pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.31362 · v1 · pith:A3XZDRWWnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Collective Winds of Massive Star Clusters as the Dominant PeVatrons for Galactic Cosmic Rays

Zijian Qiu , Sujie Lin , Lili Yang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 21:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmic raysPeVatronsstellar windsstar clusterscosmic ray kneerigidity cutoffLHAASOsupernova remnants
0
0 comments X

The pith

Collective winds from massive star clusters produce the common 3.5 PV rigidity break for protons and helium seen by LHAASO.

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

The paper builds a time-dependent cosmic-ray injection model that tracks the full life cycle of massive stars and the growth of their wind termination shocks. Individual stellar winds produce mismatched rigidity cutoffs for protons and helium, which conflicts with LHAASO data showing a shared break. Collective winds from entire clusters resolve the mismatch because stars at different evolutionary stages mix their contributions. The resulting stellar-dominated picture assigns supernova remnants to the GeV-TeV band, single-star winds to the TeV band, and cluster winds to the PeV knee, while also matching observed features near 100 GV and 0.1 PV.

Core claim

By constructing a time-dependent cosmic-ray injection model that incorporates the full evolution of massive stars together with the dynamical development of wind termination shocks, the authors find that stellar winds of individual massive stars cannot explain the common spectral break observed by LHAASO, as they yield distinct rigidity cutoffs for protons and helium. By contrast, collective winds of massive star clusters naturally reconcile this discrepancy through the mixing effect of stars at different evolutionary stages. They propose a stellar-dominated model in which supernova remnants dominate the GeV-TeV range, individual stellar winds dominate the TeV range, and collective cluster w

What carries the argument

Mixing effect of stars at different evolutionary stages within collective cluster winds, produced by combining full stellar evolution with dynamical wind termination shock development.

If this is right

  • Supernova remnants dominate the GeV-TeV range, individual stellar winds the TeV range, and collective cluster winds the PeV knee region.
  • The model reproduces the rigidity-dependent spectral features of various species near 100 GV and 0.1 PV.
  • Carbon and oxygen energy spectra are expected to exhibit hardening similar to helium around 0.5 PV.
  • The magnesium energy spectrum is not expected to show hardening in the multi-TV range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the model holds, targeted measurements of additional nuclei could map the transition between individual-wind and collective-wind dominance.
  • The time-dependent treatment of evolving sources could be adapted to model acceleration in other clustered astrophysical environments.
  • Confirmation of the magnesium prediction by DAMPE would strengthen the case that cluster-scale mixing, rather than single-source properties, sets the high-energy cutoff.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamical development of wind termination shocks together with the full evolution of massive stars in clusters produces a mixing effect that yields identical rigidity cutoffs for protons and helium.

What would settle it

LHAASO observation of carbon and oxygen spectra showing no hardening near 0.5 PV would falsify the collective-wind prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31362 by Lili Yang, Sujie Lin, Zijian Qiu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of stellar WTSs and CR acceleration. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Temporal evolution of stellar wind velocity (dashed lines, right y-axis) and mass injection rates of H, He, and C (solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Temporal variations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Temporal variations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Total injection spectra of different particle species for a cluster with a total stellar mass of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of the H/He ratio from different injec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of particle rigidity spectra calculated with GALPROP and observations [7, 11, 12, 38–40]. Panels (a)–(d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison between calculated rigidity spectra and observations over a wide rigidity range [7, 12, 38–40]. Panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Rigidity spectra of various particles before and after adding the nearby Type Ia SNR component. Panels (a)–(d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The knee feature in the cosmic-ray energy spectrum around 4 PeV is widely believed to have a Galactic origin, but the acceleration mechanism and identification of PeVatrons remain key open questions in high-energy astrophysics. Recent precise measurements by LHAASO reveal that the proton and helium spectra exhibit a common rigidity-dependent spectral break at ~ 3.5 PV, imposing a stringent constraint on source models. In this work, we construct, for the first time, a time-dependent cosmic-ray injection model that incorporates the full evolution of massive stars together with the dynamical development of wind termination shocks. We find that stellar winds of individual massive stars cannot explain the common spectral break observed by LHAASO, as they yield distinct rigidity cutoffs for protons and helium. By contrast, collective winds of massive star clusters naturally reconcile this discrepancy through the mixing effect of stars at different evolutionary stages. We propose a stellar-dominated model in which supernova remnants dominate the GeV-TeV range, individual stellar winds dominate the TeV range, and collective cluster winds dominate the PeV knee region. This model successfully reproduces the rigidity-dependent spectral features of various species near 100 GV and 0.1 PV. It further makes two testable predictions for future observations. Around 0.5 PV, the energy spectra of carbon and oxygen are expected to exhibit hardening similar to that of helium, which can be verified by LHAASO observations. In the multi-TV range, the energy spectrum of magnesium is not expected to show hardening similar to that observed for helium, carbon, and oxygen, which can be tested by DAMPE observations.

