pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21224 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Geometry, Not Calorimetry, Drives the Radio/Infrared/Gamma-Ray Correlation

Troy A. Porter , Igor V. Moskalenko , Gudlaugur Johannesson
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 21:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords radio-infrared-gamma-ray correlationgeometric projectionstar-forming galaxiescosmic ray calorimetryline-of-sight integrationMilky Way modelsgalactic structureviewing angle
0
0 comments X

The pith

The radio-infrared-gamma-ray correlation in star-forming galaxies is driven by geometric projection rather than local cosmic-ray calorimetry.

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

The paper asks whether the radio-infrared-gamma-ray correlation in star-forming galaxies arises from local cosmic-ray calorimetry or from the way emissions project along lines of sight. Synthetic observations generated from 3D Milky Way models normalized to local data show that a tight correlation emerges naturally from integrating through the structured disc. This holds even without local calorimetry and depends on the viewing angle, breaking for edge-on perspectives due to stratification. The authors conclude the correlation is mainly a geometric effect, implying its scatter reflects structure and orientation rather than measurement noise.

Core claim

A grid of three-dimensional Milky Way models normalized to local cosmic-ray data produces synthetic external observations exhibiting a tight quasi-linear radio-infrared-gamma-ray correlation from line-of-sight integration through the radially-structured disc, even absent local calorimetry. The correlation's form depends on viewing geometry, holding for moderate inclinations but failing in edge-on views where components stratify.

What carries the argument

Line-of-sight integration through radially structured galactic discs in externally viewed 3D Milky Way models.

Load-bearing premise

That three-dimensional Milky Way models, when normalized only to local cosmic-ray data and projected externally, accurately represent the emission distributions and viewing geometries of other star-forming galaxies.

