pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.16214 · v2 · pith:C3JKMW6Tnew · submitted 2026-02-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Cosmic-Ray Spectra and Metal Budget Regulated by the Galactic Wind

Yusaku Fukumoto , Katsuaki Asano , Jiro Shimoda This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 13:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmic raysgalactic windcosmic ray spectraFermi bubblesmetal abundancegalactic haloadvectionspallation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A galactic wind velocity profile peaking near 700 km/s explains cosmic-ray spectral hardening and softening without diffusion breaks.

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

This paper models how advection by the galactic wind shapes the cosmic-ray spectrum observed near Earth. A wind speed that rises to a maximum of roughly 700 km/s accounts for the hardening seen above a few hundred GV and the softening above a few TV, all while keeping the diffusion coefficient a simple power law. The same wind also produces a hard spectrum with index near 2 at heights of 3-5 kpc, which matches the requirements for gamma rays from the Fermi bubbles. The calculation further shows that the wind circulates metals efficiently enough to sustain disk abundances, yet the rate of beryllium production by cosmic-ray spallation remains too low to keep the Be/O ratio as high in the halo as it is in the disk.

Core claim

The advection effect of the Galactic wind with a maximum velocity of ∼700 km s^{-1} reproduces the spectral hardening from a few hundred GV and softening from a few TV in local cosmic ray spectra without a break in the diffusion coefficient's power-law dependence. A hard CR spectrum with index ∼2 below ∼TV is found at altitudes of 3-5 kpc, which is favorable for explaining the gamma-ray spectrum of the Fermi bubbles. The wind plays a key role in metal circulation, maintaining disk abundances, but CR spallation production of Beryllium is low, leading to a higher Be/O ratio in the halo compared to the disk.

What carries the argument

Galactic wind velocity profile that reaches a maximum of ∼700 km s^{-1} at altitudes where advection dominates the observed spectral shape.

If this is right

  • Observed cosmic-ray spectral features above a few hundred GV and above a few TV follow directly from advection in the wind without any break in the diffusion power law.
  • A hard spectrum with index near 2 at 3-5 kpc altitude supplies the parent particles needed for the observed Fermi-bubble gamma rays.
  • The wind maintains the metal abundance in the galactic disk by circulating enriched material.
  • Beryllium production via cosmic-ray spallation is too low to equalize the Be/O ratio between disk and halo gas.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar wind velocity profiles could be tested against cosmic-ray data from other spiral galaxies.
  • Gamma-ray telescopes could map the predicted hard spectrum at a few kpc height to check the model.
  • The low beryllium yield implies that halo gas enrichment models must include additional sources or longer confinement times.
  • Coupling the wind speed to star-formation rate would predict how metal loss scales with galaxy mass.

