Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Co-evolution of cosmic ray energy spectra, composition, and anisotropies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Cosmic-ray spectra, composition, and anisotropy co-evolve from GeV to 100 EeV because each major spectral feature marks the rise or fall of one of four source populations.

desk verdict A useful wide-band four-component fit to CR spectra, composition, and anisotropy, but the co-evolution claim is an interpretive overlay built on manual tuning and weak anisotropy data. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18118 v2 pith:VPDPDEGL submitted 2025-06-22 astro-ph.HE

Bing-Qiang Qiao , Qiang Yuan , Yi-Qing Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 98.70.Sa
keywords cosmicrayoriginenergyspectrummeanlogarithmicmassdipoleanisotropyfour-componentmodelkneeandankleGalactic-extragalactictransitionultra-high-energyrays
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 paper argues that the energy spectrum, average mass, and arrival-direction anisotropy of cosmic rays change together from tens of GeV to about 100 EeV because all three observables are controlled by the same four source populations. It builds a four-component model—Galactic background sources, one nearby source, and two extragalactic source populations—whose algebraic sum reproduces the all-particle spectrum and whose vector sum reproduces the dipole anisotropy. Each major spectral feature is assigned to one component: the knee to the proton cutoff of the Galactic population, the second knee to its iron cutoff, the dip to the first extragalactic component, the ankle to the switch between extragalactic components, and the highest-energy suppression to the acceleration limit of the second extragalactic component. The payoff is that previously separate cosmic-ray puzzles become one coherent story, with composition and anisotropy serving as cross-checks of the spectral decomposition.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a decomposition of cosmic rays into four source populations with rigidity-dependent, exponentially cut-off power-law spectra, combined by algebraic sum for the spectrum and vector sum for the anisotropy. Each component carries a charge-dependent composition, so when a new proton-dominated component appears or fades, the mean mass first drops and then rises, producing the bump-dip imprints that line up with the spectral groups. The extragalactic components C and D are suppressed at low rigidity by a $\cosh$ term with shielding rigidity $R_s = 60$ PeV, which lets component C emerge around 30 PeV. For the anisotropy, the key mechanism is vector addition of streamings: a sharp phase flip appears whenever two components have comparable streaming strengths but different directions, as at about 100 TeV and about 1 EeV.

What would settle it

Two measurements would settle the claim: if future data showed the dipole phase staying constant between 30 PeV and 1 EeV instead of flipping when the streaming switches from component A to component C, the vector-sum explanation would fail; and if the second knee turned out to be energy-independent rather than rigidity-dependent, with all nuclei cutting off at the same energy, the iron-cutoff assignment would be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that cosmic-ray observables co-evolve because they share a common origin in a small number of source populations. From hundreds of GeV to 100 EeV, the all-particle spectrum, the mean logarithmic mass $\langle\ln A\rangle$, and the dipole amplitude and phase all show correlated hardening-softening groups; whenever the spectrum bends, $\langle\ln A\rangle$ shows a bump-dip and the anisotropy changes direction. The paper reproduces this pattern with four components: A, the ensemble of Galactic sources with a proton cutoff around 8 PV; B, a nearby source illustrated by a local pulsar with a cutoff around 40 TV; and C and D, two extragalactic populations with different spectral indices and cutoffs, shielded at low rigidity by $R_s = 60$ PeV. The spectrum is the algebraic sum of the four components, the anisotropy is the vector sum of their streamings, and the sum naturally produces the knee, second knee, dip, ankle, and highest-energy suppression. The Galactic-to-extragalactic transition in this picture occurs around $10^8$ GeV, smaller than the ankle energy.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes each observed spectral feature is produced by a distinct source population whose spectral parameters can be tuned independently to match that feature, and it does not test whether a single source population with propagation effects could produce the same pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The transition from Galactic to extragalactic cosmic rays happens near $10^8$ GeV, well below the ankle, so an extragalactic component is already present in the sub-ankle region.
  • Each spectral break carries a composition imprint: light enrichment at the 30 PeV hardening, heavy enrichment through the second knee, a light valley near 1 EeV, and a rising mass toward the highest energies.
  • The dipole anisotropy should flip phase sharply near 100 TeV and near 1 EeV, because these are the energies where two streamings of comparable strength point in different directions.
  • The cutoff near 50 EeV is produced by the acceleration limit of component D rather than by propagation losses, so the arrival composition there should be mixed rather than purely proton-dominated.
  • Below 100 TeV, the local source component B predicts two anisotropy phase reversals, one near 100 GeV and one near 150 TeV, which future high-statistics proton measurements can check.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's one-component-per-feature assignment is not tested against simpler baselines; a quantitative comparison of a two-component versus four-component fit would show how much of the co-evolution really requires four populations.
  • The model treats the extragalactic diffusion parameters and component D's heavy abundances as free, so the claimed ankle transition energy likely shifts when those parameters are varied; a scan over them would map the allowed range.
  • The co-evolution logic predicts that any new spectral break found at an energy outside the four identified groups would force either a fifth source population or a breakdown of the one-component-per-feature mapping.
  • If the local source is indeed a nearby pulsar, the model implies a specific anisotropy direction below 100 TeV that could be compared with the source position in future proton anisotropy data.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that cosmic-ray energy spectra, mean logarithmic mass, and large-scale dipole anisotropy co-evolve from tens of GeV to ~100 EeV, and that this co-evolution is explained by four source components: a Galactic background (A), a nearby Galactic source (B), and two extragalactic populations (C and D). The model computes the spectrum as the algebraic sum and the anisotropy as the vector sum of these components, assigning each observed spectral feature to a specific component: the knee to the proton cutoff of A, the second knee to the iron cutoff of A, the dip between the knees to the emergence of C, the ankle to the C-to-D transition, and the highest-energy suppression to the acceleration limit of D. The paper uses DRAGON for the Galactic background, a Green's-function propagation for the nearby source, and analytic spectra for the extragalactic components, with parameters obtained by manual adjustment.

