Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Analyzing Cosmic Ray Spectral Features: A Numerical Investigation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Injection spectrum breaks, not diffusion alone, best match cosmic-ray hardening near 200 GV; a primary positron source is still required for the excess.

desk verdict Solid GALPROP v57 parameter update with MINUIT2; useful numbers, but sequential freeze-and-fit plus ad-hoc grouping leave the Case 1 vs 2/3 ranking less robust than claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05606 v1 pith:5CX2FJW6 submitted 2026-07-06 astro-ph.HE

Yuca C. Chen , Zachary M. Dorris , Eun-Suk Seo , Vladimir S. Ptuskin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmic-rayspectralhardeningGALPROPpropagationdiffusioncoefficientbreakinjectionspectrumbreakspositronexcessprotonheliumsofteningall-particle
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

High-precision cosmic-ray data show a hardening near 200 GV in primaries and secondaries, a later softening in protons and helium, and a positron excess above roughly 25 GeV. This paper uses a standard galactic propagation code with automated parameter optimization to test three explanations for the hardening: a break only in the diffusion coefficient, breaks only in the source injection spectra, or both. Diffusion alone under-produces the hardening and yields slopes that are too flat for several species, while injection breaks (alone or combined with a milder diffusion break) reproduce the break and hardening for protons, helium, carbon, oxygen and sulfur and also supply the electron excess above 100 GeV. An extra high-energy injection break then accounts for the proton and helium softening, and a charge-symmetric primary positron source is required for the positron excess. The summed all-particle spectrum is flat approaching 1 PeV because heavier nuclei have not yet been observed to soften, giving an upper-limit prediction that can be tested once higher-energy data arrive.

What carries the argument

Three nested GALPROP diffusion-plus-reacceleration-plus-convection models optimized by MINUIT2: Case 1 (diffusion break only), Case 2 (injection-spectrum breaks only), and Case 3 (both), later extended by a second high-energy injection break for protons and helium and a charge-symmetric primary positron source.

What would settle it

New high-precision spectra of carbon through iron that either show a clear softening near the same rigidity as protons and helium (producing a drop in the all-particle spectrum above 1 PeV) or continue to harden, which would keep the all-particle flux flat and force a different origin for the features.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A pure high-rigidity diffusion-coefficient break under-produces the observed hardening in protons, helium, carbon, nitrogen, neon and electrons and yields flatter slopes for beryllium, boron, oxygen and sulfur. Injection-spectrum breaks alone, or a combination of injection breaks plus a milder diffusion break, reproduce the break and hardening for protons, helium, carbon, oxygen and sulfur and the electron excess above about 100 GeV. Neither scenario accounts for the antiproton excess above 100 GeV or the positron excess above 2 GeV without an additional charge-symmetric primary positron source; an extra injection break at tens of TV then fits the proton and helium softening.

Load-bearing premise

The sequential four-stage fit that freezes low-rigidity parameters before high-rigidity breaks are introduced, together with ad-hoc grouping of nuclei into common injection classes and exclusion of some data sets for normalization reasons, is assumed not to bias the recovered break locations and slopes.

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 manuscript uses GALPROP v57 with its MINUIT2-based parameter optimization module to fit recent cosmic-ray data (AMS-02, CALET, CREAM, DAMPE, ISS-CREAM, NUCLEON, Voyager, ACE-CRIS) under a diffusion-reacceleration-convection model. Three scenarios for the ~200 GV spectral hardening are compared: (1) a high-rigidity break in the spatial diffusion coefficient, (2) breaks in the injection spectra of nuclei and electrons, and (3) a combination of both. An additional high-energy injection break is introduced for the p and He softening near 10–20 TV, and a charge-symmetric primary positron source (SNR spatial profile) is added for the positron excess. Best-fit parameters with formal errors are reported (Tables 2–7); elemental spectra, secondary-to-primary ratios, and the summed all-particle spectrum are compared to compiled data. The authors conclude that a pure diffusion break under-produces the observed hardening in several species while injection breaks (alone or combined) fare better, that neither explains the p-bar or e+ excesses without extra sources, and that the all-particle spectrum is an upper limit above ~200 TeV pending possible heavy-element softening.

Significance. If the ranking of the three hardening scenarios holds under joint re-optimization, the work supplies a useful, publicly reproducible update to earlier hand-tuned GALPROP studies (Wu et al. 2021; Chen et al. 2023). It incorporates newer CALET He and AMS-02 S data, reports formal MINUIT2 uncertainties, and produces an all-particle spectrum that can be compared directly with air-shower measurements. The explicit side-by-side comparison of diffusion-only versus injection-only versus hybrid models, together with the tabulated source abundances and break parameters, is a concrete resource for the multi-messenger community. The transparent listing of known limitations (Opt022 cross sections, force-field modulation, absence of break smoothing) further strengthens its utility as a baseline for future work.

