Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Molecular-cloud ionization is a new and competitive probe of sub-GeV dark matter and asteroid-mass primordial black holes, rivaling or surpassing the strongest existing bounds in physically motivated transport scenarios.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 00:16 UTC pith:TZXGBSYN

load-bearing objection Useful transport-modeled update on molecular-cloud ionization as a probe of sub-GeV DM and PBHs, but the headline 'surpass' claims rest on a fitted diffusion benchmark and on inner-Galaxy cloud densities that look far too low for molecular gas; worth referee time, but the strongest conclusions should not be taken at face value. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28823 v1 pith:TZXGBSYN submitted 2026-07-30 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Molecular clouds constraints on sub-GeV DM and asteroid-mass PBHs

Asier Salces P\'erez , Pedro de la Torre Luque This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords molecular cloudsdark mattersub-GeV dark matterprimordial black holesionizationcosmic raysHawking radiationMeV-scale dark matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Molecular clouds can act as natural calorimeters for dark matter: if sub-GeV dark matter annihilates, decays, or evaporates from primordial black holes into low-energy electron-positron pairs, those pairs ionize the cloud's molecular hydrogen. The paper models the diffusion and energy loss of these injected leptons inside five clouds with very different densities, sizes, and Galactic locations, and compares the predicted ionization to observed upper limits. In the most physically motivated (strongly suppressed diffusion) scenario, the resulting constraints exclude a notable part of the MeV-scale dark matter parameter space and, for the inner-Galaxy cloud, improve on previous asteroid-mass primordial black hole bounds above about 10^16 g. A reader should care because this opens a new, local and complementary route to probing dark matter candidates that are hard to test with conventional detectors and telescopes.

Core claim

The paper claims that the ionization rate of molecular clouds is a viable observable for dark matter models that inject low-energy electrons and positrons, and that it currently produces some of the strongest limits for two classes of candidates. For annihilating dark matter in the 1–100 MeV mass range, the constraint from the inner-Galaxy cloud G1.4-1.8+87 can match or beat CMB-anisotropy limits at the low-mass end; for primordial black holes above 10^16 g, the same cloud gives a limit on their dark-matter fraction that surpasses previous X-ray, 511-keV, cosmic-ray, and CMB bounds. Decaying dark matter constraints from the same cloud are also competitive with CMB and gamma-ray limits at low

What carries the argument

The argument rides on a steady-state diffusion-loss equation for electrons and positrons inside a homogeneous molecular cloud: spatial diffusion competes with continuous ionization energy losses (dE/dt ∝ n_H/β^2). A constant diffusion coefficient D = D0 β^η (E/E0)^δ is varied between the standard Galactic value and a strongly suppressed value calibrated to the low ionization observed in the dense L1551-IR core; this brackets the possible transport regimes. The ratio of energy-loss time to escape time decides whether a cloud is calorimetric (dense/wide clouds) or leaky (small/diffuse clouds), and hence how strongly an exotic signal is suppressed by diffusion. The DM-induced ionization profile

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the strongly suppressed diffusion coefficient calibrated from one small dense core (L1551-IR) applies to all target clouds; if actual transport is faster or spatially inhomogeneous, the predicted dark-matter ionization drops and the constraints weaken by orders of magnitude.