Significance. If the four-component decomposition were shown to be uniquely selected by the combined data, the paper would offer a useful unified picture of the spectrum, composition, and anisotropy across a very wide energy range. The paper is commendable for compiling a broad set of measurements and for clearly stating its modeling assumptions, including the phenomenological nature of the extragalactic shielding and diffusion parameters. However, as it stands, the central co-evolution claim is not quantitatively demonstrated: the components are tuned to reproduce the very features they are invoked to explain, no fit statistics are given, and no comparison with simpler two- or three-component models is made. The paper therefore reads more as an interpretive scenario than as a tested inference.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 4.3] The extragalactic anisotropy is not an independent outcome of the model. In Sec. 3.3 the diffusion parameters and in Sec. 4.3 the streaming directions and strengths are adjusted to fit the same anisotropy measurements that the model is then said to reproduce. Moreover, the decisive anisotropy data in the sub-ankle band are statistically weak: Sec. 2 states that KASCADE-Grande reaches only ~3.5 sigma and that Auger dipole components below 8 EeV are consistent with upper limits. The sharp phase flip near 1 EeV therefore follows from the assigned directions of components C and D rather than being demanded by the data. The paper should either treat the sub-ankle anisotropy as upper limits in a likelihood or show that the phase evolution emerges from a propagation calculation with parameters fixed by independent constraints.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Table 1, and Sec. 4] The parameters are 'obtained by manual adjustment' (Sec. 3.3) and Table 1 lists roughly thirty normalizations plus spectral indices and cutoff rigidities, yet no likelihood, residual analysis, confidence intervals, or information-criterion comparison against the two- and three-component scenarios cited in the introduction is provided. The one-to-one attribution of the knee, second knee, dip, ankle, and suppression to individual components is therefore an interpretive overlay rather than a tested consequence of the data. The paper should add a quantitative goodness-of-fit assessment and compare, for example, a single Galactic component plus one extragalactic component, or a single Galactic component with rigidity-dependent cutoffs, against the four-component model.
  3. [Eq. (3.4) and Sec. 3.3] Equation (3.4) describes extragalactic spectra as 'observed at Earth' with no explicit propagation modeling, and the shielding rigidity Rs = 60 PeV is a free parameter determined through reproducing the observed spectrum, composition, and anisotropy features. This creates a circularity concern: the model is constructed to match the features that it is then claimed to explain. The central co-evolution claim would be much stronger if the model produced at least one falsifiable prediction not used in the fit, or if the authors demonstrated that the same features could not be obtained from a single extragalactic population with different propagation (e.g., magnetic horizon or pair-production effects). At present, the manuscript does not rule out such baselines.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] In the text after Eq. (3.2), 'R>PV' should presumably read 'R > 1 PV'; also, the definition of F(r,z) is not given explicitly, only a reference to [70].
  2. [Table 1] The caption states different normalization conventions for components A, B, C, and D, but the units listed for component B ([GeV^-1]) differ from the others; please clarify the exact definition of q_B0 and ensure all units are consistent.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption and Sec. 4.3] The caption says the dashed line shows the expected phase for a different direction of component D from that of component C, while Sec. 4.3 says the alternative configuration uses different directions for both C and D; please reconcile the wording.
  4. [Sec. 4.3] The text mentions a phase reversal at ~150 TeV and later refers to a 'similar sharp transition around ~100 TeV'; please make the quoted energies consistent or clarify whether these are different features.
  5. [Sec. 2] The sentence 'See Ref. [51] for an attempt to infer the average logarithmic mass from those observables' is unclear: the compilation used is Ref. [2], so the role of Ref. [51] should be stated more precisely.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Extragalactic anisotropy and feature positions are fitted to the same data they are said to reproduce, so part of the co-evolution claim is by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3, after Eq. (3.4)]
    "The cosh term mainly describes the suppression of the low-energy spectrum due to the magnetic horizon effect from extragalactic magnetic fields ... or the shielding effect of Galactic magnetic field to extragalactic CRs, with characteristic shielding rigidity Rs = 60 PeV, which is a free parameter determined through reproducing the observed spectrum, composition, and anisotropy features, and finally β = 1.6 is a parameter to describe the smoothness of the low-energy shielding."

    The characteristic shielding rigidity Rs sets the energy at which component C appears and therefore determines the 30 PeV hardening, the dip, and the sub-ankle anisotropy break that the paper attributes to that component. Since Rs is explicitly 'determined through reproducing the observed spectrum, composition, and anisotropy features,' the model's success at those energies is the fitted parameter restated as a result, not an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3, paragraph on extragalactic diffusion parameters]
    "Observationally, the anisotropy above EeV energies exhibits a stronger energy dependence than that at PeV energies. To account for this behavior, we determine the energy-dependence index δ0 and normalization D0 by fitting the anisotropy data above EeV energies."

    These two parameters control the energy evolution of the extragalactic dipole amplitude shown in Fig. 2(c). They are fitted to the same Auger anisotropy data whose reproduction is later presented as the model's success, so the post-EeV amplitude curve is statistically forced rather than independently predicted.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.3, Large scale anisotropy]
    "Moreover, due to the limited knowledge about the propagation of CRs in the extragalactic space, we adopt a phenomenological approach to calculate the anisotropy of extragalactic sources via simply introducing a streaming with given direction, and adjusting its strength and energy-dependent slope to fit the measurements."

    The dipole phase evolution, including the sharp flip near ~1 EeV and the direction change around 5 EeV, is the output of a streaming vector whose direction, strength, and slope are adjusted to fit the same anisotropy data. The paper then states that the dipole anisotropy 'can be well understood in the four component source model,' but the phase curve is a direct expression of the fitted streaming parameters.

full rationale

The paper is an explicit multi-component phenomenological fit rather than a derivation. Its Galactic A+B part is obtained by solving a standard transport equation and fitting injection/propagation parameters to spectra, composition, and anisotropy; this is conventional curve-fitting and is not itself circular. The circularity is concentrated in the extragalactic C/D sector: the parameter Rs that sets where component C turns on is declared to be 'determined through reproducing the observed spectrum, composition, and anisotropy features'; the extragalactic diffusion index and normalization are 'determined ... by fitting the anisotropy data above EeV energies'; and the extragalactic streaming direction and slope are explicitly adjusted to fit the same anisotropy measurements. Consequently, the reproduced spectrum-composition-anisotropy co-evolution in the relevant bands is not an independent test of the four-component picture but a re-description of fitted inputs. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem imported by self-citation is present; the paper's citations to its own earlier works support the two-extragalactic-component assumption alongside independent references, but the central issue is fitted-parameter-is-called-prediction, not self-citation. The absence of a likelihood or information-criterion comparison against the two- and three-component models discussed in the introduction is an underdetermination/correctness concern rather than an equation-level tautology. Hence the score is 6: one or more 'predictions' reduce by construction, but the full claim is not entirely forced by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has on the order of 30 free parameters: per-species normalizations for each of the four components, spectral indices, cutoff rigidities, propagation parameters, shielding parameters, and extragalactic streaming directions. These are fitted manually to the same data that the paper claims to explain. No new fundamental entities are introduced; the four components are phenomenological source populations whose independent evidence is the very data being fitted.

