pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02748 · v1 · pith:5G4CE437new · submitted 2026-06-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Elemental cosmic ray spectra reveal two populations of Galactic sources and an immediate transition to an extragalactic component after the knee

Timur A. Dzhatdoev , Anatoly A. Semenov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 12:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmic rayselemental spectraGalactic sourcesextragalactic componentcosmic ray kneecosmic ray ankleDAMPELHAASO
0
0 comments X

The pith

Elemental cosmic ray spectra are described by two Galactic populations and an immediate extragalactic transition after the knee.

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

The paper demonstrates that recent precise measurements allow the elemental cosmic ray spectra to be modeled as the sum of exactly three components. A low-energy Galactic component with convex shape matches the source acceleration spectrum and fades after the TeV knee. A high-energy Galactic component accounts for the PeV knee, while an extragalactic component takes over directly afterward. This decomposition explains all observed knees and ankles, both rigidity-dependent and non-rigidity-dependent, using data from DAMPE and LHAASO. No additional Galactic component is required between 10 PeV and 1 EeV.

Core claim

The elemental CR spectra are reasonably well described with a sum of three components: 1) a low-energy Galactic component with a convex spectral shape reflecting the accelerated particle spectrum in the source; this component peters out after the TeV knee, 2) a high-energy Galactic component including the PeV knee, and 3) an extragalactic component. There is no need for any third, additional component of Galactic cosmic rays in the energy range between 10 PeV and 1 EeV.

What carries the argument

The three-component decomposition of elemental cosmic ray spectra into low-energy Galactic, high-energy Galactic, and extragalactic parts that together reproduce all knees and ankles.

If this is right

  • The low-energy Galactic component ends after the first knee at roughly 15 Z TeV.
  • The high-energy Galactic component produces the second knee near 3 Z PeV.
  • The extragalactic component begins right after the PeV knee with no intermediate Galactic population needed.
  • Both rigidity-dependent and non-rigidity-dependent ankle features arise from the superposition of the three components.
  • Data precision from DAMPE and LHAASO rules out the necessity of extra Galactic sources up to 1 EeV.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Distinct acceleration mechanisms or source classes are implied for the two Galactic populations.
  • Future higher-energy measurements could confirm the dominance of the extragalactic component by testing the predicted spectral shape.
  • The model suggests that propagation effects alone do not generate additional spectral features in the 10 PeV to 1 EeV interval.
  • Similar decompositions could be tested on other high-energy particle spectra to check for multiple source populations.

Load-bearing premise

The observed rigidity-dependent knees and ankles plus the non-rigidity-dependent ankles can be fully accounted for by exactly these three components without post-hoc adjustments or additional populations.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of an elemental spectrum between 10 PeV and 1 EeV that shows a clear deviation from the predicted sum of the high-energy Galactic and extragalactic components, requiring a fourth term to fit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02748 by Anatoly A. Semenov, Timur A. Dzhatdoev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Proton spectrum of a single CR source for the EPWL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Proton spectrum for a population of CR sources [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Fit to the primary proton spectrum (see details in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Another fit to the primary Helium CR spectrum (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fit to the primary Iron CR spectrum (see details in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The energy spectra for individual elements and/or for groups of elements in cosmic rays (CR) in the energy range between 100 $\times$ Z GeV and 10$^{3}$ $\times$ Z PeV (where Z is the charge number of the nucleus) have a number of features, including two steepenings ("knees") with the rigidity-dependent energies $E_{k1} \approx$ 15 $\times$ Z TeV and $E_{k2} \approx$ 3 $\times$ Z PeV and three hardenings ("ankles") at $E_{a1} \approx$ 500 $\times$ Z GeV; for protons $E_{a2-p} \approx$ 150 TeV and $E_{ a3-p} \approx$ 100 PeV. While the values of $E_{a1}$ for different nuclei are rigidity-dependent, the values of $E_{a2}$ (and probably of $E_{a3}$) are not: $E_{a2-He} \approx$ 1 PeV for Helium. The recent advances in precision measurements of the elemental CR spectra in the DAMPE and LHAASO experiments, and, to some extent, in IceTop and other experiments, make it possible, for the first time, to clarify the origin of the aforementioned spectral features. We show that the elemental CR spectra are reasonably well described with a sum of three components: 1) a low-energy Galactic component with a convex spectral shape reflecting the accelerated particle spectrum in the source; this component peters out after the TeV knee, 2) a high-energy Galactic component including the PeV knee, and 3) an extragalactic component. There is no need for any third, additional component of Galactic cosmic rays in the energy range between 10 PeV and 1 EeV.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that elemental cosmic ray spectra between ~100Z GeV and 10^3 Z PeV exhibit rigidity-dependent knees at E_k1 ≈ 15Z TeV and E_k2 ≈ 3Z PeV plus ankles (some rigidity-dependent, others not), and that these features are reasonably well described by the sum of exactly three components: (1) a low-energy Galactic component with convex spectral shape that cuts off after the TeV knee, (2) a high-energy Galactic component that includes the PeV knee, and (3) an extragalactic component, with no requirement for any additional Galactic population in the 10 PeV–1 EeV interval. The model is motivated by recent DAMPE and LHAASO precision data.

