Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Astrophysical origins of TeV features in the cosmic-ray lepton spectrum

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Nearby pulsars can make TeV electron features only as smooth, age-dependent cutoffs.

desk verdict Systematic beta_eff map of pulsar electron features; solid and honest, but the 'sharp edge' diagnostic lacks a demonstrated environmental bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09336 v1 pith:CDOWHF3D submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.HE

Zhen Xie , Ruizhi Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmic-rayelectronspositronspulsarwindnebulaeinverse-ComptoncoolingKlein-Nishinascatteringdiffusion-lossequationTeVspectralfeaturesdarkmatterinterpretation
topics Dark Matter
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 asks whether the TeV-scale structures seen in the cosmic-ray electron and positron spectrum can be produced by ordinary nearby sources, pulsars and supernova remnants, within a single diffusion-loss propagation framework. It shows that once inverse-Compton cooling is treated stochastically with the Klein–Nishina kernel, the sharp cooling edge predicted by continuous-loss approximations becomes a broad, age-dependent decline with effective sharpness parameter $\beta_{\rm eff}$ between roughly 1.3 and 3.6. Continuous-injection pulsars inherit a moderately sharp falloff from an assumed super-exponential intrinsic cutoff, with $\beta_{\rm eff}$ near 2, while a supernova-remnant-like burst template is broader. The upshot is that only a very sharp and stable edge-like feature would be difficult to explain with ordinary pulsar propagation and would strengthen the case for dark-matter or other exotic origins.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Green-function solution of the diffusion-loss equation for a point-like burst or continuous source, combined with a Monte Carlo treatment of inverse-Compton cooling. Instead of a deterministic loss law $b(E)=b_0 E^2$, each injected electron's trajectory samples individual inverse-Compton scatterings with the isotropic Klein–Nishina kernel against the tabulated interstellar radiation field, path-averaged optical, infrared, and CMB components along the line of sight of a nearby mature pulsar, while synchrotron losses are treated continuously with $B = 3\,\mu$G. Each trajectory carries a diffusion weight computed from the integrated diffusion coefficient along its cooled path. This machinery is what converts the sharp deterministic cooling boundary into the broadened, age-dependent declines characterized by $\beta_{\rm eff}$.