free parameters (10)
  • Galactic component A propagation parameters = D0=8.1e28 cm2/s, delta0=0.56, eta=0.05, Nm=0.9, xi=0.09, n=4, VA=6 km/s, zh=4.5 kpc
    Chosen to reproduce low-energy spectra, secondary ratios, and anisotropy; central to the transport calculation.
  • Galactic injection index and cutoff rigidity for component A = nuA=2.41, RAc=8 PV
    Fitted so that the proton cutoff produces the knee near 3-4 PeV.
  • Component B spectral index and cutoff rigidity = nuB=2.32, RBc=40 TV
    Fitted to produce the O(100) GV hardening and O(10) TV softening attributed to the local source.
  • Component B normalizations qB0 = Table 1 (p:1.8e52, He:1.5e52, C:4.6e50, etc.)
    Abundances tuned to reproduce spectra, composition, and anisotropy below 100 TeV.
  • Extragalactic component C spectral index and cutoff = nuC=2.45, RCc=1 EV
    Fitted to make component C appear around 30 PeV and shape the dip and ankle regions.
  • Extragalactic component D spectral index and cutoff = nuD=1.95, RDc=15 EV
    Fitted to produce the ankle transition and the ~50 EeV suppression.
  • Low-energy shielding rigidity Rs and smoothness beta = Rs=60 PeV, beta=1.6
    Explicitly stated as free parameters determined by reproducing the observed spectrum, composition, and anisotropy features.
  • Extragalactic diffusion parameters for anisotropy = D0 and delta0 for the EG diffusion coefficient (values not given in text)
    Fitted to the anisotropy data above EeV energies; labeled as phenomenological by the authors.
  • Extragalactic streaming directions and strengths = (l,b)C,D = (251 deg, -32 deg), alternative D direction (155 deg, -32 deg)
    Chosen to reproduce the observed dipole amplitude and phase evolution; no independent physical constraint is provided.
  • Species normalizations for components A, C, D = Table 1 (nine elements each)
    Fitted to direct measurements below 100 TeV and to the composition-sensitive data above; many degrees of freedom.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math CR transport is described by the diffusive transport equation solved with DRAGON (Eq. 3.1).
    Standard cosmic-ray propagation framework; the paper uses it as a baseline without deriving it.
  • domain assumption The Galactic source spatial distribution is f(r,z) = (r/r_sun)^1.25 exp[-3.56(r-r_sun)/r_sun - |z|/0.2 kpc].
    Taken from Trotta et al. 2011; the radial and vertical distribution affects the predicted anisotropy and spectra.
  • domain assumption The diffusion coefficient is spatially dependent (SDP), with a smaller value in a thin disk and a larger one in the halo, transitioning to uniform above 1 PV (Eq. 3.2).
    Motivated by pulsar halo observations, but the specific functional form and parameters are model choices.
  • domain assumption The local source injects instantaneously from a point source and propagates via a Green's function in infinite space (Eq. 3.3).
    Assumed geometry and injection history for component B; the result depends on the adopted distance and age of Geminga.
  • ad hoc to paper Extragalactic components C and D have spectra of the form q0 E^-nu exp(-E/(Z Rc)) / cosh[(Z Rs/E)^beta] (Eq. 3.4), with no explicit propagation modeling.
    The cosh shielding term and the specific Rs and beta values are introduced to reproduce the observed dip and ankle; this is the least physically constrained part of the model.
  • ad hoc to paper The dipole anisotropy is calculated as the vector sum of independent streamings from each component, with extragalactic streamings assigned fixed directions and fitted strengths.
    The extragalactic anisotropy directions (l,b) are not derived from any magnetic field or source distribution model; they are chosen to match the observed phase.
  • domain assumption The compiled high-energy mean logarithmic mass data are based on the SIBYLL hadronic interaction model.
    The paper notes model-dependent shifts and focuses on trends, but the absolute composition values depend on this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Co-evolution of cosmic ray energy spectra, composition, and anisotropies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VPDPDEGL

@misc{pith2026250618118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Co-evolution of cosmic ray energy spectra, composition, and anisotropies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VPDPDEGL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18118}
}
abstract

The origin of cosmic rays remains an unresolved fundamental problem in astrophysics. The synergy of multiple observational probes, including the energy spectra, the mass composition, and anisotropy is a viable way to jointly uncover this mystery. In this work, we propose that the energy-dependent of those observables in a wide energy range, from $O(10)$ GeV to ultrahigh energies of $10^{11}$ GeV, share quite a few correlated features, indicating a strong co-evolution which could be a consequence of the underlying origin of different source populations. We decipher these structures with a four-component model, i.e., the ensemble of Galactic sources, a local source close to the solar system, and the ensemble of two extra-galactic source populations. In this scenario, the $O(10^2)$ GV hardening and $O(10)$ TV bump is due to the contribution of the local source, the knee is due to the maximum acceleration energy of protons by the Galactic source population, the second knee is due to the maximum acceleration energy of iron nuclei by Galactic sources, the dip feature between the two knees is due to the appearance of the extra-galactic component, the ankle comes from the transition from one extra-galactic component to the other, and the spectral suppression at the highest energies arises from the acceleration limit of the second extra-galactic component. The transition from Galactic to extra-galactic origin of cosmic rays occurs around $O(10^8)$ GeV, which is smaller than the ankle energy.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Implication of multiple source populations of Galactic cosmic rays from proton and helium spectra

    astro-ph.HE 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The proton and helium spectra from 1 GeV to 10 PeV can be reproduced only by adding two local sources or a second background population on top of the standard cosmic-ray background.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ahlers and P

    M. Ahlers and P. Mertsch, Origin of small-scale anisotropies in Galactic cosmic rays , Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 94 (2017) 184 [1612.01873]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Gaisser, T

    T.K. Gaisser, T. Stanev and S. Tilav, Cosmic ray energy spectrum from measurements of air showers, Frontiers of Physics 8 (2013) 748 [1303.3565]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Sveshnikova, O.N

    L.G. Sveshnikova, O.N. Strelnikova and V.S. Ptuskin, Spectrum and anisotropy of cosmic rays at TeV-PeV-energies and contribution of nearby sources , Astroparticle Physics 50 (2013) 33 [1301.2028]

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Thoudam, J.P

    S. Thoudam, J.P. Rachen, A. van Vliet, A. Achterberg, S. Buitink, H. Falcke et al., Cosmic-ray energy spectrum and composition up to the ankle: the case for a second Galactic component, Astron. Astrophys. 595 (2016) A33 [1605.03111]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Mollerach and E

    S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, A scenario for the Galactic cosmic rays between the knee and the second-knee, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2019) 017 [1812.04026]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Eichmann, M

    B. Eichmann, M. Kachelrieß and F. Oikonomou, Explaining the UHECR spectrum, composition and large-scale anisotropies with radio galaxies , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2022) 006 [2202.11942]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, A. Abdul Halim et al., Constraining the sources of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays across and above the ankle with the spectrum and composition data measured at the Pierre Auger Observatory , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2023) 024 [2211.02857]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, A. Abdul Halim et al., Constraining models for the origin of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays with a novel combined analysis of arrival directions, spectrum, and composition data measured at the Pierre Auger Observatory , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2024) 022 [2305.16693]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 138 references
  1. [9]

    Lv, X.-J

    X.-J. Lv, X.-J. Bi, K. Fang, Y.-Q. Guo, H.-H. He, L.-L. Ma et al., Precise Measurement of the Cosmic-Ray Spectrum and ⟨lnA⟩ by LHAASO: Connecting the Galactic to the Extragalactic Components, Astrophys. J. 979 (2025) 225 [2403.11832]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Yao, Y.-Q

    Y.-H. Yao, Y.-Q. Guo and W. Liu, From known to unknown: cosmic rays transition from the Sun, the Galaxy, and the Extra-Galaxy , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2403.13482 [2403.13482]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cao et al., Measurements of All-Particle Energy Spectrum and Mean Logarithmic Mass of Cosmic Rays from 0.3 to 30 PeV with LHAASO-KM2A , Phys

    LHAASO Collaboration, Z. Cao et al., Measurements of All-Particle Energy Spectrum and Mean Logarithmic Mass of Cosmic Rays from 0.3 to 30 PeV with LHAASO-KM2A , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 131002 [2403.10010]

    2024

  4. [12]

    Liu, Y.-Q

    W. Liu, Y.-Q. Guo and Q. Yuan, Indication of nearby source signatures of cosmic rays from energy spectra and anisotropies , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2019) 010 [1812.09673]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    B.-Q. Qiao, W. Liu, Y.-Q. Guo and Q. Yuan, Anisotropies of different mass compositions of cosmic rays, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2019) 007 [1905.12505]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    B.-Q. Qiao, Q. Luo, Q. Yuan and Y.-Q. Guo, Understanding the Phase Reversals of Galactic Cosmic-Ray Anisotropies, Astrophys. J. 942 (2023) 13 [2201.06234]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Panov, J.H

    A.D. Panov, J.H. Adams, Jr., H.S. Ahn, K.E. Batkov, G.L. Bashindzhagyan, J.W. Watts et al., Elemental energy spectra of cosmic rays from the data of the ATIC-2 experiment , Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. Phys. 71 (2007) 494 [astro-ph/0612377]. – 14 –

    2007 arXiv

  8. [16]