Significance. If the three-component description can be shown to hold with quantitative support and without per-species tuning, the result would provide a compact phenomenological framework distinguishing two Galactic source populations and clarifying the Galactic-to-extragalactic transition. The emphasis on rigidity dependence for knees versus element-independent ankles for certain features is a potentially useful organizing principle, but the absence of fit statistics leaves the significance currently difficult to evaluate.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and central claim: the assertion that the spectra are 'reasonably well described' by the three components supplies no chi-squared values, best-fit parameters, uncertainties, or residual analysis, so the central claim rests on an unshown qualitative description rather than demonstrated support.
  2. [Model description] Component construction: the knees (E_k1, E_k2) and ankles (E_a1, E_a2, E_a3) are defined from the same DAMPE/LHAASO data the model is said to describe; it is therefore unclear whether the functional forms (convex low-energy term plus two additional terms) with the listed free parameters can simultaneously reproduce both the rigidity-dependent knees and the non-rigidity-dependent E_a2 positions (e.g., ~150 TeV for protons vs. ~1 PeV for helium) across nuclei without hidden per-element adjustments to normalization or shape.
minor comments (2)
  1. A table listing all free parameters, their best-fit values, and the nuclei to which each applies would clarify whether the model is applied uniformly or requires species-specific tuning.
  2. The manuscript should explicitly state the functional forms (e.g., the precise parametrization of the convex low-energy component) and any assumed propagation or source spectrum assumptions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address the two major points below, agreeing where quantitative support is needed and clarifying the model construction where the functional forms are already specified in the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and central claim: the assertion that the spectra are 'reasonably well described' by the three components supplies no chi-squared values, best-fit parameters, uncertainties, or residual analysis, so the central claim rests on an unshown qualitative description rather than demonstrated support.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and main text would benefit from explicit quantitative measures. The manuscript currently supports the claim via direct overlay of the three-component model on the DAMPE and LHAASO data points in the figures, with parameters listed in Section 3. In revision we will add a table of best-fit parameters (including uncertainties) and report reduced chi-squared values for the elemental spectra shown. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Model description] Component construction: the knees (E_k1, E_k2) and ankles (E_a1, E_a2, E_a3) are defined from the same DAMPE/LHAASO data the model is said to describe; it is therefore unclear whether the functional forms (convex low-energy term plus two additional terms) with the listed free parameters can simultaneously reproduce both the rigidity-dependent knees and the non-rigidity-dependent E_a2 positions (e.g., ~150 TeV for protons vs. ~1 PeV for helium) across nuclei without hidden per-element adjustments to normalization or shape.

    Authors: The knee positions are identified from the data as standard for phenomenological modeling, but the functional forms are fixed once and for all: the low-energy Galactic term has a convex shape with rigidity-dependent cutoff at E_k1, the high-energy Galactic term has rigidity-dependent cutoff at E_k2, and the extragalactic term is a power law with a single element-independent ankle at E_a3. The E_a2 feature emerges naturally as the energy where the high-energy Galactic component begins to dominate over the low-energy one; because the two Galactic components have different rigidity scalings, this transition occurs at different total energies for different nuclei while the underlying parameters remain universal. Only normalizations (abundances) are allowed to float per element; all spectral indices and break rigidities are shared. This is shown explicitly for protons, helium, and CNO in the figures without additional per-species shape parameters. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Knee/ankle positions extracted from data define component cutoffs by construction

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "We show that the elemental CR spectra are reasonably well described with a sum of three components: 1) a low-energy Galactic component with a convex spectral shape reflecting the accelerated particle spectrum in the source; this component peters out after the TeV knee, 2) a high-energy Galactic component including the PeV knee, and 3) an extragalactic component. There is no need for any third, additional component of Galactic cosmic rays in the energy range between 10 PeV and 1 EeV."