What would settle it

A resolved ionization map of a cloud such as G1.4-1.8+87 showing a purely boundary-enhanced (cosmic-ray-like) profile with no central flattening, combined with independent evidence that diffusion inside molecular clouds is near the standard Galactic value rather than suppressed, would remove the benchmark that produces the strongest limits and invalidate the most competitive claims.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Molecular-cloud ionization becomes a genuine complementary probe: it constrains sub-GeV dark matter and asteroid-mass PBHs independent of CMB, X-ray, gamma-ray, and direct detection methods.
  • The inner-Galaxy cloud G1.4-1.8+87 alone tightens the allowed dark-matter fraction of PBHs above 10^16 g, closing part of the asteroid-mass window that previous methods left open.
  • For MeV-scale annihilating dark matter, the limits can exceed CMB anisotropy bounds at the low-mass end, which is important because this low-mass region is hard to reach otherwise.
  • Very dense, extended clouds are nearly calorimetric, so their constraints barely depend on the diffusion assumption and remain reliable even if transport is uncertain.
  • Radially resolved ionization measurements could distinguish a dark-matter signal from cosmic-ray background by its flatter, center-favored profile.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the suppressed diffusion inferred in the dense core L1551-IR reflects a general property of molecular gas, then other low-background clouds — at high Galactic latitude or in low-metallicity environments — should yield even tighter limits; this is a testable extension with existing telescopes.
  • The same data can be read as a measurement of low-energy cosmic-ray transport inside clouds; a stack of resolved ionization profiles across many clouds would distinguish a genuine dark-matter plateau from a cosmic-ray-boundary gradient.
  • Combining molecular-cloud ionization with 511-keV line morphology could break degeneracies between lepton injection models and propagation, because the two observables weight different parts of the propagated spectrum.
  • A null detection in high-latitude clouds would not just set limits on dark matter; it would confirm that low-energy leptons are strongly confined in molecular gas, sharpening the background model for future indirect searches.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to use the ionization rate of molecular clouds as a probe of dark matter (DM) scenarios that inject low-energy e+e− pairs: annihilating and decaying MeV-scale DM, and evaporating asteroid-mass primordial black holes (PBHs). The authors solve a steady-state diffusion-loss equation for the injected leptons in homogeneous clouds, compute the resulting H2 ionization rate using standard cross sections, and require that the DM-induced contribution not exceed a conservative upper limit inferred for each of five cloud targets. They find that the strongest constraints come from two low-density inner-Galaxy clouds, and claim that for PBH masses above ~10^16 g the limits surpass previous constraints, while for MeV-scale annihilating DM the constraints are competitive with CMB bounds. The manuscript emphasizes charged-particle transport as the dominant astrophysical uncertainty and brackets the results by varying the diffusion normalization over four orders of magnitude.