major comments (3)
  1. Section 3.1–3.2 and Tables 5–6: the sequential four-stage procedure freezes the entire low-rigidity parameter set (D0, δ0, ρ0, δ1, vA, dV/dz, γ0, γ1, R0 and the nuclear grouping) obtained on data ≲200 GV before the high-rigidity breaks ρ1, δ2, R1, γ2 are optimized. Because the frozen low-energy parameters already absorb part of the spectral curvature, the subsequent optimizer is confined to a narrower region; the recovered Case-1 values (ρ1 = 226 GV, δ2 = 0.382) may therefore be artificially soft, making Case 1 appear worse than a simultaneous fit of all free parameters on the full rigidity range would. A joint re-optimization (or at least a sensitivity test that re-floats the Stage-1 parameters) is required before the ranking of the three scenarios can be regarded as robust.
  2. Section 3.1 and Table 5: the ad-hoc grouping of nuclei into common injection classes (He+CNO+Fe versus NeMgSiS) is performed after Stage 1 and then frozen. The claim that “injection breaks reproduce the AMS-02 spectral groups” is therefore partly by construction. The manuscript should either (i) demonstrate that the same grouping emerges when all nuclei are allowed independent R1, γ2 or (ii) quantify the χ² penalty of forcing the groups, so that the reader can judge whether the grouping is data-driven or imposed.
  3. Results (Figures 1–9) and Conclusion: no quantitative goodness-of-fit metric (total χ², reduced χ², or AIC/BIC) is reported for the three hardening scenarios on the common data set. Visual inspection alone cannot establish that Cases 2 and 3 are statistically preferred over Case 1, especially given the sequential freezing. A table of χ² (or equivalent) for each case on the Stage-2 data would make the central claim falsifiable.
minor comments (5)
  1. Abstract and §1: the DOI is written twice (“DOI: 10.1016/10.1016/j.asr.2025.08.050”); correct to the single proper form.
  2. Table 1 and §3.2: several data sets are excluded “due to absolute normalization issues” without quoting the magnitude of the offset or citing a reference that quantifies it; a short numerical statement would help the reader assess the impact.
  3. Figures 2, 4, 5, 10: the zoomed insets are useful but the axis labels and legend entries become cramped; increasing font size or moving the legend outside the panel would improve readability.
  4. §4.3: the statement that the all-particle spectrum is an “upper limit” above ~200 TeV is correct given the missing heavy-element softening, but the text should also note that the GALPROP energy ceiling (~1 PeV) itself truncates the calculation, so the comparison with air-shower data near the knee is only qualitative.
  5. Equation (3): the definition of ζ for two diffusion breaks is given, yet the numerical value of ζ actually used in the runs is never stated; reporting it would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Multi-stage MINUIT2 χ² fits of the very break rigidities/indices that define the three hardening scenarios are then described as the models 'reproducing' those features; relative ranking of cases retains independent residual content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (Results of Stage 2) and discussion of Figures 1–9]
    "All three cases reproduce the break and hardening in the B/C ratio data as seen in Figure 1. ... Cases 2 and 3 both reproduce the break and the spectral hardening in the p data. ... Cases 2 and 3 both reproduce the break and the spectral hardening in the He, C, O, and S data."

    ρ₁, δ₂ (Case 1) and R₁, γ₂ (Cases 2/3) are free parameters varied by MINUIT2 to minimize χ² against precisely the high-rigidity AMS-02/CALET/CREAM/DAMPE spectra and ratios listed in Table 1 (Stage 2). The model curves therefore match the observed hardening by construction of the optimizer; the language of 'reproduce' equates a successful fit residual to an explanatory success without an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Proton and Helium Spectra / Stage 3)]
    "The injection spectrum for p has a second injection spectral break R₂ at 13.89±0.02 TV with an injection spectral index of γ₃ = 2.334±0.029 above the break. The injection spectrum for He has a break R₂ at 20±1 TV and an index γ₃ of 2.188±0.049. ... The break R₂ and index γ₃ for p and He are consistent with these data."

    R₂ and γ₃ are introduced as free parameters and optimized in Stage 3 exclusively against the high-rigidity p and He points from CALET, CREAM-I+III, DAMPE, ISS-CREAM and NUCLEON-KLEM. Consistency with those same points is therefore guaranteed by the χ² minimum; the statement presents a fitted input as an independent result.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (Positron Spectrum / Stage 4) and Table 7]
    "An introduction of a charge-symmetric primary source is able to describe the positron data. This source is also compatible with the negative e⁻ data."

    The primary e⁺ injection breaks, indices and relative abundance (Table 7) are free parameters optimized in Stage 4 against the AMS-02 e⁺ (and e⁻) spectra. The claim that the source 'describes' the excess is therefore the fit itself, not a prediction tested on held-out data.

full rationale

The paper is an explicit numerical investigation that optimizes GALPROP diffusion and injection parameters against AMS-02/CALET/CREAM/DAMPE data via sequential MINUIT2 stages (low-rigidity freeze then high-rigidity breaks, then p/He softening, then primary e+). No first-principles derivation, uniqueness theorem, or external parameter-free prediction is claimed; the central scientific content is the comparative residual quality of three phenomenological break scenarios after optimization. Presenting the resulting curves as 'reproducing' or 'consistent with' the same data that entered the χ² therefore constitutes mild fitted-input-as-prediction circularity, but does not collapse the ranking of Case 1 versus Cases 2/3 (which still differs by residual mismatch). Self-citations to the authors' prior hand-tuned GALPROP runs are framed as methodological updates, not load-bearing uniqueness claims. Sequential freezing can bias absolute break values, yet that is a robustness concern rather than definitional circularity. Score 4 reflects partial presentation circularity while recognizing that the comparative claim retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The entire analysis rests on the standard GALPROP transport equation plus a large set of free parameters that are fitted stage-by-stage to the data. No new physical principle is introduced; the “results” are the optimized values of those parameters under three phenomenological break scenarios and an extra primary positron source.

