Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Unveiling the Mechanisms of Electron Energy Spectrum Evolution

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims the three-segment electron spectrum is produced by one propagation model whose two diffusion zones put cooling and diffusion in charge of different energy bands.

desk verdict A coherent SDP-based narrative for the three-segment electron spectrum, but the key timescales are read off the data rather than derived, and the uniqueness claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09016 v3 pith:2D4KYHCK submitted 2024-12-12 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Xu-Lin Dong , Shu-Wei Ma , Yi-Qing Guo , Shu-Wang Cui This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE
keywords cosmic-rayelectronselectronenergyspectrumspatiallydependentpropagationmodeltwodiffusionhalostimescalecoolingthree-segmentpowerlawGalactictransport
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

The paper argues that the complicated three-segment shape of the measured cosmic-ray electron spectrum is not a patchwork of separate sources, but the natural output of a single propagation scenario. In the spatially dependent propagation (SDP) model, the Galaxy is divided into an inner diffusion halo around the source plane and an outer zone, producing two escape timescales, $\tau_{\rm IH}\approx 0.3$ Myr and $\tau_{\rm OH}\approx 5$ Myr, that compete with the electron cooling timescale. Distant-source electrons cool while traversing the outer zone and pile up below tens of GeV, while nearby-source electrons are diffusion-dominated up to roughly 700 GeV and cooling-dominated above it. The authors report that this reproduces the hardening near 40 GeV and the TeV cutoff observed by AMS-02, DAMPE, HESS, and CALET, and they argue this three-part evolution is unique to the SDP model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spatially dependent propagation (SDP) model, whose diffusion coefficient $D_{xx}(r,z,R) = D_0 F(r,z)\,\beta (R/R_0)^{\delta(r,z)}$ is suppressed near the galactic plane where sources concentrate and constant far from it. That suppression carves the propagation space into an inner and an outer zone with two distinct escape timescales, $\tau_{\rm IH}$ and $\tau_{\rm OH}$, which compete with the cooling timescale $\tau_{\rm loss}(E) \simeq 20\,(E/10\,\mathrm{GeV})^{-1}$ Myr. The competition between these timescales, rather than any single source population, assigns each energy band its governing mechanism; the source split at $R=0.4$ kpc and the two timescale values are set by the location of the observed spectral inflection.

What would settle it

Measure the electron spectrum across the roughly 700 GeV bend with enough statistics to locate it precisely, and constrain the inner-halo escape time independently, for example from the gamma-ray halo sizes of nearby pulsars. If the bend energy does not satisfy $\tau_{\rm loss}(E) = \tau_{\rm IH}$, or if a single-zone diffusion model with one constant coefficient plus the same source distribution reproduces all three segments as well as the two-zone model does, the claimed uniqueness of the SDP mechanism would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the dynamic mechanism behind the electron spectrum's three power-law segments. Electrons from distant sources ($R > 0.4$ kpc) travel through the outer halo, where the escape time $\tau_{\rm OH}\approx 5$ Myr exceeds the cooling time, so their contribution is cooling-dominated and confined to energies below tens of GeV, forming the first segment. Electrons from nearby sources ($R < 0.4$ kpc) travel through the inner halo, where $\tau_{\rm IH}\approx 0.3$ Myr; below about 700 GeV the cooling time exceeds the escape time, so diffusion dominates and forms the second segment, while above 700 GeV cooling dominates and produces the third, matching the observed TeV cutoff. The authors present this transition from diffusion dominance to cooling dominance within the nearby-source component as a signature unique to the two-halo SDP model.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the assumption that the Galaxy's diffusion halo genuinely separates into two effective zones with the adopted parameters ($N_m$, $\xi$, $n$, $z_0$), and that the 0.4 kpc division between nearby and distant sources is the right split, with the two escape timescales read off from the location of the observed spectral bend rather than fixed by an independent measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The hardening observed near 40 GeV is the transition from outer-halo cooling of distant-source electrons to inner-halo diffusion of nearby-source electrons, not the signature of a separate spectral component.
  • The TeV cutoff is set by the inner-halo escape time $\tau_{\rm IH}\approx 0.3$ Myr, which fixes the energy at which cooling overtakes diffusion for the nearby-source component.
  • A spatially uniform diffusion coefficient cannot reproduce the three-segment structure, so the high-precision electron data themselves discriminate between propagation scenarios.
  • The three-segment shape is attributed to propagation physics rather than to source populations such as pulsar wind nebulae, supernova remnants, or dark matter annihilation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the two-halo picture is right, the same $\tau_{\rm IH}$ should imprint the same diffusion-to-cooling transition on the positron spectrum, giving a cross-check within existing AMS-02 positron data.
  • The 0.4 kpc source split implies the nearby-source component draws on very few individual sources; this could be tested through arrival-direction anisotropy at TeV energies, which a small source count would enhance.
  • The parameters are tuned to the observed inflection, so an independent determination of the inner-halo escape time, from pulsar halo gamma-ray sizes or from nuclei data in the same SDP framework, would convert the fit into a prediction.
  • Below about 1 GeV, solar modulation hides the distant-source cooling component; an unmodulated measurement of the interstellar electron spectrum could check whether the low-energy segment keeps the cooling signature the model predicts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the spatially dependent propagation (SDP) model, with its inner and outer diffusion zones, produces two diffusion timescales, τ_IH and τ_OH, that compete with the electron cooling timescale. On this basis the authors propose a three-segment interpretation of the observed cosmic-ray electron spectrum: distant-source electrons are cooling-dominated below tens of GeV; nearby-source electrons are diffusion-dominated from tens of GeV to ~TeV; and nearby-source electrons are cooling-dominated above ~TeV. They compare SDP model calculations with AMS-02, DAMPE, HESS, and CALET data, and contrast with a traditional constant-diffusion model, claiming the three-segment evolution is unique to the SDP model and depicted for the first time.

