Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Multiwavelength Probes of Cosmic Ray Transport in Molecular Cloud Structures

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-20 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmic rays scatter more strongly in molecular cloud clumps than in the interstellar medium, suppressing diffusion at GeV energies and raising interaction rates.

desk verdict This paper sets up a multi-wavelength forward model for CR transport in cloud clumps and infers suppressed GeV diffusion in Taurus, but the hybrid regime's transition scale rests on a simple damping criterion rather than solved microphysics. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.16698 v1 pith:6DLOQN5Q submitted 2026-05-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Hayden P. H. Ng , Ellis R. Owen , Naomi Tsuji , Szu-Ting Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords cosmicraysmolecularcloudsgamma-rayemissionX-raysynchrotronCRionizationdiffusionTauruscloudhadronicinteractions
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 builds a framework for cosmic ray transport in molecular clouds and their clumps by considering three propagation limits: fully ballistic, fully diffusive, and a hybrid case with a diffusive outer layer around a quasi-ballistic core. Forward-modeling of pion-decay gamma rays, ionization profiles, and hard X-ray synchrotron from secondary electrons is then applied to the Taurus complex. The modeling indicates that diffusion coefficients on clump scales fall well below typical interstellar medium values, so cosmic rays spend more time in dense gas, encounter higher column densities, and produce more secondaries. This matters for readers because it supplies concrete, multi-wavelength observables that can test how cosmic rays actually cross the boundary between diffuse and dense interstellar phases.

What carries the argument

Three limiting propagation scenarios (ballistic transport, diffusion, and hybrid diffusive envelope with quasi-ballistic core) that are used to compute pion-decay gamma-ray emissivities, ionization-rate profiles, and electron synchrotron spectra in magnetized cloud substructures.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the cosmic-ray diffusion coefficient inside Taurus clumps that matches standard interstellar-medium values, or the absence of the predicted hard X-ray synchrotron component with next-generation X-ray telescopes, would falsify the enhanced-scattering interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We show that CR scattering may be substantially enhanced on clump scales, with inferred CR diffusion coefficients suppressed relative to canonical interstellar medium values at GeV energies. In this interpretation, CRs are more closely coupled with dense gas in the ISM, and a diffusive envelope boosts the effective gas column density encountered by the CRs. This increases the hadronic interaction rate in the cloud. In turn, the secondary CR electron injection is also increased, and CR ionization rates are elevated at higher densities. We show that a hard X-ray synchrotron emission component is also generated, which may be detectable with near-future facilities.

Load-bearing premise

The three idealized propagation scenarios are sufficient to describe the essential behavior of cosmic rays inside molecular clouds even though the microphysics of self-generated turbulence and ion-neutral damping remains unsettled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CRs remain coupled to dense gas over longer path lengths than assumed in standard models.
  • Hadronic interaction rates and secondary production both rise inside the cloud.
  • CR ionization rates increase at the highest densities.
  • A hard X-ray synchrotron signal appears that can be searched for with upcoming instruments.
  • Gamma-ray, X-ray, and ionization data together can discriminate among the three propagation scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same clump-scale suppression could modify gamma-ray brightness maps of other nearby clouds and change estimates of their total cosmic-ray content.
  • If confirmed, the hybrid envelope model would imply that cosmic-ray-driven chemistry and heating are stronger in dense cores than current uniform-diffusion calculations predict.
  • Ionization-rate maps derived from molecular-line observations could serve as an independent cross-check on the X-ray and gamma-ray diagnostics.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a self-consistent framework for cosmic ray (CR) transport and interactions in magnetized molecular clouds, considering three limiting propagation scenarios (ballistic, diffusive, and hybrid with a diffusive envelope plus quasi-ballistic core). It forward-models pion-decay gamma-ray emissivities, CR ionization-rate profiles, and hard X-ray synchrotron emission, then applies the framework as an illustrative example to the Taurus molecular cloud complex and embedded clumps. The central result is that CR scattering may be substantially enhanced on clump scales, with inferred GeV diffusion coefficients suppressed relative to canonical ISM values; this is interpreted as increasing hadronic interaction rates, elevating ionization at higher densities, and generating a potentially detectable synchrotron component.