What would settle it

Finding that the radio-infrared-gamma-ray correlation strength does not vary with galaxy inclination angle, or that it remains tight in edge-on systems, would contradict the geometric projection explanation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21224 by Gudlaugur Johannesson, Igor V. Moskalenko, Troy A. Porter.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Correlation plots of (top) 1.4 GHz RC and (bottom) 100µm IR vs. γ-ray intensity for the SA0-GP2D-F98-BE (left) and SA100- J18-R12-BP (right) modelling configurations for an observer located at 50 kpc looking facedown toward the GC of the MW. For the γ-ray intensities, the correlations are separated into production processes: gas/π 0 -decay, green; ISRF/Compton, black; total, orange. For each of these, the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Correlation plots of (top) 1.4 GHz RC vs. γ-ray intensity for the benchmark SA0-GP2D-F98-BE configuration (top left) with variations in the individual Galactic components: F98→R12 (top right), GP2D→J18 (bottom left), and BE→BP (bottom right) for an observer located at 50 kpc looking facedown toward the GC of the MW. For the γ-ray intensities, the correlations are separated into production processes: gas/π … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Correlation plots of (top) 100 µm IR flux vs. γ-ray intensity for the benchmark SA0-GP2D-F98-BE configuration (top left) with variations in the individual Galactic components: F98→R12 (top right), GP2D→J18 (bottom left), and BE→BP (bottom right) for an observer located at 50 kpc looking facedown toward the GC of the MW. For the γ-ray intensities, the correlations are separated into production processes: ga… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlation plots of (top) 1.4 GHz RC and (bottom) 100 µm IR flux vs. γ-ray intensity for the SA50-GP2D-F98-BE (left) and SA100-GP2D-F98-BE (right) modelling configurations for an observer located at 50 kpc looking facedown toward the GC of the MW. For the γ-ray intensities, the correlations are separated into production processes: gas/π 0 -decay, green; ISRF/Compton, black; total, orange. For each of thes… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation plots of (top) 1.4 GHz RC and (bottom) 100 µm IR flux vs. γ-ray intensity for the SA0-GP2D-F98-BE (left) and SA100- J18-R12-BP (right) modelling configurations for an observer located at 50 kpc at an inclination of 45◦ from the Galactic plane looking toward the GC of the MW. For the γ-ray intensities, the correlations are separated into production processes: gas/π 0 -decay, green; ISRF/Compton,… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Correlation plots of (top) 1.4 GHz RC and (bottom) 100 µm IR flux vs. γ-ray intensity for the SA0-GP2D-F98-BE (left) and SA100- J18-R12-BP (right) modelling configurations for an observer located at 50 kpc at an inclination of 90◦ (edge-on) looking toward the GC of the MW. For the γ-ray intensities, the correlations are separated into production processes: gas/π 0 -decay, green; ISRF/Compton, black; total,… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Correlation plots of (top) 1.4 GHZ flux vs. γ-ray intensity for the SA0-GP2D-F98-BE and (bottom) 100 µm IR flux vs. γ-ray intensity for observer located 500 kpc from the MW centre looking face-down (left), at 45◦ inclination (middle), and edge-on (right). For the γ-ray intensities, the correlations are separated into production processes: gas/π 0 -decay, green; ISRF/Compton, black; total, orange. For each … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Correlation plots of (top) 1.4 GHZ flux vs. γ-ray intensity for the SA100-J18-R12-BP and (bottom) 100 µm IR flux vs. γ-ray intensity for observer located 500 kpc from the MW centre looking face-down (left), at 45◦ inclination (middle), and edge-on (right). For the γ-ray intensities, the correlations are separated into production processes: gas/π 0 -decay, green; ISRF/Compton, black; total, orange. For each… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Correlation plots of 1.4 GHZ flux vs. 100µm flux for the SA0-GP2D-F98-BE (top) and SA100-J18-R12-BP (bottom) configurations for observer located at 50 kpc (left) and 500 kpc (right) from the MW centre looking face-down (cyan), at 45◦ inclination (black), and 90◦ inclination (red). tion. With the recent, careful separation of thermal and non￾thermal radio emission in the SMC (Hassani et al. 2022), the data … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate whether the observed radio-infrared-$\gamma$-ray correlation in star-forming galaxies is a geometric effect rather than a signature of local cosmic-ray (CR) calorimetry. Using the GALPROP framework, we generate synthetic observations for external viewers from a grid of 3D Milky Way models with varied CR source, gas, interstellar radiation, and magnetic field distributions, all normalised to reproduce local CR data. We find that a tight, quasi-linear correlation arises naturally from line-of-sight integration through the extended, radially-structured disc, even when local calorimetry is absent. The correlation's properties depend strongly on viewing geometry, preserving its form under moderate inclination but breaking down in edge-on views where galactic components are stratified. We conclude that the correlation is primarily an emergent property of geometric projection, not local physics. This implies that its scatter is likely not random noise but a diagnostic of underlying galactic structure and viewing angle.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the tight radio/infrared/gamma-ray correlation observed in star-forming galaxies is primarily an emergent geometric effect arising from line-of-sight integration through an extended, radially structured galactic disc, rather than a signature of local cosmic-ray calorimetry. Using the GALPROP code, the authors generate a grid of 3D Milky Way models with varied CR source, gas, ISRF, and magnetic-field distributions, all normalized to reproduce local CR data at the solar position; synthetic observations are then produced for external viewers at different inclinations. They report that a quasi-linear correlation emerges naturally from projection effects, with its form preserved under moderate inclinations but breaking down in edge-on views due to stratification of galactic components.

