Xiao et al.: Studying the diffusion mechanism of cosmic-ray particles

    2019

  9. [17]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 30

    Fang, K., Bi, X.-J., Yin, P.-F., & Yuan, Q. 2018, ApJ, 863, 30

    2018

  10. [18]

    1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169

    Fermi, E. 1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169

    1949

  11. [19]

    & Zhang, J.-F

    Gao, N.-N. & Zhang, J.-F. 2024, ApJ, 961, 80

    2024

  12. [20]

    & Zhang, J.-F

    Gao, N.-N. & Zhang, J.-F. 2025, A&A, 694, A201

    2025

  13. [21]

    & Jokipii, J

    Giacalone, J. & Jokipii, J. R. 1999, ApJ, 520, 204

    1999

  14. [22]

    & Sridhar, S

    Goldreich, P. & Sridhar, S. 1995, ApJ, 438, 763

    1995

  15. [23]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2111

    Hu, Y ., Lazarian, A., & Xu, S. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2111

    2022

  16. [24]

    C., & Shalchi, A

    Hussein, M., Tautz, R. C., & Shalchi, A. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 4095

    2015

  17. [25]

    Jokipii, J. R. 1966, ApJ, 146, 480

    1966

  18. [26]

    & Lazarian, A

    Kowal, G. & Lazarian, A. 2010, ApJ, 720, 742

    2010

  19. [27]

    R., Crocker, R

    Krumholz, M. R., Crocker, R. M., Xu, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2817

    2020

  20. [28]

    & Pearce, W

    Kulsrud, R. & Pearce, W. P. 1969, ApJ, 156, 445

    1969

  21. [29]

    & Vishniac, E

    Lazarian, A. & Vishniac, E. T. 1999, ApJ, 517, 700

    1999

  22. [30]

    T., & Cho, J

    Lazarian, A., Vishniac, E. T., & Cho, J. 2004, ApJ, 603, 180

    2004

  23. [31]

    Lazarian, A. & Xu, S. 2021, ApJ, 923, 53

    2021

  24. [32]

    & Yan, H

    Lazarian, A. & Yan, H. 2014, ApJ, 784, 38

    2014

  25. [33]

    2019, Phys

    Liu, R.-Y ., Yan, H., & Zhang, H. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 123, 221103

    2019

  26. [34]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 94

    Maiti, S., Makwana, K., Zhang, H., & Yan, H. 2022, ApJ, 926, 94

    2022

  27. [35]

    H., Goldstein, M

    Matthaeus, W. H., Goldstein, M. L., & Roberts, D. A. 1990, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 20673

    1990

  28. [36]

    H., Qin, G., Bieber, J

    Matthaeus, W. H., Qin, G., Bieber, J. W., & Zank, G. P. 2003, ApJ, 590, L53

    2003

  29. [37]

    H., Flannery, B

    Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1986, Numerical recipes. The art of scientific computing

    1986

  30. [38]

    2002, PhD thesis, University of Delaware

    Qin, G. 2002, PhD thesis, University of Delaware

    2002

  31. [39]

    M., Downes, T

    Rodgers-Lee, D., Taylor, A. M., Downes, T. P., & Ray, T. P. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4742

    2020

  32. [40]

    L., Beattie, J

    Sampson, M. L., Beattie, J. R., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1503

    2023

  33. [41]

    2002, Cosmic Ray Astrophysics

    Schlickeiser, R. 2002, Cosmic Ray Astrophysics

    2002

  34. [42]

    A., Kravtsov, A

    Semenov, V . A., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Caprioli, D. 2021, ApJ, 910, 126

    2021

  35. [43]

    2009, Nonlinear Cosmic Ray Diffusion Theories, V ol

    Shalchi, A. 2009, Nonlinear Cosmic Ray Diffusion Theories, V ol. 362 V oelk, H. J. 1975, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 13, 547

    2009

  36. [44]

    & Lazarian, A

    Xu, S. & Lazarian, A. 2018, ApJ, 868, 36

    2018

  37. [45]

    & Lazarian, A

    Xu, S. & Lazarian, A. 2020, ApJ, 894, 63

    2020

  38. [46]

    & Yan, H

    Xu, S. & Yan, H. 2013, ApJ, 779, 140

    2013

  39. [47]

    2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol

    Yan, H. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 407, Magnetic Fields in Di ffuse Media, ed. A. Lazarian, E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, & C. Melioli, 253

    2015

  40. [48]

    & Lazarian, A

    Yan, H. & Lazarian, A. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 281102

    2002

  41. [49]

    & Lazarian, A

    Yan, H. & Lazarian, A. 2008, ApJ, 673, 942

    2008

  42. [50]

    2012, ApJ, 745, 140

    Yan, H., Lazarian, A., & Schlickeiser, R. 2012, ApJ, 745, 140

    2012

  43. [51]

    Zhang, C. & Xu, S. 2023, ApJ, 959, L8

    2023

  44. [52]

    Zhang, C. & Xu, S. 2024, ApJ, 975, 65

    2024

  45. [53]

    & Xiang, F.-Y

    Zhang, J.-F. & Xiang, F.-Y . 2021, ApJ, 922, 209 Article number, page 11 of 11

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.