pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23812 · v1 · pith:YFM2BFL5new · submitted 2026-06-22 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE

Nuclei in high-energy neutrino sources: A multimessenger study of in-source propagation

AmirFarzan Esmaeili , Arman Esmaili , Pasquale Dario Serpico This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 07:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords neutrino sourcesnuclear compositiongamma-ray observationsNGC 1068electromagnetic cascadesmultimessengerin-source propagation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Injected nuclear composition in sources like NGC 1068 imprints distinct features on neutrino and gamma-ray emissions.

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

The paper investigates how the nuclear makeup of particles accelerated in high-energy astrophysical environments shapes the secondary particles that escape as neutrinos and gamma rays. Using NGC 1068 as a concrete case, the authors run Monte Carlo simulations of nuclear propagation followed by electromagnetic cascades inside the source. The simulations show that different injected compositions produce measurably different spectra, especially in the neutrino flux and in the MeV-GeV gamma-ray band. The work emphasizes that upcoming gamma-ray instruments operating in that energy range could therefore place limits on the nuclear composition at the acceleration site, and it includes a re-analysis of archival COMPTEL data as a first step.

Core claim

Monte Carlo modeling of in-source nuclear and electromagnetic cascades demonstrates that the injected nuclear composition leaves observable imprints on the emerging neutrino and gamma-ray spectra; these imprints are in principle constrainable by MeV-GeV gamma-ray observations with future instruments.

What carries the argument

Monte Carlo simulation of nuclear and electromagnetic cascades that tracks the propagation and interaction of injected nuclei inside a source with given size, density, and magnetic field.

If this is right

  • Different injected nuclear species produce distinct neutrino spectral shapes and normalizations.
  • The gamma-ray spectrum below 100 MeV carries additional information about the nuclear composition through cascade development.
  • Future MeV-GeV gamma-ray telescopes can set quantitative limits on allowed nuclear compositions.
  • Re-analysis of existing COMPTEL data already provides preliminary consistency checks on the modeled cascades.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same simulation framework could be applied to other candidate neutrino sources to test whether composition effects are universal or environment-dependent.
  • If composition can be constrained, it would indirectly limit the possible acceleration and injection mechanisms operating in dense astrophysical environments.

Load-bearing premise

The physical parameters chosen for the NGC 1068 source environment are representative enough that the simulated cascade imprints remain qualitatively valid for real sources.

What would settle it

A measured neutrino or MeV-GeV gamma-ray spectrum from NGC 1068 (or a similar source) that deviates substantially from all simulated spectra for plausible injected compositions would falsify the claim that composition imprints are observable and constraining.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23812 by AmirFarzan Esmaeili, Arman Esmaili, Pasquale Dario Serpico.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Photodisintegration optical depth, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Energy fraction transferred to electromagnetic sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of the interaction/energy-loss optical depths and the corresponding energy-budget fractions for the double [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Escaped free-nucleon fractions for zirconium injec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Photomeson neutrino spectra and Bethe–Heitler electromagnetic secondary spectra from proton, neutron, and zirconium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Target photon field of the corona+disk model based on Eqs. 2 and 3 of ref. [13] for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Photodisintegration optical depth, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Escaped free-nucleon fraction, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Escaped free-nucleon fractions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Multimessenger spectra for the NGC 1068 model described in the text, for the compact/dense case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. As in Fig. 10, for the more extended/rarefied case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The joint observation of astrophysical sources in gamma rays and neutrinos can provide invaluable insight into the physical conditions of the source, including its size, particle densities, and acceleration and production mechanisms. In this work, we investigate the role of nuclear composition in high-energy astrophysical environments. Using NGC 1068 as a representative example, we perform detailed Monte Carlo simulations of nuclear and electromagnetic cascades within the source and study the imprints of the injected nuclear composition on the resulting neutrino and gamma-ray emissions. We further discuss the importance of MeV-GeV gamma-ray observations for constraining the source composition in the context of future gamma-ray experiments. A dedicated re-analysis of archival COMPTEL observations is also presented.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that Monte Carlo simulations of nuclear and electromagnetic cascades in NGC 1068 show that the injected nuclear composition leaves observable imprints on the resulting neutrino and gamma-ray spectra, which can be constrained by MeV-GeV gamma-ray observations from future experiments; it also presents a re-analysis of archival COMPTEL data.

Significance. If the composition-dependent imprints survive variations in source parameters, the work would strengthen the case for multimessenger constraints on the nuclear content of neutrino sources and highlight the diagnostic power of MeV-GeV gamma rays, complementing existing neutrino and high-energy gamma-ray data.

major comments (1)
  1. [NGC 1068 modeling and simulation setup] The simulations fix the NGC 1068 source radius, gas density, photon field, and magnetic-field strength without a systematic scan. Because photodisintegration, pair production, and synchrotron losses scale differently with these quantities, a factor-of-few change can shift the energy of composition-dependent features or suppress them; the absence of such a scan leaves the robustness of the reported imprints untested.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that a dedicated re-analysis of archival COMPTEL observations is presented; the methods, energy range, and quantitative results of this re-analysis should be described in more detail so readers can assess its impact on the composition constraints.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The simulations fix the NGC 1068 source radius, gas density, photon field, and magnetic-field strength without a systematic scan. Because photodisintegration, pair production, and synchrotron losses scale differently with these quantities, a factor-of-few change can shift the energy of composition-dependent features or suppress them; the absence of such a scan leaves the robustness of the reported imprints untested.