Significance. If the central result holds, it would substantially revise the interpretation of multi-wavelength correlations in galaxies by shifting emphasis from local CR calorimetry to global geometric projection. This could turn the observed scatter into a diagnostic of underlying galactic structure and viewing angle rather than random noise. A strength of the work is the normalization of all models to independent local CR data, which keeps circularity low and allows the correlation to arise without assuming calorimetry; the approach is falsifiable through comparison with observed inclination-dependent scatter in external galaxies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Modeling and synthetic observations] The central claim that the correlation is 'primarily an emergent property of geometric projection, not local physics' (abstract) rests on the assumption that Milky Way structural templates (radial decline, scale height, spiral structure) are representative of the diverse population of star-forming galaxies. No tests with non-MW geometries, such as more compact discs or irregular morphologies common at high redshift, are described; this limits the generality of the conclusion.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract asserts that 'a tight, quasi-linear correlation arises naturally' but reports no quantitative results (e.g., fitted slopes, Pearson coefficients, or scatter values) from the synthetic observations, nor any error analysis on the model grid choices. This leaves the strength of support for the geometric interpretation only moderately quantified in the summary of the work.
minor comments (2)
  1. Specify the exact ranges and sampling of the normalization factors for CR sources, gas, ISRF, and magnetic field in the model grid, and clarify how these choices affect the robustness of the emergent correlation.
  2. Provide more detail on the inclination sampling and the quantitative dependence of correlation properties (slope, scatter) on viewing angle, including any figures showing edge-on versus face-on cases.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below, providing our responses and indicating the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Modeling and synthetic observations] The central claim that the correlation is 'primarily an emergent property of geometric projection, not local physics' (abstract) rests on the assumption that Milky Way structural templates (radial decline, scale height, spiral structure) are representative of the diverse population of star-forming galaxies. No tests with non-MW geometries, such as more compact discs or irregular morphologies common at high redshift, are described; this limits the generality of the conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that our models are constructed using Milky Way structural templates, selected because they are the most tightly constrained by local cosmic-ray data and permit normalization without assuming calorimetry. The geometric effect we identify arises from line-of-sight integration through a radially declining disc, a structural feature shared by many star-forming galaxies. We nevertheless recognize that the absence of explicit tests with non-MW geometries (compact discs or irregular systems) limits the direct generality of the conclusions, particularly for high-redshift populations. In the revised manuscript we will add a paragraph in the discussion section that addresses this limitation, including a qualitative assessment of how deviations from MW-like radial profiles would be expected to modify the correlation strength and scatter. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract asserts that 'a tight, quasi-linear correlation arises naturally' but reports no quantitative results (e.g., fitted slopes, Pearson coefficients, or scatter values) from the synthetic observations, nor any error analysis on the model grid choices. This leaves the strength of support for the geometric interpretation only moderately quantified in the summary of the work.

    Authors: The main text already reports quantitative measures from the synthetic observations, including fitted slopes near unity, Pearson coefficients above 0.9 for moderate inclinations, and scatter values across the model grid (detailed in Section 3 and the associated figures). To strengthen the abstract as a standalone summary, we will revise it to include representative quantitative statements (e.g., typical slope range and scatter) while keeping it concise. We will also ensure that the robustness with respect to model-grid variations is more explicitly noted. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: correlation emerges from independent normalization and line-of-sight integration

full rationale

The paper constructs a grid of 3D Milky Way models in GALPROP, normalizes them exclusively to local cosmic-ray measurements at the solar position (an external dataset), and then performs forward line-of-sight integrations to produce synthetic radio/IR/gamma-ray maps for external observers. The resulting correlation is an output of this numerical projection step rather than an input assumption or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No self-citation is invoked as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, no ansatz is smuggled through prior work, and no quantity is defined in terms of the target correlation itself. The derivation therefore remains self-contained: the models are constrained only by local data, and the geometric emergence is demonstrated by explicit computation rather than by algebraic identity or circular fitting.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the GALPROP propagation framework and the assumption that Milky Way-like distributions generalize to external galaxies when normalized to local data.

free parameters (1)
  • normalization factors for CR sources, gas, ISRF, and magnetic field
    All models are normalized to reproduce local CR data before generating external synthetic observations.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption GALPROP accurately captures cosmic-ray propagation and emission processes in a 3D galactic disc
    The framework is used to generate all synthetic observations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5466 in / 1346 out tokens · 30863 ms · 2026-05-09T21:35:21.160302+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

78 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913474

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913474 2010

  2. [2]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/164 16 PORTER ET AL

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/2/164 2012

  3. [3]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/86

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/86

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/86 2015

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Ackermann, M., Albert, A., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526920

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526920 2016

  5. [5]

    S., & Polanski, A

    Barashenkov, V . S., & Polanski, A. 1994, Electronic Guide for Nuclear Cross Sections, Tech. Rep. E2-94-417, Comm. JINR, Dubna

    1994

  6. [6]

    M., Gieߨubel, R., & Mulcahy, D

    Beck, R., Berkhuijsen, E. M., Gieߨubel, R., & Mulcahy, D. D. 2020, A&A, 633, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936481

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936481 2020

  7. [7]

    Beuermann, K., Kanbach, G., & Berkhuijsen, E. M. 1985, A&A, 153, 17

    1985

  8. [8]

    1996, PhRvC, 54, 1341, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.54.1341

    Blann, M. 1996, PhRvC, 54, 1341, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.54.1341

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.54.1341 1996

  9. [9]