Significance. If the method and target selection were sound, this would be a valuable new indirect probe of sub-GeV DM and asteroid-mass PBHs, using an observable (molecular-cloud ionization) that is complementary to CMB, gamma-ray, and cosmic-ray bounds. The paper is transparent about the main astrophysical uncertainty, uses public codes (DRAGON2, BlackHawk) and standard ionization cross sections, and correctly identifies the spatial profile difference between an internal DM source and external cosmic-ray ionization as a potentially distinctive signature. However, the headline claims rest on two inner-Galaxy targets whose listed densities are unphysical for molecular clouds. This is a load-bearing flaw: the strongest limits come from these targets, and correcting the densities to physically required values weakens the limits by orders of magnitude, erasing the claimed improvements over existing constraints. The central result is therefore not robust as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table I and Sec. IV] G1.4-1.8+87 (n_H=0.3 cm^-3, R=8.2 pc) and G357.8-4.7-55 (n_H=0.421 cm^-3, R=12.9 pc) imply N_H ~ 1-2e19 cm^-2, about 10^3 below the column needed for H2 self-shielding. Such diffuse gas is not molecular: the interstellar UV field would produce an ionization rate far above the adopted ζ_UL values, and the H2 cross sections and molecular tracers used for ζ are inapplicable. Since ζ_DM ∝ Q/n_H in the loss-dominated regime (Eq. 7), raising n_H to the physically required ~10^3 cm^-3 weakens the ⟨σv⟩, τ, and f_PBH limits by roughly three orders of magnitude. This is exactly the effect that removes the claimed 'surpass' of previous PBH and CMB bounds in Figs. 6-8. The D0 bands shown do not bracket this density effect.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (5); Figs. 6-8] The strongest limits use the suppressed-diffusion benchmark D0=3e24 cm^2/s, inferred from L1551-IR and then applied to all clouds, including the inner-Galaxy targets. No physical or observational justification is given for extrapolating this local suppression to the CMZ. The paper itself states that propagation is the main astrophysical uncertainty; at the standard Galactic value D0=3e28 cm^2/s, the G1.4-1.8+87 constraints weaken by orders of magnitude (Figs. 6-7). The 'best limits' in Fig. 8 must be reported for each D0 benchmark separately, or clearly assigned to a single one, with a concrete argument that the suppressed benchmark applies to the inner-Galaxy clouds. As written, the headline comparison is only as strong as this unsupported extrapolation.
  3. [Sec. V and Table I] The paper identifies the optimal cloud density for this method as tens to 10^3 cm^-3, yet the targets that produce the strongest limits have n_H ~0.3-0.4 cm^-3, three orders of magnitude below this range. This internal inconsistency is not a mere presentation issue: using such diffuse, unshielded gas maximizes the DM signal per hydrogen while ignoring the correspondingly large UV/CR backgrounds. A self-consistent analysis should either select bona fide molecular clouds with sufficient column density or explicitly model the UV/CR background for translucent gas. Until this is done, the constraints from these two clouds are not credible molecular-cloud limits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV and Fig. 8] The text says for annihilating DM that G1.4-1.8+87 gives limits 'similar' to CMB/Leo T, while the Discussion says MC constraints 'could even surpass' CMB bounds. Please align the wording with the plotted curves and specify which D0 value(s) are shown in Fig. 8.
  2. [Eq. (5)] State whether E is kinetic or total energy and give the adopted values of E0, δ, and η; otherwise the diffusion parametrization is not fully reproducible.
  3. [Sec. IV] Typo: 'fraction of DM in the form of evaporating PHBs' should read 'PBHs'.
  4. [Appendix C] Grammatical error: 'As For the local clouds' should be 'For the local clouds'.
  5. [Fig. 5] The caption states the DM-induced profile is a dashed line, but the description in the text and legend may refer to a dot-dashed line; please check consistency of line styles.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the only fitted quantity (D0) is calibrated to cosmic-ray ionization, not to dark matter, and the DM/PBH limits are bracketed over that parameter.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: inject DM/PBH spectra (Eq. 6), propagate with diffusion-loss (Eq. 4), compute ζ_DM (Eq. 7), and require ζ_DM not to exceed the adopted ζ_UL. The single fitted parameter is the diffusion normalization D0, inferred by matching the LIS cosmic-ray ionization to the observed ζ in L1551-IR (Sec. III: 'Only for a much smaller normalization, D0 = 3 × 10^24 cm2 s−1, does the predicted ionization become compatible with the inferred values in the L1551-IR cloud core'). This is a calibration to the standard CR background, not to the exotic signal; the derived constraints set ζ_DM ≤ ζ_UL rather than extracting a DM contribution from the same fit. Moreover, the paper does not present the suppressed benchmark as a unique prediction: it brackets all limits between D0 = 3 × 10^28 and 3 × 10^24 cm2 s−1 and states that 'charged-particle transport [is] the main limitation of this method'. The headline G1.4-1.8+87 limits use cloud parameters and ζ_UL from Ref. [47] and are an application of the transport model, not a re-fitting of the DM signal. Self-citations appear in contextual references and in benchmark comparisons (e.g., Refs. [15], [61], [73], [74]), but no load-bearing premise reduces to a self-citation; the central comparison is against external CMB, Leo T, Voyager, and eROSITA bounds. No equation in the paper defines a target quantity in terms of the predicted quantity, so no circular step can be exhibited. The transport uncertainty and the unphysical low n_H values for the inner-Galaxy clouds are correctness/robustness concerns, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central constraints rest on three classes of inputs: (1) the diffusion coefficient D0 and its energy dependence, which is the main free parameter and includes a value fitted to L1551-IR; (2) astrophysical modeling of the cloud (homogeneous density, uniform LIS CR spectrum, adopted zeta_UL); and (3) dark matter distribution assumptions (NFW/Moore/Burkert). No new particles or entities are introduced. The free parameters are all transport or normalization choices, none of which are fitted to the dark-matter signal itself.