What would settle it

Take a high-resolution all-electron spectrum across a TeV feature and fit its post-peak decline with $A E^{-p}\exp[-(E/E_{\rm eff})^{\beta_{\rm eff}}]$; if $\beta_{\rm eff}$ comes out consistently above about 4 and independent of the fitted energy window or assumed source age, then the paper's claim that ordinary pulsar propagation cannot produce a sharp stable edge would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, this paper's central claim is that the apparent sharpness of any TeV-scale feature in the all-electron spectrum is a usable diagnostic: naive deterministic cooling predicts a narrow edge, but realistic stochastic inverse-Compton losses broaden it to effective indices $\beta_{\rm eff}\sim 1.3$--$3.6$ that vary with source age, while continuous injection yields $\beta_{\rm eff}\sim 2$ inherited from the source cutoff and a supernova-remnant-like burst source yields $\beta_{\rm eff}\simeq 2.7$. Consequently, a very sharp and stable edge-like feature would be difficult to accommodate with ordinary pulsar propagation and would strengthen the case for alternative origins. The claim is established by constructing the diffuse background from a calibrated propagation-code ensemble, then adding discrete-source Green-function solutions with radiative losses, with stochastic inverse-Compton scattering sampled through a Klein–Nishina Monte Carlo using a path-averaged interstellar radiation field along the line of sight of a nearby mature pulsar.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative sharpness values hinge on the assumed local radiation and magnetic environment—a path-averaged interstellar radiation field along one nearby pulsar's line of sight and a uniform 3 microgauss field—together with a fixed diffusion law, so if those environmental parameters differ, the fitted $\beta_{\rm eff}$ values shift, although the qualitative broadening is likely robust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a TeV feature is really a cooling-broadened pulsar contribution, its post-peak sharpness should vary smoothly with source age, giving $\beta_{\rm eff}$ from about 1.3 for a young source to 3.6 for an old one rather than a stable universal edge.
  • The sharpest pulsar-like feature allowed by this treatment has $\beta_{\rm eff}\simeq 2$, and that requires a super-exponential intrinsic cutoff in the injected pair spectrum; the sharpness is inherited, not produced by propagation.
  • A burst-like mature pulsar at roughly 500 pc needs about $5\times10^{47}$ erg of injected pairs at 100 kyr and about $5\times10^{48}$ erg at 300 kyr to reach 10% of the diffuse background at 1 TeV, so older examples are energetically demanding.
  • A young continuous-injection pulsar at roughly 100 pc can plausibly explain a TeV component for ages around 10 kyr, with a required power of about $1\times10^{34}$ erg/s, but a 300-year-old source would require a power that only the most energetic pulsars could supply.
  • A supernova-remnant-like burst template gives the broadest contribution, $\beta_{\rm eff}\simeq 2.7$, so it is the least able to mimic a particle-physics edge.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Running the diagnostic in reverse: once future high-resolution measurements fit a feature's post-peak decline, $\beta_{\rm eff}$ becomes a cheap classification statistic, with values near 2–3 favoring local astrophysical sources and values above about 4 with no source-age dependence shifting the balance toward exotic origins.
  • The same stochastic inverse-Compton Monte Carlo could be applied to dark-matter-induced electron signals, since those signals also suffer radiative losses; this would put astrophysical and exotic interpretations on equal footing when comparing the shapes of their high-energy cutoffs.
  • The path-averaged interstellar radiation field is the main environmental input, so independent maps of the local radiation and magnetic environment from gamma-ray and radio observations could tighten the allowed $\beta_{\rm eff}$ range for pulsar interpretations.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript revisits the interpretation of TeV-scale features in the cosmic-ray all-electron spectrum. It constructs a diffuse electron/positron background from a retained ensemble of 64 GALPROP configurations, normalized at 100 GeV, and shows that the ensemble remains smooth without narrow structures. For local sources, it solves the diffusion-loss Green function for burst-like and continuous injection histories, and implements a Monte Carlo that treats synchrotron losses continuously while sampling individual inverse-Compton scatterings with the Klein-Nishina kernel on a path-averaged ISRF. The empirical post-peak sharpness parameter beta_eff is tabulated for the propagated templates. The paper then normalizes three illustrative source templates to the two highest-energy DAMPE points and concludes that smooth or cooling-broadened features are compatible with pulsars, whereas a very sharp and stable edge would be more difficult to accommodate with ordinary pulsar propagation and would strengthen the case for alternative origins.

