pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.12993 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

High-energy Processes in the Bubbles of Wolf-Rayet Stars: The case of WR 102

L. Espinosa , M. V. del Valle This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords Wolf-Rayet starsstellar wind bubblesnon-thermal emissiongamma rayscosmic ray accelerationsynchrotron radiationWR 102hadronic interactions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Protons accelerated in the WR 102 wind bubble dominate its high-energy emission but produce undetectable gamma rays.

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

This paper develops a model for non-thermal processes in the bubble formed by the wind of the Wolf-Rayet star WR 102. Electrons and protons are accelerated at the wind termination shock, with parameters adjusted to reproduce the observed radio synchrotron emission. The calculation shows that gamma rays arise primarily from protons interacting in the outer shell after diffusion. Although the protons can attain energies up to the PeV range, the overall gamma-ray flux lies below the detection threshold of current observatories. The work also evaluates the possible contribution from cosmic rays interacting with the bubble.

Core claim

We present the first high-energy model for the bubble of WR 102. Assuming acceleration of electrons and protons at the wind shock, we fit the radio data with 3% of the wind kinetic power channeled into relativistic electrons and a magnetic field of 250 microGauss. The dominant high-energy component comes from locally accelerated protons reaching the shell, where they can reach PeV energies, but the predicted gamma-ray flux is too low to be detectable.

What carries the argument

One-zone radiation model near the acceleration site plus proton diffusion to the bubble shell for hadronic gamma-ray production.

If this is right

  • Fitting radio synchrotron fixes the electron energy density and magnetic field for consistent gamma-ray predictions.
  • Hadronic processes from diffused protons outshine leptonic emission at gamma-ray energies.
  • The stellar bubble can accelerate protons to PeV energies through wind shocks.
  • Contributions from cosmic ray protons and electrons interacting with the bubble are estimated as additional components.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar modeling applied to other isolated Wolf-Rayet stars could help quantify their total role in supplying Galactic cosmic rays.
  • More sensitive future gamma-ray instruments could test the hadronic dominance if the efficiency assumptions hold.
  • The framework might be adapted to study time evolution or spatial variations in particle transport within the bubble.

Load-bearing premise

The fraction of wind kinetic power transferred to relativistic electrons is 3% and the magnetic field is 250 microGauss, chosen specifically to match the radio observations before calculating the gamma-ray output.

What would settle it

A gamma-ray observation of the G2.4+1.4 nebula at flux levels around or above the model's prediction with Fermi-LAT or CTA would support the hadronic dominance, while a firm upper limit well below it would challenge the acceleration and diffusion assumptions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12993 by L. Espinosa, M. V. del Valle.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Scheme of a typical stellar wind bubble following the model by R. Weaver et al. (1977), not to scale. Also shown are the location sites of particle injection and back￾ground cosmic rays. The non-thermal emission from the bubble was ob￾tained with the Giant Meterwave Radio Telescope (uGMRT), in the bands 4 (550-850 MHz) and 5 (1050- 1450 MHz). The continuum maps reveal the characteris￾tic morphology of G2.4… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Diffusion radius for t = tage, as a function of energy. Here, Q p 0 is the normalization analogous to that of the electrons already described. For protons we assume χ p NT = 0.1, based on typical values inferred for su￾pernova remnants (e.g., F. Aharonian et al. 2019) and other non-relativistic fast shocks. We consider that pro￾tons are injected with a canonical power-law index of 2. The values of Rdiff ar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Computed multi-wavelength spectral energy distribution. Observed data are shown as black dots; radio data from P. Prajapati et al. (2019) are represented by filled black dots, while other radio data from the literature D. A. Green (2022) are shown as open circles. The synchrotron contribution is shown in black. The contributions from free-free emission (green), relativistic Bremsstrahlung (red) and inverse… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Supersonic winds from massive stars carry great amounts of kinetic power and modify the surrounding interstellar medium. Through this interaction a stellar bubble is formed. Theoretical studies and recent observations suggest that the winds of massive stars could be sources of Galactic cosmic rays. The first detection of synchrotron emission from the bubble of a single star was reported, indicating the presence of relativistic electrons. Studying the non-thermal emission from a single massive star can help to better understand the acceleration of particles taking place in massive star clusters. WR 102 is the perfect case of study. In this work, we present the first high-energy model for the bubble of WR 102: G2.4+1.4. We aim at fitting the radio data and predicting gamma-ray emission. We assume that both electrons and protons are accelerated at the wind shock. We applied a classical model for the stellar bubble and adopted a one-zone model for estimating the radiation produced by the relativistic particles near the acceleration region. Additionally, we computed the expected emission from the protons that diffuse to the outer regions of the bubble. Also, we estimated the leptonic and hadronic contributions expected from cosmic rays. We fitted the observations considering that 3% of the wind kinetic power goes into relativistic electrons, and a magnetic field of 250 $\mu$G. The dominant component at high energies is produced by locally accelerated protons reaching the shell. Protons might reach PeV energies in the wind bubble, but the predicted gamma-ray flux is too low to be detectable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first high-energy model for the stellar bubble of WR 102 (G2.4+1.4). It adopts a classical bubble model and a one-zone approximation to fit radio synchrotron data by channeling 3% of the wind kinetic power into relativistic electrons with a 250 μG magnetic field. Gamma-ray emission is predicted from leptonic processes near the acceleration site and from hadronic interactions after protons diffuse to the shell, with the conclusion that the hadronic component dominates at high energies, protons may reach PeV energies, but the gamma-ray flux remains below current detectability thresholds.