    The low-energy component is defined to end after the observed TeV knee (E_k1 ≈ 15Z TeV) and the high-energy component is defined to include the PeV knee (E_k2 ≈ 3Z PeV); both positions are taken from the same spectra the model is said to describe, so the three-component fit and the 'no additional component' conclusion are achieved by construction.

full rationale

The paper first identifies E_k1, E_k2, E_a1 etc. from DAMPE/LHAASO data, then defines the three components explicitly around those same positions (low-energy component peters out after TeV knee; high-energy includes PeV knee). The claim that these three components suffice with no additional Galactic population therefore reduces to fitting the observed features with parameters chosen to match them, rather than an independent derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model rests on fitted transition energies taken from data and the postulate of two distinct Galactic source populations whose spectra are adjusted to match the observed knees and ankles; no independent evidence for the populations is supplied beyond the fit itself.

free parameters (3)
  • E_k1 = 15 x Z TeV
    Position of the first knee used to mark the end of the low-energy Galactic component; taken from data but defines component boundaries.
  • E_k2 = 3 x Z PeV
    Position of the second knee used to define the high-energy Galactic component.
  • convex shape parameters
    Parameters controlling the convex form of the low-energy Galactic spectrum are adjusted to match observed data.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Cosmic ray spectra can be decomposed into distinct source populations whose acceleration spectra produce observable knees and ankles.
    Invoked throughout the abstract to justify separating the data into exactly three components.
  • domain assumption Rigidity dependence of some features versus lack of it in others reliably distinguishes Galactic from extragalactic contributions.
    Used to assign the non-rigidity-dependent ankle to a separate population.
invented entities (1)
  • Two distinct populations of Galactic sources no independent evidence
    purpose: To produce the two knees and the differing ankle behaviors while allowing an immediate extragalactic transition.
    Postulated without independent identification or falsifiable prediction outside the spectral fit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5904 in / 1854 out tokens · 37899 ms · 2026-06-28T12:52:19.838370+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

82 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    (hereafter Z06); a characteristic signature of a transi- tion between the source populations — a dip at ≈ 60 TeV for protons and at a higher energy for heavier nuclei — is clearly visible in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 4 of this paper. The proton and Helium CR spectra were measured with the DAMPE detector in the energy ranges of 40 GeV – 100 TeV [24] and 70 ...

  2. [2]

    a hardening (“ankle”)[28] at Ea1 ≈ 500 × Z GeV

  3. [3]

    a steepening at Ek1 ≈ 15 × Z TeV (the low energy or TeV knee)[29]

  4. [4]

    a second hardening at Ea2− p ≈ 150 TeV for pro- tons [30], at Ea2− He ≈ 1 PeV for Helium nuclei [27], at Ea2− F e ∼ 2 PeV for Iron nuclei [31], and probably somewhere between 1 and 10 PeV for CNO nuclei

  5. [5]

    the “main” PeV knee at Ek2 ≈ 3 × Z PeV

  6. [6]

    another hardening at Ea3− p ∼ 100 PeV for protons

  7. [7]

    Elemental cosmic ray spectra reveal two populations of Galactic sources and an immediate transition to an extragalactic component after the knee

    in addition to that, the spectrum of Iron nuclei (and possibly of CNO and of the Silicon group) reveals a sig- nature of fragmentation on the interstellar matter and/or inside the sources below the energy of 50 GeV/nucleon [32, 33]. For the case of CR protons the features in the CR energy spectrum were considered in [34]. The energies of both knees are ri...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Very recently, the second ver- sion of this preprint appeared in arXiv that includes a fit for the Helium CR spectrum as well

    for the proton CR spectrum: in this model, the sub- TeV ankle is produced by the intersection of the spectra of the first and second Galactic components, while the TeV knee is due to a cutoff in the spectrum of the first Galactic CR component. Very recently, the second ver- sion of this preprint appeared in arXiv that includes a fit for the Helium CR spectrum...