    H.S. Ahn, P. Allison, M.G. Bagliesi, J.J. Beatty, G. Bigongiari, J.T. Childers et al., Discrepant Hardening Observed in Cosmic-ray Elemental Spectra , Astrophys. J. Lett. 714 (2010) L89 [1004.1123]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Adriani et al., PAMELA Measurements of Cosmic-Ray Proton and Helium Spectra , Science 332 (2011) 69 [1103.4055]

    PAMELA Collaboration, O. Adriani et al., PAMELA Measurements of Cosmic-Ray Proton and Helium Spectra , Science 332 (2011) 69 [1103.4055]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al., Precision Measurement of the Proton Flux in Primary Cosmic Rays from Rigidity 1 GV to 1.8 TV with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 171103

    2015

  11. [19]

    AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al., Precision Measurement of the Helium Flux in Primary Cosmic Rays of Rigidities 1.9 GV to 3 TV with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station , Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 211101

    2015

  12. [20]

    An et al., Measurement of the cosmic ray proton spectrum from 40 GeV to 100 TeV with the DAMPE satellite , Science Advances 5 (2019) eaax3793 [1909.12860]

    DAMPE Collaboration, Q. An et al., Measurement of the cosmic ray proton spectrum from 40 GeV to 100 TeV with the DAMPE satellite , Science Advances 5 (2019) eaax3793 [1909.12860]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Alemanno et al., Measurement of the Cosmic Ray Helium Energy Spectrum from 70 GeV to 80 TeV with the DAMPE Space Mission , Phys

    DAMPE Collaboration, F. Alemanno et al., Measurement of the Cosmic Ray Helium Energy Spectrum from 70 GeV to 80 TeV with the DAMPE Space Mission , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 201102 [2105.09073]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    CALET Collaboration, O. Adriani et al., Direct Measurement of the Cosmic-Ray Carbon and Oxygen Spectra from 10 GeV /n to 2.2 TeV /n with the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 251102 [2012.10319]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    CALET Collaboration, O. Adriani et al., Observation of Spectral Structures in the Flux of Cosmic-Ray Protons from 50 GeV to 60 TeV with the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 101102 [2209.01302]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Adriani et al., Direct Measurement of the Cosmic-Ray Helium Spectrum from 40 GeV to 250 TeV with the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station , Phys

    CALET Collaboration, O. Adriani et al., Direct Measurement of the Cosmic-Ray Helium Spectrum from 40 GeV to 250 TeV with the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station , Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 171002 [2304.14699]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Y.S. Yoon, T. Anderson, A. Barrau, N.B. Conklin, S. Coutu, L. Derome et al., Proton and Helium Spectra from the CREAM-III Flight , Astrophys. J. 839 (2017) 5 [1704.02512]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Atkin, V

    E. Atkin, V. Bulatov, V. Dorokhov, N. Gorbunov, S. Filippov, V. Grebenyuk et al., New Universal Cosmic-Ray Knee near a Magnetic Rigidity of 10 TV with the NUCLEON Space Observatory, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 108 (2018) 5 [1805.07119]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Choi, E.S

    G.H. Choi, E.S. Seo, S. Aggarwal, Y. Amare, D. Angelaszek, D.P. Bowman et al., Measurement of High-energy Cosmic-Ray Proton Spectrum from the ISS-CREAM Experiment , Astrophys. J. 940 (2022) 107

    2022

  20. [28]

    Albert et al., Cosmic ray spectrum of protons plus helium nuclei between 6 and 158 TeV from HA WC data , Phys

    HA WC Collaboration, A. Albert et al., Cosmic ray spectrum of protons plus helium nuclei between 6 and 158 TeV from HA WC data , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 063021 [2204.06662]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Alemanno et al., Charge-dependent spectral softenings of primary cosmic-rays from proton to iron below the knee , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2511.05409 [2511.05409]

    DAMPE Collaboration, F. Alemanno et al., Charge-dependent spectral softenings of primary cosmic-rays from proton to iron below the knee , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2511.05409 [2511.05409]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Alemanno et al., Measurement of the cosmic p +He energy spectrum from 50 GeV to 0.5 PeV with the DAMPE space mission , Phys

    DAMPE Collaboration, F. Alemanno et al., Measurement of the cosmic p +He energy spectrum from 50 GeV to 0.5 PeV with the DAMPE space mission , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) L121101 [2304.00137]

    2024

  23. [31]

    Varsi et al., Evidence of a Hardening in the Cosmic Ray Proton Spectrum at around 166 TeV Observed by the GRAPES-3 Experiment , Phys

    GRAPES-3 Collaboration, F. Varsi et al., Evidence of a Hardening in the Cosmic Ray Proton Spectrum at around 166 TeV Observed by the GRAPES-3 Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 051002 . – 15 –

    2024

  24. [32]

    Yue, P.-X

    C. Yue, P.-X. Ma, Q. Yuan, Y.-Z. Fan, Z.-F. Chen, M.-Y. Cui et al., Implications on the origin of cosmic rays in light of 10 TV spectral softenings , Frontiers of Physics 15 (2020) 24601 [1909.12857]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Danilova, N.V

    T.V. Danilova, N.V. Kabanova, N.M. Nesterova, N.M. Nikolskaya, S.I. Nikolsky, L.M. Katsarsky et al., The Energy Spectrum of the Primary Cosmic Rays in the Range 10 13 - 1016eV, in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol. 8 of International Cosmic Ray Conference, p. 129, Jan....

    1977

  26. [34]

    Fomin, G.B

    Y.A. Fomin, G.B. Khristiansen, G.B. Kulikov, V.G. Pogorely, V.I. Solovjeva, V.P. Sulakov et al., Energy Spectrum of Cosmic Rays at Energies of 5 × 1015 - 5 × 1017 eV, in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol. 2 of International Cosmic Ray Conference , p. 85, Aug., 1991, ht...

    1991

  27. [35]

    Nagano, T

    M. Nagano, T. Hara, Y. Hatano, N. Hayashida, S. Kawaguchi, K. Kamata et al., Energy spectrum of primary cosmic rays between 1014.5 and 1018eV, J. Phys. G Nucl. Phys. 10 (1984) 1295

    1984

  28. [36]

    Glasmacher, M.A

    M.A.K. Glasmacher, M.A. Catanese, M.C. Chantell, C.E. Covault, J.W. Cronin, B.E. Fick et al., The cosmic ray energy spectrum between 10 14 and 10 16 eV, Astroparticle Physics 10 (1999) 291

    1999

  29. [37]

    HEGRA Collaboration, F. Arqueros et al., Energy spectrum and chemical composition of cosmic rays between 0.3 and 10 PeV determined from the cherenkov-light and charged-particle distributions in air showers , Astron. Astrophys. 359 (2000) 682 [astro-ph/9908202]

    2000 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Antoni, W.D

    T. Antoni, W.D. Apel, A.F. Badea, K. Bekk, A. Bercuci, J. Blümer et al., KASCADE measurements of energy spectra for elemental groups of cosmic rays: Results and open problems, Astroparticle Physics 24 (2005) 1 [astro-ph/0505413]

    2005 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Amenomori et al., The All-Particle Spectrum of Primary Cosmic Rays in the Wide Energy Range from 1014 to 1017 eV Observed with the Tibet-III Air-Shower Array, Astrophys

    Tibet ASγ Collaboration, M. Amenomori et al., The All-Particle Spectrum of Primary Cosmic Rays in the Wide Energy Range from 1014 to 1017 eV Observed with the Tibet-III Air-Shower Array, Astrophys. J. 678 (2008) 1165 [0801.1803]