free parameters (4)
  • Suppressed diffusion normalization D0 = 3e24 cm2/s = 3e24 cm2/s
    Inferred by matching the predicted LIS-induced ionization to the observed ionization in the L1551-IR core (Sec. III, Fig. 4); then applied as the optimistic-edge benchmark for all DM/PBH limits.
  • Intermediate diffusion normalization D0 = 3e26 cm2/s = 3e26 cm2/s
    Adopted by hand as an 'intermediate and reliable case' (Sec. IV); not derived from a fit.
  • Standard Galactic diffusion normalization D0 = 3e28 cm2/s = 3e28 cm2/s
    Taken from Ref. [61] as the standard Galactic value; defines the weak-edge of the transport band.
  • Upper-limit factor for inner-Galaxy clouds = 2 = 2
    For G1.4-1.8+87 and G357.8-4.7-55, the adopted zeta_UL is twice the largest CLOUDY-model CR ionization rate (Table I); a hand-chosen conservative factor.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Steady-state limit of the diffusion-loss equation with ionization losses dominating over bremsstrahlung, synchrotron, inverse Compton, and advection for sub-100 MeV e±.
    Invoked in Sec. III around Eq. (4); justified by timescale arguments but relies on the cloud being approximately static over the loss/diffusion times.
  • domain assumption Homogeneous cloud with constant gas density and a single spatially constant diffusion coefficient.
    Stated in Sec. III ('we adopt a homogeneous cloud model'); the paper acknowledges that real clouds have density gradients and magnetic structure, which could affect the ionization rate.
  • domain assumption The Galactic low-energy CR spectrum is uniform and equal to the local interstellar spectrum (Eq. 8) at all target clouds, including inner-Galaxy ones.
    Used in Sec. III to normalize the CR-induced ionization; the paper focuses on local clouds for this comparison but applies the same LIS to all clouds in the uncertainty discussion.
  • domain assumption The observed ionization rates and adopted upper limits in Table I are reliable caps on any exotic contribution, with no significant tracer-chemistry systematics.
    Sec. II and Table I; the paper takes zeta_obs and zeta_UL from the literature without propagating uncertainties in the chemical modeling used to infer ionization.
  • domain assumption Dark matter density at cloud positions follows NFW, with Moore/Burkert as bracketing profiles.
    Sec. IV and Appendix C; the DM density strongly affects the annihilation signal (rho^2) and PBH/decay signals (rho), with order-of-magnitude uncertainty near the Galactic Center.
  • domain assumption BlackHawk Hawking spectra with secondary emission through Hazma correctly describe e± emission from non-rotating, monochromatic PBHs.
    Sec. III; rotation and extended mass functions are excluded as conservative choices, and the authors note rotation could enhance emission.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20420 in / 13512 out tokens · 143892 ms · 2026-08-03T00:16:06.279081+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We show that the ionization of molecular clouds provides a novel probe of dark matter scenarios producing low-energy $e^+e^-$ pairs through annihilation, decay, or Hawking evaporation of primordial black holes. We derive constraints on MeV-scale dark matter with masses between $\sim1$ and $100$ MeV, as well as on primordial black holes in the mass range $10^{14}$--$10^{17},$g. By modeling the propagation of electrons and positrons inside molecular clouds, we show that uncertainties in charged-particle transport constitute the main limitation of this method. Nevertheless, for the most physically motivated propagation scenarios, the resulting constraints remain competitive with the strongest bounds currently available. We also identify the molecular-cloud properties that maximize the sensitivity to dark matter-induced ionization and discuss how larger samples of clouds, together with improved modeling of cosmic-ray ionization and cloud structure, could substantially enhance the reach of this technique. Our results establish molecular-cloud ionization as a promising and complementary probe of sub-GeV dark matter and evaporating primordial black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28823 by Asier Salces P\'erez, Pedro De la Torre Luque.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Propagated electron and positron spectra inside [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. LIS-induced ionization profiles for the two local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison between the ionization profiles induced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Constraints on annihilating DM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Constraints on the fraction of PBHs in the form of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of our strongest molecular-cloud limits with existing constraints. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Propagated electron and positron spectra inside the target MCs for: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Ionization profiles induced by decaying DM (left panels) and evaporating PBHs (right panels) in the L1551-IR core [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison on the expected ionization rate when including a diffuse gas around the L1551 core and when using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. DM constraints for different assumptions of the Galactic DM density profile. The variation between the curves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗

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

75 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, To appear in SciPost Physics Lecture Notes / SciPost Reviews (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, Astrophys. J. Lett.648, L109 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    V. C. Rubin, N. Thonnard, and W. K. Ford, Jr., Astrophys. J.238, 471 (1980)

    1980

  6. [6]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. Rept.267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  7. [7]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. D103, 063028 (2021), arXiv:2011.10431 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Phys

    M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 231301 (2015), arXiv:1503.02641 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Conrad, inInterplay between Particle and Astroparticle physics(2014) arXiv:1411.1925 [hep-ph]

    J. Conrad, inInterplay between Particle and Astroparticle physics(2014) arXiv:1411.1925 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Balanet al., JCAP01, 053 (2025), arXiv:2405.17548 [hep-ph]

    S. Balanet al., JCAP01, 053 (2025), arXiv:2405.17548 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Battaglieriet al., inU.S

    M. Battaglieriet al., inU.S. Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter(2017) arXiv:1707.04591 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    la Torre Luque; Pedro, S

    D. la Torre Luque; Pedro, S. Balaji, M. Fairbairn, F. Sala, and J. Silk, JCAP09, 034 (2025), arXiv:2410.16379 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    J.-H. Huh, J. E. Kim, J.-C. Park, and S. C. Park, Phys. Rev. D77, 123503 (2008), arXiv:0711.3528 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    De la Torre Luque, S

    P. De la Torre Luque, S. Balaji, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 101001 (2025), arXiv:2409.07515 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Boehm, X

    C. Boehm, X. Chu, J.-L. Kuo, and J. Pradler, Phys. Rev. D103, 075005 (2021), arXiv:2010.02954 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Dutra, M

    M. Dutra, M. Lindner, S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz, W. Rodejohann, and C. Siqueira, JCAP03, 037 (2018), arXiv:1801.05447 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    B. Carr, A. J. Iovino, G. Perna, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Riv. Nuovo Cim.49, 225 (2026), arXiv:2601.06024 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [20]

    Padovani and D

    M. Padovani and D. Galli, Astrophys. Space Sci. Proc.34, 61 (2013), arXiv:1305.5393 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [21]

    Gabici, Astron

    S. Gabici, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.30, 4 (2022), arXiv:2203.14620 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [23]

    D. A. Neufeld and M. G. Wolfire, Astrophys. J.845, 163 (2017), arXiv:1704.03877 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [24]

    V. H. M. Phan, S. Recchia, P. Mertsch, and S. Gabici, Phys. Rev. D107, 123006 (2023), arXiv:2209.10581 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [25]

    Multiwavelength Probes of Cosmic Ray Transport in Molecular Cloud Structures,

    H. P. H. Ng, E. R. Owen, N. Tsuji, and S.-T. Chen, “Multiwavelength Probes of Cosmic Ray Transport in Molecular Cloud Structures,” (2026), arXiv:2605.16698 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [26]

    T. P. Snow and B. J. McCall, ARAA44, 367 (2006)

    2006

  25. [27]

    Meijerink, M

    R. Meijerink, M. Spaans, A. F. Loenen, and P. P. van der Werf, Astron. Astrophys.525, A119 (2011), arXiv:1010.0788 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [28]

    C. F. McKee, Astrophysical Journal345, 782 (1989)

    1989

  27. [29]

    Spitzer, Jr

    L. Spitzer, Jr. and M. G. Tomasko, APJ152, 971 (1968)

    1968

  28. [30]

    Indriolo and B

    N. Indriolo and B. J. McCall, APJ745, 91 (2012), arXiv:1111.6936 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [31]