Significance. If the inferences are robust, the work supplies a useful multi-wavelength toolkit for constraining unsettled CR microphysics (self-generated turbulence versus ion-neutral damping) in dense gas. The logical construction from standard limits and the explicit connection between propagation signatures and secondary diagnostics are strengths; the framework could inform CR ionization models in star-forming regions and guide future gamma-ray, X-ray, and ionization observations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Taurus application section] Taurus application section: the reported suppression of the CR diffusion coefficient on clump scales is obtained by fitting one of the three limiting scenarios (particularly the hybrid case) to Taurus observations and then interpreting the improved match as evidence for enhanced scattering. This procedure is circular because the value of the fitted parameter is then used to support the physical conclusion; independent validation against separate data sets or explicit sensitivity tests to the transition radius are needed to break the degeneracy.
  2. [Hybrid scenario description] Hybrid scenario description: the transition radius between the diffusive envelope and quasi-ballistic core is introduced via a simple damping criterion rather than emerging from solved wave-transport equations that include self-generated turbulence and ion-neutral damping. Because this scale is load-bearing for the claim that the hybrid model yields a unique lower D(E) that fits the multi-wavelength data better than canonical ISM values, the central inference remains sensitive to alternative microphysical prescriptions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: no error bars or uncertainty ranges are quoted for the inferred diffusion coefficients or ionization-rate enhancements, which weakens the quantitative claims.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions (e.g., those showing emissivity profiles or synchrotron spectra): axis labels and line styles for the three scenarios should be clarified to allow direct comparison with the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped clarify several aspects of our presentation. We address each major comment point by point below, outlining the revisions we intend to implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Taurus application section] Taurus application section: the reported suppression of the CR diffusion coefficient on clump scales is obtained by fitting one of the three limiting scenarios (particularly the hybrid case) to Taurus observations and then interpreting the improved match as evidence for enhanced scattering. This procedure is circular because the value of the fitted parameter is then used to support the physical conclusion; independent validation against separate data sets or explicit sensitivity tests to the transition radius are needed to break the degeneracy.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern that the Taurus application risks appearing circular if the hybrid scenario is selected primarily because it improves the fit and then used to infer enhanced scattering. The three scenarios are presented as limiting cases to bracket possible behaviors, with the Taurus example serving to illustrate how multi-wavelength data can be used within the framework. To address the degeneracy, we will add explicit sensitivity tests varying the transition radius (and other hybrid parameters) and show how the inferred diffusion coefficients respond. We will also compare the results to independent literature constraints on CR diffusion in molecular clouds and clarify in the text that the hybrid case provides a suggestive but not definitive preference pending further observational validation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Hybrid scenario description] Hybrid scenario description: the transition radius between the diffusive envelope and quasi-ballistic core is introduced via a simple damping criterion rather than emerging from solved wave-transport equations that include self-generated turbulence and ion-neutral damping. Because this scale is load-bearing for the claim that the hybrid model yields a unique lower D(E) that fits the multi-wavelength data better than canonical ISM values, the central inference remains sensitive to alternative microphysical prescriptions.

    Authors: We agree that the transition radius in the hybrid scenario is set by a simplified damping criterion rather than emerging from a full solution of the wave-transport equations that self-consistently include CR-driven turbulence and ion-neutral damping. This is a modeling choice made for tractability, as solving the coupled system represents a substantial extension beyond the current scope. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly state this limitation, expand the discussion of alternative microphysical prescriptions, and include sensitivity tests to different choices of the transition criterion. We will also moderate language claiming uniqueness of the lower D(E) to reflect the approximate nature of the hybrid construction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Inferred suppression of GeV diffusion coefficients reduces to parameter fit to Taurus multi-wavelength data

  1. fitted input called prediction [Application to Taurus (abstract and results section)]
    "We show that CR scattering may be substantially enhanced on clump scales, with inferred CR diffusion coefficients suppressed relative to canonical interstellar medium (ISM) values at GeV energies. In this interpretation, CRs are more closely coupled with dense gas in the ISM, and a diffusive envelope boosts the effective gas column density encountered by the CRs."

    The diffusion coefficient is varied within the hybrid scenario until the modeled gamma-ray emissivity, ionization profiles, and X-ray synchrotron match Taurus observations; the resulting lower D value is then reported as a physical inference of enhanced scattering. The 'prediction' of suppression is therefore the input parameter that was adjusted to fit the data.

full rationale

The paper builds three limiting transport scenarios (ballistic, diffusive, hybrid) and forward-models pion-decay, ionization, and synchrotron signatures. The central physical claim—that CR scattering is enhanced on clump scales with D(E) suppressed relative to ISM values—is obtained by applying the hybrid model to Taurus observations and selecting D(E) values that reproduce the data. This selected D is then presented as evidence for the physical conclusion. The transition radius in the hybrid case is set by a damping criterion rather than solved from wave equations, but the load-bearing inference is the post-fit interpretation. No self-citation chain or external uniqueness theorem is invoked; the circularity is internal to the fitting step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard domain assumptions about CR propagation modes and introduce the diffusion coefficient as a key adjustable quantity when matching Taurus data; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • CR diffusion coefficient on clump scales
    Value is inferred to be suppressed relative to ISM canonical values to reproduce the observed signatures under the hybrid scenario.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Self-generated turbulence produces scattering and diffusive transport while ion-neutral damping in cold dense gas promotes ballistic propagation.
    Invoked to define the three limiting scenarios that structure the entire framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiwavelength Probes of Cosmic Ray Transport in Molecular Cloud Structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DLOQN5Q