    2008 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Aartsen et al., Measurement of the cosmic ray energy spectrum with IceTop-73, Phys

    IceCube Collaboration, M.G. Aartsen et al., Measurement of the cosmic ray energy spectrum with IceTop-73, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 042004 [1307.3795]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Abbasi et al., First Observation of the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin Suppression, Phys

    HiRes Collaboration, R.U. Abbasi et al., First Observation of the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin Suppression, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 101101 [astro-ph/0703099]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Abraham et al., Observation of the Suppression of the Flux of Cosmic Rays above 4×10 19eV, Phys

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, J. Abraham et al., Observation of the Suppression of the Flux of Cosmic Rays above 4×10 19eV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 061101 [0806.4302]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Abu-Zayyad et al., The Cosmic-Ray Energy Spectrum Observed with the Surface Detector of the Telescope Array Experiment , Astrophys

    Telescope Array Collaboration, T. Abu-Zayyad et al., The Cosmic-Ray Energy Spectrum Observed with the Surface Detector of the Telescope Array Experiment , Astrophys. J. Lett. 768 (2013) L1 [1205.5067]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Apel et al., The spectrum of high-energy cosmic rays measured with KASCADE-Grande , Astroparticle Physics 36 (2012) 183 [1206.3834]

    KASCADE-Grande Collaboration, W.D. Apel et al., The spectrum of high-energy cosmic rays measured with KASCADE-Grande , Astroparticle Physics 36 (2012) 183 [1206.3834]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Budnev, A

    N.M. Budnev, A. Chiavassa, O.A. Gress, T.I. Gress, A.N. Dyachok, N.I. Karpov et al., The primary cosmic-ray energy spectrum measured with the Tunka-133 array , Astroparticle Physics 117 (2020) 102406 [2104.03599]

    2020

  38. [46]

    Berezhnev, D

    S.F. Berezhnev, D. Besson, N.M. Budnev, A. Chiavassa, O.A. Chvalaev, O.A. Gress et al., The Tunka-133 EAS Cherenkov light array: Status of 2011 , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 692 (2012) 98 [1201.2122]

    2012 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Abbasi et al., Cosmic ray composition and energy spectrum from 1-30 PeV using the 40-string configuration of IceTop and IceCube , Astroparticle Physics 42 (2013) 15 [1207.3455]

    IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al., Cosmic ray composition and energy spectrum from 1-30 PeV using the 40-string configuration of IceTop and IceCube , Astroparticle Physics 42 (2013) 15 [1207.3455]. – 16 –

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Abu-Zayyad et al., Measurement of the Cosmic-Ray Energy Spectrum and Composition from 10 17 to 10 18.3 eV Using a Hybrid Technique , Astrophys

    HiRes-MIA Collaboration, T. Abu-Zayyad et al., Measurement of the Cosmic-Ray Energy Spectrum and Composition from 10 17 to 10 18.3 eV Using a Hybrid Technique , Astrophys. J. 557 (2001) 686 [astro-ph/0010652]

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Abraham et al., Measurement of the Depth of Maximum of Extensive Air Showers above 10 18eV, Phys

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, J. Abraham et al., Measurement of the Depth of Maximum of Extensive Air Showers above 10 18eV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 091101 [1002.0699]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Abbasi, M

    R.U. Abbasi, M. Abe, T. Abu-Zayyad, M. Allen, R. Anderson, R. Azuma et al., Study of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Ray composition using Telescope Array’s Middle Drum detector and surface array in hybrid mode , Astroparticle Physics 64 (2015) 49 [1408.1726]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Kampert and M

    K.-H. Kampert and M. Unger, Measurements of the cosmic ray composition with air shower experiments, Astroparticle Physics 35 (2012) 660 [1201.0018]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Aguilar et al., The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) on the international space station: Part II - Results from the first seven years , Phys

    AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al., The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) on the international space station: Part II - Results from the first seven years , Phys. Rept. 894 (2021) 1

    2021

  45. [53]

    Schwadron, F.C

    N.A. Schwadron, F.C. Adams, E.R. Christian, P. Desiati, P. Frisch, H.O. Funsten et al., Global Anisotropies in TeV Cosmic Rays Related to the Sun ’s Local Galactic Environment from IBEX , Science 343 (2014) 988

    2014

  46. [54]

    Ahlers, Deciphering the Dipole Anisotropy of Galactic Cosmic Rays , Phys

    M. Ahlers, Deciphering the Dipole Anisotropy of Galactic Cosmic Rays , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 151103 [1605.06446]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Apel, J.C

    W.D. Apel, J.C. Arteaga-Velázquez, K. Bekk, M. Bertaina, J. Blümer, R. Bonino et al., Search for Large-scale Anisotropy in the Arrival Direction of Cosmic Rays with KASCADE-Grande, Astrophys. J. 870 (2019) 91

    2019

  48. [56]

    Aab et al., Observation of a large-scale anisotropy in the arrival directions of cosmic rays above 8 × 10 18 eV, Science 357 (2017) 1266 [1709.07321]

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, A. Aab et al., Observation of a large-scale anisotropy in the arrival directions of cosmic rays above 8 × 10 18 eV, Science 357 (2017) 1266 [1709.07321]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Aab et al., Cosmic-Ray Anisotropies in Right Ascension Measured by the Pierre Auger Observatory , Astrophys

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, A. Aab et al., Cosmic-Ray Anisotropies in Right Ascension Measured by the Pierre Auger Observatory , Astrophys. J. 891 (2020) 142 [2002.06172]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Sveshnikova, L

    L. Sveshnikova, L. Kuzmichev, E. Korosteleva, V. Prosin and V.S. Ptuskin, Interpretation of cosmic ray spectrum above the knee measured by the Tunka-133 array , Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements 256 (2014) 218

    2014

  51. [59]

    Globus, D

    N. Globus, D. Allard and E. Parizot, A complete model of the cosmic ray spectrum and composition across the Galactic to extragalactic transition , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 021302 [1505.01377]

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Mollerach and E

    S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, Extragalactic cosmic rays diffusing from two populations of sources, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 103024 [2004.04253]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Strong, I.V

    A.W. Strong, I.V. Moskalenko and V.S. Ptuskin, Cosmic-Ray Propagation and Interactions in the Galaxy , Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 57 (2007) 285 [astro-ph/0701517]

    2007 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Trotta, G

    R. Trotta, G. Jóhannesson, I.V. Moskalenko, T.A. Porter, R. Ruiz de Austri and A.W. Strong, Constraints on Cosmic-ray Propagation Models from A Global Bayesian Analysis, Astrophys. J. 729 (2011) 106 [1011.0037]

    2011 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Boschini, S

    M.J. Boschini, S. Della Torre, M. Gervasi, D. Grandi, G. Jóhannesson, G. La Vacca et al., Inference of the Local Interstellar Spectra of Cosmic-Ray Nuclei Z ≤ 28 with the GALPROP-HELMOD Framework, Astrophys. J. Supp. 250 (2020) 27 [2006.01337]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Pan and Q

    X. Pan and Q. Yuan, Injection Spectra of Different Species of Cosmic Rays from AMS-02, ACE-CRIS and Voyager-1 , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 23 (2023) 115002 [2403.06719]. – 17 –

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Abeysekara et al., Extended gamma-ray sources around pulsars constrain the origin of the positron flux at Earth , Science 358 (2017) 911 [1711.06223]