    Indriolo, D

    N. Indriolo, D. A. Neufeld, M. Gerin, P. Schilke, A. O. Benz, B. Winkel, K. M. Menten, E. T. Chambers, J. H. Black, S. Bruderer, E. Falgarone, B. Godard, J. R. Goicoechea, H. Gupta, D. C. Lis, V. Ossenkopf, C. M. Persson, P. Sonnentrucker, F. F. S. van der Tak, E. F. van Dishoeck, M. G. Wolfire, and F. Wyrowski, The Astrophysical Journal800, 40 (2015)

    2015

  30. [32]

    Padovani, D

    M. Padovani, D. Galli, and A. E. Glassgold, Astronomy and Astrophysics501, 619 (2009), arXiv:0904.4149 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  31. [33]

    A. C. Cummings, E. C. Stone, B. C. Heikkila, N. Lal, W. R. Webber, G. J´ ohannesson, I. V. Moskalenko, E. Orlando, and T. A. Porter, Astrophys. J.831, 18 (2016)

    2016

  32. [34]

    E. C. Stone, A. C. Cummings, B. C. Heikkila, and N. Lal, Nature Astronomy3, 1013 (2019)

    2019

  33. [35]

    Padovani and D

    M. Padovani and D. Galli, Astron. Astrophys.620, L4 (2018), arXiv:1811.09698 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [36]

    Orlando, Mon

    E. Orlando, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475, 2724 (2018), arXiv:1712.07127 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [37]

    V. L. Ginzburg and S. I. Syrovatskii, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.3, 297 (1965)

    1965

  36. [38]

    Indriolo and B

    N. Indriolo and B. J. McCall, Chemical Society Reviews42, 7763 (2013)

    2013

  37. [39]

    Caselli, C

    P. Caselli, C. M. Walmsley, R. Terzieva, and E. Herbst, APJ499, 234 (1998)

    1998

  38. [40]

    Gabici, C

    S. Gabici, C. Evoli, D. Gaggero, P. Lipari, P. Mertsch, E. Orlando, A. Strong, and A. Vittino, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28, 1930022 (2019), arXiv:1903.11584 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [41]

    Indriolo, B

    N. Indriolo, B. D. Fields, and B. J. McCall, Astrophys. J.694, 257 (2009), arXiv:0901.1143 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  40. [42]

    V. H. M. Phan, G. Morlino, and S. Gabici, MNRAS480, 5167 (2018), arXiv:1804.10106 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [43]

    Ravikularaman, S

    S. Ravikularaman, S. Recchia, V. H. M. Phan, and S. Gabici, Astron. Astrophys.694, A114 (2025), arXiv:2406.15260 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [44]

    Entekhabi, J

    N. Entekhabi, J. C. Tan, G. Cosentino, C.-J. Hsu, P. Caselli, C. Walsh, W. Lim, J. D. Henshaw, A. T. Barnes, F. Fontani, and I. Jim´ enez-Serra, A&A662, A39 (2022), arXiv:2111.05379 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [45]

    Yoshida, Y

    A. Yoshida, Y. Kitamura, Y. Shimajiri, and R. Kawabe, APJ718, 1019 (2010). 18

    2010

  44. [46]

    Indriolo, A

    N. Indriolo, A. V. Ivlev, T. Pellegrin, M. Obolentseva, P. Caselli, A. M. Jacob, D. A. Neufeld, K. Silsbee, and M. G. Wolfire, Astrophys. J.997, 123 (2026), arXiv:2511.13915 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2026

  45. [47]

    Bhoonah, J

    A. Bhoonah, J. Bramante, F. Elahi, and S. Schon, Phys. Rev. D100, 023001 (2019), arXiv:1812.10919 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [48]

    G. J. Ferland, M. Chatzikos, F. Guzm´ an, M. L. Lykins, P. A. M. van Hoof, R. J. R. Williams, N. P. Abel, N. R. Badnell, F. P. Keenan, R. L. Porter, and P. C. Stancil, Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofis.53, 385 (2017), arXiv:1705.10877 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [49]

    Schlickeiser,Cosmic ray astrophysics(Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    R. Schlickeiser,Cosmic ray astrophysics(Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  48. [50]

    Z. Shi, B. Liu, and R.-z. Yang, Astronomy & Astrophysics692, A128 (2024)

    2024

  49. [51]