Significance. The paper is valuable because it formulates the astrophysical-versus-exotic diagnostic in terms of a measurable shape parameter, uses a physically motivated GALPROP background rather than an ad hoc broken power law, and includes stochastic inverse-Compton cooling with a reasonably detailed treatment of the Klein-Nishina kernel and the local ISRF. The Monte Carlo description is transparent, convergence checks are reported, and the illustrative character of the DAMPE normalization is explicitly acknowledged. If the central claim survives a wider parameter-space exploration, the result would be a useful guide for interpreting upcoming DAMPE, HERD, and other high-energy lepton measurements. The main weakness is that the headline conclusion is currently supported by a single environmental setup, so the paper does not yet establish the claimed upper bound on spectral sharpness.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III and Table I] The central Sec. V claim that a very sharp and stable edge would be difficult to accommodate with ordinary pulsar propagation is supported only by beta_eff values computed for one environmental setup: B = 3 uG and the path-averaged Popescu et al. ISRF along the Geminga line of sight. Because the stochastic broadening of the cooling edge is controlled by the fraction of energy lost in discrete inverse-Compton scatterings relative to continuous synchrotron losses, a pulsar propagating through a region with stronger magnetic field and/or weaker radiation field would cool more continuously and could exhibit a sharper edge. The paper does not scan over B, ISRF normalization, injection index, or Ecut, so Table I does not provide an upper bound on beta_eff for ordinary pulsar propagation. I request a parameter scan (for example B = 1-10 uG and ISRF scaled by 0.1-3) with a discussion of how the conclusion shifts, or a careful restriction of the conclusion to the local Geminga-like environment.
  2. [Sec. V] The diagnostic statement 'a very sharp and stable edge-like feature' is not given a quantitative definition. The manuscript does not specify the beta_eff threshold above which a pulsar origin would be excluded, and beta_eff itself depends on the fitting window, the smoothing kernel, and the fixed p values used in Table I. The paper also does not quantify 'stable', although Table I shows beta_eff varying from 1.29 to 3.61 with source age. Without a target shape or a comparison of predicted beta_eff distributions against future data, the central claim is not falsifiable. The authors should either define an explicit quantitative criterion or soften the conclusion to a qualitative remark.
  3. [Fig. 3] The comparison between the dashed continuous-loss curves and the solid stochastic-IC curves does not isolate the effect of stochasticity: the two calculations also differ in the energy dependence of the loss rate because the Monte Carlo uses a Klein-Nishina-reduced inverse-Compton rate while the dashed curves use b(E) = b0 E^2. The text acknowledges this in Sec. III, but Sec. V attributes the broadened decline to stochastic inverse-Compton cooling. To make the mechanism claim clean, the authors should compare the stochastic run against a Monte Carlo with the same Klein-Nishina loss rate treated continuously, or explicitly state throughout the conclusions that the broadening is a combined stochastic-plus-Klein-Nishina effect.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. II] The phrase 'common propagation framework' in the abstract is stronger than what is implemented: the diffuse background uses GALPROP models, while the discrete-source calculation uses a fixed simple diffusion-loss setup with D0 = 4.3e28 cm^2/s, delta = 0.415, and b0 = 1e-16 GeV^-1 s^-1. Please clarify the relation between these two propagation descriptions.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The label 'cutoff fit' in the legend could be confused with the dashed continuous-loss curves; consider renaming the empirical fits to 'empirical cutoff fit' or similar.
  3. [Table I] The heading 'T[kyr]' in the continuous-injection group is followed by values such as 0.1 and 0.3; adding units explicitly in the table header or a footnote would avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. IV and Ref. [49]] There is a missing space in 'Kobayashiet al.' in Sec. IV, and the title of Ref. [49] contains an unusual capitalization/style ('Dampe squib?'); please check against the published record.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the diagnostic conclusion is supported by forward-modeled propagation and cooling calculations with literature-based inputs; the DAMPE normalization is explicitly illustrative.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The diffuse background is built from an independently calibrated GALPROP ensemble (selected by 9Be/10Be and gamma-ray constraints), normalized at 100 GeV only to compare spectral shape; no high-energy electron structure is fitted into the background. The pulsar templates in Sec. III are generated by forward Monte Carlo propagation with fixed literature inputs (D0, delta, b0, ISRF from Popescu et al., B=3 uG), and the beta_eff values in Table I are diagnostic fits to these model spectra, not fits to the data. The paper explicitly labels the Sec. IV use of the two highest-energy DAMPE points as illustrative: 'These estimates are not intended as evidence for a statistically significant excess.' The central claim that ordinary pulsar propagation yields moderate, age-dependent sharpness (beta_eff ~1.3-3.6 for stochastic-IC bursts, ~2 for continuous injection) follows from the forward calculation, not from the DAMPE normalization. The self-citations (Refs. [33] and [43], with author R. Yang) supply model-selection criteria and ISRF tables that are external, parameter-free inputs independent of the interpreted electron data; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as proof of the conclusion. The agreement with John & Linden [44] is external corroboration. A possible gap is that the paper does not scan the full environmental parameter space (B, ISRF normalization, injection cutoff sharpness), but an incomplete bound is a correctness/completeness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes physical modeling with standard equations, but its quantitative outputs depend on literature-provided propagation parameters (D0, delta, b0), a chosen ISRF and B-field, a set of injection spectral shapes, and normalization choices. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Phi0 = normalization at 100 GeV (set to median GALPROP flux)
    Free normalization in the smoothly broken power law parameterization of the median background in Sec. II.
  • Background fit parameters = gamma1=3.12, gamma2=4.52, Eb=1.37 TeV, s=0.206
    Best-fit parameters of the smoothly broken power law to the median GALPROP spectrum; they are descriptive, not physical.
  • Injection spectral indices and cutoffs = gamma=1.5, Ecut=10 TeV (burst pulsar); gamma=1.0, Ecut=500 GeV (continuous pulsar); gamma=2.4, Ecut=20 TeV (SNR)
    Chosen to represent plausible, in one case deliberately extreme, local source injections; they determine the propagated shapes and beta_eff.
  • Sec. IV source normalizations = W_e~8e46 erg (burst), Wdot_e~6e33 erg/s (continuous), W_e~4e47 erg (SNR)
    Normalized to the two highest-energy DAMPE residuals relative to the median GALPROP background; explicitly illustrative.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The GALPROP v54 ensemble, with models failing 9Be/10Be removed, represents the conventional diffuse all-electron background.
    Introduced in Sec. II; the background shapes used for normalization and for the DAMPE residual comparison come from these models.
  • domain assumption Electron propagation obeys D(E)=D0(E/4 GeV)^0.415 and b(E)=b0 E^2 with D0=4.3e28 cm^2/s and b0=1e-16 GeV^-1 s^-1.
    Sec. III fixes these parameters instead of scanning the GALPROP ensemble, so source-template results depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption The path-averaged ISRF along the Geminga line of sight and a uniform B=3 uG describe the local cooling environment.
    Used in the stochastic IC Monte Carlo; the alternative that the environment differs is not explored.
  • standard math Klein-Nishina inverse-Compton scattering and continuous synchrotron cooling are the relevant energy-loss mechanisms for TeV electrons.
    Standard treatment used throughout Sec. III.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Astrophysical origins of TeV features in the cosmic-ray lepton spectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CDOWHF3D