@misc{pith2026260516698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiwavelength Probes of Cosmic Ray Transport in Molecular Cloud Structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DLOQN5Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.16698}
}
abstract

We investigate how cosmic ray (CR) transport in molecular clouds and their substructures can be probed using multi-wavelength observations. The detailed microphysics regulating the penetration and coupling of CRs in dense molecular structures is unsettled. Self-generated turbulence can produce scattering and diffusive transport, while ion-neutral damping in cold, dense gas promotes ballistic CR propagation. We construct a self-consistent framework for CR transport and interactions in magnetized molecular clouds, considering three limiting propagation scenarios: ballistic transport, diffusion, and a hybrid configuration with a diffusive envelope and quasi-ballistic core. By forward-modeling pion-decay $\gamma$-ray emissivities, CR-driven ionization-rate profiles, and electron synchrotron emission in the hard X-ray band, we connect GeV attenuation and propagation signatures to independent diagnostics of secondary production and CR penetration. As an illustrative example, we apply our framework to the Taurus molecular cloud complex and selected embedded clumps. We show that CR scattering may be substantially enhanced on clump scales, with inferred CR diffusion coefficients suppressed relative to canonical interstellar medium (ISM) values at GeV energies. In this interpretation, CRs are more closely coupled with dense gas in the ISM, and a diffusive envelope boosts the effective gas column density encountered by the CRs. This increases the hadronic interaction rate in the cloud. In turn, the secondary CR electron injection is also increased, and CR ionization rates are elevated at higher densities. We show that a hard X-ray synchrotron emission component is also generated, which may be detectable with near-future facilities. Finally, we discuss how future $\gamma$-ray, X-ray, and ionization constraints will provide firm tests of CR propagation theories in molecular cloud environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16698 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of our molecular cloud model and the generalized framework for model-agnostic, parameterized tests of CR transport. The color scale represents the cloud’s density structure. CR propagation regimes are shown as an outer diffusive envelope and an inner ballistic core, separated at a critical radius r = rcr where the density exceeds a pa￾rameterized threshold n c H = η n0. The central density at r = 0 is deno… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pion-decay γ-ray emissivity per H atom produced by CR protons in the fiducial clump model. The thick gray line shows the emissivity inte￾grated over the full clump. Other lines show the contribution from the inner r < 0.25pc region, comparable to the smallest angular scale that could be resolved for a clump at d = 150 pc in this energy range with an instrument like Fermi–LAT. Colored curves indicate the CR transport… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Emergent synchrotron X-ray emissivity per H atom from primary and secondary electrons produced in hadronic interactions in the fiducial clump model. Colored curves show the contribution from the inner region (r < 0.25 pc) for different CR transport prescriptions: fully diffusive (blue), ballistic (red), and two-zone models (green) with transition parameter η (values as labeled). Photoelectric absorption within the c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CR ionization rate profiles, ζ(r), for the fiducial molecular cloud (left) and a clump (right). In both cases, for comparative purposes, the LIS is set as the irradiating external CR flux. We compute ζ by integrating the local CR proton and electron fluxes over ion-pro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pion-decay γ-ray emissivity per H atom for the Taurus molecular cloud (red; with over-plotted data points from Neronov et al. 2017) and rep￾resentative embedded clumps (blue; data from Yang et al. 2023). Points show the binned Fermi-LAT emissivities and quoted uncertai…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Predicted total absorbed X-ray surface-brightness spectra of syn￾chrotron emission from CR electrons for the Taurus molecular cloud (red) and representative embedded clumps (blue) under the model parameter fits shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Predicted CR ionization rate per H atom, ζ, as a function of (left) local gas number density, and (right) inward hydrogen column density the CRs propagate through, NH, for the Taurus molecular cloud (red) and the four embedded γ-ray–bright clumps (blue). The left absc…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mass-size map of the predicted low-energy γ-ray deficit in molec￾ular structures for the fiducial two-zone CR-transport model with transi￾tion parameter η = 0.5 (labeled), and diffusion coefficient normalization of 3 × 1026 cm2 s −1 set as that adopted for our fiducia…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Molecular-cloud ionization yields competitive constraints on sub-GeV dark matter annihilation/decay and on asteroid-mass primordial black holes, particularly for PBHs above 10^16 g.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