Significance. If the modeling holds, the work extends non-thermal studies to the bubble of an individual Wolf-Rayet star following the recent radio synchrotron detection, providing a concrete example that such systems can accelerate particles to very high energies and potentially contribute to Galactic cosmic rays. The explicit separation of local leptonic emission from diffused hadronic emission is a constructive element, though the overall predictive power is limited by the free parameters.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the radio fit is performed with a fixed 3% electron efficiency and B = 250 μG, but no value or justification is given for the proton acceleration efficiency (or p/e ratio). The central claim that 'the dominant component at high energies is produced by locally accelerated protons reaching the shell' therefore depends on an unconstrained free parameter that directly sets the hadronic normalization and the 'too low to be detectable' conclusion.
  2. [Gamma-ray predictions] Gamma-ray predictions section: the diffusion treatment of protons to the shell and the adopted target density are used to compute the hadronic flux, yet without an explicit proton power fraction or a sensitivity study showing how the flux scales with this parameter, it is impossible to verify whether the dominance and non-detectability statements are robust or merely the result of a particular choice.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'we estimated the leptonic and hadronic contributions expected from cosmic rays' is ambiguous; it should explicitly state whether these refer to particles accelerated in the bubble or to the ambient Galactic CR population.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments highlight the need for greater clarity on the proton acceleration efficiency, which we will address through revisions. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the radio fit is performed with a fixed 3% electron efficiency and B = 250 μG, but no value or justification is given for the proton acceleration efficiency (or p/e ratio). The central claim that 'the dominant component at high energies is produced by locally accelerated protons reaching the shell' therefore depends on an unconstrained free parameter that directly sets the hadronic normalization and the 'too low to be detectable' conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the proton acceleration efficiency was not stated in the abstract (or elsewhere in the current version). In the revised manuscript we will explicitly adopt a fiducial proton efficiency of 10% of the wind kinetic power (corresponding to a p/e ratio of ~3), a value consistent with standard assumptions in stellar-wind and superbubble cosmic-ray models. With this choice the hadronic component dominates above ~100 GeV while the predicted flux remains below current and near-future sensitivities. We will also add a sentence noting that the gamma-ray flux scales linearly with proton efficiency and remains undetectable for any plausible efficiency below ~30%. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Gamma-ray predictions] Gamma-ray predictions section: the diffusion treatment of protons to the shell and the adopted target density are used to compute the hadronic flux, yet without an explicit proton power fraction or a sensitivity study showing how the flux scales with this parameter, it is impossible to verify whether the dominance and non-detectability statements are robust or merely the result of a particular choice.

    Authors: We accept the criticism. The revised Gamma-ray predictions section will state the adopted 10% proton efficiency, repeat the diffusion coefficient (D = 10^28 cm^2 s^-1) and shell density (n ~ 10 cm^-3) with references to the bubble model, and include a new sensitivity analysis (text plus a supplementary figure) varying the proton efficiency from 1% to 30%. This will demonstrate that hadronic dominance and non-detectability hold across the plausible range, thereby making the conclusions robust rather than parameter-specific. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: electron fit to radio determines leptonic component but proton dominance and flux claim rest on independent efficiency assumption