Significance. If the two-timescale competition were derived from the SDP model rather than read off from the data, this would provide an elegant physical picture linking the spectral hardening at ~40 GeV and the TeV cutoff to propagation geometry. The paper's schematic (Fig. 1) and the partitioned source calculations (Fig. 3) are a useful presentation device, and the comparison with the TRO model clearly shows that a constant-diffusion model cannot produce the same split. However, the key timescales are inferred from the very spectral features they explain, and no quantitative fit or uniqueness test is presented. With those gaps filled, the mechanism could be a meaningful step toward a unified propagation explanation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II] The two key timescales, τ_OH ≈ 5 Myr and τ_IH ≈ 0.3 Myr, are inferred directly from the observed spectral inflection. The text states, 'Based on the location of the inflection point in the electron spectrum, it can be inferred that τOH ≈ 5 Myr and τIH ≈ 0.3 Myr.' Using Eq. (1), these values map exactly onto the hardening at tens of GeV and the cutoff near 700 GeV. The same spectrum is then presented as confirmation of the model in Fig. 1 and Sec. III. This is circular: the model is not shown to predict these timescales. To make the central claim load-bearing, the authors should compute effective diffusion escape times from Dxx(r,z,R) and the halo geometry in Eqs. (3)-(5) and Table I for representative nearby and distant source distributions, and demonstrate that the resulting values match the inferred τ_OH and τ_IH.
  2. [Sec. III and Conclusions] The claim that the three-segment evolution is 'unique to the SDP model' is supported only by comparison with the uniform-diffusion TRO model (right panel of Fig. 3). The alternative mechanisms cited in the Introduction (pulsar wind nebulae, K-N losses, dark matter annihilation) are not quantitatively modeled. The uniqueness statement therefore overreaches. The authors should either restrict the claim to 'not present in the uniform-diffusion TRO model' or provide quantitative comparisons with at least the most relevant competing mechanisms.
  3. [Sec. III, Figs. 2 and 3] The statement that the SDP model 'accurately reproduces' the observed spectrum is based on visual inspection. No chi-square or likelihood statistic is given, no parameter uncertainties are reported, and the source-distance cut at R = 0.4 kpc is fixed without a sensitivity study. Given the large number of adjustable parameters in Table I, qualitative agreement is not sufficient to establish that the SDP mechanism, rather than parameter flexibility, is responsible for the fit. A quantitative fit and a variation of the nearby/distant boundary would strengthen the central claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. II] The manuscript repeatedly writes 'SPD model' where 'SDP model' is intended (Abstract, and Sec. II: 'our SPD model'). Please correct the typo.
  2. [Sec. II, after Eq. (2)] The phrase 'radioactive decaying timescaleds' contains a typo; it should read 'timescales'.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption begins 'Figure . 1' with an awkward space; please fix the formatting.
  4. [References] Reference [5] is incomplete: it gives the title but lacks the author list. Please provide the full citation.
  5. [Table I and Sec. III] SDP-1 and SDP-2 differ only in the injection index above the break, νa2 (2.68 vs. 2.72). This should be stated explicitly in the text so that the two curves are not interpreted as independent model variations.
  6. [Fig. 2 left panel] The left panel appears to show only experimental data with no model curves. The caption should clarify that no model is displayed there.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The two diffusion timescales τ_IH≈0.3 Myr and τ_OH≈5 Myr are inferred from the observed spectral inflection rather than computed from the SDP model, so the three-segment spectrum is a fitted input presented as confirmation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II (Model and Methodology), paragraph following Fig. 1]
    "Based on the location of the inflection point in the electron spectrum, it can be inferred that τOH ≈ 5M yr and τIH ≈ 0.3M yr."