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 constructs a time-dependent cosmic-ray injection model that incorporates the full evolution of massive stars and the dynamical development of wind termination shocks. It argues that individual stellar winds produce distinct rigidity cutoffs for protons and helium, while collective winds from massive star clusters naturally produce a common ~3.5 PV rigidity break via a mixing effect over evolutionary stages. The proposed stellar-dominated model assigns supernova remnants to the GeV-TeV range, individual winds to the TeV range, and collective cluster winds to the PeV knee; it claims to reproduce observed spectral features near 100 GV and 0.1 PV and offers two testable predictions for carbon/oxygen hardening at ~0.5 PV and the absence of magnesium hardening in the multi-TV range.

Significance. If the central mechanism is shown to emerge from the physics rather than by construction, the work would provide a concrete stellar-wind explanation for the LHAASO-observed common rigidity break at the knee and shift the identification of PeVatrons away from supernova remnants toward collective cluster winds. The time-dependent treatment with full stellar evolution and the explicit multi-component partitioning are potentially valuable if supported by derivations and comparisons to data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and model description] The central claim that collective winds reconcile the common proton-helium rigidity cutoff through a mixing effect (abstract) is load-bearing but unsupported by any derivation. No section or equation calculates the rigidity cutoff for each species from the shock-acceleration physics, then demonstrates that superposition over evolutionary stages necessarily equalizes them at ~3.5 PV; the equality appears imposed by the population synthesis rather than emerging from first principles.
  2. [Results and predictions] The manuscript asserts that the model 'successfully reproduces the rigidity-dependent spectral features' and makes falsifiable predictions, yet provides no quantitative fits, spectra, or comparison tables to LHAASO or other data. Without these, the support for the multi-component dominance (SNRs GeV-TeV, individual winds TeV, collective winds PeV) cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the model is constructed 'for the first time'; a brief literature comparison would clarify novelty.
  2. [Model section] Notation for rigidity cutoffs and evolutionary stages should be defined explicitly when first introduced to aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments identify two areas where the presentation can be strengthened with additional derivations and quantitative material. We will revise the manuscript to address both points directly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and model description] The central claim that collective winds reconcile the common proton-helium rigidity cutoff through a mixing effect (abstract) is load-bearing but unsupported by any derivation. No section or equation calculates the rigidity cutoff for each species from the shock-acceleration physics, then demonstrates that superposition over evolutionary stages necessarily equalizes them at ~3.5 PV; the equality appears imposed by the population synthesis rather than emerging from first principles.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation is needed to show how the common rigidity break emerges. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that (i) derives the species-dependent rigidity cutoffs from the time-dependent shock parameters (magnetic field, velocity, and size at each evolutionary stage) using standard diffusive shock acceleration theory, and (ii) demonstrates analytically and numerically that the superposition over the stellar population at different ages produces a common break near 3.5 PV for protons and helium while preserving distinct cutoffs for individual stars. This will make clear that the equalization is a consequence of the evolutionary mixing rather than an imposed feature of the synthesis code. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and predictions] The manuscript asserts that the model 'successfully reproduces the rigidity-dependent spectral features' and makes falsifiable predictions, yet provides no quantitative fits, spectra, or comparison tables to LHAASO or other data. Without these, the support for the multi-component dominance (SNRs GeV-TeV, individual winds TeV, collective winds PeV) cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current version presents the spectral features qualitatively. The revised manuscript will include new figures that overlay the model spectra for protons, helium, carbon, oxygen, and magnesium on LHAASO and other published data, together with a table of the rigidity breaks, spectral indices, and normalization factors for each component. Quantitative measures of agreement (e.g., residuals or reduced chi-squared in the 100 GV–0.1 PV and knee regions) will be provided so that the partitioning among SNRs, individual winds, and collective winds can be evaluated directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model construction and mixing effect presented as independent numerical outcome