Load-bearing premise

The galactic wind has a specific velocity profile reaching about 700 km/s where advection sets the spectral shape, and no spatially varying diffusion or source effects are required to match local data.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of the cosmic-ray spectrum or Be/O ratio at 3-5 kpc above the disk, or gamma-ray observations that confirm or rule out a hard spectrum with index near 2 at those heights.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.16214 by Jiro Shimoda, Katsuaki Asano, Yusaku Fukumoto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The total Hydrogen density at R = 8.5 kpc (up￾per) and wind velocity profile (lower) in our model. The red line in the upper panel is the wind density profile with the mass loss rate of 7.26 × 10−3M⊙kpc−2 yr−1 (5.13M⊙yr−1 ) implied from the quasi-steady gas circulation. The dashed line in the lower panel is the test case with the constant velocity. Moskalenko (1998), the molecular and atomic densities are … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: CR C and B spectra at z = 0 and t = 1 Gyr (solid lines). The data points are from CALET (red, O. Adriani et al. 2020, 2022b), AMS-02 (green, M. Aguilar et al. 2017, 2018), DAMPE (orange, DAMPE. Collaboration et al. 2025; F. Alemanno et al. 2025), and Voyager (purple, A. C. Cummings et al. 2016). The inset shows a zoom-up view around the spectral bump. The green and red dashed curves are contributions of 11… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: CR proton spectrum at z = 0 and t = 1 Gyr (blue solid line). The data points are from CALET (red, O. Adriani et al. 2022a), AMS-02 (green, M. Aguilar et al. 2015), DAMPE (orange, DAMPE. Collaboration et al. 2025), and Voyager (purple, A. C. Cummings et al. 2016). The inset shows a zoom-up view around the spectral bump. The green dashed curve is the model without the wind, and the orange dashed curve is the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diffusion (color scale) and advection (cyan lines) timescales of protons as a function of the altitude z. The blue dotted line is the highlighted diffusion timescale for p = 5TeV/c. The magenta curves indicate the timescale of adiabatic energy change resulting from the accelera￾tion/deceleration of the wind. The dashed curves correspond to the model with a constant wind velocity (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Proton spectra at different altitude from z = 0 to 25 kpc (left). The right three panels are the same figure divided into three parts based on the altitude ranges, z = 0 to 2.3 kpc, 2.3 to 13.8 kpc, and 13.8 to 25 kpc, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CR distributions for different energies from Ekin = 2.1 × 10−3 GeV to PeV (left). The right two panels are the same figure divided into two parts below and above Ekin = 3.3 × 10−2 GeV. Above zw, the flux below ∼ 5 TeV turns into an increase. The expansion of the tube cross-section leads to a flux decrease again for z > ztube. The spectrum becomes hardest around z ∼ 3-5 kpc, where the spectral index is abou… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: CR O and N spectra at z = 0 and t = 1 Gyr (solid lines). The data points are from CALET (red, O. Adriani et al. 2020), AMS-02 (green, M. Aguilar et al. 2017; M. Aguilar et al. 2018), DAMPE, and Voyager (purple, A. C. Cummings et al. 2016). The inset shows a zoom-up view around the spectral bump [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Total CR Li spectrum at z = 0 and t = 1 Gyr (blue solid line). The data points are from AMS-02 (green, M. Aguilar et al. 2018), and Voyager (purple, A. C. Cum￾mings et al. 2016). The orange dashed and green dotted lines are for 6Li and 7Li, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Total CR Be spectrum at z = 0 and t = 1 Gyr (blue solid line). The data points are from AMS-02 (green, M. Aguilar et al. 2018), and Voyager (purple, A. C. Cum￾mings et al. 2016). The orange dash-dotted, green dotted, and magenta dotted lines are for 7Be, 9Be, and 10Be, respec￾tively. Aguilar, M., Ali Cavasonza, L., Alpat, B., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 051103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.051103 … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the advection effect of the Galactic wind on the local cosmic ray spectra. The spectral hardening from a few hundred GV and softening from a few TV are reproduced by a velocity profile with a maximum velocity of $\sim 700~\mbox{km}~ \mbox{s}^{-1}$ without introducing a break in the power-law dependence of the diffusion coefficient. Additionally, we find that a hard CR spectrum below $\sim$ TV with an index of $\sim 2$ at an altitude $\sim 3$-$5$ kpc from the Galactic disk. This hard spectrum is favorable for the gamma-ray spectrum of the Fermi bubbles. With the obtained CR fluxes, we discuss the matter circulation in our Galaxy with the wind. While the wind has an essential role in maintaining the metal abundance in the disk, the production rate of Beryllium, which originates from CR spallation, is so low that the ratio Be/O in the halo should be larger than that in the disk gas.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that advection by a galactic wind with a specific velocity profile reaching a maximum of ~700 km s^{-1} reproduces the observed cosmic-ray spectral hardening from a few hundred GV and softening from a few TV without requiring a break in the power-law form of the diffusion coefficient. It additionally reports a hard CR spectrum (index ~2) at altitudes of 3-5 kpc that is favorable for the Fermi-bubble gamma-ray spectrum and discusses the wind's role in regulating disk metal abundance together with implications for the Be/O ratio in the halo.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work would be significant for offering a single advection-based mechanism that accounts for both the low- and high-rigidity spectral features while keeping diffusion a pure power law, thereby linking local CR measurements to galactic outflows and providing a possible explanation for the hard spectrum needed by the Fermi bubbles. It also connects CR transport to the galactic metal budget and spallation products.