    These effective timescales are read off from the observed spectral inflection, not derived from the model's Dxx(r,z,R), F(r,z), source distribution, and halo geometry in Eqs. (3)-(5) and Table I. The rest of the paper then reproduces the three-segment spectrum by attributing the low-, middle-, and high-energy parts to comparisons of τloss with these same τOH and τIH values. The model calculation therefore confirms a feature that was used to set the timescales; the claimed three-segment evolution is a post-hoc attribution rather than an independent SDP prediction. Making the claim load-bearing would require showing that the model geometry alone yields effective escape times near these values for representative near/far source distances, which the paper does not report.

full rationale

The central explanatory claim reduces by construction: the observed spectral inflection fixes τOH ≈ 5 Myr and τIH ≈ 0.3 Myr, and the same inflection is then presented as confirmation of the SDP model's two-timescale competition. This is a genuine fitted-input-called-prediction circularity, warranting a score of 6. The numerical transport calculation itself (DRAGON, source distributions, injection spectra) contains independent content, so the paper is not wholly circular. The paper's uniqueness claim is under-supported because only the uniform-diffusion TRO model is quantitatively compared, but that is a correctness/overreach concern rather than a circular step. Self-citations to prior SDP work are present but are not the load-bearing circular element; the load-bearing step is the inferred timescales.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model calculation rests on a large set of fitted parameters from Table I plus two timescales and a source boundary inferred from the same data. The transport equation and the SDP functional forms are standard inputs, but the specific values are not derived in this paper and the Comp-A/Comp-B split is a modeling choice. No new particles or forces are introduced; the two diffusion zones are a parameterized feature of the SDP model.

free parameters (14)
  • Diffusion coefficient normalization D0 = 1e29 cm2/s
    Sets overall CR escape time; taken from SDP calibration, not derived in this paper.
  • Diffusion index delta0 = 0.8 (SDP-1/SDP-2); 0.33 (TRO)
    Controls rigidity scaling; fitted to CR data in earlier SDP papers, used here as input.
  • Inner/outer diffusion factor Nm = 0.6
    Controls contrast between inner and outer diffusion zones in Eq. (4); effectively sets the two diffusion timescales.
  • Inner halo scale xi = 0.082
    Sets the vertical extent of the inner slow-diffusion region in Eq. (4); inferred from prior fits, not from this paper's data.
  • Power-law index n for vertical transition = 4.0
    Shapes the transition between inner and outer diffusion coefficients.
  • Convection velocity v_A = 6 km/s
    Though small, included in transport equation; from SDP calibration.
  • Halo height z0 = 5 kpc
    Defines outer halo boundary; affects diffusion timescale.
  • Flux normalization = 0.268 GeV-1 m-2 s-1 sr-1
    Fitted to match absolute electron flux.
  • Injection index below break nu_a1 = 1.85
    Low-rigidity source spectral index.
  • Break rigidity Rbr = 7.8 GV (SDP); 7 GV (TRO)
    Location of injection spectral break.
  • Injection index above break nu_a2 = 2.68 (SDP-1), 2.72 (SDP-2), 2.8 (TRO)
    High-rigidity injection index; the only parameter changed between SDP-1 and SDP-2 to target DAMPE versus AMS-02.
  • Inferred outer-zone diffusion timescale tau_OH = ~5 Myr
    Read off from the location of the spectral inflection, not derived from D0 and z0 independently.
  • Inferred inner-zone diffusion timescale tau_IH = ~0.3 Myr
    Same status as tau_OH; used to divide diffusion-dominated from cooling-dominated energy ranges.
  • Nearby/distant source boundary = 0.4 kpc
    Chosen as half the inner halo thickness; determines which sources contribute to Comp-A versus Comp-B.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Galactic CR transport is described by the standard diffusion-loss equation (Eq. 2) with isotropic diffusion and continuous energy losses.
    Invoked in Sec. II; underlies all calculated spectra.
  • domain assumption The spatial dependence of diffusion follows the specific F(r,z) functional form with the given f(r,z) source distribution.
    Eqs. (3)-(5); this shape is the distinguishing feature of the SDP model and is not derived here.
  • domain assumption Electron injection is a single broken power law in rigidity with constant indices.
    Table I; no physical source model ties injection indices to acceleration physics.
  • domain assumption Sources are distributed on the galactic plane and can be cleanly split at 0.4 kpc into nearby and distant populations.
    Sec. III; the split is arbitrary and drives the Comp-A/Comp-B decomposition.
  • domain assumption Solar modulation is described by the force-field approximation.
    Sec. II [30]; standard but affects sub-GeV/GeV spectral shape.
  • domain assumption The observed electron hardening and TeV cutoff originate from propagation (diffusion vs cooling), not from additional source populations or new physics.
    This is the paper's interpretive premise; alternatives (pulsars, dark matter) are cited but not quantitatively compared.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the Mechanisms of Electron Energy Spectrum Evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2D4KYHCK