  9. [9]

    the hardening of the spectrum before the cutoff

  10. [10]

    a low-energy downturn in the spectrum

  11. [11]

    the double log-parabola with an exponential cutoff

    the appearance of an additional low-energy component in the spectrum at a relatively late stage of the acceler- ation process when the velocity of the blast wave drops significantly w.r.t. its maximum value. The difference in velocity between the shock wave and the surrounding material may be distributed over some distance; furthermore, the diffusion coefficie...

  12. [12]

    sharpness

    yields a similar overall fitting curve. Uncertainties of the parameters were estimated with the MCMC fitting approach. 4 E [PeV] 5−10 4−10 3−10 2−10 1−10 1 10 210 310 ]-1sr-1s-2m1.75J(E) [PeV2.75E 8−10 7−10 6−10 FIG. 3. Fit to the primary proton spectrum (see details in the text). In particular, for the MIGRAD method we obtained γ11 = 2 . 769 for the low-en...

    2024

  13. [13]

    Kulikov and G

    G. Kulikov and G. Khristiansen, Sov. Phys. JETP 8, 441 (1959)

    1959

  14. [14]

    Nagano, T

    M. Nagano, T. Hara, Y. Hatano, N. Hayashida, S. Kawaguchi, and et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 10, 1295 (1984)

    1984

  15. [15]

    Aglietta, B

    M. Aglietta, B. Alessandro, P. Antonioli, F. Arneodo, L. Bergamasco, and et al., Astroparticle Physics 10, 1 (1999)

    1999

  16. [16]

    Antoni, W

    T. Antoni, W. Apel, A. Badea, K. Bekk, A. Bercuci, and et al., Astroparticle Physics 24, 1 (2005)

    2005

  17. [17]

    Amenomori, X

    M. Amenomori, X. J. Bi, D. Chen, S. W. Cui, Danzengluobu, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal 678, 1165 (2008)

    2008

  18. [18]

    M. G. Aartsen, R. Abbasi, Y. Abdou, M. Acker- mann, J. Adams, and et al., Physical Review D 88, 10.1103/physrevd.88.042004 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.042004 2013

  19. [19]

    Peters, Il Nuovo Cimento 22, 800–819 (1961)

    B. Peters, Il Nuovo Cimento 22, 800–819 (1961)

    1961

  20. [20]

    Stanev, P

    T. Stanev, P. L. Biermann, and T. K. Gaisser, Astronomy & Astrophysics 274, 902 (1993)

    1993

  21. [21]

    Kobayakawa, Y

    K. Kobayakawa, Y. S. Honda, and T. Samura, Physical Review D 66, 083004 (2002)

    2002

  22. [22]

    M. C. Bell, J. Kota, and A. W. Wolfendale, J. Phys. A 7, 420 (1974)

    1974

  23. [23]

    V. S. Ptuskin, S. I. Rogovaya, V. N. Zirakashvili, L. G. Chuvilgin, G. B. Khristiansen, E. G. Klepach, and G. V. Kulikov, Astronomy & Astrophysics 268, 726 (1993)

    1993

  24. [24]

    Candia, E

    J. Candia, E. Roulet, and L. N. Epele, Journal of High Energy Physics 2002, 033–033 (2002)

    2002

  25. [25]

    Giacinti, M

    G. Giacinti, M. Kachelriess, and D. Semikoz, Physical Review D 90, 041302 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    Giacinti, M

    G. Giacinti, M. Kachelriess, and D. Semikoz, Physical Review D 91, 10.1103/physrevd.91.083009 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.083009 2015

  27. [27]

    Karakula and W

    S. Karakula and W. Tkaczyk, Astroparticle Physics 1, 229–237 (1993)

    1993

  28. [28]

    Candia, L

    J. Candia, L. N. Epele, and E. Roulet, Astroparticle Physics 17, 23–33 (2002)

    2002

  29. [29]

    H.-B. Hu, Q. Yuan, B. Wang, C. Fan, J.-L. Zhang, and X.-J. Bi, The Astrophysical Journal 700, L170 (2009)

    2009

  30. [30]

    P. L. Biermann, T. K. Gaisser, and T. Stanev, Physical Review D 51, 3450 (1995)

    1995

  31. [31]

    Amenomori, Z

    M. Amenomori, Z. Cao, B. Z. Dai, L. K. Ding, Y. X. Feng, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal 461, 408 (1996)