free parameters (10)
  • D0 (normalization of spatial diffusion at 10 GV) = 7.81±0.04e28 cm2/s
    Fitted in Stage 1 to B/C, B, C and low-energy nuclei; value 7.81±0.04 × 10^28 cm² s⁻¹.
  • δ0, ρ0, δ1 (low-rigidity diffusion indices and break) = δ0=0.101±0.005, ρ0=6.78±0.06 GV, δ1=0.493±0.001
    Fitted simultaneously with D0; control the B/C peak and low-energy spectra.
  • v_Alfvén and dV_conv/dz = 16.9±0.2 km/s, 3.9±0.2 km/s/kpc
    Reacceleration and convection parameters fitted in Stage 1.
  • Injection indices γ0, γ1 and break R0 for each nuclear group and e− = see Table 3
    Species-dependent source spectra below the hardening; fitted in Stage 1 after nuclei are grouped.
  • High-rigidity diffusion break ρ1 and index δ2 (Cases 1 & 3) = Case1: 226±9 GV, 0.382±0.003; Case3: 201.8±0.3 GV, 0.446±0.004
    Free parameters introduced in Stage 2 to produce spectral hardening.
  • Injection break R1 and index γ2 for each nuclear group and e− (Cases 2 & 3) = see Table 5
    Free parameters that harden the source spectra; different values for p, He+CNO+Fe, NeMgSiS and e−.
  • Second injection break R2 and index γ3 for p and He = p: 13.89±0.02 TV, 2.334±0.029; He: 20±1 TV, 2.188±0.049
    Introduced in Stage 3 solely to fit the observed softening above ∼10 TV.
  • Primary e+ source abundance and its three spectral indices/breaks = abundance 97.2±0.9; see Table 7
    Charge-symmetric SNR-like source added in Stage 4 to fit the positron excess.
  • Solar modulation potentials ϕ_AMS and ϕ_ACE = 533±2 MV, 500±10 MV
    Force-field potentials fitted to AMS-02 and ACE-CRIS data.
  • Relative source abundances of He, C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Fe = see Table 4
    Normalized to protons and held fixed after Stage 1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cosmic-ray transport is described by the standard GALPROP diffusion-reacceleration-convection equation (Eq. 1) with a static halo half-width of 7.5 kpc.
    Adopted as the baseline model in Section 2; all subsequent fits are performed inside this framework.
  • domain assumption Solar modulation is adequately described by the force-field approximation with a single potential per data set.
    Used throughout; two potentials are fitted (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Nuclear production and fragmentation cross-sections are given by GALPROP option Opt022 (Silberberg et al. phenomenological approximations).
    Fixed choice stated in Section 3; known to affect Be and B residuals.
  • ad hoc to paper Nuclei can be grouped into a few common injection-spectral classes (CNO, NeSiS, etc.) that share the same breaks and indices.
    Grouping strategy described in Section 3.1 and used to reduce free parameters; not derived from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper A second high-rigidity break can be inserted into the GALPROP diffusion coefficient by hand (modifying ζ in Dpp).
    GALPROP v57 natively supports only one break; the second break is a custom extension (Section 2.1).
invented entities (1)
  • Charge-symmetric primary positron source with SNR spatial profile
    purpose: To account for the positron excess above ∼25 GeV that cannot be produced by secondary production or the hardening breaks alone.
    Introduced in Stage 4; abundance and spectral shape are free parameters fitted to AMS-02 e+ data. No independent multi-wavelength or gamma-ray confirmation is provided in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analyzing Cosmic Ray Spectral Features: A Numerical Investigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5CX2FJW6

@misc{pith2026260705606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analyzing Cosmic Ray Spectral Features: A Numerical Investigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5CX2FJW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05606}
}
read the original abstract