@misc{pith2026241209016,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the Mechanisms of Electron Energy Spectrum Evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2D4KYHCK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09016}
}
read the original abstract

The electron spectrum exhibits a complex structure and has controversially proposed origins. This work reproduce the evolution of the electron spectrum based on a spatially dependent propagation (SDP) model. The key point is that our SPD model features two diffusion regions leading to two diffusion timescales, competing with the cooling timescale. This results in a three-segment power-law electron spectrum: (1) The spectrum below tens of GeV is primarily influenced by cooling effects from distant sources. (2) The spectrum dominated by diffusion effects from nearby sources from tens of GeV to TeV. (3) The spectrum above TeV, which is predominantly governed by cooling effects from nearby sources. This evolution is unique to the SDP model, and we offer a comprehensive and clear depiction of electron evolution under a single propagation scenario for the first time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09016 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic illustration of the physical mechanisms underlying the three segments of the power-law spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Left panel: Electron spectrum observed by the AMS-02[3], DAMPE[5], HESS[7, 8], and CALET[4] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Partitioned calculation results of the SDP model and the traditional model compared with the observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. R. Blumenthal and R. J. Gould, Bremsstrahlung, synchrotron radiation, and compton scattering of high- energy electrons traversing dilute gases, Reviews of mod- ern Physics 42, 237 (1970)

    work page 1970

  2. [2]

    Cholis and I

    I. Cholis and I. Krommydas, Utilizing cosmic-ray positron and electron observations to probe the averaged properties of milky way pulsars, Physical Review D 105, 023015 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Aguilar, L

    M. Aguilar, L. A. Cavasonza, G. Ambrosi, L. Arruda, N. Attig, F. Barao, L. Barrin, A. Bartoloni, S. Ba¸ se˘ gmez- du Pree, J. Bates, et al., The alpha magnetic spec- trometer (ams) on the international space station: Part ii—results from the first seven years, Physics reports894, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Adriani, Y

    O. Adriani, Y. Akaike, K. Asano, Y. Asaoka, E. Berti, G. Bigongiari, W. Binns, M. Bongi, P. Brogi, A. Bruno, et al., Direct measurement of the spectral structure of cosmic-ray electrons+ positrons in the tev region with calet on the international space station, Physical Review Letters 131, 191001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Direct detection of a break in the teraelectronvolt cosmic- ray spectrum of electrons and positrons, Nature 552, 63 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Abdollahi, M

    S. Abdollahi, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, W. Atwood, L. Baldini, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, R. Bellazzini, E. Bloom, R. Bonino, et al., Cosmic-ray electron-positron spectrum from 7 gev to 2 tev with the fermi large area telescope, Physical Review D 95, 082007 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Kerszberg, The cosmic-ray electron spectrum mea- sured with hess in proceedings of the international cosmic ray conference (cri215), busan, Korea , 10 (2017)

    D. Kerszberg, The cosmic-ray electron spectrum mea- sured with hess in proceedings of the international cosmic ray conference (cri215), busan, Korea , 10 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Aharonian, F

    F. Aharonian, F. A. Benkhali, J. Aschersleben, H. Ashkar, M. Backes, V. B. Martins, R. Batzofin, Y. Becherini, D. Berge, K. Bernl¨ ohr, et al. , High- statistics measurement of the cosmic-ray electron spec- trum with hess, Physical Review Letters 133, 221001 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Archer, W

    A. Archer, W. Benbow, R. Bird, R. Brose, M. Bu- chovecky, J. Buckley, V. Bugaev, M. Connolly, W. Cui, M. Daniel, et al., Measurement of cosmic-ray electrons at tev energies by veritas, Physical Review D 98, 062004 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Zhang, B.-q