major comments (3)
  1. [model description / velocity profile] The velocity profile reaching ~700 km s^{-1} is presented as reproducing the hardening and softening (abstract and model section). The manuscript must clarify whether this profile is derived from independent hydrodynamic simulations or observations, or whether its functional form and peak value are adjusted to match the target spectra; if the latter, the claim that advection alone suffices without a diffusion break becomes a fitted result rather than an independent prediction.
  2. [results on spectral reproduction] The central claim that advection dominates the transport equation at the relevant altitudes and produces the observed features while diffusion remains a pure power law requires explicit demonstration of robustness. Modest changes to the acceleration height, peak location, or inclusion of a modest z-dependent diffusion term should be shown not to alter the required spectral index or eliminate the need for the specific v(z).
  3. [Fermi-bubble discussion] The reported hard spectrum (index ~2) at 3-5 kpc is used to argue favorability for the Fermi-bubble gamma rays. Quantitative comparison of the predicted gamma-ray spectrum (including normalization and index) to Fermi-LAT data, together with uncertainty ranges arising from the wind parameters, is needed to substantiate this link.
minor comments (3)
  1. [abstract] The abstract states 'a few hundred GV' and 'a few TV'; explicit rigidity ranges (e.g., 200-500 GV and 1-10 TV) would improve precision.
  2. [metal-budget section] The Be/O ratio discussion would benefit from a direct numerical comparison to observed halo or disk values and from an estimate of the uncertainty introduced by the adopted wind mass-loss rate.
  3. [equations and figures] Notation for the wind velocity v(z) and the diffusion coefficient D(R) should be defined once at first use and kept consistent throughout the equations and figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the text accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [model description / velocity profile] The velocity profile reaching ~700 km s^{-1} is presented as reproducing the hardening and softening (abstract and model section). The manuscript must clarify whether this profile is derived from independent hydrodynamic simulations or observations, or whether its functional form and peak value are adjusted to match the target spectra; if the latter, the claim that advection alone suffices without a diffusion break becomes a fitted result rather than an independent prediction.

    Authors: The velocity profile is phenomenological and constructed to be broadly consistent with observational estimates of galactic wind speeds and results from hydrodynamic simulations of disk outflows, which commonly reach velocities of several hundred km/s. The specific functional form and peak value of ~700 km/s were selected to reproduce the target cosmic-ray spectra while retaining a pure power-law diffusion coefficient. We have revised the model description section to state this explicitly and to frame the result as a demonstration that advection by a realistic wind profile can account for the observed features without a diffusion break, rather than as a direct first-principles prediction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [results on spectral reproduction] The central claim that advection dominates the transport equation at the relevant altitudes and produces the observed features while diffusion remains a pure power law requires explicit demonstration of robustness. Modest changes to the acceleration height, peak location, or inclusion of a modest z-dependent diffusion term should be shown not to alter the required spectral index or eliminate the need for the specific v(z).

    Authors: We agree that explicit robustness tests strengthen the central claim. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection with additional calculations showing that shifts in acceleration height of ±2 kpc and modest changes in the location of the velocity peak preserve the spectral hardening below ~1 TV and softening above a few TV. We also present a case with a weakly z-dependent diffusion coefficient (20% variation) and confirm that advection continues to dominate the transport, leaving the required spectral features intact. These results are now shown in a new figure. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Fermi-bubble discussion] The reported hard spectrum (index ~2) at 3-5 kpc is used to argue favorability for the Fermi-bubble gamma rays. Quantitative comparison of the predicted gamma-ray spectrum (including normalization and index) to Fermi-LAT data, together with uncertainty ranges arising from the wind parameters, is needed to substantiate this link.

    Authors: We have expanded the Fermi-bubbles discussion to include a more quantitative estimate of the expected gamma-ray spectral index (~2) arising from the hard CR spectrum at 3–5 kpc and to note its consistency with the observed Fermi-LAT index. However, a full forward-modeling of the gamma-ray spectrum (including absolute normalization and detailed propagation of wind-parameter uncertainties) would require additional assumptions about bubble geometry, target gas density, and magnetic-field structure that lie outside the scope of the present CR-transport study. We have added a brief discussion of these limitations and uncertainties while emphasizing that the CR spectrum we derive can serve as input for dedicated Fermi-bubbles modeling. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Velocity profile tuned to reproduce observed CR spectral features

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "The spectral hardening from a few hundred GV and softening from a few TV are reproduced by a velocity profile with a maximum velocity of ∼700 km s^{-1} without introducing a break in the power-law dependence of the diffusion coefficient."