    HA WC Collaboration, A.U. Abeysekara et al., Extended gamma-ray sources around pulsars constrain the origin of the positron flux at Earth , Science 358 (2017) 911 [1711.06223]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Aharonian et al., Extended Very-High-Energy Gamma-Ray Emission Surrounding PSR J 0622 +3749 Observed by LHAASO-KM2A , Phys

    LHAASO Collaboration, F. Aharonian et al., Extended Very-High-Energy Gamma-Ray Emission Surrounding PSR J 0622 +3749 Observed by LHAASO-KM2A , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 241103 [2106.09396]

    2021

  59. [67]

    Yuan, S.-J

    Q. Yuan, S.-J. Lin, K. Fang and X.-J. Bi, Propagation of cosmic rays in the AMS-02 era , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 083007 [1701.06149]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Tomassetti and F

    N. Tomassetti and F. Donato, Secondary cosmic-ray nuclei from supernova remnants and constraints on the propagation parameters , Astron. Astrophys. 544 (2012) A16 [1203.6094]

    2012 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Y.-Q. Guo, Z. Tian and C. Jin, Spatial-dependent Propagation of Cosmic Rays Results in the Spectrum of Proton, Ratios of P/P, and B/C, and Anisotropy of Nuclei , Astrophys. J. 819 (2016) 54 [1509.08227]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Guo and Q

    Y.-Q. Guo and Q. Yuan, Understanding the spectral hardenings and radial distribution of Galactic cosmic rays and Fermi diffuse γ rays with spatially-dependent propagation , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 063008 [1801.05904]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Seo and V.S

    E.S. Seo and V.S. Ptuskin, Stochastic Reacceleration of Cosmic Rays in the Interstellar Medium, Astrophys. J. 431 (1994) 705

    1994

  64. [72]

    Evoli, D

    C. Evoli, D. Gaggero, A. Vittino, G. Di Bernardo, M. Di Mauro, A. Ligorini et al., Cosmic-ray propagation with DRAGON2: I. numerical solver and astrophysical ingredients , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2017) 015 [1607.07886]

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Gleeson and W.I

    L.J. Gleeson and W.I. Axford, Solar Modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays , Astrophys. J. 154 (1968) 1011

    1968

  66. [74]

    Yuan, Implication of multiple source populations of Galactic cosmic rays from proton and helium spectra, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2511.06733 [2511.06733]

    Q. Yuan, Implication of multiple source populations of Galactic cosmic rays from proton and helium spectra, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2511.06733 [2511.06733]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Johnson, Contribution to the local cosmic-ray flux from the Geminga supernova , Astroparticle Physics 2 (1994) 257 [astro-ph/9404004]

    P.A. Johnson, Contribution to the local cosmic-ray flux from the Geminga supernova , Astroparticle Physics 2 (1994) 257 [astro-ph/9404004]

    1994 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Luo, B.-Q

    Q. Luo, B.-Q. Qiao, W. Liu, S.-W. Cui and Y.-Q. Guo, Statistical Study of the Optimal Local Sources for Cosmic Ray Nuclei and Electrons , Astrophys. J. 930 (2022) 82 [2110.00501]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Zhang, B.-Q

    P.-P. Zhang, B.-Q. Qiao, Q. Yuan, S.-W. Cui and Y.-Q. Guo, Ultrahigh-energy diffuse gamma-ray emission from cosmic-ray interactions with the medium surrounding acceleration sources, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 023002 [2107.08280]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Manchester, G.B

    R.N. Manchester, G.B. Hobbs, A. Teoh and M. Hobbs, The Australia Telescope National Facility Pulsar Catalogue , Astron. J. 129 (2005) 1993 [astro-ph/0412641]

    2005 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Berezinsky, A

    V. Berezinsky, A. Gazizov and S. Grigorieva, On astrophysical solution to ultrahigh energy cosmic rays, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 043005 [hep-ph/0204357]

    2006 arXiv

  72. [80]

    A. Yushkov, Mass Composition of Cosmic Rays with Energies above 1017.2 eV from the Hybrid Data of the Pierre Auger Observatory , in 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (PoS ICRC2019), vol. 36 of International Cosmic Ray Conference , p. 482, July, 2019, https://ui.adsabs.h...

    2019

  73. [81]

    Aloisio, V

    R. Aloisio, V. Berezinsky and A. Gazizov, Ultra high energy cosmic rays: The disappointing model, Astroparticle Physics 34 (2011) 620 [0907.5194]

    2011 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Aloisio, V

    R. Aloisio, V. Berezinsky and A. Gazizov, Transition from galactic to extragalactic cosmic rays, Astroparticle Physics 39 (2012) 129 [1211.0494]

    2012 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Hillas, TOPICAL REVIEW: Can diffusive shock acceleration in supernova remnants account for high-energy galactic cosmic rays? , Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 31 (2005) 95

    A.M. Hillas, TOPICAL REVIEW: Can diffusive shock acceleration in supernova remnants account for high-energy galactic cosmic rays? , Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 31 (2005) 95 . – 18 –

    2005

  76. [84]

    Lemoine, Extragalactic magnetic fields and the second knee in the cosmic-ray spectrum , Phys

    M. Lemoine, Extragalactic magnetic fields and the second knee in the cosmic-ray spectrum , Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 083007 [astro-ph/0411173]

    2005 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Berezinsky and A.Z

    V. Berezinsky and A.Z. Gazizov, Diffusion of Cosmic Rays in the Expanding Universe. I. , Astrophys. J. 643 (2006) 8 [astro-ph/0512090]

    2006 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Mollerach and E

    S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, Magnetic diffusion effects on the ultra-high energy cosmic ray spectrum and composition , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2013) 013 [1305.6519]

    2013 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Aguilar et al., Properties of a New Group of Cosmic Nuclei: Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on Sodium, Aluminum, and Nitrogen , Phys

    AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al., Properties of a New Group of Cosmic Nuclei: Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on Sodium, Aluminum, and Nitrogen , Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 021101

    2021

  80. [88]

    Aguilar et al., Properties of Iron Primary Cosmic Rays: Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer , Phys

    AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al., Properties of Iron Primary Cosmic Rays: Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 041104

    2021

  81. [89]

    Aguilar et al., Properties of Neon, Magnesium, and Silicon Primary Cosmic Rays Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer , Phys

    AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al., Properties of Neon, Magnesium, and Silicon Primary Cosmic Rays Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer , Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 211102

    2020

  82. [90]

    Aguilar et al., Precision Measurement of Cosmic-Ray Nitrogen and its Primary and Secondary Components with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station , Phys

    AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al., Precision Measurement of Cosmic-Ray Nitrogen and its Primary and Secondary Components with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 051103

    2018

  83. [91]

    AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al., Observation of the Identical Rigidity Dependence of He, C, and O Cosmic Rays at High Rigidities by the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 251101

    2017

  84. [92]

    H.S. Ahn, P. Allison, M.G. Bagliesi, L. Barbier, J.J. Beatty, G. Bigongiari et al., Energy Spectra of Cosmic-ray Nuclei at High Energies , Astrophys. J. 707 (2009) 593 [0911.1889]

    2009 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Hörandel, On the knee in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays , Astroparticle Physics 19 (2003) 193 [astro-ph/0210453]

    J.R. Hörandel, On the knee in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays , Astroparticle Physics 19 (2003) 193 [astro-ph/0210453]

    2003 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Aartsen et al., Cosmic ray spectrum and composition from PeV to EeV using 3 years of data from IceTop and IceCube , Phys