full rationale

The derivation fits 3% of wind kinetic power into electrons plus B=250 μG to match radio synchrotron data, then computes the corresponding leptonic gamma-ray output from the same one-zone model. The central claim that locally accelerated protons reaching the shell produce the dominant high-energy emission (with PeV energies possible but flux undetectable) requires a separate, unspecified proton power fraction or p/e ratio that is not fixed by the radio observations or electron normalization. This additional assumption, combined with the diffusion-to-shell calculation and target density, is independent of the fitted electron parameters; the hadronic result is therefore not forced by construction from the radio fit. No self-citations, self-definitional steps, or uniqueness theorems appear in the abstract or described chain. The model is self-contained against its stated assumptions and external radio data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted quantities (electron power fraction and magnetic-field strength) plus standard but unproven assumptions about particle acceleration at the wind termination shock and the validity of a one-zone radiation zone. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • fraction of wind kinetic power in relativistic electrons = 3%
    Chosen as 3% to reproduce the observed radio synchrotron emission
  • magnetic field strength in the acceleration region = 250 μG
    Set to 250 microGauss to match radio data within the one-zone model
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Both electrons and protons are accelerated at the wind shock
    Stated as the starting assumption for the radiation calculation
  • domain assumption One-zone model suffices to estimate radiation near the acceleration site
    Adopted explicitly for the local emission component
  • domain assumption Classical stellar-bubble expansion model applies to WR 102
    Used to set the geometry and shock conditions

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5579 in / 1692 out tokens · 51158 ms · 2026-05-10T14:06:08.900981+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Beiging, J

    Abbott, D. C., Beiging, J. H., Churchwell, E., & Torres, A. V. 1986, ApJ, 303, 239, doi: 10.1086/164070

    work page doi:10.1086/164070 1986

  2. [2]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  3. [3]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 465, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01318-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01318-y 2021

  4. [4]

    Ackermann, et al., A Cocoon of Freshly Accelerated Cosmic Rays Detected by Fermi in the Cygnus Superbubble, Science 334 (6059) (2011) 1103–1107

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 1103, doi: 10.1126/science.1210311

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1210311 2011

  5. [5]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Aharonian, F., Yang, R., & de O˜ na Wilhelmi, E. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 561, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0724-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0724-0 2019

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2007, A&A, 467, 1075, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066950

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066950 2007

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Aharonian, F., Ashkar, H., Backes, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244323

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244323 2022

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Atoyan, A. M., & Aharonian, F. A. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/278.2.525

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/278.2.525 1996

  9. [9]

    Araudo, A. T. 2010, A&A, 517, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015232

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015232 2010

  10. [10]

    A., et al

    Blanco, V., Kunkel, W., Hiltner, W. A., et al. 1968, ApJ, 152, 1015, doi: 10.1086/149614

    work page doi:10.1086/149614 1968

  11. [11]

    1995, MNRAS, 273, 443, doi: 10.1093/mnras/273.2.443

    Brighenti, F., & D’Ercole, A. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 443, doi: 10.1093/mnras/273.2.443

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/273.2.443 1995

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29 2024

  13. [13]

    Caprioli \ and\ author A

    Caprioli, D., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 794, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/46 2014

  14. [14]

    2019, A&A, 622, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833651

    Cardillo, M., Marchili, N., Piano, G., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833651

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833651 2019

  15. [15]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/157863 1980

  16. [16]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/160132 1982

  17. [17]

    1975, ApJL, 200, L107, doi: 10.1086/181908

    Castor, J., McCray, R., & Weaver, R. 1975, ApJL, 200, L107, doi: 10.1086/181908

    work page doi:10.1086/181908 1975

  18. [18]

    2008, in Massive Stars as Cosmic Engines, ed

    Chu, Y.-H. 2008, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 250, Massive Stars as Cosmic Engines, ed. F. Bresolin, P. A. Crowther, & J. Puls, 341–354, doi: 10.1017/S1743921308020681 10

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921308020681 2008

  19. [19]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3

    Cruise, M., Guainazzi, M., Aird, J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3 De Becker, M. 2018, A&A, 620, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834101 De Becker, M., del Valle, M. V., Romero, G. E., Peri, C. S., & Benaglia, P. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1826 de la Chevroti` ere, A., St-Louis, N., Moffat, A. F. J...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3 2025

  20. [20]

    A., & Lozinskaya, T

    Dopita, M. A., & Lozinskaya, T. A. 1990, ApJ, 359, 419, doi: 10.1086/169074

    work page doi:10.1086/169074 1990

  21. [21]

    Dyson, J. E. 1977, A&A, 59, 161

    work page 1977

  22. [22]

    L., & Syrovatskii, S

    Ginzburg, V. L., & Syrovatskii, S. I. 1964, The Origin of Cosmic Rays

    work page 1964

  23. [23]

    M., & Lozinskaya, T

    Goss, W. M., & Lozinskaya, T. A. 1995, ApJ, 439, 637, doi: 10.1086/175203

    work page doi:10.1086/175203 1995

  24. [24]

    Homan, J., Belloni, T., 2005

    Gould, R. J., & Schr´ eder, G. P. 1967, Physical Review, 155, 1404, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1404

