pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.16796 · v2 · pith:STNLEIIBnew · submitted 2026-06-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

A HINSA view of cosmic-ray ionization in IC 348 and NGC 1333: evidence for a strong low-energy cosmic-ray disparity

Gan Luo , Marco Padovani , Daniele Galli , Thomas G. Bisbas , Brandt A. L. Gaches , Di Li , Marko Kr\v{c}o , Ningyu Tang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 03:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmic-ray ionization rateHINSAmolecular cloudsIC 348NGC 1333low-energy cosmic raysstar-forming regionsgamma-ray observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

IC 348 shows cosmic-ray ionization rates an order of magnitude higher than NGC 1333, indicating strong local differences in low-energy cosmic-ray populations.

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

The paper applies the HINSA technique to map cosmic-ray ionization rates across two nearby low-mass star-forming regions. It reports that rates fall with rising molecular column density in both clouds, yet remain roughly ten times higher throughout IC 348 than in NGC 1333. This contrast is reproduced by fitting low-energy cosmic-ray spectra in a slab-attenuation model that is also anchored to Fermi gamma-ray data. The result implies that local accelerators, rather than a uniform galactic population, dominate the low-energy cosmic rays that ionize the gas. Because ionization controls cloud chemistry and heating, such spatial variations reshape how molecular clouds evolve and form stars.

Core claim

HINSA observations yield cosmic-ray ionization rates that decrease with H2 column density in both IC 348 and NGC 1333, yet remain an order of magnitude higher in IC 348. A finite-slab attenuation model constrained by the high-energy cosmic-ray spectrum from Fermi gamma-ray data reproduces the observed profiles only when the low-energy cosmic-ray spectrum is allowed to differ substantially between the two clouds. The authors conclude that the disparity originates from local acceleration sources beyond protostars, such as stellar-wind termination shocks, and that these sources also contribute to the GeV gamma-ray excess.

What carries the argument

The HINSA (HI narrow self-absorption) technique, which converts observed HI absorption features into cosmic-ray ionization rates, combined with a finite-slab cosmic-ray attenuation model constrained by Fermi gamma-ray spectra.

If this is right

  • Cosmic-ray ionization rates decline with increasing H2 column density inside each cloud.
  • Low-energy cosmic-ray populations differ by roughly an order of magnitude between IC 348 and NGC 1333.
  • Stellar-wind termination shocks and related local accelerators supply the excess low-energy cosmic rays.
  • The same local sources contribute to the observed GeV gamma-ray excess in these regions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If local accelerators dominate low-energy cosmic rays near young stars, ionization rates in other star-forming regions may also vary by large factors.
  • Chemical and dynamical models of molecular clouds will need spatially varying cosmic-ray spectra rather than a single galactic average.
  • Targeted gamma-ray or radio observations of additional clouds could map the distribution of these local cosmic-ray sources.