@misc{pith2026260809336,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Astrophysical origins of TeV features in the cosmic-ray lepton spectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CDOWHF3D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09336}
}
read the original abstract

Precise measurements of high-energy cosmic-ray electrons and positrons have revealed spectral structures that are difficult to capture with a single smooth power-law background. The rising positron fraction measured by PAMELA and AMS-02, together with the all-electron excess reported by ATIC and the high-precision all-electron spectrum measured by DAMPE, has motivated interpretations ranging from nearby astrophysical accelerators to dark-matter annihilation or decay. In this work we revisit the conventional diffuse electron background and the possible contribution from nearby pulsars in a common propagation framework. The diffuse component is modeled with GALPROP configurations calibrated by cosmic-ray nuclei and diffuse gamma-ray observations. We then use the Green-function solution for nearby discrete sources with radiative losses to study pulsar contributions with both burst-like and continuous injection histories, including the effect of stochastic inverse-Compton cooling on the propagated spectra. We also use the highest-energy DAMPE data points as an illustrative case to compare possible local-source contributions from pulsars and supernova-remnant-like burst sources. The spectral shape of such features provides a useful diagnostic for distinguishing physically plausible nearby-source features from more exotic interpretations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09336 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of representative GALPROP all-electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diffuse all-electron backgrounds obtained from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Burst-like propagated electron spectra for a source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Propagated electron spectra for the continuous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Illustrative local-source contributions normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko, and V. S. Ptuskin, Cosmic-ray propagation and interactions in the galaxy, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science57, 285 9 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Blasi, The origin of galactic cosmic rays, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review21, 70 (2013)