Recent cosmic ray space-based and balloon-borne experiments have revealed various spectral features. Spectral hardening around ~200 GV has been seen in primary nuclei as well as secondaries produced during propagation. Proton spectrum softening at ~10 TV and helium spectrum softening at a few tens TV has also been seen. Additionally, a positron excess has been observed above ~25 GeV. The cosmic ray propagation code, GALPROP v57, was utilized to investigate the cause behind these features. A diffusion model with reacceleration and convection effects was used as a baseline. To find the best fit to the experimental data, GALPROP v57's parameter optimization module, utilizing the external numerical minimization software MINUIT2, was used. For the hardening, three scenarios were studied: (1) a diffusion coefficient break, (2) injection spectra breaks, and (3) a combination of both breaks. An additional injection spectrum break was considered to fit the softening of the proton and helium spectra. An additional positron source was introduced for the positron excess. The resulting elemental spectra and ratios, along with the all-particle spectrum, are compared to compiled cosmic ray data. Implications of these spectral features are also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05606 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The results for the B/C ratio data for Cases 1 (dashed teal line), 2 (dashed-dotted gold line), and 3 (solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The results for the p data for Cases 1 (dashed teal line), 2 (dashed-dotted gold line), and 3 (solid pink line) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The results for the ¯p data for Cases 1 (dashed teal line), 2 (dashed-dotted gold line), and 3 (solid pink line) are compared with the compiled data, the legend for which can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The results for the He data for Cases 1 (dashed teal line), 2 (dashed-dotted gold line), and 3 (solid pink line) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The results for the C data for Cases 1 (dashed teal line), 2 (dashed-dotted gold line), and 3 (solid pink line) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The results for the O and S data for Cases 1 (dashed teal line), 2 (dashed-dotted gold line), and 3 (solid pink [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The results for the N and Ne data for Cases 1 (dashed teal line), 2 (dashed-dotted gold line), and 3 (solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The results for the B and Be data for Cases 1 (dashed teal line), 2 (dashed-dotted gold line), and 3 (solid pink [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The results for the negative e − and e + data for Cases 1 (dashed teal line), 2 (dashed-dotted gold line), and 3 (solid pink line) are compared to the compiled data. The results are modulated spectra with ϕAMS = 533 ± 2 MV. The legend can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The results for the p and He data, after fitting above [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The results for the negative e − and e + data after introducing a charge-symmetric primary source are compared to the compiled data, the legend for which can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The calculated all-particle spectrum (black solid line) is compared with the compiled data. GALPROP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cosmic ray spectrum from 250 TeV to 10 PeV using IceTop

    Aartsen, M. G. et al. (2020). “Cosmic ray spectrum from 250 TeV to 10 PeV using IceTop”.Physical Review D102 (12), p. 122001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.122001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.122001 2020

  2. [3]

    Measurement of Separate Cosmic-Ray Electron and Positron Spectra with the Fermi Large Area Telescope

    Ackermann, M. et al. (2012). “Measurement of Separate Cosmic-Ray Electron and Positron Spectra with the Fermi Large Area Telescope”.Physical Review Letters108 (1), p. 011103.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 108.011103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2012

  3. [4]

    An anomalous positron abundance in cosmic rays with energies 1.5-100 GeV

    Adriani, O. et al. (2009). “An anomalous positron abundance in cosmic rays with energies 1.5-100 GeV”. Nature458.7238, pp. 607–609.doi:10.1038/nature07942

    doi:10.1038/nature07942 2009

  4. [5]

    PAMELA Measurements of Cosmic-Ray Proton and Helium Spectra

    Adriani, O. et al. (2011). “PAMELA Measurements of Cosmic-Ray Proton and Helium Spectra”.Science 332.6025, pp. 69–72.doi:10.1126/science.1199172

    doi:10.1126/science.1199172 2011

  5. [6]

    Measurement of Boron and Carbon Fluxes in Cosmic Rays with the PAMELA Experiment

    Adriani, O. et al. (2014). “Measurement of Boron and Carbon Fluxes in Cosmic Rays with the PAMELA Experiment”.The Astrophysical Journal791.2, p. 93.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/93

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/93 2014

  6. [7]

    Direct Measurement of the Cosmic-Ray Carbon and Oxygen Spectra from 10 GeV/nto 2.2 TeV/nwith the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station

    Adriani, O. et al. (2020). “Direct Measurement of the Cosmic-Ray Carbon and Oxygen Spectra from 10 GeV/nto 2.2 TeV/nwith the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station”. Physical Review Letters125 (25), p. 251102.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.251102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.251102 2020

  7. [8]

    Measurement of the Iron Spectrum in Cosmic Rays from 10 GeV/nto 2.0 TeV/n with the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station

    Adriani, O. et al. (2021). “Measurement of the Iron Spectrum in Cosmic Rays from 10 GeV/nto 2.0 TeV/n with the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station”.Physical Review Letters 126 (24), p. 241101.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.241101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.241101 2021

  8. [9]

    Cosmic-Ray Boron Flux Measured from 8.4 GeV/nto 3.8 TeV/nwith the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station

    Adriani, O. et al. (2022a). “Cosmic-Ray Boron Flux Measured from 8.4 GeV/nto 3.8 TeV/nwith the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station”.Physical Review Letters129 (25), p. 251103.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.251103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.251103

Show all 73 references
  1. [10]

    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

    Adriani, O. et al. (2022b). “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”.Physical Review Letters129 (10), p. 101102.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.101102

    doi

  2. [11]

    Direct Measurement of the Cosmic-Ray Helium Spectrum from 40 GeV to 250 TeV with the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station

    Adriani, O. et al. (2023). “Direct Measurement of the Cosmic-Ray Helium Spectrum from 40 GeV to 250 TeV with the Calorimetric Electron Telescope on the International Space Station”.Physical Review Letters 130 (17), p. 171002.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.171002

    2023 doi

  3. [12]

    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

    Aguilar, M. et al. (2015). “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”.Physical Review Letters114 (17), p. 171103.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.171103. ©202...