full rationale

The paper constructs a time-dependent injection model incorporating stellar evolution and wind-termination-shock dynamics, then reports that individual-star winds produce distinct rigidity cutoffs while collective winds produce a common cutoff via mixing. No quoted equation or section reduces the common cutoff to a fitted parameter, a self-citation, or a definitional identity; the result is presented as an emergent numerical finding from the population synthesis. The abstract and skeptic summary contain no load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz smuggled via prior work that would force the equality by construction. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as LHAASO data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract does not mention or detail any free parameters, axioms, or invented entities used in the model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5831 in / 1147 out tokens · 37940 ms · 2026-06-28T21:37:05.896225+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

59 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Maximum Rigidity In DSA, a particle’s maximum achievable rigidity is constrained by its survival time within the shock, the system age tage or the escape timescale tesc, since accel- eration to a given energy requires a timescale tacc, such as tacc ≲ min(tesc, tage). For a shock with flow speed V and particle diffusion coefficient K, the competition betwee...

  2. [2]

    Throughout this work, ηacc is assumed to be constant and identical for all particle species

    Injection Rate In DSA, a fraction of the kinetic energy of the stellar wind is transferred to high-energy particles (R > 1 GV), defined as ηacc. Throughout this work, ηacc is assumed to be constant and identical for all particle species. The normalization factor for any massive star ( NZ(t)) in Eq. 6 is the ratio between the total injected energy and the ...

  3. [3]

    A larger Mup enhances the contribution from WR stars, while a higher ηB corresponds to more efficient particle confinement in the shock

    The value of Reff max depends on both ηB and Mup. A larger Mup enhances the contribution from WR stars, while a higher ηB corresponds to more efficient particle confinement in the shock. Both factors lead to a larger Reff max, as shown in Fig. 6. For stellar winds of massive stars, proton and helium nuclei exhibit a substantial difference in Reff max. Even...

  4. [4]

    P. O. Lagage and C. J. Cesarsky, The maximum energy of cosmic rays accelerated by supernova shocks., Astronomy and Astrophysics 125, 249 (1983)

    1983

  5. [5]

    Cao et al

    Z. Cao et al. (LHAASO), Ultrahigh-energy photons up to 1.4 petaelectronvolts from 12 γ-ray Galactic sources, Nature 594, 33 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Amenomori et al

    M. Amenomori et al. (Tibet AS γ), Potential PeVa- tron supernova remnant G106.3+2.7 seen in the highest- energy gamma rays, Nature Astron. , 460 (2021), arXiv:2109.02898 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Cao et al

    Z. Cao et al. (LHAASO), An ultrahigh-energy γ-ray bub- ble powered by a super PeVatron, Sci. Bull. 69, 449 (2024), arXiv:2310.10100 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    LHAASO. Collaboration, Ultrahigh-Energy Gamma-ray Emission Associated with Black Hole-Jet Systems, Na- tional Science Review , nwaf496 (2025), arXiv:2410.08988 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Acceleration of petaelectronvolt protons in the Galactic Centre