    The specific maximum velocity (~700 km/s) is introduced as the profile that reproduces the target spectral hardening/softening features. This makes the claimed reproduction a direct consequence of selecting the advection strength to match the local CR data, rather than an independent outcome from hydrodynamics or external constraints.

full rationale

The paper's central result is that spectral hardening below ~1 TV and softening above can be reproduced via advection in a galactic wind model with a specific v(z) peaking at ~700 km/s, while keeping diffusion as a pure power law. The abstract explicitly presents this maximum velocity as the value that achieves the reproduction. This constitutes a fitted input (the wind profile parameters) whose output is the match to the very spectra used to select it, reducing independence of the no-break conclusion. The model then extends to implications for Fermi bubbles and metal budget, but the load-bearing spectral claim rests on this tuning. No self-citation chains or self-definitional loops are identifiable from the given text; the circularity is partial and limited to the profile choice.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a fitted wind velocity profile and the assumption that advection alone, with unbroken power-law diffusion, suffices to explain the data; these are not derived from first principles or external benchmarks within the provided abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • maximum galactic wind velocity = ~700 km/s
    Chosen to reproduce the observed cosmic ray spectral hardening from hundreds of GV and softening above a few TV.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Diffusion coefficient follows a single power-law dependence with no breaks
    Invoked to demonstrate that wind advection can account for the spectral features without additional diffusion modifications.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5705 in / 1506 out tokens · 71082 ms · 2026-05-21T13:22:59.525859+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Albert, A., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/64 2014

  2. [2]

    C., Bazilevskaya, G

    Adriani, O., Barbarino, G. C., Bazilevskaya, G. A., et al. 2011, Science, 332, 69, doi: 10.1126/science.1199172

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1199172 2011

  3. [3]

    2020, PhRvL, 125, 251102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.251102

    Adriani, O., Akaike, Y., Asano, K., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 125, 251102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.251102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.251102 2020

  4. [4]

    2022a, PhRvL, 129, 101102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.101102

    Adriani, O., Akaike, Y., Asano, K., et al. 2022a, PhRvL, 129, 101102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.101102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.101102

  5. [5]

    2022b, PhRvL, 129, 251103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.251103

    Adriani, O., Akaike, Y., Asano, K., et al. 2022b, PhRvL, 129, 251103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.251103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.251103

  6. [6]

    2023, PhRvL, 130, 171002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.171002

    Adriani, O., Akaike, Y., Asano, K., et al. 2023, PhRvL, 130, 171002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.171002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.171002 2023

  7. [7]

    Aguilar, D

    Aguilar, M., Aisa, D., Alpat, B., et al. 2015, PhRvL, 114, 171103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.171103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.171103 2015

  8. [8]

    2017, PhRvL, 119, 251101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251101

    Aguilar, M., Ali Cavasonza, L., Alpat, B., et al. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 251101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.251101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.251101 2017

  9. [9]

    2018, PhRvL, 120, 021101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.021101 Figure 8.CR O and N spectra atz= 0 andt= 1 Gyr (solid lines)

    Aguilar, M., Ali Cavasonza, L., Ambrosi, G., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 021101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.021101 Figure 8.CR O and N spectra atz= 0 andt= 1 Gyr (solid lines). The data points are from CALET (red, O. Adriani et al. 2020), AMS-02 (green, M. Aguilar et al. 2017; M. Aguilar et al. 2018), DAMPE, and Voyager (purple, A. C. Cummings et al. 2016)...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.021101 2018

  10. [10]

    2018, Phys

    Aguilar, M., Ali Cavasonza, L., Alpat, B., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 051103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.051103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.051103 2018

  11. [11]

    2025, Phys

    Alemanno, F., Altomare, C., An, Q., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 134, 191001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.191001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.191001 2025

  12. [12]

    2013, JCAP, 2013, 001, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/07/001

    Aloisio, R., & Blasi, P. 2013, JCAP, 2013, 001, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/07/001

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/07/001 2013

  13. [13]

    2019, Science Advances, 5, eaax3793, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax3793

    An, Q., Asfandiyarov, R., Azzarello, P., et al. 2019, Science Advances, 5, eaax3793, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax3793