    2015 doi

  4. [13]

    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

    Aguilar, M. et al. (2017). “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”.Physical Review Letters119 (25), p. 251101.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251101

    2017 doi

  5. [14]

    Observation of New Properties of Secondary Cosmic Rays Lithium, Beryllium, and Boron by the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station

    Aguilar, M. et al. (2018a). “Observation of New Properties of Secondary Cosmic Rays Lithium, Beryllium, and Boron by the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station”.Physical Review Letters120 (2), p. 021101.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.021101

    doi

  6. [15]

    Precision Measurement of Cosmic-Ray Nitrogen and its Primary and Secondary Components with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station

    Aguilar, M. et al. (2018b). “Precision Measurement of Cosmic-Ray Nitrogen and its Primary and Secondary Components with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station”.Physical Review Letters121 (5), p. 051103.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.051103

    doi

  7. [16]

    Towards Understanding the Origin of Cosmic-Ray Electrons

    Aguilar, M. et al. (2019a). “Towards Understanding the Origin of Cosmic-Ray Electrons”.Physical Review Letters122 (10), p. 101101.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.101101

    doi

  8. [17]

    Towards Understanding the Origin of Cosmic-Ray Positrons

    Aguilar, M. et al. (2019b). “Towards Understanding the Origin of Cosmic-Ray Positrons”.Physical Review Letters122 (4), p. 041102.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.041102

    doi

  9. [18]

    Properties of Neon, Magnesium, and Silicon Primary Cosmic Rays Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer

    Aguilar, M. et al. (2020). “Properties of Neon, Magnesium, and Silicon Primary Cosmic Rays Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer”.Physical Review Letters124 (21), p. 211102.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.124.211102

    2020

  10. [19]

    Properties of Heavy Secondary Fluorine Cosmic Rays: Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer

    Aguilar, M. et al. (2021a). “Properties of Heavy Secondary Fluorine Cosmic Rays: Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer”.Physical Review Letters126 (8), p. 081102.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126. 081102

    doi

  11. [20]

    Properties of Iron Primary Cosmic Rays: Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer

    Aguilar, M. et al. (2021b). “Properties of Iron Primary Cosmic Rays: Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer”.Physical Review Letters126 (4), p. 041104.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.041104

    doi

  12. [21]

    The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) on the international space station: Part II – Results from the first seven years

    Aguilar, M. et al. (2021c). “The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) on the international space station: Part II – Results from the first seven years”.Physics Reports894, pp. 1–116.doi:10.1016/j.physrep. 2020.09.003

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    Aguilar, M. et al. (2023). “Properties of Cosmic-Ray Sulfur and Determination of the Composition of Pri- mary Cosmic-Ray Carbon, Neon, Magnesium, and Sulfur: Ten-Year Results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer”.Physical Review Letters130 (21), p. 211002.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLe...

    2023 doi

  14. [24]

    Energy Spectra of Cosmic-ray Nuclei at High Energies

    Ahn, H. S. et al. (2009). “Energy Spectra of Cosmic-ray Nuclei at High Energies”.The Astrophysical Journal 707.1, pp. 593–603.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/593

    2009 doi

  15. [25]

    Discrepant Hardening Observed in Cosmic-ray Elemental Spectra

    Ahn, H. S. et al. (2010). “Discrepant Hardening Observed in Cosmic-ray Elemental Spectra”.The Astro- physical Journal714.1, pp. L89–L93.doi:10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L89

    2010 doi

  16. [26]

    Measurement of the Cosmic Ray Helium Energy Spectrum from 70 GeV to 80 TeV with the DAMPE Space Mission

    Alemanno, F. et al. (2021). “Measurement of the Cosmic Ray Helium Energy Spectrum from 70 GeV to 80 TeV with the DAMPE Space Mission”.Physical Review Letters126 (20), p. 201102.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.126.201102

    2021

  17. [27]

    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

    Amenomori, M. et al. (2008). “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”.The Astrophysical Journal 678.2, pp. 1165–1179.doi:10.1086/529514

    2008 doi

  18. [28]

    Measurement of the cosmic ray proton spectrum from 40 GeV to 100 TeV with the DAMPE satellite

    An, Q. et al. (2019). “Measurement of the cosmic ray proton spectrum from 40 GeV to 100 TeV with the DAMPE satellite”.Science Advances5.9, eaax3793.doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax3793

    2019 doi

  19. [29]

    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

    Arqueros, F. et al. (2000). “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”. Astronomy & Astrophysics359, pp. 682–694.doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9908202. Art...

    2000 doi arXiv

  20. [30]

    Berezinskii, V. S. et al. (1990).Astrophysics of cosmic rays. Amsterdam: North Holland

    1990

  21. [31]

    The Cosmic-Ray Electron and Positron Spectra Measured at 1 AU during Solar Minimum Activity

    Boezio, M. et al. (2000). “The Cosmic-Ray Electron and Positron Spectra Measured at 1 AU during Solar Minimum Activity”.The Astrophysical Journal532.1, pp. 653–669.doi:10.1086/308545. ©2026. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.20

    2000 doi

  22. [32]

    Deciphering the Local Interstellar Spectra of Secondary Nuclei with the Gal- prop/Helmod Framework and a Hint for Primary Lithium in Cosmic Rays