    A. Abramowski et al. (H.E.S.S.), Acceleration of peta- electronvolt protons in the Galactic Centre, Nature 531, 476 (2016), arXiv:1603.07730 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Cao et al

    Z. Cao et al. (LHAASO), An extreme particle acceler- ator powered by PSR J1849-0001, Nature Astronomy 10.1038/s41550-026-02839-0 (2026), arXiv:2603.15537 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-026-02839-0 2026

  11. [11]

    Energy Spectra of Elemental Groups of Cosmic Rays: Update on the KASCADE Unfolding Analysis

    KASCADE. Collaboration and W. D. Apel, Energy Spec- tra of Elemental Groups of Cosmic Rays: Update on the KASCADE Unfolding Analysis, Astroparticle Physics 31, 86 (2009), arXiv:0812.0322 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    W. D. Apel et al. , KASCADE-Grande measurements of energy spectra for elemental groups of cosmic rays, Astropart. Phys. 47, 54 (2013), arXiv:1306.6283 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [13]

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

    work page arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Cao et al

    Z. Cao et al. (LHAASO), Precise measurements of the cosmic ray proton energy spectrum in the “knee” re- gion, Sci. Bull. 70, 4173 (2025), arXiv:2505.14447 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Cao et al

    Z. Cao et al. (LHAASO), Precise Measurement of the Cosmic Ray Helium Spectrum above 0.1 PeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 121001 (2026), arXiv:2511.05013 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Peters, Primary cosmic radiation and extensive air showers, Nuovo Cim

    B. Peters, Primary cosmic radiation and extensive air showers, Nuovo Cim. 22, 800 (1961)

    1961

  17. [17]

    Charge-dependent spectral softenings of primary cosmic-rays below the knee

    F. Alemanno et al. (DAMPE), Charge-dependent spec- tral softenings of primary cosmic rays below the knee, Nature 653, 52 (2026), arXiv:2511.05409 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    C. J. Cesarsky and T. Montmerle, Gamma-Rays from Active Regions in the Galaxy - the Possible Contribution of Stellar Winds, Space Sci. Rev. 36, 173 (1983)

    1983

  19. [19]

    A. M. Bykov, A. Marcowith, E. Amato, M. E. Kalyashova, J. M. D. Kruijssen, and E. Waxman, High- Energy Particles and Radiation in Star-Forming Regions, Space Sci. Rev. 216, 42 (2020), arXiv:2003.11534 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Gupta, B

    S. Gupta, B. B. Nath, P. Sharma, and D. Eichler, Realistic modelling of wind and supernovae shocks in star clusters: addressing 22Ne/20Ne and other prob- lems in Galactic cosmic rays, MNRAS 493, 3159 (2020), arXiv:1910.10168 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Morlino, P

    G. Morlino, P. Blasi, E. Peretti, and P. Cristofari, Par- ticle acceleration in winds of star clusters, MNRAS 504, 6096 (2021), arXiv:2102.09217 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Vieu and B

    T. Vieu and B. Reville, Massive star cluster origin for the galactic cosmic ray population at very-high energies, MN- RAS 519, 136 (2023), arXiv:2211.11625 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Massive Stars as Major Factories of Galactic Cosmic Rays

    F. Aharonian, R. Yang, and E. de Oña Wilhelmi, Mas- sive stars as major factories of Galactic cosmic rays, Na- ture Astronomy 3, 561 (2019), arXiv:1804.02331 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Young massive star clusters

    S. Portegies Zwart, S. McMillan, and M. Gieles, Young massive star clusters, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 431 (2010), arXiv:1002.1961 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    N. J. Wright, J. J. Drake, J. E. Drew, and J. S. Vink, The Massive Star Forming Region Cygnus OB2. II. Integrated Stellar Properties and the Star Formation History, Astro- phys. J. 713, 871 (2010), arXiv:1003.2463 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    J. Choi, A. Dotter, C. Conroy, M. Cantiello, B. Paxton, and B. D. Johnson, Mesa Isochrones and Stellar Tracks (MIST). I. Solar-scaled Models, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 823, 102 (2016)