Load-bearing premise

The order-of-magnitude contrast in HINSA-derived ionization rates between the two clouds reflects genuine differences in low-energy cosmic-ray populations rather than differences in cloud structure, density distribution, or observational biases.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional density and velocity structure model of both clouds that, when inserted into the HINSA analysis pipeline, erases the observed ionization-rate contrast without any change to the cosmic-ray spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.16796 by Brandt A. L. Gaches, Daniele Galli, Di Li, Gan Luo, Marco Padovani, Marko Kr\v{c}o, Ningyu Tang, Thomas G. Bisbas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Panel (a): color map of the HINSA frac￾tion fHINSA toward IC 348. Contours represent N(H2) at 3×1021 cm−2 ×(1,2,3,4,5,10). Crosses mark the positions of B stars. The red rectan￾gle outlines the region mapped in 13CO (3–2). Panel (b): same as Panel (a), for NGC 1333. 3.3. The cosmic-ray ionization rate ζ ion The abundance of molecular hydrogen in the dense, cold regions of a molecular cloud is determined by… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of ζ ion as a function of column density N(H2) to￾ward IC 348 (blue) and NGC 1333 (orange). The prediction of the the￾oretical proton spectrum from Voyager + AMS-02 data (model L from Padovani et al. 2024) is overlaid. Black dots and red squares with er￾ror bars represent the weighted-average values in each N(H2) bin. Blue and orange lines with shadows represent modeling from the inferred CR s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: CR proton spectra as a function of energy obtained with the best-fitting parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Panel (a): estimates of n(H2) and weighted-average values in each bin from radex modeling (gray), L25 (blue), and G25 (purple). The red and green dashed curves show the empirical relation from Bisbas et al. (2023) and the model used in Tafalla et al. (2021). Panel (b): same as Panel (a), for NGC 1333. 10 3 10 4 10 5 n(H2) [cm 3 ] 10 1 10 0 T(3-2)/T(1-0) N(H2) = 3 × 10 21 cm 2 N(H2) = 2 × 10 22 cm 2 [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Intensity ratio of 13CO 3–2/1–0 as a function of n(H2) from radex modeling. The solid and dotted curves represent low and high column density, N(H2) = 3 and 20 × 1021 cm−2 , respectively. The black and red curves represent Tk = 15 and 30 K, respectively. eration sources. For this reason, we think the unexpected high￾density jumps and therefore the derived high values of ζ ion for these data points are unre… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between 3d-pdr simulations and uniform density (nH as labeled) simulations, showing the ratio of derived ζ ion from Eq. (6) and the model input ζ0 as a function of N(H2). The data points are colored by mass-weighted average densities along the HINSA sight￾lines. spectral shape given in Draine (1978)) according to the estimates from total infrared flux (Luo et al. 2023), and the CRIR is set as a … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The cosmic-ray ionization rate (CRIR) is one of the fundamental parameters influencing the chemical and dynamical evolution of molecular clouds. Although observations in recent years have revealed high CRIR values in massive star-forming regions and in the vicinity of protostars, the sources and acceleration mechanisms of cosmic rays remain uncertain. In this work, we present our new estimates of CRIR using the HI narrow self-absorption (HINSA) technique towards two nearby low-mass star-forming clouds, IC 348 and NGC 1333. In both clouds, the CRIR decreases with increasing H$_2$ column density, but IC 348 exhibits values that are roughly an order of magnitude higher than those in NGC 1333. To interpret this contrast, we model the low-energy spectrum of CRs in a finite slab attenuation framework, using additional constraints from the high-energy CR spectrum inferred from Fermi $\gamma$-ray observations. The best-fit spectra reproduce the observed CRIR profiles and the contrast between IC 348 and NGC 1333 suggests an order of magnitude difference in low-energy CR populations, likely originating from local acceleration sources beyond protostars (e.g., stellar-wind termination shocks), and partly from the same sources responsible for the GeV $\gamma$-ray excess. Although uncertainties in cloud structure and gas density may affect the absolute CRIR values, they do not erase the pronounced disparity between the two regions.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports new HINSA-derived cosmic-ray ionization rate (CRIR) estimates toward the low-mass star-forming regions IC 348 and NGC 1333. Both clouds show CRIR declining with increasing H2 column density, yet IC 348 exhibits values roughly an order of magnitude higher than NGC 1333. The authors interpret the contrast via a finite-slab attenuation model for the low-energy CR spectrum, constrained by Fermi GeV γ-ray data, and conclude that the disparity arises from differing low-energy CR populations produced by local acceleration sources (e.g., stellar-wind termination shocks) beyond protostars.

Significance. If the reported order-of-magnitude CRIR contrast is shown to be robust against plausible variations in cloud density structure, the result would provide direct evidence for local, non-protostellar cosmic-ray acceleration in nearby star-forming regions and would link such sources to the observed GeV γ-ray excess. The HINSA technique and the joint use of ionization and γ-ray constraints are potentially valuable if the modeling assumptions can be validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'uncertainties in cloud structure and gas density may affect the absolute CRIR values, but they do not erase the pronounced disparity' is load-bearing for the central conclusion yet is presented without a quantitative error budget, sensitivity analysis on density PDF variations, temperature gradients, or HI/H2 filling factors, or comparison to independent CRIR tracers. This leaves open the possibility that systematic differences in the two regions' volume-density distributions or column-density mapping produce the observed contrast even under identical incident CR spectra.
  2. The finite-slab attenuation model for the low-energy CR spectrum is fitted after deriving CRIR from HINSA; the manuscript provides no indication that the slab parameters (e.g., thickness, density profile) or the low-energy spectral shape are chosen independently of the HINSA-derived CRIR values themselves. This raises a circularity concern for the inference that the contrast reflects an intrinsic difference in low-energy CR populations.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract and introduction would benefit from explicit references to prior HINSA-based CRIR studies and to independent tracers (e.g., H3+, DCO+/HCO+) to place the new measurements in context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'uncertainties in cloud structure and gas density may affect the absolute CRIR values, but they do not erase the pronounced disparity' is load-bearing for the central conclusion yet is presented without a quantitative error budget, sensitivity analysis on density PDF variations, temperature gradients, or HI/H2 filling factors, or comparison to independent CRIR tracers. This leaves open the possibility that systematic differences in the two regions' volume-density distributions or column-density mapping produce the observed contrast even under identical incident CR spectra.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract claim would be strengthened by an explicit quantitative error budget. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (or appendix) that quantifies the impact of plausible variations in the density PDF, temperature gradients, and HI/H2 filling factors on the derived CRIR values. We will also include a direct comparison of our HINSA results with any available independent CRIR tracers in the two regions. These additions will demonstrate that the order-of-magnitude contrast survives the explored systematics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [—] The finite-slab attenuation model for the low-energy CR spectrum is fitted after deriving CRIR from HINSA; the manuscript provides no indication that the slab parameters (e.g., thickness, density profile) or the low-energy spectral shape are chosen independently of the HINSA-derived CRIR values themselves. This raises a circularity concern for the inference that the contrast reflects an intrinsic difference in low-energy CR populations.