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax3793 2019

  14. [14]

    Johnson, J. A. 2017, ApJ, 835, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/224

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/224 2017

  15. [15]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac41d1

    Asano, K., Asaoka, Y., Akaike, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac41d1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac41d1 2022

  16. [16]

    J., Lockman, F

    Ashley, T., Fox, A. J., Lockman, F. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cb7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cb7 2024

  17. [17]

    Blasi, P., Amato, E., & Serpico, P. D. 2012, PhRvL, 109, 061101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.061101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.061101 2012

  18. [18]

    1988, ApJ, 324, 248, doi: 10.1086/165892

    Thaddeus, P. 1988, ApJ, 324, 248, doi: 10.1086/165892

    work page doi:10.1086/165892 1988

  19. [19]

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

    Collaboration, DAMPE., Alemanno, F., An, Q., et al. 2025, Charge-Dependent Spectral Softenings of Primary Cosmic-Rays from Proton to Iron below the Knee, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.05409

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.05409 2025

  20. [20]

    C., Stone, E

    Cummings, A. C., Stone, E. C., Heikkila, B. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/18

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/18 2016

  21. [21]

    2023, in Proceedings of 27th European Cosmic Ray Symposium — PoS(ECRS), Vol

    Dimiccoli, F. 2023, in Proceedings of 27th European Cosmic Ray Symposium — PoS(ECRS), Vol. 423, 068, doi: 10.22323/1.423.0068

    work page doi:10.22323/1.423.0068 2023

  22. [22]

    A., & Breitschwerdt, D

    Dorfi, E. A., & Breitschwerdt, D. 2012, A&A, 540, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118082

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118082 2012

  23. [23]

    2019, PhRvD, 99, 103023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103023

    Evoli, C., Aloisio, R., & Blasi, P. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 103023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103023

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.103023 2019

  24. [24]

    2018a, PhRvL, 121, 021102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.021102

    Evoli, C., Blasi, P., Morlino, G., & Aloisio, R. 2018a, PhRvL, 121, 021102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.021102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.021102

  25. [25]

    2018b, JCAP, 2018, 006, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/006

    Evoli, C., Gaggero, D., Vittino, A., et al. 2018b, JCAP, 2018, 006, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/006

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/006 2018

  26. [26]

    J., Cˆ ot´ e, P., McConnachie, A

    Fantin, N. J., Cˆ ot´ e, P., McConnachie, A. W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5521

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5521 2019

  27. [27]

    J., Brook, C

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5 2019

  28. [28]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 3042, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1653

    Girichidis, P., Naab, T., Hanasz, M., & Walch, S. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3042, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1653

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1653 2018

  29. [29]

    A., & Burton, W

    Gordon, M. A., & Burton, W. B. 1976, ApJ, 208, 346, doi: 10.1086/154613

    work page doi:10.1086/154613 1976

  30. [30]

    J., Hogg, D

    Griffith, E. J., Hogg, D. W., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 280, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc07f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc07f 2025

  31. [31]

    2018, PhRvD, 97, 063008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.063008

    Guo, Y.-Q., & Yuan, Q. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 063008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.063008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.063008 2018

  32. [32]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae302

    Hayakawa, T., & Fukui, Y. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae302

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae302 2024

  33. [33]

    D., Di Matteo P., Snaith O., Schultheis M., Katz D., G \'o mez A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...589A..66H 589, A66

    Haywood, M., Lehnert, M. D., Di Matteo, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527567

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527567 2016

  34. [34]

    C., et al

    Heger, A., Kolbe, E., Haxton, W. C., et al. 2005, Physics Letters B, 606, 258, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2004.12.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.12.017 2005

  35. [35]

    W., Weinberg, D

    Johnson, J. W., Weinberg, D. H., Blanc, G. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addbe5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addbe5 2025

  36. [36]

    2021, ApJ, 917, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0a71 12

    Kawanaka, N., & Lee, S.-H. 2021, ApJ, 917, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0a71 12

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0a71 2021

  37. [37]

    I., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04416.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.325..231O 325, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  38. [38]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/120

    Lionello, R., Velli, M., Downs, C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/2/120 2014

  39. [39]

    2017, PhRvD, 96, 023006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023006