    P.-p. Zhang, B.-q. Qiao, W. Liu, S.-w. Cui, Q. Yuan, and Y.-q. Guo, Possible bump structure of cosmic ray electrons unveiled by ams-02 data and its common origin along with the nuclei and positron, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (05), 012

    2021

  3. [11]

    Evoli, E

    C. Evoli, E. Amato, P. Blasi, and R. Aloisio, Galactic factories of cosmic-ray electrons and positrons, Physical Review D 103, 083010 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Hooper, I

    D. Hooper, I. Cholis, T. Linden, and K. Fang, Hawc observations strongly favor pulsar interpretations of the cosmic-ray positron excess, Physical Review D 96, 103013 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Bykov, A

    A. Bykov, A. Petrov, A. Krassilchtchikov, K. Levenfish, S. Osipov, and G. Pavlov, Gev–tev cosmic-ray leptons in the solar system from the bow shock wind nebula of the nearest millisecond pulsar j0437–4715, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 876, L8 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Evoli, P

    C. Evoli, P. Blasi, E. Amato, and R. Aloisio, Signature of energy losses on the cosmic ray electron spectrum, Phys- ical Review Letters 125, 051101 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Kobayashi, Y

    T. Kobayashi, Y. Komori, K. Yoshida, and J. Nishimura, The most likely sources of high-energy cosmic-ray elec- trons in supernova remnants, The Astrophysical Journal 601, 340 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    Di Mauro, F

    M. Di Mauro, F. Donato, N. Fornengo, R. Lineros, and A. Vittino, Interpretation of ams-02 electrons and positrons data, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014 (04), 006

    2014

  9. [17]

    Fang, X.-J

    K. Fang, X.-J. Bi, and P.-F. Yin, Explanation of the knee- like feature in the dampe cosmic energy spectrum, The Astrophysical Journal 854, 57 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Fang, X.-J

    K. Fang, X.-J. Bi, S.-J. Lin, and Q. Yuan, Klein–nishina effect and the cosmic ray electron spectrum, Chinese Physics Letters 38, 039801 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Liu and Z

    X. Liu and Z. Liu, Tev dark matter and the dampe elec- tron excess, Physical Review D 98, 035025 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Huang, Y.-L

    X.-J. Huang, Y.-L. Wu, W.-H. Zhang, and Y.-F. Zhou, Origins of sharp cosmic-ray electron structures and the dampe excess, Physical Review D 97, 091701 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    L. Feng, Z. Kang, Q. Yuan, P.-F. Yin, and Y.-Z. Fan, Interpretation of the cosmic ray positron and electron excesses with an annihilating-decaying dark matter sce- nario, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (04), 031

    2020

  14. [22]

    Tomassetti, Origin of the cosmic-ray spectral harden- ing, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 752, L13 (2012)

    N. Tomassetti, Origin of the cosmic-ray spectral harden- ing, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 752, L13 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Gaggero, A

    D. Gaggero, A. Urbano, M. Valli, and P. Ullio, Gamma- ray sky points to radial gradients in cosmic-ray transport, Physical Review D 91, 083012 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Y.-Q. Guo, Z. Tian, and C. Jin, Spatial-dependent diffu- sion of cosmic rays and the ratio of pbar/p, b/c, arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.08227 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Liu, Y.-h

    W. Liu, Y.-h. Yao, and Y.-Q. Guo, Revisiting the spa- tially dependent propagation model with the latest obser- vations of cosmic-ray nuclei, The Astrophysical Journal 869, 176 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Yao, X.-L

    Y.-H. Yao, X.-L. Dong, Y.-Q. Guo, and Q. Yuan, Com- mon origin of the multimessenger spectral anomaly of galactic cosmic rays, Physical Review D 109, 063001 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Abeysekara, A

    A. Abeysekara, A. Albert, R. Alfaro, C. Alvarez, J. ´Alvarez, R. Arceo, J. Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, D. Avila Ro- jas, H. Ayala Solares, A. Barber,et al., Extended gamma- ray sources around pulsars constrain the origin of the positron flux at earth, Science 358, 911 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Maurin, R

    D. Maurin, R. Taillet, F. Donato, P. Salati, A. Barrau, and G. Boudoul, Galactic cosmic ray nuclei as a tool for astroparticle physics, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0212111 (2002)

    2002 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Evoli, D

    C. Evoli, D. Gaggero, D. Grasso, and L. Maccione, Cosmic ray nuclei, antiprotons and gamma rays in the galaxy: a new diffusion model, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2008 (10), 018

    2008

  22. [30]

    Gleeson and W

    L. Gleeson and W. Axford, Solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 154, p. 1011154, 1011 (1968)

    1968

Pith tools

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