    2016

  27. [27]

    J. I. Castor, D. C. Abbott, and R. I. Klein, Radiation- driven winds in Of stars., The Astrophysical Journal 195, 157 (1975)

    1975

  28. [28]

    J. S. Vink, A. de Koter, and H. J. G. L. M. Lamers, Mass- loss predictions for O and B stars as a function of metal- licity, A&A 369, 574 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101509 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  29. [29]

    Nugis and H

    T. Nugis and H. J. G. L. M. Lamers, Mass-loss rates of Wolf-Rayet stars as a function of stellar parameters, Astronomy and Astrophysics 360, 227 (2000)

    2000

  30. [30]

    On the variation of the Initial Mass Function

    P. Kroupa, On the variation of the initial mass function, MNRAS 322, 231 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0009005 [astro- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  31. [31]

    Weaver, R

    R. Weaver, R. McCray, J. Castor, P. Shapiro, and R. Moore, Interstellar bubbles. II. Structure and evolu- tion., The Astrophysical Journal 218, 377 (1977)

    1977

  32. [32]

    M. A. Malkov and L. O. Drury, Nonlinear theory of dif- fusive acceleration of particles by shock waves, Reports on Progress in Physics 64, 429 (2001)

    2001

  33. [33]

    Morlino, P

    G. Morlino, P. Blasi, E. Peretti, and P. Cristofari, Parti- cle acceleration in winds of star clusters, Monthly Notices 15 of the Royal Astronomical Society 504, 6096 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    L. O. Drury, An introduction to the theory of diffusive shock acceleration of energetic particles in tenuous plas- mas, Rept. Prog. Phys. 46, 973 (1983)

    1983

  35. [35]

    R. H. Kraichnan, Inertial-Range Spectrum of Hydromag- netic Turbulence, Phys. Fluids 8, 1385 (1965)

    1965

  36. [36]

    A. N. Kolmogorov, V. Levin, J. C. R. Hunt, O. M. Phillips, and D. Williams, The local struc- ture of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluid for very large reynolds numbers, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Math- ematical and Physical Sciences 434, 9 (1991), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article- pdf/434/1890/9/68114/rspa...

    work page arXiv 1991

  37. [37]

    M. R. Krumholz, C. F. McKee, and J. Bland-Hawthorn, Star Clusters Across Cosmic Time, ARA&A 57, 227 (2019), arXiv:1812.01615 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    D. Elia, S. Molinari, E. Schisano, J. D. Soler, M. Merello, D. Russeil, M. Veneziani, A. Zavagno, A. Noriega- Crespo, L. Olmi, M. Benedettini, P. Hennebelle, R. S. Klessen, S. Leurini, R. Paladini, S. Pezzuto, A. Trafi- cante, D. J. Eden, P. G. Martin, M. Sormani, A. Coletta, T. Colman, R. Plume, Y. Maruccia, C. Mininni, and S. J. Liu, The Star Formation ...

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    J. B. Lamb, M. S. Oey, J. K. Werk, and L. D. In- gleby, The Sparsest Clusters with O Stars, ApJ 725, 1886 (2010), arXiv:1010.5273 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [40]

    T. A. Porter, G. Jóhannesson, and I. V. Moskalenko, The GALPROP Cosmic-ray Propagation and Nonther- mal Emissions Framework: Release v57, ApJS 262, 30 (2022), arXiv:2112.12745 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Aguilar et al

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

    2021

  42. [42]

    Aguilar et al

    M. Aguilar et al. (AMS), Properties of Cosmic-Ray Sulfur and Determination of the Composition of Pri- mary Cosmic-Ray Carbon, Neon, Magnesium, and Sul- fur: Ten-Year Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spec- trometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 211002 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    Grebenyuk, D