    P. Blasi, The origin of galactic cosmic rays, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review21, 70 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    P. D. Serpico, Astrophysical models for the origin of the positron “excess”, Astroparticle Physics39–40, 2 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Delahaye, J

    T. Delahaye, J. Lavalle, R. Lineros, F. Donato, and N. Fornengo, Galactic electrons and positrons at the earth: new estimate of the primary and secondary fluxes, Astronomy and Astrophysics524, A51 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    C. S. Shen, Pulsars and very high-energy cosmic-ray elec- trons, Astrophysical Journal Letters162, L181 (1970)

    work page 1970

  6. [6]

    Nishimura, M

    J. Nishimura, M. Fujii, T. Taira, E. Aizu, H. Hiraiwa, T. Kobayashi, K. Niu, I. Ohta, R. L. Golden, T. A. Koss, J. J. Lord, and R. J. Wilkes, Emulsion chamber observa- tions of primary cosmic-ray electrons in the energy range 30–1000 gev, Astrophysical Journal238, 394 (1980)

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    A. M. Atoyan, F. A. Aharonian, and H. J. V¨ olk, Elec- trons and positrons in the galactic cosmic rays, Physical Review D52, 3265 (1995)

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    F. A. Aharonian, A. M. Atoyan, and H. J. V¨ olk, High energy electrons and positrons in cosmic rays as an in- dicator of the existence of a nearby cosmic tevatron, As- tronomy and Astrophysics294, L41 (1995)

    work page 1995

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    showed that nearby remnants can imprint identifi- able, source-dependent structures in the 1–10 TeV elec- tron spectrum. We therefore use the two highest-energy DAMPE points as an illustrative estimate of what kind of local source component would be required, without interpret...

  2. [10]

    Adrianiet al., An anomalous positron abundance in cosmic rays with energies 1.5–100 gev, Nature458, 607 (2009)

    O. Adrianiet al., An anomalous positron abundance in cosmic rays with energies 1.5–100 gev, Nature458, 607 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    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, Astrophysical Journal601, 340 (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    Aguilaret al.(AMS Collaboration), Towards under- standing the origin of cosmic-ray positrons, Physical Re- view Letters122, 041102 (2019)

    M. Aguilaret al.(AMS Collaboration), Towards under- standing the origin of cosmic-ray positrons, Physical Re- view Letters122, 041102 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    M. Aguilaret al.(AMS Collaboration), First result from the alpha magnetic spectrometer on the international space station: Precision measurement of the positron fraction in primary cosmic rays of 0.5–350 gev, Physical Review Letters110, 141102 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    A. A. Abdoet al.(Fermi LAT Collaboration), Measure- ment of the cosmic raye + +e − spectrum from 20 gev to 1 tev with the fermi large area telescope, Physical Review Letters102, 181101 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Chang, J

    J. Chang, J. H. Adams, H. S. Ahn, G. L. Bashindzhagyan, M. Christl, O. Ganel, T. G. Guzik, J. Isbert, K. C. Kim, E. N. Kuznetsov, M. I. Panasyuk, A. D. Panov, W. K. H. Schmidt, E. S. Seo, N. V. Sokol- skaya, J. W. Watts, J. P. Wefel, J. Wu, and V. I. Zatsepin, An excess of cos...

    2008

  8. [16]

    Aharonianet al.(H.E.S.S

    F. Aharonianet al.(H.E.S.S. Collaboration), Probing the atic peak in the cosmic-ray electron spectrum with h.e.s.s., Astronomy and Astrophysics508, 561 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Aharonianet al.(H.E.S.S

    F. Aharonianet al.(H.E.S.S. Collaboration), Energy spectrum of cosmic-ray electrons at tev energies, Physical Review Letters101, 261104 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Ambrosiet al.(DAMPE Collaboration), Direct detec- tion of a break in the teraelectronvolt cosmic-ray spec- trum of electrons and positrons, Nature552, 63 (2017)