    Boschini, M. J. et al. (2020a). “Deciphering the Local Interstellar Spectra of Secondary Nuclei with the Gal- prop/Helmod Framework and a Hint for Primary Lithium in Cosmic Rays”.The Astrophysical Journal 889.2, p. 167.doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab64f1

    doi

  23. [33]

    Inference of the Local Interstellar Spectra of Cosmic-Ray Nuclei Z≤28 with the GALPROP-HELMOD Framework

    Boschini, M. J. et al. (2020b). “Inference of the Local Interstellar Spectra of Cosmic-Ray Nuclei Z≤28 with the GALPROP-HELMOD Framework”.The Astrophysical Journal250.2, p. 27.doi:10.3847/1538- 4365/aba901

    doi

  24. [34]

    Propagation of cosmic rays in heliosphere: The HelMod model

    Boschini, M. et al. (2018). “Propagation of cosmic rays in heliosphere: The HelMod model”.Advances in Space Research62.10. Origins of Cosmic Rays, pp. 2859–2879.doi:10.1016/j.asr.2017.04.017

    2018 doi

  25. [35]

    AMS-02 antiprotons’ consistency with a secondary astrophysical origin

    Boudaud, M. et al. (2020). “AMS-02 antiprotons’ consistency with a secondary astrophysical origin”.Physical Review Research2 (2), p. 023022.doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023022

    2020 doi

  26. [36]

    Investigating cosmic ray elemental spectra and the at- mospheric muon neutrino flux

    Bowman, D. P., Scrandis, R., and Seo, E.-S. (2022). “Investigating cosmic ray elemental spectra and the at- mospheric muon neutrino flux”.Advances in Space Research70.9. Astrophysics of Cosmic Rays, pp. 2703– 2713.doi:10.1016/j.asr.2022.07.037

    2022 doi

  27. [37]

    Measurements of All-Particle Energy Spectrum and Mean Logarithmic Mass of Cosmic Rays from 0.3 to 30 PeV with LHAASO-KM2A

    Cao, Z. et al. (2024). “Measurements of All-Particle Energy Spectrum and Mean Logarithmic Mass of Cosmic Rays from 0.3 to 30 PeV with LHAASO-KM2A”.Physical Review Letters132 (13), p. 131002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.131002

    2024 doi

  28. [38]

    An excess of cosmic ray electrons at energies of 300-800 GeV

    Chang, J. et al. (2008). “An excess of cosmic ray electrons at energies of 300-800 GeV”.Nature456.7220, pp. 362–365.doi:10.1038/nature07477

    2008 doi

  29. [39]

    Studies of Cosmic-Ray Propagation Using GALPROP

    Chen, Y. C. et al. (2023). “Studies of Cosmic-Ray Propagation Using GALPROP”.Proceedings of the 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2023)444, p. 69.doi:10.22323/1.444.0069

    2023 doi

  30. [40]

    Measurement of High-energy Cosmic-Ray Proton Spectrum from the ISS-CREAM Experiment

    Choi, G. H. et al. (2022). “Measurement of High-energy Cosmic-Ray Proton Spectrum from the ISS-CREAM Experiment”.The Astrophysical Journal940.2, p. 107.doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d2c

    2022 doi

  31. [41]

    Galactic Cosmic Rays in the Local Interstellar Medium: Voyager 1 Observa- tions and Model Results

    Cummings, A. C. et al. (2016). “Galactic Cosmic Rays in the Local Interstellar Medium: Voyager 1 Observa- tions and Model Results”.The Astrophysical Journal831.1, p. 18.doi:10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/18. DAMPE Collaboration (2022). “Detection of spectral hardenings in cosmic-ray ...

    2016 doi

  32. [42]

    Fitting B/C cosmic-ray data in the AMS-02 era: a cookbook. Model numerical pre- cision, data covariance matrix of errors, cross-section nuisance parameters, and mock data

    Derome, L. et al. (2019). “Fitting B/C cosmic-ray data in the AMS-02 era: a cookbook. Model numerical pre- cision, data covariance matrix of errors, cross-section nuisance parameters, and mock data”.Astronomy & Astrophysics627, A158.doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935717. Di Mauro, M...

    2019 doi

  33. [43]

    Cosmic-Ray Electrons and Positrons from 1 to 100 GeV: Measurements with HEAT and Their Interpretation

    DuVernois, M. A. et al. (2001). “Cosmic-Ray Electrons and Positrons from 1 to 100 GeV: Measurements with HEAT and Their Interpretation”.The Astrophysical Journal559.1, pp. 296–303.doi:10.1086/322324

    2001 doi

  34. [44]

    Charge composition and energy spectra of cosmic-ray nuclei for elements from Be to Ni - Results from HEAO-3-C2

    Engelmann, J. J. et al. (1990). “Charge composition and energy spectra of cosmic-ray nuclei for elements from Be to Ni - Results from HEAO-3-C2.”Astronomy & Astrophysics233, pp. 96–111.url:https: //articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1990A%26A...233...96E

    1990

  35. [45]

    Cosmic ray energy spectrum from measurements of air showers

    Gaisser, T. K., Stanev, T., and Tilav, S. (2013). “Cosmic ray energy spectrum from measurements of air showers”.Frontiers of Physics8.6, pp. 748–758.doi:10.1007/s11467-013-0319-7. G´ enolini, Y. et al. (2018). “Current status and desired precision of the isotopic production cr...