151 extracted references · 151 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D., Teachey, A., & Paglione, T

    Abrahams, R. D., Teachey, A., & Paglione, T. A. D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 91

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    2020, Phys

    Aharonian, F., Peron, G., Yang, R., Casanova, S., & Zanin, R. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 083018

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Aharonian, F. A. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 43, 71

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    A., Kelner, S

    Aharonian, F. A., Kelner, S. R., & Prosekin, A. Y . 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 043002

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Albertsson, T., Kauffmann, J., & Menten, K. M. 2018, ApJ, 868, 40

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    M., et al

    Ao, Y ., Henkel, C., Menten, K. M., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A135

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    C., & Jiang, Y .-F

    Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E. C., & Jiang, Y .-F. 2021, ApJ, 922, 11

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    2011, A&A, 529, L6

    Arzoumanian, D., André, P., Didelon, P., et al. 2011, A&A, 529, L6

    work page 2011

Show all 151 references
  1. [9]

    L., Linnartz, H., Cox, N

    Bacalla, X. L., Linnartz, H., Cox, N. L. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A31

    2019

  2. [10]

    N., Offner, S

    Beaumont, C. N., Offner, S. S. R., Shetty, R., Glover, S. C. O., & Goodman, A. A. 2013, ApJ, 777, 173

    2013

  3. [11]

    S., Bulanov, S

    Berezinskii, V . S., Bulanov, S. V ., Dogiel, V . A., & Ptuskin, V . S. 1990, Astrophysics of cosmic rays (Amsterdam: North-Holland)

    1990

  4. [12]

    Bergin, E. A. & Tafalla, M. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 339

    2007

  5. [13]

    D., et al

    Beuther, H., Gieser, C., Soler, J. D., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A81

    2024

  6. [14]

    M., et al

    Beuther, H., Schilke, P., Menten, K. M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 566, 945

    2002

  7. [15]

    G., Bell, T

    Bisbas, T. G., Bell, T. A., Viti, S., Yates, J., & Barlow, M. J. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2100

    2012

  8. [16]

    A., Keane, E., & Wagg, J

    Braun, R., Bourke, T., Green, J. A., Keane, E., & Wagg, J. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 174

    2015

  9. [17]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 482

    Brugaletta, V ., Walch, S., Naab, T., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 482

    2025

  10. [18]

    & Zweibel, E

    Bustard, C. & Zweibel, E. G. 2021, ApJ, 913, 106

    2021

  11. [19]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 153

    Cahlon, S., Zucker, C., Goodman, A., Lada, C., & Alves, J. 2024, ApJ, 961, 153

    2024

  12. [20]

    A., Fukui, Y ., et al

    Casanova, S., Aharonian, F. A., Fukui, Y ., et al. 2010, PASJ, 62, 769

    2010

  13. [21]

    M., Terzieva, R., & Herbst, E

    Caselli, P., Walmsley, C. M., Terzieva, R., & Herbst, E. 1998, ApJ, 499, 234

    1998

  14. [22]

    2014, ApJL, 790, L1 Cécere, M., Velázquez, P

    Ceccarelli, C., Dominik, C., López-Sepulcre, A., et al. 2014, ApJL, 790, L1 Cécere, M., Velázquez, P. F., Araudo, A. T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 64

    2014

  15. [23]

    Cesarsky, C. J. & V olk, H. J. 1978, A&A, 70, 367

    1978

  16. [24]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 351

    Chen, B.-Q., Li, G.-X., Yuan, H.-B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 351

    2020

  17. [25]

    O., Ivlev, A

    Chernyshov, D. O., Ivlev, A. V ., & Dogiel, V . A. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083045

    2025

  18. [26]

    O., Ivlev, A

    Chernyshov, D. O., Ivlev, A. V ., & Kiselev, A. M. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 043012

    2024

  19. [27]

    Cravens, T. E. & Dalgarno, A. 1978, ApJ, 219, 750

    1978

  20. [28]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

    Cruise, M., Guainazzi, M., Aird, J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

    2025

  21. [29]

    Crutcher, R. M. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 29

    2012

  22. [30]

    M., Wandelt, B., Heiles, C., Falgarone, E., & Troland, T

    Crutcher, R. M., Wandelt, B., Heiles, C., Falgarone, E., & Troland, T. H. 2010, ApJ, 725, 466

    2010

  23. [31]

    C., Stone, E

    Cummings, A. C., Stone, E. C., Heikkila, B. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 18