    Blann, M., & Chadwick, M. B. 1998, PhRvC, 57, 233, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.57.233

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.57.233 1998

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Blom, J. J., Paglione, T. A. D., & Carrami˜nana, A. 1999, ApJ, 516, 744, doi: 10.1086/307155

    work page doi:10.1086/307155 1999

  11. [11]

    J., Della Torre, S., Gervasi, M., et al

    Boschini, M. J., Della Torre, S., Gervasi, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba901 —. 2021, ApJS, 256, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2518

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aba901 2020

  12. [12]

    Bronfman, L., e. a. 1988, ApJ, 324, 248, doi: 10.1086/165892

    work page doi:10.1086/165892 1988

  13. [13]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043 1992

  14. [14]

    Cordes, J. M. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 317, Milky Way Surveys: The Structure and Evolution of our Galaxy, ed. D. Clemens, R. Shah, & T. Brainerd, 211

    2004

  15. [15]

    NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156 —. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0301598

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  16. [16]

    Cox, P., Kruegel, E., & Mezger, P. G. 1986, A&A, 155, 380

    1986

  17. [17]

    Crawford, H. J. 1979, PhD thesis, Single Electron Attachment and Stripping Cross Sections for Relativistic Heavy Ions, University of California at Berkeley

    1979

  18. [18]

    M., Krumholz, M

    Crocker, R. M., Krumholz, M. R., & Thompson, T. A. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1312, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab148

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab148 2021

  19. [19]

    C., Moskalenko, I

    Cummings, A. C., Moskalenko, I. V ., Heikkila, B. C., J´ohannesson, G., & Porter, T. A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 993, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf550

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf550 2025

  20. [20]

    M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P

    Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, ApJ, 547, 792, doi: 10.1086/318388

    work page doi:10.1086/318388 2001

  21. [21]

    M., & Thaddeus, P

    Dame, T. M., & Thaddeus, P. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 317, Milky Way Surveys: The Structure and Evolution of our Galaxy, ed. D. Clemens, R. Shah, & T. Brainerd, 66, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0310102 de Jong, T., Klein, U., Wielebinski, R., & Wunderlich, E. 1985, A&A, 147, L6

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0310102 2004

  22. [22]

    , keywords =

    Dickey, J. M., & Lockman, F. J. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 215, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.001243

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.001243 1990

  23. [23]

    S., et al

    Fatigoni, S., Radiconi, F., Battistelli, E. S., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040011

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040011 2021

  24. [24]

    2007, A&A, 467, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066992

    Ferri`ere, K., Gillard, W., & Jean, P. 2007, A&A, 467, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066992

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066992 2007

  25. [25]

    Ferri`ere, K. M. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 1031, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.1031

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.1031 2001

  26. [26]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/44

    Foreman, G., Chu, Y .-H., Gruendl, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/44

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/44 2015

  27. [27]

    Freudenreich, H. T. 1998, ApJ, 492, 495, doi: 10.1086/305065

    work page doi:10.1086/305065 1998

  28. [28]

    M., & Johnston, S

    Gaensler, B. M., & Johnston, S. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1243

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/277.4.1243 1995

  29. [29]

    Gaensler, B. M., e. a. 2008, PASA, 25, 184, doi: 10.1071/AS08004

    work page doi:10.1071/as08004 2008

  30. [30]

    A., & Burton, W

    Gordon, M. A., & Burton, W. B. 1976, ApJ, 208, 346, doi: 10.1086/154613

    work page doi:10.1086/154613 1976

  31. [31]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 11, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3202

    Hassani, H., Tabatabaei, F., Hughes, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 11, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3202

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3202 2022

  32. [32]

    McClure-Griffiths, N. M. 2008, ApJ, 680, 362, doi: 10.1086/587165

    work page doi:10.1086/587165 2008

  33. [33]

    2025, A&A, 699, A243, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554046

    Heesen, V ., Stein, M., Pourjafari, N., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A243, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554046

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554046 2025

  34. [34]

    T., & Rowan-Robinson, M

    Helou, G., Soifer, B. T., & Rowan-Robinson, M. 1985, ApJL, 298, L7, doi: 10.1086/184556

    work page doi:10.1086/184556 1985

  35. [35]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Hughes, A., Wong, T., Ekers, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 363, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10483.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10483.x 2006

  36. [36]