    Authors: We agree that the lack of a parameter scan leaves the robustness of the reported imprints incompletely tested. The source parameters were fixed to representative values drawn from the multi-wavelength literature on NGC 1068. To address this concern, the revised manuscript will include a limited sensitivity study in which the radius, gas density, photon field, and magnetic-field strength are varied within their observational uncertainties. This will show that the qualitative composition-dependent features in the neutrino and gamma-ray spectra survive moderate changes, although their precise energies can shift. A full systematic scan is beyond the scope of the present work but the added analysis will strengthen the claims. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: simulation results grounded in standard cascade physics

full rationale

The paper conducts Monte Carlo simulations of nuclear and electromagnetic cascades in NGC 1068 using established models for photodisintegration, pair production, and synchrotron losses. The central claim—that injected nuclear composition produces observable imprints on neutrino and gamma-ray spectra—is a direct output of these forward simulations with fixed source parameters, not a fitted quantity or self-referential definition. No equations, predictions, or self-citations reduce the result to its inputs by construction, and the work remains self-contained against external benchmarks of cascade physics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study rests on standard nuclear and electromagnetic interaction models plus source-specific parameters whose values are not independently measured in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • NGC 1068 source size, density, and magnetic field
    These parameters control the optical depth and cascade development; their values are chosen to represent the source.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard Monte Carlo treatment of nuclear photodisintegration, pion production, and electromagnetic cascades
    Invoked to generate the secondary particle spectra from injected nuclei.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5656 in / 1198 out tokens · 23623 ms · 2026-06-26T07:49:49.911452+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

49 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    This changes the nuclear composition during propagation and produces secondary fragments that may continue interacting in the source

    Photodisintegration (PD) A nucleus of mass numberAand chargeZcan be ex- cited by absorbing a background photon in its rest frame and de-excite by ejecting one or more photons, nucle- ons, or light nuclear fragments. This changes the nuclear composition during propagation and produces secondary fragments that may continue interacting in the source. In our ...

    2023

  2. [2]

    Its interaction length is computed using the photonuclear cross section parametrization of Kossov [30]

    Photomeson (PM) Photomeson (PM) production is included as a discrete photonuclear channel. Its interaction length is computed using the photonuclear cross section parametrization of Kossov [30]. For nucleons, we use the corresponding nu- cleon fit. For nuclei, we use theA-dependent above-GDR part of the parametrization, retaining the quasi-deuteron, ∆-res...

  3. [3]

    Bethe-Heitler (BH) Pair Production Bethe–Heitler (BH) pair production, AZ +γ→A Z +e + +e − ,(2) is included as a continuous energy-loss process for charged nuclei, using the cross section based on the 5 SOPHIA website 4 parametrization of ref. [34]. The nuclear species is left unchanged, while the producede ± pairs are injected into the electromagnetic ca...

  4. [4]

    Here we also include the capture into theLshell, which provides an additional source of line photons after the captured electron makes a transition to theKshell

    Pair Production with Capture in the L shell Pair production with capture (PPC) is an analogue of the Bethe–Heitler pair production, with the final statee− captured directly into a bound atomic state with quan- tum numbersnℓj, AZ +γ→A Z(e− nℓj) +e + .(3) PPC has been discussed in the context of charge-state evolution of ultra-high-energy nuclei in photon b...

  5. [5]

    fractional energy

    Nuclear Decay Nuclear beta decays are included in the propagation menu for completeness. The decay lengths are computed from tabulated rest-frame partial beta-decay rates, de- rived from the IAEA LiveChart database [37] for the same set of 1989 isotopes used in the TALYS/TENDL photodisintegration network. Since the propagated nu- clei are bare, electron-c...

    1989

  6. [6]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Science342, 1242856 (2013), arXiv:1311.5238 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 021103 (2013), arXiv:1304.5356 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 081102 (2015), arXiv:1507.04005 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    S. R. Kelner, F. A. Aharonian, and V. V. Bugayov, Phys. Rev. D74, 034018 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 79, 039901 (2009)], arXiv:astro-ph/0606058

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  10. [10]

    Kamae, N

    T. Kamae, N. Karlsson, T. Mizuno, T. Abe, and T. Koi, Astrophys. J.647, 692 (2006), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 662, 779 (2007)], arXiv:astro-ph/0605581

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  11. [11]

    C. D. Dermer, Astronomy & Astrophysics157, 223 (1986)

    1986

  12. [12]

    Murase, M

    K. Murase, M. Ahlers, and B. C. Lacki, Phys. Rev. D 88, 121301 (2013), arXiv:1306.3417 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [13]

    Murase, D

    K. Murase, D. Guetta, and M. Ahlers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 071101 (2016), arXiv:1509.00805 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Capanema, A