    G. Ambrosiet al.(DAMPE Collaboration), Direct detec- tion of a break in the teraelectronvolt cosmic-ray spec- trum of electrons and positrons, Nature552, 63 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    O. Adrianiet al.(CALET Collaboration), Energy spec- trum of cosmic-ray electron and positron from 10 gev to 3 tev observed with the calorimetric electron telescope on the international space station, Physical Review Letters 119, 181101 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, A theory of dark matter, Physical Review D 79, 015014 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Bergstr¨ om, T

    L. Bergstr¨ om, T. Bringmann, and J. Edsj¨ o, New positron spectral features from supersymmetric dark matter: A way to explain the PAMELA data?, Physical Review D 78, 103520 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT Collaboration), Search- ing for dark matter annihilation from milky way dwarf spheroidal galaxies with six years of fermi large area tele- scope data, Physical Review Letters115, 231301 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Cirelli, M

    M. Cirelli, M. Kadastik, M. Raidal, and A. Strumia, Model-independent implications of thee ±, anti-proton cosmic ray spectra on properties of dark matter, Nuclear Physics B813, 1 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    M. Aguilaret al.(AMS Collaboration), Antiproton flux, antiproton-to-proton flux ratio, and properties of ele- mentary particle fluxes in primary cosmic rays measured with the alpha magnetic spectrometer on the interna- tional space station, Physical Review Letters117, 091103 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    T. R. Slatyer, Energy injection and absorption in the cosmic dark ages, Physical Review D93, 023527 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Kargaltsev and G

    O. Kargaltsev and G. G. Pavlov, Pulsar wind nebulae in the chandra era, AIP Conf. Proc.983, 171 (2008), arXiv:0801.2602 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    B. M. Gaensler and P. O. Slane, The evolution and struc- ture of pulsar wind nebulae, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys.44, 17 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601081

    2006 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Y¨ uksel, M

    H. Y¨ uksel, M. D. Kistler, and T. Stanev, TeV gamma rays from geminga and the origin of the gev positron excess, Physical Review Letters103, 051101 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Hooper, P

    D. Hooper, P. Blasi, and P. D. Serpico, Pulsars as the sources of high energy cosmic ray positrons, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2009(01), 025

  22. [30]

    S. N. Zhang, O. Adriani, S. Albergo, G. Ambrosi, Q. An, T. W. Bao, G. Barbiellini, E. Berti, R. Dai, A. D’Amone, et al., The high energy cosmic-radiation detection facility onboard china’s space station, Proceedings of SPIE9144, 91440X (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Profumo, Dissecting cosmic-ray electron-positron data with occam’s razor: the role of known pulsars, Central European Journal of Physics10, 1 (2012)

    S. Profumo, Dissecting cosmic-ray electron-positron data with occam’s razor: the role of known pulsars, Central European Journal of Physics10, 1 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Ackermann, M

    M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, W. B. Atwood,et al.(Fermi- LAT Collaboration), Fermi-lat observations of the dif- fuseγ-ray emission: Implications for cosmic rays and the interstellar medium, The Astrophysical Journal750, 3 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    A. E. Vladimirov, S. W. Digel, G. J´ ohannesson, P. F. Michelson, I. V. Moskalenko, P. L. Nolan, E. Orlando, T. A. Porter, and A. W. Strong, GALPROP WebRun: An internet-based service for calculating galactic cosmic ray propagation and associated photon emissions, Com- puter Ph...

    2011

  26. [34]

    M. Aguilaret al.(AMS Collaboration), Precision mea- surement of the (e + +e −) flux in primary cosmic rays from 0.5 gev to 1 tev with the alpha magnetic spectrom- eter on the international space station, Physical Review Letters113, 221102 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    R.-z. Yang, F. Aharonian, and R. Crocker, The fermi bubbles revisited, Astronomy & Astrophysics567, A19 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Aguilaret al.(AMS Collaboration), Towards under- standing the origin of cosmic-ray electrons, Physical Re- view Letters122, 101101 (2019)