    Iroshnikov, P. S. 1964, Soviet Ast., 7, 566

    1964

  37. [37]

    A., et al

    Irwin, J., Beck, R., Benjamin, R. A., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/43

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/43 2012

  38. [38]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 22, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12030022

    Irwin, J., Beck, R., Cook, T., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 22, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12030022

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies12030022 2024

  39. [39]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 1670, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15794.x

    Jaffe, T. R., Leahy, J. P., Banday, A. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1013, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15745.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15745.x 2010

  40. [40]

    Jansson, R., & Farrar, G. R. 2012, ApJ, 757, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/14 J´ohannesson, G., Porter, T. A., & Moskalenko, I. V . 2018, ApJ, 856, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab26e

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/14 2012

  41. [41]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., e. a. 2005, A&A, 440, 775, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041864

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041864 2005

  42. [42]

    J., & Lynden-Bell, D

    Kerr, F. J., & Lynden-Bell, D. 1986, MNRAS, 221, 1023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/221.4.1023

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/221.4.1023 1986

  43. [43]

    1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    Kolmogorov, A. 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    1941

  44. [44]

    Kraichnan, R. H. 1965, Physics of Fluids, 8, 1385, doi: 10.1063/1.1761412

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1761412 1965

  45. [45]

    C., Thompson, T

    Lacki, B. C., Thompson, T. A., & Quataert, E. 2010, ApJ, 717, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/1/1 2010

  46. [46]

    R., Silberberg, R., & Tsao, C

    Letaw, J. R., Silberberg, R., & Tsao, C. H. 1983, ApJS, 51, 271, doi: 10.1086/190849 GEOMETRICORIGINS OFRADIO/INFARED/γ-RAYCORRELATION17

    work page doi:10.1086/190849 1983

  47. [47]

    and Auchettl, Katie and Linden, Tim and Bolatto, Alberto D

    Lopez, L. A., Auchettl, K., Linden, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae0f8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae0f8 2018

  48. [48]

    Sierk, A. J. 2004, Adv. Space Res., 34, 1288, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2003.08.057

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2003.08.057 2004

  49. [49]

    V ., & Mashnik, S

    Moskalenko, I. V ., & Mashnik, S. G. 2003, in Proc. 28th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. (Tsukuba), V ol. 4, 1969

    2003

  50. [50]

    V ., Mashnik, S

    Moskalenko, I. V ., Mashnik, S. G., & Strong, A. W. 2001, in Proc. 27th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. (Hamburg), V ol. 5, 1836–1839

    2001

  51. [51]

    doi:10.1086/305152 , eprint =

    Moskalenko, I. V ., & Strong, A. W. 1998, ApJ, 493, 694, doi: 10.1086/305152

    work page doi:10.1086/305152 1998

  52. [52]

    V ., Strong, A

    Moskalenko, I. V ., Strong, A. W., & Mashnik, S. G. 2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 769, International Conference on Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, ed. R. C. Haight, M. B. Chadwick, T. Kawano, & P. Talou, 1612–1617, doi: 10.1063/1.1945315

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1945315 2005

  53. [53]

    V ., Strong, A

    Moskalenko, I. V ., Strong, A. W., Ormes, J. F., & Potgieter, M. S. 2002, ApJ, 565, 280, doi: 10.1086/324402

    work page doi:10.1086/324402 2002

  54. [54]

    Murphy, E. J., e. 2006, ApJ, 638, 157, doi: 10.1086/498636

    work page doi:10.1086/498636 2006

  55. [55]

    Strong, A. W. 2012, ApJ, 750, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/126

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/126 2012

  56. [56]

    E., Hasselquist, S., Peek, J

    Murray, C. E., Hasselquist, S., Peek, J. E. G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1591 Nuclear Data Sheets. 2018, Nuclear Data Sheets, 151, iii, doi: 10.1016/S0090-3752(18)30065-6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1591 2024

  57. [57]

    A., J´ohannesson, G., & Moskalenko, I

    Porter, T. A., J´ohannesson, G., & Moskalenko, I. V . 2017, ApJ, 846, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa844d —. 2022, ApJS, 262, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac80f6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa844d 2017

  58. [58]

    A., Moskalenko, I

    Porter, T. A., Moskalenko, I. V ., Cummings, A. C., & J´ohannesson, G. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4c57