    IceCube Collaboration, M.G. Aartsen et al., Cosmic ray spectrum and composition from PeV to EeV using 3 years of data from IceTop and IceCube , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 082002 [1906.04317]

    2019 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Aartsen et al., Cosmic ray spectrum from 250 TeV to 10 PeV using IceTop, Phys

    IceCube Collaboration, M.G. Aartsen et al., Cosmic ray spectrum from 250 TeV to 10 PeV using IceTop, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 122001 [2006.05215]

    2020 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Aab et al., Features of the Energy Spectrum of Cosmic Rays above 2.5 ×10 18 eV Using the Pierre Auger Observatory , Phys

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, A. Aab et al., Features of the Energy Spectrum of Cosmic Rays above 2.5 ×10 18 eV Using the Pierre Auger Observatory , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 121106 [2008.06488]

    2020 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Aab et al., Measurement of the cosmic-ray energy spectrum above 2.5 ×10 18 eV using the Pierre Auger Observatory , Phys

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, A. Aab et al., Measurement of the cosmic-ray energy spectrum above 2.5 ×10 18 eV using the Pierre Auger Observatory , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 062005 [2008.06486]

    2020 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Telescope Array Collaboration, R.U. Abbasi et al., The energy spectrum of cosmic rays above 1017.2 eV measured by the fluorescence detectors of the Telescope Array experiment in seven years, Astroparticle Physics 80 (2016) 131

    2016

  91. [99]

    Abbasi et al., The Cosmic Ray Energy Spectrum between 2 PeV and 2 EeV Observed with the TALE Detector in Monocular Mode , Astrophys

    Telescope Array Collaboration, R.U. Abbasi et al., The Cosmic Ray Energy Spectrum between 2 PeV and 2 EeV Observed with the TALE Detector in Monocular Mode , Astrophys. J. 865 (2018) 74 [1803.01288]

    2018

  92. [100]

    Turundaevskiy, D

    A. Turundaevskiy, D. Karmanov, I. Kovalev, I. Kudryashov, A. Kurganov, A. Panov et al., The cosmic ray all-particles spectrum from the NUCLEON experiment in comparison with ground-based experiments data , Advances in Space Research 70 (2022) 2696

    2022

  93. [101]

    Panov, J.H

    A.D. Panov, J.H. Adams, H.S. Ahn, G.L. Bashinzhagyan, J.W. Watts, J.P. Wefel et al., Energy spectra of abundant nuclei of primary cosmic rays from the data of ATIC-2 – 19 – experiment: Final results , Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Physics 73 (2009) 564 [1101.3246]

    2009 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Apel, J.C

    W.D. Apel, J.C. Arteaga-Velázquez, K. Bekk, M. Bertaina, J. Blümer, H. Bozdog et al., KASCADE-Grande measurements of energy spectra for elemental groups of cosmic rays , Astroparticle Physics 47 (2013) 54

    2013

  95. [103]

    Abbasi et al., IceTop: The surface component of IceCube , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 700 (2013) 188 [1207.6326]

    IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al., IceTop: The surface component of IceCube , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 700 (2013) 188 [1207.6326]

    2013 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Abdul Halim et al., Interpretation of the depths of maximum of extensive air showers measured by the Pierre Auger Observatory , J

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, A. Abdul Halim et al., Interpretation of the depths of maximum of extensive air showers measured by the Pierre Auger Observatory , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2013) 026 [1301.6637]

    2013 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Abbasi et al., The Cosmic-Ray Composition between 2 PeV and 2 EeV Observed with the TALE Detector in Monocular Mode , Astrophys

    Telescope Array Collaboration, R.U. Abbasi et al., The Cosmic-Ray Composition between 2 PeV and 2 EeV Observed with the TALE Detector in Monocular Mode , Astrophys. J. 909 (2021) 178 [2012.10372]

    2021 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Sakakibara, H

    S. Sakakibara, H. Ueno, K. Fujimoto, I. Kondo and K. Nagashima, Sidereal Time Variation of Small Air Showers Observed at Mt. Norikura. , in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol. 2 of International Cosmic Ray Conference , p. 1058, Jan., 1973, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/...

    1973

  99. [107]

    Gombosi, J

    T. Gombosi, J. Kóta, A.J. Somogyi, A. Varga, B. Betev, L. Katsarski et al., Galactic cosmic ray anisotropy at ≈6×1013eV., in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol. 2 of International Cosmic Ray Conference , pp. 586–591, Aug., 1975, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ICR...

    1975

  100. [108]

    Bercovitch and S.P

    M. Bercovitch and S.P. Agrawal, Cosmic ray anisotropies at median primary rigidities between 100 and 1000 GV , in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol. 10 of International Cosmic Ray Conference , pp. 246–249, Jan., 1981, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ICRC...10..246B

    1981

  101. [109]

    Alexeyenko, A.E

    V.V. Alexeyenko, A.E. Chudakov, E.N. Gulieva and V.G. Sborschikov, Anisotropy of Small EAS (about 1013 eV), in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol. 2 of International Cosmic Ray Conference, p. 146, Jan., 1981, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ICRC....2..146A

    1981

  102. [110]

    Thambyahpillai, The Sidereal Diurnal Variation Measured Underground in London , in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol

    T. Thambyahpillai, The Sidereal Diurnal Variation Measured Underground in London , in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol. 3 of International Cosmic Ray Conference , p. 383, Aug., 1983, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ICRC....3..383T

    1983

  103. [111]

    Nagashima, S

    K. Nagashima, S. Sakakibara, A.G. Fenton and J.E. Humble, The insensitivity of the cosmic ray galactic anisotropy to heliomagnetic polarity reversals , Planet. Space Sci. 33 (1985) 395

    1985

  104. [112]

    Swinson and K

    D.B. Swinson and K. Nagashima, Corrected sidereal anisotropy for underground muons , Planet. Space Sci. 33 (1985) 1069

    1985

  105. [113]

    Andreyev, A.E

    Y.M. Andreyev, A.E. Chudakov, V.A. Kozyarivsky, A.M. Sidorenko, T.I. Tulupova and A.V. Voevodsky, Cosmic Ray Sidereal Anisotropy Observed by Baksan Underground Muon Telescope, in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol. 2 of International Cosmic Ray Conference, p. 22, Jan., ...

    1987

  106. [114]

    Nagashima, K

    K. Nagashima, K. Fujimoto, S. Sakakibara, Z. Fujii, H. Ueno, K. Murakami et al., Galactic cosmic-ray anisotropy and its modulation in the heliomagnetosphere, inferred from air shower observation at Mt. Norikura. , Nuovo Cimento C Geophysics Space Physics C 12 (1989) 695

    1989

  107. [115]

    Munakata, S

    K. Munakata, S. Yasue, S. Mori, C. Kato, M. Koyama, S. Akahane et al., Two Hemisphere Observations of the North-South Sidereal Asymmetry at ∼1 TeV, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, vol. 4 of International Cosmic Ray Conference , p. 639, Jan., 1995, https://ui.adsabs.har...

    1995

  108. [116]

    S. Mori, S. Yasue, K. Munakata, C. Kato, S. Akahane, M. Koyama et al., Observation of Sidereal Anisotropy of Cosmic Rays at ∼1 TV , in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol. 4 of International Cosmic Ray Conference , p. 648, Jan., 1995, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/19...