    A. Capanema, A. Esmaili, and K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D101, 103012 (2020), arXiv:2002.07192 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Capanema, A

    A. Capanema, A. Esmaili, and P. D. Serpico, JCAP02, 037 (2021), arXiv:2007.07911 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    K. Fang, J. S. Gallagher, and F. Halzen, Astrophys. J. 933, 190 (2022), arXiv:2205.03740 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science378, 538 (2022), arXiv:2211.09972 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science378, 538 (2022), arXiv:2211.09972 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    A. Das, B. T. Zhang, and K. Murase, Astrophys. J.972, 44 (2024), arXiv:2405.09332 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    A. Das, K. Murase, and B. T. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2604.01222 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 081003 (2025), arXiv:2405.12004 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    B. T. Zhang, K. Murase, N. Ekanger, M. Bhattacharya, and S. Horiuchi, (2024), arXiv:2405.17409 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Unger, G

    M. Unger, G. R. Farrar, and L. A. Anchordoqui, Phys. Rev. D92, 123001 (2015), arXiv:1505.02153 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    M. S. Muzio, M. Unger, and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103008 (2019), arXiv:1906.06233 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    M. S. Muzio, G. R. Farrar, and M. Unger, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023022 (2022), arXiv:2108.05512 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Boncioli, A

    D. Boncioli, A. Fedynitch, and W. Winter, Sci. Rep.7, 4882 (2017), arXiv:1607.07989 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Biehl, D

    D. Biehl, D. Boncioli, A. Fedynitch, and W. Winter, Astron. Astrophys.611, A101 (2018), arXiv:1705.08909 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    B. T. Zhang and K. Murase, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, 76 (2023), arXiv:2302.14048 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Esmaeili, A

    A. Esmaeili, A. Esmaili, and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. D111, 043004 (2025), arXiv:2410.11958 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Esmaeili, A

    A. Esmaeili, A. Capanema, A. Esmaili, and P. D. Ser- pico, Phys. Rev. D106, 123016 (2022), arXiv:2208.06440 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Esmaeili, A

    A. Esmaeili, A. Esmaili, and P. D. Serpico, Comput. Phys. Commun.299, 109154 (2024), arXiv:2310.01510 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    A. J. Koning, D. Rochman, J. C. Sublet, N. Dzysiuk, M. Fleming, and S. van der Marck, Nucl. Data Sheets 155, 1 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    Koning, S

    A. Koning, S. Hilaire, and S. Goriely, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 131 (2023), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.A 59, 146 (2023)]

    2023

  33. [33]

    Ekanger, M

    N. Ekanger, M. Bhattacharya, K. Murase, and S. Hori- uchi, (2026), arXiv:2603.06381 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    J. F. Soriano, L. A. Anchordoqui, and D. F. Torres, Phys. Rev. D98, 043001 (2018), arXiv:1805.00409 [astro- ph.HE]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Kossov, Eur

    M.V. Kossov, Eur. Phys. J. A14, 377 (2002)

    2002

  36. [36]

    Ishida, M

    H. Ishida, M. Kusakabe, and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 90, 083519 (2014), arXiv:1403.5995 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    Murase and J

    K. Murase and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D82, 043008 (2010), arXiv:1002.3980 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    Mucke, R

    A. Mucke, R. Engel, J. P. Rachen, R. J. Protheroe, and T. Stanev, Comput. Phys. Commun.124, 290 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9903478

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  39. [39]

    M. J. Chodorowski, A. A. Zdziarski, and M. Sikora, Astrophys. J.400, 181 (1992)

    1992

  40. [40]

    S. R. Kelner and F. A. Aharonian, Phys. Rev. D 78, 034013 (2008), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 82, 099901 (2010)], arXiv:0803.0688 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  41. [41]

    C. K. Agger and A. H. Sorensen, Phys. Rev. A55, 402 (1997)

    1997

  42. [42]

    LiveChart of the Nu- clides,

    IAEA Nuclear Data Section, “LiveChart of the Nu- clides,”https://nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vcharthtml /VChartHTML.html, accessed: 2026-04-28

    2026

  43. [43]

    Ajello, K

    M. Ajello, K. Murase, and A. McDaniel, Astrophys. J. Lett.954, L49 (2023), arXiv:2307.02333 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    V. A. Acciariet al.(MAGIC), Astrophys. J.883, 135 (2019), arXiv:1906.10954 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Schoenfelder (COMPTEL), Astron

    V. Schoenfelder (COMPTEL), Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser.143, 145 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0002366

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  46. [46]

    Kn¨ odlsederet al., Astron

    J. Kn¨ odlsederet al., Astron. Astrophys.593, A1 (2016), arXiv:1606.00393 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    J. A. Tomsicket al., PoSICRC2023, 745 (2023), arXiv:2308.12362 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Caputoet al., J

    R. Caputoet al., J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst.8, 044003 (2022), arXiv:2208.04990 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    De Angeliset al.(e-ASTROGAM), Exper

    A. De Angeliset al.(e-ASTROGAM), Exper. Astron. 44, 25 (2017), arXiv:1611.02232 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017