    2016

  24. [32]

    2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103, 12269

    Dalgarno, A. 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103, 12269

    2006

  25. [33]

    J., Connolly, Jr., H

    Desch, S. J., Connolly, Jr., H. C., & Srinivasan, G. 2004, ApJ, 602, 528

    2004

  26. [34]

    2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 102

    Dickinson, C., Beck, R., Crocker, R., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 102

    2015

  27. [35]

    A., Chernyshov, D

    Dogiel, V . A., Chernyshov, D. O., Ivlev, A. V ., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 114

    2018

  28. [36]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 122

    Doi, Y ., Hasegawa, T., Bastien, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 122

    2021

  29. [37]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium ESA: XMM-Newton SOC. 2025, XMM-Newton Users Handbook

    2011

  30. [38]

    S., et al

    Eswaraiah, C., Li, D., Furuya, R. S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 912, L27

    2021

  31. [39]

    Everett, J. E. & Zweibel, E. G. 2011, ApJ, 739, 60

    2011

  32. [40]

    J., Reichherzer, P., Ren, S., et al

    Ewart, R. J., Reichherzer, P., Ren, S., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2108

    2026

  33. [41]

    K., & Zweibel, E

    Farber, R., Ruszkowski, M., Yang, H.-Y . K., & Zweibel, E. G. 2018, ApJ, 856, 112

    2018

  34. [42]

    Felice, G. M. & Kulsrud, R. M. 2001, ApJ, 553, 198 Fitz Axen, M., Offner, S., Hopkins, P. F., Krumholz, M. R., & Grudi´c, M. Y . 2024, ApJ, 973, 16

    2001

  35. [43]

    Gaches, B. A. L., Offner, S. S. R., & Bisbas, T. G. 2019, ApJ, 878, 105

    2019

  36. [44]

    E., Galli, D., & Padovani, M

    Glassgold, A. E., Galli, D., & Padovani, M. 2012, ApJ, 756, 157

    2012

  37. [45]

    Glassgold, A. E. & Langer, W. D. 1973, ApJ, 186, 859

    1973

  38. [46]

    Gleeson, L. J. & Axford, W. I. 1968, ApJ, 154, 1011

    1968

  39. [47]

    R., Pety, J., Gerin, M., Hily-Blant, P., & Le Bourlot, J

    Goicoechea, J. R., Pety, J., Gerin, M., Hily-Blant, P., & Le Bourlot, J. 2009, A&A, 498, 771

    2009

  40. [48]

    A., Black, J

    Grenier, I. A., Black, J. H., & Strong, A. W. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 199 20Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan(2026), Vol. 00, No. 0

    2015

  41. [49]

    R., Güdel, M., et al

    Grosso, N., Briggs, K. R., Güdel, M., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 391 Güdel, M., Briggs, K. R., Arzner, K., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 353

    2007

  42. [50]

    M., Ungerechts, H., & Churchwell, E

    Guesten, R., Walmsley, C. M., Ungerechts, H., & Churchwell, E. 1985, A&A, 142, 381

    1985

  43. [51]

    W., Yuen, K

    Habegger, R., Ho, K. W., Yuen, K. H., & Zweibel, E. G. 2024, ApJ, 974, 17

    2024

  44. [52]

    Habegger, R., Ruszkowski, M., & Zweibel, E. G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.24622

    2025

  45. [53]

    & Wanner, G

    Hairer, E. & Wanner, G. 2010, Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II: Stiff and Differential-Algebraic Problems, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg)

    2010

  46. [54]

    1961, PASJ, 13, 184

    Hayakawa, S., Nishimura, S., & Takayanagi, K. 1961, PASJ, 13, 184

    1961

  47. [55]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 102

    Higurashi, R., Tsuji, N., & Uchiyama, Y . 2020, ApJ, 899, 102

    2020

  48. [56]

    D., Lee, M.-Y ., Wyrowski, F., et al

    Hoang, T. D., Lee, M.-Y ., Wyrowski, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A24

    2025

  49. [57]

    2017, AJ, 154, 38

    Holdship, J., Viti, S., Jiménez-Serra, I., Makrymallis, A., & Priestley, F. 2017, AJ, 154, 38

    2017

  50. [58]

    J., Neufeld, D., Wolfire, M., & Goicoechea, J

    Hollenbach, D., Kaufman, M. J., Neufeld, D., Wolfire, M., & Goicoechea, J. R. 2012, ApJ, 754, 105

    2012

  51. [59]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 4246

    Huang, Y ., Li, Z., Wang, W., & Zhao, X. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4246

    2020

  52. [60]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90 IceCube Collaboration, Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 1338