    P. C. Clark, S. C. Glover, R. S. Klessen, and I. A. Bonnell, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society424, 2599 (2012)

    2012

  50. [52]

    T. C. Mouschovias, K. Tassis, and M. W. Kunz, The Astrophysical Journal646, 1043 (2006)

    2006

  51. [53]

    Evoli, D

    C. Evoli, D. Gaggero, A. Vittino, G. D. Bernardo, M. D. Mauro, A. Ligorini, P. Ullio, and D. Grasso, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017, 015 (2017)

    2017

  52. [54]

    E. G. Zweibel and J. M. Shull, APJ259, 859 (1982)

    1982

  53. [55]

    P. D. l. T. Luque, S. Balaji, and P. Carenza, PRD109(2024), 10.1103/physrevd.109.103028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.103028 2024

  54. [56]

    P. D. L. T. Luque, M. Mazziotta, F. Loparco, F. Gargano, and D. Serini, JCAP2021, 010 (2021)

    2021

  55. [57]

    Weinrich, Y

    N. Weinrich, Y. G´ enolini, M. Boudaud, L. Derome, and D. Maurin, The Astrophysical Journal639, A131 (2020), arXiv:2002.11406 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [58]

    De La Torre Luque, M

    P. De La Torre Luque, M. N. Mazziotta, F. Loparco, F. Gargano, and D. Serini, JCAP03, 099 (2021), arXiv:2101.01547 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [59]

    P. D. L. T. Luque, JCAP2021, 018 (2021)

    2021

  58. [60]

    de la Torre Luque, M

    P. de la Torre Luque, M. N. Mazziotta, A. Ferrari, F. Loparco, P. Sala, and D. Serini, JCAP07, 008 (2022), arXiv:2202.03559 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [61]

    De la Torre Luque, M

    P. De la Torre Luque, M. W. Winkler, and T. Linden, JCAP05, 104 (2024), arXiv:2401.10329 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [62]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, The European Physical Journal C79, 693 (2019)

    2019

  61. [63]

    Auffinger, Prog

    J. Auffinger, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.131, 104040 (2023), arXiv:2206.02672 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [64]

    E. E. Vos and M. S. Potgieter, APJ815, 119 (2015)

    2015

  63. [65]

    Anders and N

    E. Anders and N. Grevesse, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta53, 197 (1989)

    1989

  64. [66]

    Huang, Q

    X. Huang, Q. Yuan, and Y.-Z. Fan, Nature Comms.12, 6169 (2021)

    2021

  65. [67]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  66. [68]

    Benito, A

    M. Benito, A. Cuoco, and F. Iocco, JCAP2019, 033 (2019), arXiv:1901.02460 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  67. [69]

    Moore, S

    B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. R. Quinn, J. Stadel, and P. Tozzi, Astrophys. J. Lett.524, L19 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9907411

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  68. [70]

    Burkert, Astrophys

    A. Burkert, Astrophys. J. Lett.447, L25 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9504041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  69. [71]

    T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D93, 023527 (2016), arXiv:1506.03811 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  70. [72]

    Wadekar and Z

    D. Wadekar and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. D106(2022), 10.1103/physrevd.106.075007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.075007 2022

  71. [73]

    De la Torre Luque, J

    P. De la Torre Luque, J. Koechler, and S. Balaji, Phys. Rev. D110, 123022 (2024), arXiv:2406.11949 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  72. [74]

    Balaji, D

    S. Balaji, D. Cleaver, P. De la Torre Luque, and M. Michailidis, JCAP2025, 053 (2025), arXiv:2506.02310 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  73. [75]

    Essig, E

    R. Essig, E. Kuflik, S. D. McDermott, T. Volansky, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP11, 193 (2013), arXiv:1309.4091 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  74. [76]

    Huang and Y.-F

    J.-Z. Huang and Y.-F. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D111, 083525 (2025), arXiv:2403.04987 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [77]

    H. Liu, T. R. Slatyer, and J. Zavala, Phys. Rev. D94, 063507 (2016), arXiv:1604.03126 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016