    Authors: The finite-slab thickness and density profile are taken directly from independent observational constraints: the projected sizes and column-density maps of the two clouds (derived from dust continuum and molecular-line data) together with volume-density estimates from standard tracers. These quantities are fixed before any CRIR modeling is performed. The high-energy CR spectrum is anchored exclusively to the Fermi γ-ray observations, which are independent of the HINSA measurements. Only the low-energy spectral index and normalization are allowed to vary within physically motivated ranges to reproduce the observed CRIR profiles. We will revise the modeling section to state these sources of the parameters explicitly and thereby remove any ambiguity about circularity. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses observations then explicit fitting

full rationale

The paper first derives CRIR values directly from HINSA observations in the two clouds and reports an observed contrast. It then applies a finite-slab model whose low-energy parameters are explicitly adjusted (best-fit) to match those observed CRIR profiles while also satisfying Fermi constraints. This is standard model fitting rather than an independent first-principles prediction or derivation that reduces to the inputs by construction. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing steps, and the text acknowledges that structure uncertainties affect absolute values without erasing the disparity. The central claim is therefore an interpretation of the fitted contrast, not a circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that HINSA directly traces CRIR and that the slab attenuation model can be constrained by Fermi data without additional free parameters beyond those needed to fit the two clouds. No invented entities are introduced. The low-energy spectrum parameters are fitted rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (1)
  • low-energy CR spectrum parameters in slab model
    The finite-slab attenuation framework requires parameters for the low-energy CR spectrum that are adjusted to reproduce the observed CRIR profiles in each cloud.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption HINSA absorption directly measures the cosmic-ray ionization rate without significant bias from velocity structure or excitation conditions
    The technique is invoked to convert observed absorption into CRIR values; the abstract acknowledges but does not quantify possible biases from cloud structure.
  • domain assumption The high-energy CR spectrum from Fermi gamma-ray observations can be extrapolated downward to anchor the low-energy part of the model
    The modeling step uses Fermi data as an external constraint on the high-energy tail.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5830 in / 1561 out tokens · 40367 ms · 2026-06-27T03:40:12.241439+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

209 extracted references · 105 canonical work pages · 42 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2015, , 114, 171103

    Aguilar , M., Aisa , D., Alpat , B., et al. 2015, , 114, 171103

    2015

  2. [2]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 561

    Aharonian , F., Yang , R., & de O \ n a Wilhelmi , E. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 561

    2019

  3. [3]

    2010, , 518, L102

    Andr \'e , P., Men'shchikov , A., Bontemps , S., et al. 2010, , 518, L102

    2010

  4. [4]

    2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume I, ed

    Bally , J., Walawender , J., Johnstone , D., Kirk , H., & Goodman , A. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume I, ed. B. Reipurth , Vol. 4, 308

    2008

  5. [5]

    2020, Communications Physics, 3, 32

    Bialy , S. 2020, Communications Physics, 3, 32

    2020

  6. [6]

    A., et al

    Bialy , S., Chemke , A., Neufeld , D. A., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy [ [arXiv] 2508.20168 ]

    arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    G., Bell , T

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

    2012

  8. [8]

    G., van Dishoeck , E

    Bisbas , T. G., van Dishoeck , E. F., Hu , C.-Y., & Schruba , A. 2023, , 519, 729

    2023

  9. [9]

    & Eichler , D

    Blandford , R. & Eichler , D. 1987, , 154, 1

    1987

  10. [10]

    2013, , 21, 70

    Blasi , P. 2013, , 21, 70

    2013

  11. [11]

    2014, , 569, A100

    Bron , E., Le Bourlot , J., & Le Petit , F. 2014, , 569, A100

    2014

  12. [12]