    2007

  53. [61]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 64

    Indriolo, N. 2023, ApJ, 950, 64

    2023

  54. [62]

    A., Falgarone, E., et al

    Indriolo, N., Bergin, E. A., Falgarone, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 127

    2018

  55. [63]

    V ., Pellegrin, T., et al

    Indriolo, N., Ivlev, A. V ., Pellegrin, T., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 123

    2026

  56. [64]

    & McCall, B

    Indriolo, N. & McCall, B. J. 2012, ApJ, 745, 91

    2012

  57. [65]

    V ., Dogiel, V

    Ivlev, A. V ., Dogiel, V . A., Chernyshov, D. O., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 23

    2018

  58. [66]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, 1254 Kachelrieß, M., Moskalenko, I

    Jiang, M., Sun, X.-N., Wu, Q.-H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 1254 Kachelrieß, M., Moskalenko, I. V ., & Ostapchenko, S. 2019, Computer Physics Communications, 245, 106846 Kachelrieß, M., Moskalenko, I. V ., & Ostapchenko, S. S. 2015, ApJ, 803, 54

    2025

  59. [67]

    M., & Vila, G

    Kafexhiu, E., Aharonian, F., Taylor, A. M., & Vila, G. S. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 123014

    2014

  60. [68]

    2006, ApJ, 647, 692 Kamal Youssef, F

    Kamae, T., Karlsson, N., Mizuno, T., Abe, T., & Koi, T. 2006, ApJ, 647, 692 Kamal Youssef, F. R. & Grenier, I. A. 2024, A&A, 685, A102

    2006

  61. [69]

    J., Gómez, M., & Whitney, B

    Kenyon, S. J., Gómez, M., & Whitney, B. A. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, V olume I, ed. B. Reipurth, V ol. 4, 405

    2008

  62. [70]

    S., Tomida, K., Kobayashi, M

    Kimura, S. S., Tomida, K., Kobayashi, M. I. N., Kin, K., & Zhang, B. 2025, ApJL, 981, L36

    2025

  63. [71]

    Klessen, R. S. & Glover, S. C. O. 2016, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 43, 85

    2016

  64. [72]

    2021, Phys

    Koldobskiy, S., Kachelrieß, M., Lskavyan, A., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 123027

    2021

  65. [73]

    Lagage, P. O. & Cesarsky, C. J. 1983, A&A, 118, 223

    1983

  66. [74]

    Lai, P. C. W., Crudele, B., Agostini, M., et al. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, L061306

    2026

  67. [75]

    2025, A&A, 699, A126

    Latrille, G., Lupi, A., Bovino, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A126

    2025

  68. [76]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 41

    Li, H.-B. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 41

    2021

  69. [77]

    Liang, N. & Oh, S. P. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 1911

    2025

  70. [78]

    B., et al

    Lin, Y ., Wyrowski, F., Liu, H. B., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A128

    2022

  71. [79]

    G., Padovani, M., & Gaches, B

    Luo, G., Bisbas, T. G., Padovani, M., & Gaches, B. A. L. 2024, A&A, 690, A293

    2024

  72. [80]

    & Bergin, E

    Maret, S. & Bergin, E. A. 2015, Astrochem: Abundances of chemical species in the interstellar medium, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1507.010

    2015

  73. [81]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 97

    Mizuno, T., Hayashi, K., Metzger, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 97

    2022

  74. [82]

    & Gabici, S

    Morlino, G. & Gabici, S. 2015, MNRAS, 451, L100

    2015

  75. [83]

    B., Gupta, N., & Biermann, P

    Nath, B. B., Gupta, N., & Biermann, P. L. 2012, MNRAS, 425, L86

    2012

  76. [84]

    Neronov, A., Malyshev, D., & Semikoz, D. V . 2017, A&A, 606, A22

    2017

  77. [85]

    Neufeld, D. A. & Wolfire, M. G. 2017, ApJ, 845, 163

    2017

  78. [86]

    K., Nobukawa, M., Koyama, K., et al

    Nobukawa, K. K., Nobukawa, M., Koyama, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 87

    2018

  79. [87]

    V ., Silsbee, K., et al

    Obolentseva, M., Ivlev, A. V ., Silsbee, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 142

    2024

  80. [88]

    2011, Phys

    Ostapchenko, S. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 014018

    2011

  81. [89]

    2013, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol

    Ostapchenko, S. 2013, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol. 52, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 02001

    2013

  82. [90]

    R., On, A

    Owen, E. R., On, A. Y . L., Lai, S.-P., & Wu, K. 2021, ApJ, 913, 52

    2021

  83. [91]