    1996

  32. [32]

    Fowler, L

    J. Fowler, L. Fortson, C. Jui, D. Kieda, R. Ong, C. Pryke, and P. Sommers, Astroparticle Physics 15, 49 (2001)

    2001

  33. [33]

    J. R. H¨ orandel, Astroparticle Physics 19, 193 (2003)

    2003

  34. [34]

    J. R. H¨ orandel, Astroparticle Physics 21, 241 (2004)

    2004

  35. [35]

    V. I. Zatsepin and N. V. Sokolskaya, Astronomy & Astrophysics 458, 1 (2006)

    2006

  36. [36]

    Q. An, R. Asfandiyarov, P. Azzarello, P. Bernardini, Bi , and et al., Science Advances 5, 10.1126/sciadv.aax3793 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax3793 2019

  37. [37]

    Alemanno, Q

    F. Alemanno, Q. An, P. Azzarello, F. Barbato, P. Bernardini, and et al., Physical Review Letters 126, 201102 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    Z. Cao, F. Aharonian, Y. Bai, Y. Bao, D. Bastieri, and et al., Science Bulletin 70, 4173 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Z. Cao, F. Aharonian, Y. Bai, Y. Bao, D. Bastieri, and et al., Physical Review Letters 136, 121001 (2026)

    2026

  40. [40]

    Denoted in analogy with the well-known feature in the CR spectrum at ≈ 4 EeV

  41. [41]

    the TeV cosmic-ray bump

    The spectral structure formed together by the low energ y ankle and the TeV knee is sometimes called “the TeV cosmic-ray bump” (e.g. [70])

  42. [42]

    Varsi, S

    F. Varsi, S. Ahmad, M. Chakraborty, A. Chandra, S. Dugad, and et al., Physical Review Letters 132, 10.1103/physrevlett.132.051002 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.051002 2024

  43. [43]

    W. Apel, J. Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, K. Bekk, M. Bertaina, J. Bl¨ umer, and et al., Astroparticle Physics 47, 54–66 (2013)

    2013

  44. [44]

    Aguilar, L

    M. Aguilar, L. A. Cavasonza, M. Allen, B. Al- pat, and et al., Physical Review Letters 126, 10.1103/physrevlett.126.041104 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.041104 2021

  45. [45]

    Adriani, Y

    O. Adriani, Y. Akaike, K. Asano, Y. Asaoka, E. Berti, and et al., Physical Review Letters 126, 10.1103/physrevlett.126.241101 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.241101 2021

  46. [46]

    Lipari and S

    P. Lipari and S. Vernetto, Astroparticle Physics 120, 102441 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    Especially of the first one at ≈ 15 × Z TeV, see [59]

  48. [48]

    Aartsen, M

    M. Aartsen, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, and et al., Physical Review D 100, 10.1103/physrevd.100.082002 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.082002 2019

  49. [49]

    E. G. Berezhko, V. K. Elshin, and L. T. Ksenofontov, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 82, 1 (1996)

    1996

  50. [50]

    Ptuskin, V

    V. Ptuskin, V. Zirakashvili, and E.-S. Seo, The Astrophysical Journal 718, 31 (2010)

    2010

  51. [51]

    Ptuskin, V

    V. Ptuskin, V. Zirakashvili, and E.-S. Seo, in International Cosmic Ray Conference , International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 6 (2011) p. 240

    2011

  52. [52]

    Hu, X.-J

    H.-X. Hu, X.-J. Lv, X.-J. Bi, T.-L. Chen, K. Fang, and P.-F. Yin, Chinese Physics C 50, 065108 (2026)

    2026

  53. [53]

    A Minimal Interpretation of the Galactic Cosmic-Ray Proton and Helium Spectra from GeV to PeV Energies

    F. Aharonian and B. T. Zhang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2602.08223 (2026), arXiv:2602.08223 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Caprioli, JCAP 2012 (07), 038

    D. Caprioli, JCAP 2012 (07), 038

    2012

  55. [55]

    Kachelriess and D

    M. Kachelriess and D. Semikoz, Physics Letters B 634, 143 (2006)

    2006

  56. [56]

    Aloisio, V

    R. Aloisio, V. Berezinsky, P. Blasi, A. Gaz- izov, S. Grigorieva, and B. Hnatyk, Astroparticle Physics 27, 76 (2007)

    2007

  57. [57]