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.155.1404 1967

  25. [25]

    Gray, A. D. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/270.4.835

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/270.4.835 1994

  26. [26]

    Green, D. A. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3773, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2346

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2346 2022

  27. [27]

    H., Meynet, G., Ekstr¨ om, S., & Georgy, C

    Groh, J. H., Meynet, G., Ekstr¨ om, S., & Georgy, C. 2014, A&A, 564, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322573

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322573 2014

  28. [28]

    2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 2001

  29. [29]

    Maciel, W. J. 2013, Astrophysics of the Interstellar Medium, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3767-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3767-3 2013

  30. [30]

    2023, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Mackey, J. 2023, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 370, Winds of Stars and Exoplanets, ed. A. A. Vidotto, L. Fossati, & J. S. Vink, 205–216, doi: 10.1017/S1743921322004501

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921322004501 2023

  31. [31]

    2018, A&A, 615, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732333

    Marchili, N., Piano, G., Cardillo, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732333

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732333 2018

  32. [32]

    Meyer, D. M.-A. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2426

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2426 2021

  33. [33]

    Meyer, D. M. A. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae870

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae870 2024

  34. [34]

    M.-A., Oskinova, L

    Meyer, D. M.-A., Oskinova, L. M., Pohl, M., & Petrov, M. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3906, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1700

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1700 2020

  35. [35]

    2022, A&A, 663, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243098

    Moutzouri, M., Mackey, J., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243098

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243098 2022

  36. [36]

    P., & Cohen, D

    Owocki, S. P., & Cohen, D. H. 2006, ApJ, 648, 565, doi: 10.1086/505698

    work page doi:10.1086/505698 2006

  37. [37]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/141

    Felice, V. 2015, ApJ, 810, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/141

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/2/141 2015

  38. [38]

    , keywords =

    Prajapati, P., Tej, A., del Palacio, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4992

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4992 2019

  39. [39]

    N., & Due˜ nas-´Avila, J

    Kemp, S. N., & Due˜ nas-´Avila, J. I. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 196, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adf299

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/adf299 2025

  40. [40]

    R., Hainich, R., et al

    Ramachandran, V., Hamann, W. R., Hainich, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832816

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832816 2018

  41. [41]

    Araudo, A. T. 2011, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 80, 420, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1011.2773

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1011.2773 2011

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

    Rosslowe, C. K., & Crowther, P. A. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2322, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2525

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2525 2015

  43. [43]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02923, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.02923 S´ anchez-Ayaso, E., del Valle, M

    Saha, A., Tej, A., del Palacio, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02923, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.02923 S´ anchez-Ayaso, E., del Valle, M. V., Mart´ ı, J., Romero, G. E., & Luque-Escamilla, P. L. 2018, ApJ, 861, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac7c7

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.02923 2026

  44. [44]

    R., & Todt, H

    Sander, A., Hamann, W. R., & Todt, H. 2012, A&A, 540, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117830

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117830 2012

  45. [46]

    Sander, A. A. C., Hamann, W. R., Todt, H., et al. 2019b, A&A, 621, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833712

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833712

  46. [47]

    M., Moffat, A

    Shara, M. M., Moffat, A. F. J., Gerke, J., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 402, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/402 Toal´ a, J. A., Guerrero, M. A., Ramos-Larios, G., & Guzm´ an, V. 2015, A&A, 578, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525706

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/402 2009

  47. [48]

    M., Sanyal, D., et al

    Tramper, F., Straal, S. M., Sanyal, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425390

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425390 2015

  48. [49]

    D., Funk, S., et al.\ 2010, , 723, 1, L122

    Tanaka, T. 2010, ApJL, 723, L122, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L122 Van den Eijnden, J., Saikia, P., & Mohamed, S. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac823 11 van Marle, A. J., Casse, F., & Marcowith, A. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2509

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/l122 2010

  49. [50]

    , keywords =

    Voelk, H. J., & Forman, M. 1982, ApJ, 253, 188, doi: 10.1086/159623

    work page doi:10.1086/159623 1982

  50. [51]

    1977, ApJ, 218, 377, doi: 10.1086/155692

    Weaver, R., McCray, R., Castor, J., Shapiro, P., & Moore, R. 1977, ApJ, 218, 377, doi: 10.1086/155692

    work page doi:10.1086/155692 1977

  51. [52]

    Izzard, R. G. 2012, A&A, 544, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219790

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219790 2012

  52. [53]

    2015, 34, 922, doi: 10.22323/1.236.0922 —

    Zabalza, V. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 34, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 922, doi: 10.22323/1.236.0922

    work page doi:10.22323/1.236.0922 2015