    M. Aguilaret al.(AMS Collaboration), Towards under- standing the origin of cosmic-ray electrons, Physical Re- view Letters122, 101101 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Aharonianet al.(H.E.S.S

    F. Aharonianet al.(H.E.S.S. Collaboration), High- statistics measurement of the cosmic-ray electron spec- 10 trum with h.e.s.s., Physical Review Letters133, 221001 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    M. S. Potgieter, Solar modulation of cosmic rays, Living Reviews in Solar Physics10, 3 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    A. W. Strong, E. Orlando, and T. R. Jaffe, The interstel- lar cosmic-ray electron spectrum from synchrotron radi- ation and direct measurements, Astronomy and Astro- physics534, A54 (2011), arXiv:1108.4822 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Cholis and I

    I. Cholis and I. Krommydas, Utilizing cosmic-ray positron and electron observations to probe the aver- aged properties of milky way pulsars, Phys. Rev. D105, 023015 (2022), arXiv:2111.05864 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Shi and S

    Z.-D. Shi and S. Liu, Origin of cosmic ray electrons and positrons, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485, 3869 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Malyshev, I

    D. Malyshev, I. Cholis, and J. Gelfand, Pulsars ver- sus dark matter interpretation of atic/pamela, Physi- cal Review D80, 063005 (2009), arXiv:0903.1310 [astro- ph.HE]

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    I. V. Moskalenko, A. W. Strong, J. F. Ormes, M. S. Potgi- eter, and U. W. Langner, Secondary antiprotons in cos- mic rays, inProceedings of the 27th International Cos- mic Ray Conference(2001) pp. 1868–1871, arXiv:astro- ph/0106503 [astro-ph]

    2001

  36. [44]

    The second case is a young nearby pulsar that continu- ously injects pairs over its finite lifetime

    and shows that the narrow edge obtained with the conventional continuous-loss approximation is not robust under a more realistic cooling treatment. The second case is a young nearby pulsar that continu- ously injects pairs over its finite lifetime. Here the falling feature is ...

  37. [45]

    C. C. Popescu, R. Yang, R. J. Tuffs, G. Natale, M. Rush- ton, and F. Aharonian, A radiation transfer model for the milky way: I. radiation fields and application to high- energy astrophysics, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society470, 2539–2558 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    John and T

    I. John and T. Linden, Pulsars do not produce sharp features in the cosmic-ray electron and positron spectra, Physical Review D107, 103021 (2023), arXiv:2206.04699 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zhang and K

    L. Zhang and K. S. Cheng, Cosmic-ray positrons from mature gamma-ray pulsars, Astronomy and Astrophysics 368, 1063 (2001)

    2001

  40. [48]

    Hall and D

    J. Hall and D. Hooper, Distinguishing between dark mat- ter and pulsar origins of the atic electron spectrum with atmospheric cherenkov telescopes, Physics Letters B681, 220 (2009), arXiv:0811.3362 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  41. [49]

    R. N. Manchester, G. B. Hobbs, A. Teoh, and M. Hobbs, The atnf pulsar catalogue, Astron. J.129, 1993 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412641

    2005 arXiv

  42. [50]

    O. M. Bitter and D. Hooper, Constraining the milky way’s pulsar population with the cosmic-ray positron fraction, JCAP10, 081, arXiv:2205.05200 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Fowlie, Dampe squib? significance of the 1.4 tev dampe excess, Physics Letters B780, 181 (2018), arXiv:1712.05089 [hep-ph]

    A. Fowlie, Dampe squib? significance of the 1.4 tev dampe excess, Physics Letters B780, 181 (2018), arXiv:1712.05089 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Q. Yuan, L. Feng, and D. M. P. E. Collaboration, In- terpretations of the dampe electron data, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy61, 101002 (2018), arXiv:1711.10989 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Huang, Y.-Z

    X. Huang, Y.-Z. Zhang, and Q. Yuan, Origins of sharp cosmic-ray electron structures and the dampe excess, Physical Review D97, 091701 (2018), arXiv:1712.00005 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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