    & Paul , J

    Casse , M. & Paul , J. A. 1980, , 237, 236

    1980

  13. [13]

    2014, , 790, L1

    Ceccarelli , C., Dominik , C., L \'o pez-Sepulcre , A., et al. 2014, , 790, L1

    2014

  14. [14]

    C., Stone , E

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

    2016

  15. [15]

    I., Richer , J

    Curtis , E. I., Richer , J. S., & Buckle , J. V. 2010 a , , 401, 455

    2010

  16. [16]

    I., Richer , J

    Curtis , E. I., Richer , J. S., Swift , J. J., & Williams , J. P. 2010 b , , 408, 1516

    2010

  17. [17]

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

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

    2006

  18. [18]

    Draine , B. T. 1978, , 36, 595

    1978

  19. [19]

    O., Aharonian , F

    Drury , L. O., Aharonian , F. A., & Voelk , H. J. 1994, , 287, 959

    1994

  20. [20]

    Ferri \`e re , K. M. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 1031

    2001

  21. [21]

    2017, , 605, A57

    Fontani , F., Ceccarelli , C., Favre , C., et al. 2017, , 605, A57

    2017

  22. [22]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  23. [23]

    & Diaconis, P

    Freedman, D. & Diaconis, P. 1981, Zeitschrift f \"u r Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete, 57, 453

    1981

  24. [24]

    2022, , 30, 4

    Gabici , S. 2022, , 30, 4

    2022

  25. [25]

    Gaches , B. A. L. & Grudi \'c , M. Y. 2025, , 696, A20

    2025

  26. [26]

    Gaches , B. A. L. & Offner , S. S. R. 2018, , 861, 87

    2018

  27. [27]

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

    2019

  28. [28]

    Gaches, B. A. L. & Viti, S. 2026, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 10, 276

    2026

  29. [29]

    Goldsmith , P. F. 2001, , 557, 736

    2001

  30. [30]

    Goldsmith , P. F. & Li , D. 2005, , 622, 938

    2005

  31. [31]

    A., Black , J

    Grenier , I. A., Black , J. H., & Strong , A. W. 2015, , 53, 199

    2015

  32. [32]

    2002, , 391, 675

    Gry , C., Boulanger , F., Nehm \'e , C., et al. 2002, , 391, 675

    2002

  33. [33]

    B., Sharma , P., & Eichler , D

    Gupta , S., Nath , B. B., Sharma , P., & Eichler , D. 2020, , 493, 3159

    2020

  34. [34]

    A., Richer , J

    Hatchell , J., Fuller , G. A., Richer , J. S., Harries , T. J., & Ladd , E. F. 2007, , 468, 1009

    2007

  35. [35]

    N., Bosman , A

    Heays , A. N., Bosman , A. D., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2017, , 602, A105

    2017

  36. [36]

    V., Pellegrin , T., et al

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

    2026

  37. [37]

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

    Ivlev , A. V., Padovani , M., Galli , D., & Caselli , P. 2015, , 812, 135

    2015

  38. [38]

    2025, , 541, 1254

    Jiang , M., Sun , X.-N., Wu , Q.-H., et al. 2025, , 541, 1254

    2025

  39. [39]

    1975, , 197, 575

    Jura , M. 1975, , 197, 575

    1975

  40. [40]

    V., & Ostapchenko , S

    Kachelriess , M., Moskalenko , I. V., & Ostapchenko , S. S. 2014, , 789, 136

    2014

  41. [41]

    2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Krause , J., Morlino , G., & Gabici , S. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 34, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 518

    2015

  42. [42]

    F., Brown , R

    Kr c o , M., Goldsmith , P. F., Brown , R. L., & Li , D. 2008, , 689, 276

    2008

  43. [43]

    2020, , 639, A86

    Kuffmeier , M., Zhao , B., & Caselli , P. 2020, , 639, A86

    2020

  44. [44]

    & Goldsmith , P

    Li , D. & Goldsmith , P. F. 2003, , 585, 823

    2003

  45. [45]

    2024, Commensal Radio Astronomy FasT survey (CRAFTS) data sets

    Li, D., Wang, P., Qian, L., et al. 2024, Commensal Radio Astronomy FasT survey (CRAFTS) data sets

    2024

  46. [46]

    2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112

    Li , D., Wang , P., Qian , L., et al. 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112

    2018

  47. [47]

    & Zhao , M

    Li , G.-X. & Zhao , M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.17369

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    L., Esplin , T

    Luhman , K. L., Esplin , T. L., & Loutrel , N. P. 2016, , 827, 52

    2016

  49. [49]