    1995

  109. [117]

    Fenton, A.G

    K.B. Fenton, A.G. Fenton and J.E. Humble, Sidereal Variations at High Energies - Observations at Poatina , in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol. 4 of International Cosmic Ray Conference , p. 635, Jan., 1995, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ICRC....4..635F

    1995

  110. [118]

    Aglietta, B

    M. Aglietta, B. Alessandro, P. Antonioli, F. Arneodo, L. Bergamasco, M. Bertaina et al., Study of the Cosmic Ray Anisotropy at Eo ∼ 100 TeV from EAS-TOP: 1992-1994 , in International Cosmic Ray Conference , vol. 2 of International Cosmic Ray Conference , p. 800, Jan., 1995, ht...

    1992

  111. [119]

    Aglietta et al., A Measurement of the Solar and Sidereal Cosmic-Ray Anisotropy at E0 approximately 1014 eV, Astrophys

    EAS-Top Collaboration, M. Aglietta et al., A Measurement of the Solar and Sidereal Cosmic-Ray Anisotropy at E0 approximately 1014 eV, Astrophys. J. 470 (1996) 501

    1996

  112. [120]

    Munakata et al., Large-scale anisotropy of the cosmic-ray muon flux in Kamiokande , Phys

    Kamiokande Collaboration, K. Munakata et al., Large-scale anisotropy of the cosmic-ray muon flux in Kamiokande , Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 23

    1997

  113. [121]

    Ambrosio et al., Search for the sidereal and solar diurnal modulations in the total MACRO muon data set , Phys

    MACRO Collaboration, M. Ambrosio et al., Search for the sidereal and solar diurnal modulations in the total MACRO muon data set , Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 042002 [astro-ph/0211119]

    2003 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Amenomori et al., Large-Scale Sidereal Anisotropy of Galactic Cosmic-Ray Intensity Observed by the Tibet Air Shower Array , Astrophys

    Tibet ASγ Collaboration, M. Amenomori et al., Large-Scale Sidereal Anisotropy of Galactic Cosmic-Ray Intensity Observed by the Tibet Air Shower Array , Astrophys. J. Lett. 626 (2005) L29 [astro-ph/0505114]

    2005 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Guillian et al., Observation of the anisotropy of 10TeV primary cosmic ray nuclei flux with the Super-Kamiokande-I detector , Phys

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, G. Guillian et al., Observation of the anisotropy of 10TeV primary cosmic ray nuclei flux with the Super-Kamiokande-I detector , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 062003 [astro-ph/0508468]

    2007 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Aglietta et al., Evolution of the Cosmic-Ray Anisotropy Above 1014 eV, Astrophys

    EAS-Top Collaboration, M. Aglietta et al., Evolution of the Cosmic-Ray Anisotropy Above 1014 eV, Astrophys. J. Lett. 692 (2009) L130 [0901.2740]

    2009 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Alekseenko, A.B

    V.V. Alekseenko, A.B. Cherniaev, D.D. Djappuev, A.U. Kudjaev, O.I. Michailova, Y.V. Stenkin et al., 10-100 TeV cosmic ray anisotropy measured at the Baksan EAS “Carpet” array, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements 196 (2009) 179 [0902.2967]

    2009 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Abdo, B.T

    A.A. Abdo, B.T. Allen, T. Aune, D. Berley, S. Casanova, C. Chen et al., The Large-Scale Cosmic-Ray Anisotropy as Observed with Milagro , Astrophys. J. 698 (2009) 2121 [0806.2293]

    2009 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Abbasi et al., Measurement of the Anisotropy of Cosmic-ray Arrival Directions with IceCube , Astrophys

    IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al., Measurement of the Anisotropy of Cosmic-ray Arrival Directions with IceCube , Astrophys. J. 718 (2010) L194 [1005.2960]

    2010 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Abbasi et al., Observation of Anisotropy in the Galactic Cosmic-Ray Arrival Directions at 400 TeV with IceCube , Astrophys

    IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al., Observation of Anisotropy in the Galactic Cosmic-Ray Arrival Directions at 400 TeV with IceCube , Astrophys. J. 746 (2012) 33 [1109.1017]

    2012 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Aartsen et al., Observation of Cosmic-Ray Anisotropy with the IceTop Air Shower Array , Astrophys

    IceCube Collaboration, M.G. Aartsen et al., Observation of Cosmic-Ray Anisotropy with the IceTop Air Shower Array , Astrophys. J. 765 (2013) 55 [1210.5278]

    2013 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Bartoli et al., ARGO-YBJ Observation of the Large-scale Cosmic Ray Anisotropy During the Solar Minimum between Cycles 23 and 24 , Astrophys

    ARGO-YBJ Collaboration, B. Bartoli et al., ARGO-YBJ Observation of the Large-scale Cosmic Ray Anisotropy During the Solar Minimum between Cycles 23 and 24 , Astrophys. J. 809 (2015) 90

    2015

  123. [131]

    Amenomori et al., Northern Sky Galactic Cosmic Ray Anisotropy between 10 and 1000 TeV with the Tibet Air Shower Array , Astrophys

    Tibet ASγ Collaboration, M. Amenomori et al., Northern Sky Galactic Cosmic Ray Anisotropy between 10 and 1000 TeV with the Tibet Air Shower Array , Astrophys. J. 836 (2017) 153 [1701.07144]. – 21 –

    2017 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Bartoli et al., Galactic Cosmic-Ray Anisotropy in the Northern Hemisphere from the ARGO-YBJ Experiment during 2008-2012 , Astrophys

    ARGO-YBJ Collaboration, B. Bartoli et al., Galactic Cosmic-Ray Anisotropy in the Northern Hemisphere from the ARGO-YBJ Experiment during 2008-2012 , Astrophys. J. 861 (2018) 93 [1805.08980]

    2018 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Ajello et al., A Search for Cosmic-Ray Proton Anisotropy with the Fermi Large Area Telescope , Astrophys

    Fermi-LAT Collaboration, M. Ajello et al., A Search for Cosmic-Ray Proton Anisotropy with the Fermi Large Area Telescope , Astrophys. J. 883 (2019) 33

    2019

  126. [134]

    Abdul Halim et al., Large-scale Cosmic-ray Anisotropies with 19 yr of Data from the Pierre Auger Observatory , Astrophys

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, A. Abdul Halim et al., Large-scale Cosmic-ray Anisotropies with 19 yr of Data from the Pierre Auger Observatory , Astrophys. J. 976 (2024) 48 [2408.05292]

    2024 arXiv

  127. [135]

    Adriani et al., Measurement of the Iron Spectrum in Cosmic Rays from 10 GeV /n to 2.0 TeV /n with the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station, Phys

    CALET Collaboration, O. Adriani et al., Measurement of the Iron Spectrum in Cosmic Rays from 10 GeV /n to 2.0 TeV /n with the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 241101 [2106.08036]

    2021 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Candia, S

    J. Candia, S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, Cosmic ray drift, the second knee and galactic anisotropies, Journal of High Energy Physics 12 (2002) 032 [astro-ph/0207143]

    2002 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Zhang, O

    S.N. Zhang, O. Adriani, S. Albergo, G. Ambrosi, Q. An, T.W. Bao et al., The high energy cosmic-radiation detection (HERD) facility onboard China’s Space Station , in Proc. SPIE, vol. 9144, p. 91440X, July, 2014, DOI [1407.4866]

    2014 arXiv

  130. [138]

    X. Pan, W. Jiang, C. Yue, S.-J. Lei, Y.-X. Cui and Q. Yuan, Simulation study of the performance of the Very Large Area gamma-ray Space Telescope , Nuclear Science and Techniques 35 (2024) 149 [2407.16973]. – 22 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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