    Liu, W., Bi, X.-J., Lin, S.-J., Wang, B.-B., & Yin, P.-F. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 023006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.023006 2017

  40. [40]

    Lockman, F. J. 1984, ApJ, 283, 90, doi: 10.1086/162277

    work page doi:10.1086/162277 1984

  41. [41]

    2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    Lodders, K., & Palme, H. 2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    work page 2009

  42. [42]

    Interactions of Cosmic Ray Nuclei

    Mannheim, K., & Schlickeiser, R. 1994, A&A, 286, 983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9402042

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9402042 1994

  43. [43]

    W., de Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M., et al

    McIntosh, S. W., de Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M., et al. 2011, Nature, 475, 477, doi: 10.1038/nature10235

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10235 2011

  44. [44]

    J., & Bregman, J

    Miller, M. J., & Bregman, J. N. 2015, ApJ, 800, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/14 2015

  45. [45]

    2019, A&A, 624, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935105

    Luri, X. 2019, A&A, 624, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935105

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935105 2019

  46. [46]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacceb

    Nakashima, S., Inoue, Y., Yamasaki, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacceb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacceb 2018

  47. [47]

    2006, title Nucleosynthesis yields of core-collapse supernovae and hypernovae, and galactic chemical evolution , , 777, 424, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008

    Maeda, K. 2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 424, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008 2006

  48. [48]

    2012, A&A, 542, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219043 Rodr´ ıguez-Puebla, A., Behroozi, P., Primack, J., et al

    Prantzos, N. 2012, A&A, 542, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219043 Rodr´ ıguez-Puebla, A., Behroozi, P., Primack, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1705

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219043 2012

  49. [49]

    K., & Zweibel, E

    Ruszkowski, M., Yang, H.-Y. K., & Zweibel, E. 2017, ApJ, 834, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/208

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/208 2017

  50. [50]

    R., & Field, G

    Shapiro, P. R., & Field, G. B. 1976, ApJ, 205, 762, doi: 10.1086/154332

    work page doi:10.1086/154332 1976

  51. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.18474, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.18474

    Shimoda, J., & Asano, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.18474, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.18474

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.18474 2024

  52. [52]

    Interplay between Escaping Cosmic Rays and Interstellar Medium: Driving of Galactic Winds and Shaping the Local Proton Spectrum

    Shimoda, J., Asano, K., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07239, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.07239

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.07239 2025

  53. [53]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4110

    Shimoda, J., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2022, ApJ, 926, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4110

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4110 2022

  54. [54]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 81, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad081

    Shimoda, J., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Nagashima, M. 2024, PASJ, 76, 81, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad081

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psad081 2024

  55. [55]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd48

    Sieverding, A., Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, G., Huther, L., Langanke, K., & Heger, A. 2018, ApJ, 865, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd48

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadd48 2018

  56. [56]

    W., & Moskalenko, I

    Strong, A. W., & Moskalenko, I. V. 1998, ApJ, 509, 212, doi: 10.1086/306470

    work page doi:10.1086/306470 1998

  57. [57]

    R., & Finkbeiner, D

    Su, M., Slatyer, T. R., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1044, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1044

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/2/1044 2010

  58. [58]

    M., & Giacinti, G

    Taylor, A. M., & Giacinti, G. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 023001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.023001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.023001 2017

  59. [59]

    Thoudam, S., & H¨ orandel, J. R. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1209, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20385.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20385.x 2012

  60. [60]

    Thoudam, S., & H¨ orandel, J. R. 2014, A&A, 567, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322996

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322996 2014

  61. [61]

    2012, ApJL, 752, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L13

    Tomassetti, N. 2012, ApJL, 752, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L13

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/l13 2012

  62. [62]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 2017

  63. [63]

    Porter, T. A. 2012, ApJ, 752, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/68

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/1/68 2012

  64. [64]

    Haxton, W. C. 1990, ApJ, 356, 272, doi: 10.1086/168839

    work page doi:10.1086/168839 1990

  65. [65]

    A time-resolved picture of our Milky Way’s early formation history,

    Xiang, M., & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5 2022

  66. [66]

    M., Manchester R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 2017

  67. [67]

    G., Wardle, M., et al

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Arendt, R. G., Wardle, M., et al. 2022, ApJL, 925, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4802

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac4802 2022