    R., Wu, K., Inoue, Y ., Yang, H

    Owen, E. R., Wu, K., Inoue, Y ., Yang, H. Y . K., & Mitchell, A. M. W. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 86

    2023

  84. [92]

    & Galli, D

    Padovani, M. & Galli, D. 2011, A&A, 530, A109

    2011

  85. [93]

    Padovani, M., Galli, D., & Glassgold, A. E. 2009, A&A, 501, 619

    2009

  86. [94]

    2013, A&A, 560, A114

    Padovani, M., Hennebelle, P., & Galli, D. 2013, A&A, 560, A114

    2013

  87. [95]

    2015, A&A, 582, L13

    Padovani, M., Hennebelle, P., Marcowith, A., & Ferrière, K. 2015, A&A, 582, L13

    2015

  88. [96]

    V ., Galli, D., & Caselli, P

    Padovani, M., Ivlev, A. V ., Galli, D., & Caselli, P. 2018, A&A, 614, A111

    2018

  89. [97]

    V ., Galli, D., et al

    Padovani, M., Ivlev, A. V ., Galli, D., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 29

    2020

  90. [98]

    2016, A&A, 590, A8

    Padovani, M., Marcowith, A., Hennebelle, P., & Ferrière, K. 2016, A&A, 590, A8

    2016

  91. [99]

    Papadopoulos, P. P. 2010, ApJ, 720, 226 Particle Data Group, Zyla, P. A., Barnett, R. M., et al. 2020, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2020, 083C01

    2010

  92. [100]

    Patrignani, C. et al. 2016, Chin. Phys., C40, 100001

    2016

  93. [101]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Pattle, K., Fissel, L., Tahani, M., Liu, T., & Ntormousi, E. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 193

    2023

  94. [102]

    T., Pilling, S., Quesada Molina, J

    Pazianotto, M. T., Pilling, S., Quesada Molina, J. M., & Federico, C. A. 2021, ApJ, 911, 129

    2021

  95. [103]

    & Aharonian, F

    Peron, G. & Aharonian, F. 2022, A&A, 659, A57

    2022

  96. [104]

    Phan, V . H. M., Gabici, S., Morlino, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A40

    2020

  97. [105]

    Phan, V . H. M., Morlino, G., & Gabici, S. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5167

    2018

  98. [106]

    Phan, V . H. M., Peretti, E., Cristofari, P., Gusdorf, A., & Mertsch, P. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2930

    2024

  99. [107]

    Phan, V . H. M., Recchia, S., Mertsch, P., & Gabici, S. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 123006

    2023

  100. [108]

    E., Sipilä, O., Segura-Cox, D

    Pineda, J. E., Sipilä, O., Segura-Cox, D. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A162 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A11

    2024

  101. [109]

    C., & Bai, X.-N

    Plotnikov, I., Ostriker, E. C., & Bai, X.-N. 2021, ApJ, 914, 3

    2021

  102. [110]

    J., Ott, J., Ekers, R

    Protheroe, R. J., Ott, J., Ekers, R. D., Jones, D. I., & Crocker, R. M. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 683

    2008

  103. [111]

    2024, A&A, 685, A67

    Redaelli, E., Bovino, S., Lupi, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A67

    2024

  104. [112]

    2025, A&A, 702, A210

    Redaelli, E., Bovino, S., Sabatini, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A210

    2025

  105. [113]

    S., Kara, E

    Reynolds, C. S., Kara, E. A., Mushotzky, R. F., et al. 2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12678, UV , X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII, ed. O. H. Siegmund & K. Hoadley, 126781E

    2023

  106. [114]

    Rice, J. R. & Zhang, B. 2021, ApJ, 908, 59

    2021

  107. [115]

    J., Moore, T

    Rigby, A. J., Moore, T. J. T., Eden, D. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A58 Rodríguez, L. F. & Zapata, L. A. 2013, ApJL, 767, L13 Rodríguez, L. F. R. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2019

  108. [116]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 19

    Rogers, F., Zhang, S., Perez, K., Clavel, M., & Taylor, A. 2022, ApJ, 934, 19

    2022

  109. [117]

    M., Heyer, M., Rathborne, J., & Simon, R

    Roman-Duval, J., Jackson, J. M., Heyer, M., Rathborne, J., & Simon, R. 2010, ApJ, 723, 492

    2010

  110. [118]

    Roy, A., Gaches, B. A. L., & Tan, J. C. 2026, A&A, 708, A16

    2026

  111. [119]

    C., Cardillo, M., & Sarkar, R

    Roy, A., Joshi, J. C., Cardillo, M., & Sarkar, R. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 047