    2013 doi

  36. [46]

    The cosmic ray energy spectrum between 10 14 and 1016 eV

    Glasmacher, M. et al. (1999). “The cosmic ray energy spectrum between 10 14 and 1016 eV”.Astroparticle Physics10.4, pp. 291–302.doi:10.1016/S0927-6505(98)00070-X

    1999 doi

  37. [47]

    Solar Modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays

    Gleeson, L. J. and Axford, W. I. (1968). “Solar Modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays”.The Astrophysical Journal154, pp. 1011–1026.doi:10.1086/149822

    1968 doi

  38. [48]

    Energy spectra of abundant cosmic-ray nuclei in the NUCLEON experiment

    Grebenyuk, V. et al. (2019). “Energy spectra of abundant cosmic-ray nuclei in the NUCLEON experiment”. Advances in Space Research64.12, pp. 2546–2558.doi:10.1016/j.asr.2019.10.004

    2019 doi

  39. [49]

    Measurements of the absolute energy spectra of cosmic-ray positrons and electrons above 7 GeV

    Grimani, C. et al. (2002). “Measurements of the absolute energy spectra of cosmic-ray positrons and electrons above 7 GeV”.Astronomy & Astrophysics392, pp. 287–294.doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020845

    2002 doi

  40. [50]

    Observation of heavy cosmic-ray primaries over the wide energy range from ∼100 GeV/particle to∼100 TeV/particle: Is the celebrated

    Ichimura, M. et al. (1993). “Observation of heavy cosmic-ray primaries over the wide energy range from ∼100 GeV/particle to∼100 TeV/particle: Is the celebrated ”knee” actually so prominent?”Physical Review D48 (5), pp. 1949–1975.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.1949

    1993 doi

  41. [51]

    (1998).MINUIT – Function Minimization and Error Analysis: Reference Manual Version 94.1

    James, F. (1998).MINUIT – Function Minimization and Error Analysis: Reference Manual Version 94.1. CERN Program Library Long Writeup D506. Geneva: CERN.url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/ 2296388/files/minuit.pdf

    1998

  42. [52]

    Minuit - a system for function minimization and analysis of the parameter errors and correlations

    James, F. and Roos, M. (1975). “Minuit - a system for function minimization and analysis of the parameter errors and correlations”.Computer Physics Communications10.6, pp. 343–367.doi:10.1016/0010- 4655(75)90039-9. J´ ohannesson, G. et al. (2016). “Bayesian Analysis of Cosmic ...

    1975 doi

  43. [53]

    Azimuthally controlled observation of heavy cosmic-ray primaries by means of the balloon-borne emulsion chamber

    Kamioka, E. et al. (1997). “Azimuthally controlled observation of heavy cosmic-ray primaries by means of the balloon-borne emulsion chamber”.Astroparticle Physics6.2, pp. 155–167.doi:10.1016/S0927- 6505(96)00051-5

    1997 doi

  44. [54]

    On the Origin of Observed Cosmic-Ray Spectrum Below 100 TV

    Malkov, M. A. and Moskalenko, I. V. (2022). “On the Origin of Observed Cosmic-Ray Spectrum Below 100 TV”.The Astrophysical Journal933.1, p. 78.doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7049

    2022 doi

  45. [55]

    (2018).USINE Documentation: Section 5.4

    Maurin, D. (2018).USINE Documentation: Section 5.4. Cosmic ray data.url:https://dmaurin.gitlab. io/USINE/input_cr_data.html(visited on 05/06/2025)

    2018

  46. [56]

    Explaining cosmic ray antimatter with secondaries from old supernova remnants

    Mertsch, P., Vittino, A., and Sarkar, S. (2021). “Explaining cosmic ray antimatter with secondaries from old supernova remnants”.Physical Review D104 (10), p. 103029.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103029

    2021 doi

  47. [57]

    The all-particle cosmic ray energy spectrum measured with HAWC

    Morales-Soto, J. A. et al. (2022). “The all-particle cosmic ray energy spectrum measured with HAWC”. Proceedings of the 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2021)395, p. 330.doi: 10.22323/1.395.0330

    2022 doi

  48. [58]

    Production and Propagation of Cosmic-Ray Positrons and Electrons

    Moskalenko, I. V. and Strong, A. W. (1998). “Production and Propagation of Cosmic-Ray Positrons and Electrons”.The Astrophysical Journal493.2, p. 694.doi:10.1086/305152

    1998 doi

  49. [59]

    Energy Spectra and Composition of Primary Cosmic Rays

    Mueller, D. et al. (1991). “Energy Spectra and Composition of Primary Cosmic Rays”.The Astrophysical Journal374, pp. 356–365.doi:10.1086/170125

    1991 doi

  50. [60]

    Energy Spectra of Primary and Secondary Cosmic-Ray Nuclei Measured with TRACER

    Obermeier, A. et al. (2011). “Energy Spectra of Primary and Secondary Cosmic-Ray Nuclei Measured with TRACER”.The Astrophysical Journal742.1, p. 14.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/14

    2011 doi

  51. [61]

    Relative abundances of cosmic ray nuclei B-C-N-O in the energy region from 10 GeV/n to 300 GeV/n. Results from ATIC-2 (the science flight of ATIC)

    Panov, A. D. et al. (2008). “Relative abundances of cosmic ray nuclei B-C-N-O in the energy region from 10 GeV/n to 300 GeV/n. Results from ATIC-2 (the science flight of ATIC)”.Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2007)2, pp. 3–6.doi:10.48550/a...