    V. Grebenyuk, D. Karmanov, I. Kovalev, I. Kudryashov, A. Kurganov, A. Panov, D. Podorozhny, A. Tkachenko, L. Tkachev, A. Turundaevskiy, O. Vasiliev, and A. Voronin, Energy spectra of abundant cosmic-ray nu- clei in the NUCLEON experiment, Advances in Space Research 64, 2546 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    Ma, Z.-H

    P.-X. Ma, Z.-H. Xu, Q. Yuan, X.-J. Bi, Y.-Z. Fan, I. V. Moskalenko, and C. Yue, Interpretations of the cosmic ray secondary-to-primary ratios measured by DAMPE, Frontiers of Physics 18, 44301 (2023), arXiv:2210.09205 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

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

    1968

  46. [46]

    Propagation of cosmic rays in the AMS-02 era

    Q. Yuan, S.-J. Lin, K. Fang, and X.-J. Bi, Propagation of cosmic rays in the AMS-02 era, Physical Review D95, 083007 (2017), arXiv:1701.06149 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    Weidner and P

    C. Weidner and P. Kroupa, The maximum stel- lar mass, star-cluster formation and composite stellar populations, MNRAS 365, 1333 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0511331 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2006

  48. [48]

    Q. Yuan, Implication of multiple source popula- tions of Galactic cosmic rays from proton and he- lium spectra, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2511.06733 (2025), arXiv:2511.06733 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    I. R. Seitenzahl, F. Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F. K. Röpke, M. Fink, W. Hillebrandt, M. Kromer, R. Pakmor, A. J. Ruiter, S. A. Sim, and S. Taubenberger, Three- dimensional delayed-detonation models with nucleosyn- thesis for Type Ia supernovae, MNRAS 429, 1156 (2013), arXiv:1211.3015 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  50. [50]

    Chieffi and M

    A. Chieffi and M. Limongi, Pre-supernova Evolution of Rotating Solar Metallicity Stars in the Mass Range 13- 120 M ￿ and their Explosive Yields, ApJ 764, 21 (2013)

    2013

  51. [51]

    A. A. C. Sander and J. S. Vink, On the nature of massive helium star winds and Wolf-Rayet-type mass-loss, MN- RAS 499, 873 (2020), arXiv:2009.01849 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Marchant and J

    P. Marchant and J. Bodensteiner, The Evolution of Massive Binary Stars, ARA&A 62, 21 (2024), arXiv:2311.01865 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Aharonian et al

    F. Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S.), Very-high-energy γ-ray emission from young massive star clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud, Astrophys. J. Lett. 970, L21 (2024), arXiv:2407.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    L. E. Espinosa Castro, K. Murase, C. Rizza, F. L. Vil- lante, V. Vecchiotti, and G. Pagliaroli, Multimessenger Concordance for the Cygnus Region as the Source of the Cosmic-Ray Knee, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2603.21665 (2026), arXiv:2603.21665 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Peron, S

    G. Peron, S. Casanova, S. Gabici, V. Baghmanyan, and F. Aharonian, The contribution of winds from star clus- ters to the Galactic cosmic-ray population, Nature As- tronomy 8, 530 (2024), arXiv:2407.07509 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Omeliukh et al

    A. Omeliukh et al. (IceCube-Gen2), Optimization of the optical array geometry for IceCube-Gen2, PoS ICRC2021, 1184 (2021), arXiv:2107.08527 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Aiello et al

    S. Aiello et al. (KM3NeT), Sensitivity of the KM3NeT/ARCA neutrino telescope to point-like neu- trino sources, Astropart. Phys. 111, 100 (2019), arXiv:1810.08499 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Z. P. Ye et al. , A multi-cubic-kilometre neutrino tele- scope in the western Pacific Ocean, Nature Astron. 7, 1497 (2023)

    2023

  59. [59]

    Huang, Z

    T.-Q. Huang, Z. Cao, M. Chen, J. Liu, Z. Wang, X. You, and Y. Qi, Proposal for the High Energy Neutrino Tele- scope, PoS ICRC2023, 1080 (2023)

    2023