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

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

    2024

  50. [50]

    M., Padovani , M., et al

    Luo , G., Jacob , A. M., Padovani , M., et al. 2025, , 703, A159

    2025

  51. [51]

    2024 b , , 685, L12

    Luo , G., Li , D., Zhang , Z.-Y., et al. 2024 b , , 685, L12

    2024

  52. [52]

    G., et al

    Luo , G., Zhang , Z.-Y., Bisbas , T. G., et al. 2023, , 942, 101

    2023

  53. [53]

    D., & Su \'a rez , S

    Mart \' nez , S., Bernardi , G., Focke , P., Gonz \'a lez , A. D., & Su \'a rez , S. 2003, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 36, 4813

    2003

  54. [54]

    J., et al

    McElroy , D., Walsh , C., Markwick , A. J., et al. 2013, , 550, A36

    2013

  55. [55]

    2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 59

    Menchiari , S., Morlino , G., Amato , E., & Bucciantini , N. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 59

    2024

  56. [56]

    Meyer , D. M.-A. 2024, , 530, 539

    2024

  57. [57]

    2021, , 504, 6096

    Morlino , G., Blasi , P., Peretti , E., & Cristofari , P. 2021, , 504, 6096

    2021

  58. [58]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989

    Nan , R., Li , D., Jin , C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989

    2011

  59. [59]

    A., Silsbee , K., Ivlev , A

    Neufeld , D. A., Silsbee , K., Ivlev , A. V., et al. 2026, , 998, 71

    2026

  60. [60]

    A., Welty , D

    Neufeld , D. A., Welty , D. E., Ivlev , A. V., et al. 2024, , 973, 143

    2024

  61. [61]

    2023, , 671, A1

    Olivares , J., Bouy , H., Miret-Roig , N., et al. 2023, , 671, A1

    2023

  62. [62]

    2022, , 658, A189

    Padovani , M., Bialy , S., Galli , D., et al. 2022, , 658, A189

    2022

  63. [63]

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

    2009

  64. [64]

    V., Caselli , P., & Ferrara , A

    Padovani , M., Galli , D., Ivlev , A. V., Caselli , P., & Ferrara , A. 2018 a , , 619, A144

    2018

  65. [65]

    T., et al

    Padovani , M., Galli , D., Plowman , C. T., et al. 2026, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 10, 189

    2026

  66. [66]

    H., et al

    Padovani , M., Galli , D., Scarlett , L. H., et al. 2024, , 682, A131

    2024

  67. [67]

    2015, , 582, L13

    Padovani , M., Hennebelle , P., Marcowith , A., & Ferri \`e re , K. 2015, , 582, L13

    2015

  68. [68]

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

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

    2018

  69. [69]

    V., Galli , D., et al

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

    2020

  70. [70]

    2016, , 590, A8

    Padovani , M., Marcowith , A., Hennebelle , P., & Ferri \`e re , K. 2016, , 590, A8

    2016

  71. [71]

    Peek , J. E. G., Babler , B. L., Zheng , Y., et al. 2018, , 234, 2

    2018

  72. [72]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 530

    Peron , G., Casanova , S., Gabici , S., Baghmanyan , V., & Aharonian , F. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 530

    2024

  73. [73]

    2021, , 645, A55

    Pezzuto , S., Benedettini , M., Di Francesco , J., et al. 2021, , 645, A55

    2021

  74. [74]

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

    2023

  75. [75]

    E., Sipil \"a , O., Segura-Cox , D

    Pineda , J. E., Sipil \"a , O., Segura-Cox , D. M., et al. 2024, , 686, A162

    2024

  76. [76]

    T., Scarlett , L

    Plowman , C. T., Scarlett , L. H., Zammit , M. C., Bray , I., & Fursa , D. V. 2026, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 68, 035006

    2026

  77. [77]

    2025, , 702, A210

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

    2025

  78. [78]

    A., Di Francesco , J., Kirk , H., et al

    Ridge , N. A., Di Francesco , J., Kirk , H., et al. 2006, , 131, 2921

    2006

  79. [79]

    2014, , 562, A138

    Roy , A., Andr \'e , P., Palmeirim , P., et al. 2014, , 562, A138

    2014

  80. [80]

    E., Kim , Y.-K., Madison , D

    Rudd , M. E., Kim , Y.-K., Madison , D. H., & Gallagher , J. W. 1985, Reviews of Modern Physics, 57, 965

    1985

Showing first 80 references.