    2023

  112. [120]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L18

    Sabatini, G., Bovino, S., & Redaelli, E. 2023, ApJL, 947, L18

    2023

  113. [121]

    S., Bushby, P

    Seta, A., Shukurov, A., Wood, T. S., Bushby, P. J., & Snodin, A. P. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4544

    2018

  114. [122]

    2024, A&A, 692, A128

    Shi, Z., Liu, B., & Yang, R.-z. 2024, A&A, 692, A128

    2024

  115. [123]

    K., Yamauchi, S., Nobukawa, M., & Fujita, Y

    Shimaguchi, A., Nobukawa, K. K., Yamauchi, S., Nobukawa, M., & Fujita, Y . 2022, PASJ, 74, 656

    2022

  116. [124]

    N., Bergner, J

    Shingledecker, C. N., Bergner, J. B., Le Gal, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 151

    2016

  117. [125]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 204

    Sike, B., Thomas, T., Ruszkowski, M., Pfrommer, C., & Weber, M. 2025, ApJ, 987, 204

    2025

  118. [126]

    V ., Padovani, M., & Caselli, P

    Silsbee, K., Ivlev, A. V ., Padovani, M., & Caselli, P. 2018, ApJ, 863, 188

    2018

  119. [127]

    1975, MNRAS, 173, 255

    Skilling, J. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 255

    1975

  120. [128]

    & Strong, A

    Skilling, J. & Strong, A. W. 1976, A&A, 53, 253

    1976

  121. [129]

    2024, A&A, 687, A70

    Socci, A., Sabatini, G., Padovani, M., Bovino, S., & Hacar, A. 2024, A&A, 687, A70

    2024

  122. [130]

    D., Zucker, C., Peek, J

    Soler, J. D., Zucker, C., Peek, J. E. G., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A206

    2023

  123. [131]

    & Tomasko, M

    Spitzer, Jr., L. & Tomasko, M. G. 1968, ApJ, 152, 971

    1968

  124. [132]

    W., Moskalenko, I

    Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V ., & Ptuskin, V . S. 2007, Ann. Rev. Nucl. and Part. Sci., 57, 285

    2007

  125. [133]

    W., Orlando, E., & Jaffe, T

    Strong, A. W., Orlando, E., & Jaffe, T. R. 2011, A&A, 534, A54

    2011

  126. [134]

    & Stuani Pereira, L

    Torres, L. & Stuani Pereira, L. A. 2025, Universe, 11, 218

    2025

  127. [135]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 22

    Tsuji, N., Takekawa, S., Mori, K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 22

    2025

  128. [136]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 138

    Tsuji, N., Tanaka, T., Safi-Harb, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 138

    2024

  129. [137]

    S., Moore, T

    Urquhart, J. S., Moore, T. J. T., Csengeri, T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1555 Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan(2026), Vol. 00, No. 021

    2014

  130. [138]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  131. [139]

    E., Digel, S

    Vladimirov, A. E., Digel, S. W., Jóhannesson, G., et al. 2011, Computer Physics Communications, 182, 1156

    2011

  132. [140]

    2005, A&A, 444, 883

    Wakelam, V ., Selsis, F., Herbst, E., & Caselli, P. 2005, A&A, 444, 883

    2005

  133. [141]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 25

    Washinoue, H., Takasao, S., & Furuya, K. 2024, ApJ, 976, 25

    2024

  134. [142]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    2000

  135. [143]

    2014, A&A, 566, A142

    Yang, R.-z., de Oña Wilhelmi, E., & Aharonian, F. 2014, A&A, 566, A142

    2014

  136. [144]

    I., & Aharonian, F

    Yang, R.-z., Jones, D. I., & Aharonian, F. 2015, A&A, 580, A90

    2015

  137. [145]

    Yang, R.-z., Li, G.-X., Wilhelmi, E. d. O., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 351

    2023

  138. [146]

    Yeung, P. K. H., Bamba, A., & Sano, H. 2023, PASJ, 75, 384

    2023

  139. [147]

    W., Wardle, M., et al

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Hewitt, J. W., Wardle, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 33

    2013

  140. [148]

    2015, Proc

    Zabalza, V . 2015, Proc. of International Cosmic Ray Conference 2015, 922

    2015

  141. [149]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 095011

    Zeng, W., Sun, X.-N., Yang, R.-Z., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 095011

    2024

  142. [150]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 1931

    Zhong, W.-J., Zhang, X., Chen, Y ., & Zhang, Q.-Q. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1931

    2023

  143. [151]

    S., Schlafly, E

    Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 125

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed May 20, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.