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4c57 2026

  59. [59]

    A., Rowell, G

    Porter, T. A., Rowell, G. P., J´ohannesson, G., & Moskalenko, I. V . 2018, PhRvD, 98, 041302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.041302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.041302 2018

  60. [60]

    H., Ron, A., & Tseng, H

    Pratt, R. H., Ron, A., & Tseng, H. K. 1973, Reviews of Modern Physics, 45, 273, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.45.273

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.45.273 1973

  61. [61]

    Newton-McGee, K. J. 2011, ApJ, 738, 192, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/192

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/2/192 2011

  62. [62]

    P., Churchwell, E., Benjamin, R

    Robitaille, T. P., Churchwell, E., Benjamin, R. A., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219073

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219073 2012

  63. [63]

    S., & Ptuskin, V

    Seo, E. S., & Ptuskin, V . S. 1994, ApJ, 431, 705, doi: 10.1086/174520

    work page doi:10.1086/174520 1994

  64. [64]

    H., & Barghouty, A

    Silberberg, R., Tsao, C. H., & Barghouty, A. F. 1998, ApJ, 501, 911, doi: 10.1086/305862 S¨oding, L., Edenhofer, G., Enßlin, T. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451361

    work page doi:10.1086/305862 1998

  65. [65]

    L., Dingus, B

    Sreekumar, P., Bertsch, D. L., Dingus, B. L., et al. 1992, ApJL, 400, L67, doi: 10.1086/186651

    work page doi:10.1086/186651 1992

  66. [66]

    , keywords =

    Strong, A. W., & Moskalenko, I. V . 1998, ApJ, 509, 212, doi: 10.1086/306470

    work page doi:10.1086/306470 1998

  67. [67]

    Cosmic-Ray Propagation and Interactions in the Galaxy.Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science2007,57, 285–327, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0701517]

    Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V ., & Ptuskin, V . S. 2007, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 57, 285, doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123011

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123011 2007

  68. [68]

    2010, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 1287, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/10/12/009

    Sun, X.-H., & Reich, W. 2010, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 1287, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/10/12/009

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/10/12/009 2010

  69. [69]

    H., Reich, W., Waelkens, A., & Enßlin, T

    Sun, X. H., Reich, W., Waelkens, A., & Enßlin, T. A. 2008, A&A, 477, 573, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078671

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078671 2008

  70. [70]

    2013, A&A, 557, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218909

    Schinnerer, E. 2013, A&A, 557, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218909

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218909 2013

  71. [71]

    H., Silberberg, R., & Barghouty, A

    Tsao, C. H., Silberberg, R., & Barghouty, A. F. 1998, ApJ, 501, 920, doi: 10.1086/305863

    work page doi:10.1086/305863 1998

  72. [72]

    E., Digel, S

    Vladimirov, A. E., Digel, S. W., J´ohannesson, G., et al. 2011, Computer Physics Communications, 182, 1156, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2011.01.017 V oelk, H. J. 1989, A&A, 218, 67 V oelk, H. J., Klein, U., & Wielebinski, R. 1989, A&A, 213, L12

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2011.01.017 2011

  73. [73]

    R., Soutoul, A., Kish, J

    Webber, W. R., Soutoul, A., Kish, J. C., & Rockstroh, J. M. 2003, ApJS, 144, 153, doi: 10.1086/344051

    work page doi:10.1086/344051 2003

  74. [74]

    P., & Axen, D

    Wellisch, H. P., & Axen, D. 1996, PhRvC, 54, 1329, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.54.1329

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.54.1329 1996

  75. [75]

    Wilson, L. W. 1978, PhD thesis, The Nuclear and Atomic Physics Governing Changes in the Composition of Relativistic Cosmic

    1978

  76. [76]

    Wouterloot, J. G. A., Brand, J., Burton, W. B., & Kwee, K. K. 1990, A&A, 230, 21

    1990

  77. [77]

    S., Reddy, N

    Yun, M. S., Reddy, N. A., & Condon, J. J. 2001, ApJ, 554, 803, doi: 10.1086/323145

    work page doi:10.1086/323145 2001

  78. [78]

    2004, A&A, 422, 545, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040152

    Yusifov, I., & K¨uc ¸¨uk, I. 2004, A&A, 422, 545, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040152

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040152 2004