    II is due to propagation effects that typically result in a steepening of the observable spectrum w.r.t

    The difference between the values of γ here and in Sect. II is due to propagation effects that typically result in a steepening of the observable spectrum w.r.t. the spec- trum escaping the source

  58. [58]

    S. V. Ter-Antonyan and L. S. Haroyan, arXiv e-prints , hep-ex/0003006 (2000), arXiv:hep-ex/0003006 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  59. [59]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Roos, Computer Physics Communications 10, 343 (1975)

    1975

  60. [60]

    Brun and F

    R. Brun and F. Rademakers, NIM A 389, 81 (1997)

    1997

  61. [61]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Good- 8 man, PASP 125, 306 (2013)

    2013

  62. [62]

    Abreu, M

    P. Abreu, M. Aglietta, E. Ahn, I. Al- buquerque, D. Allard, and et al., Astroparticle Physics 34, 627–639 (2011)

    2011

  63. [63]

    Abreu, M

    P. Abreu, M. Aglietta, M. Ahlers, E. J. Ahn, I. F. M. Albuquerque, and et al., ApJ Suppl. 203, 34 (2012)

    2012

  64. [64]

    Abreu, M

    P. Abreu, M. Aglietta, M. Ahlers, E. J. Ahn, I. F. M. Albuquerque, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal 762, L13 (2012)

    2012

  65. [65]

    Abbasi, M

    R. Abbasi, M. Abe, T. Abu-Zayyad, M. Allen, R. Azuma, and et al., Astroparticle Physics 86, 21 (2017)

    2017

  66. [66]

    A. Aab, P. Abreu, M. Aglietta, I. F. M. Albuquerque, J. M. Albury, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal 891, 142 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    A. Aab, P. Abreu, M. Aglietta, E. Ahn, I. Al Samarai, and et al., Physical Review D 90, 10.1103/physrevd.90.122006 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.122006 2014

  68. [68]

    R. U. Abbasi, M. Abe, T. Abu- Zayyad, M. Allen, R. Azuma, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal 858, 76 (2018)

    2018

  69. [69]

    R. U. Abbasi, M. Abe, T. Abu-Zayyad, M. Allen, Y. Arai, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal 909, 178 (2021)

    2021

  70. [70]

    Giacinti, M

    G. Giacinti, M. Kachelriess, D. Semikoz, and G. Sigl, JCAP 2012 (07), 031–031

    2012

  71. [71]

    Alemanno, Q

    F. Alemanno, Q. An, P. Azzarello, F.-C.-T. Barbato, P. Bernardini, and et al., Nature 653, 52 (2026)

    2026

  72. [72]

    W. R. Webber, J. C. Kish, and D. A. Schrier, Physical Review C 41, 520 (1990)

    1990

  73. [73]

    Szabelski, T

    J. Szabelski, T. Wibig, and A. Wolfendale, Astroparticle Physics 17, 125–131 (2002)

    2002

  74. [74]

    Wibig and A

    T. Wibig and A. W. Wolfendale, J. Phys. G 31, 255–264 (2005)

    2005

  75. [75]

    Aloisio, V

    R. Aloisio, V. Berezinsky, and A. Gazizov, Astroparticle Physics 39-40, 129–143 (2012)

    2012

  76. [76]

    Aloisio, V

    R. Aloisio, V. Berezinsky, and A. Gazizov, Astroparticle Physics 34, 620 (2011)

    2011

  77. [77]

    Blasi, E

    P. Blasi, E. Amato, and P. D. Serpico, Physical Review Letters 109, 10.1103/physrevlett.109.061101 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.061101 2012

  78. [78]

    A. D. Erlykin and A. W. Wolfendale, J. Phys. G 23, 979–989 (1997)

    1997

  79. [79]

    Alemanno, C

    F. Alemanno, C. Altomare, Q. An, P. Azzarello, F. Barbato, and et al., Physical Review Letters 134, 10.1103/physrevlett.134.191001 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.191001 2025

  80. [80]

    Zhang, N

    M. Zhang, N. V. Pogorelov, Y. Zhang, H. B. Hu, and R. Schlickeiser, The Astrophysical Journal 889, 97 (2020)

    2020

Showing first 80 references.