    2008 doi arXiv

  52. [62]

    Energy spectra of abundant nuclei of primary cosmic rays from the data of ATIC-2 experiment: Final results

    Panov, A. D. et al. (2009). “Energy spectra of abundant nuclei of primary cosmic rays from the data of ATIC-2 experiment: Final results”.Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics73.5, pp. 564– 567.doi:10.3103/s1062873809050098

    2009 doi

  53. [63]

    The GALPROP Cosmic-ray Propagation and Nonthermal Emissions Framework: Release v57

    Porter, T. A., J´ ohannesson, G., and Moskalenko, I. V. (2022). “The GALPROP Cosmic-ray Propagation and Nonthermal Emissions Framework: Release v57”.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series262.1, p. 30.doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac80f6

    2022 doi

  54. [64]

    Tunka-133: Results of 3 year operation

    Prosin, V. V. et al. (2014). “Tunka-133: Results of 3 year operation”.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A756, pp. 94–101.doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.09.018

    2014 doi

  55. [65]

    Stochastic Reacceleration of Cosmic Rays in the Interstellar Medium

    Seo, E. S. and Ptuskin, V. S. (1994). “Stochastic Reacceleration of Cosmic Rays in the Interstellar Medium”. The Astrophysical Journal431, pp. 705–714.doi:10.1086/174520. ©2026. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.22

    1994 doi

  56. [66]

    Advances in direct measurements of cosmic rays

    Seo, E.-S. (2021). “Advances in direct measurements of cosmic rays”.Journal of Korean Physical Society 78.10, pp. 923–931.doi:10.1007/s40042-021-00081-7

    2021 doi

  57. [67]

    Measurements of 0.2-20 GeV/n cosmic-ray proton and helium spectra from 1997 through 2002 with the BESS spectrometer

    Shikaze, Y. et al. (2007). “Measurements of 0.2-20 GeV/n cosmic-ray proton and helium spectra from 1997 through 2002 with the BESS spectrometer”.Astroparticle Physics28.1, pp. 154–167.doi:10.1016/j. astropartphys.2007.05.001

    2007 doi

  58. [68]

    Updated Partial Cross Sections of Proton-Nucleus Reactions

    Silberberg, R., Tsao, C. H., and Barghouty, A. F. (1998). “Updated Partial Cross Sections of Proton-Nucleus Reactions”.The Astrophysical Journal501.2, pp. 911–919.doi:10.1086/305862

    1998 doi

  59. [69]

    Voyager 1 Observes Low-Energy Galactic Cosmic Rays in a Region Depleted of Heliospheric Ions

    Stone, E. C. et al. (2013). “Voyager 1 Observes Low-Energy Galactic Cosmic Rays in a Region Depleted of Heliospheric Ions”.Science341.6142, pp. 150–153.doi:10.1126/science.1236408

    2013 doi

  60. [70]

    Cosmic ray measurements from Voyager 2 as it crossed into interstellar space

    Stone, E. C. et al. (2019). “Cosmic ray measurements from Voyager 2 as it crossed into interstellar space”. Nature Astronomy3, pp. 1013–1018.doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0928-3

    2019 doi

  61. [71]

    Propagation of Cosmic-Ray Nucleons in the Galaxy

    Strong, A. W. and Moskalenko, I. V. (1998). “Propagation of Cosmic-Ray Nucleons in the Galaxy”.The Astrophysical Journal509.1, p. 212.doi:10.1086/306470

    1998 doi

  62. [72]

    Sharp knee phenomenon of primary cosmic ray energy spectrum

    Ter-Antonyan, S. (2014). “Sharp knee phenomenon of primary cosmic ray energy spectrum”.Physical Review D89 (12), p. 123003.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.123003

    2014 doi

  63. [73]

    Study Of Cosmic Ray Spectral Hardening Using GALPROP

    Wu, H., Seo, E.-S., and Ptuskin, V. (2021). “Study Of Cosmic Ray Spectral Hardening Using GALPROP”. Proceedings of the 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2021)395, p. 155.doi: 10.22323/1.395.0155

    2021 doi

  64. [74]

    Cosmic-ray Proton and Helium Spectra from the First CREAM Flight

    Yoon, Y. S. et al. (2011). “Cosmic-ray Proton and Helium Spectra from the First CREAM Flight”.The Astrophysical Journal728.2, p. 122.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/122

    2011 doi

  65. [75]

    Proton and Helium Spectra from the CREAM-III Flight

    Yoon, Y. S. et al. (2017). “Proton and Helium Spectra from the CREAM-III Flight”.The Astrophysical Journal839.1, p. 5.doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa68e4. ©2026. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.23

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.