pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08338 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

Revisiting predictions for cosmic-ray antinucleon fluxes from Galactic Dark Matter

David Maurin, Fiorenza Donato, Jordan Koechler, Lorenzo Stefanuto, Mattia Di Mauro, Nicolao Fornengo

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmic raysantiprotonsdark matter annihilationGalactic propagationantinucleiantideuteronsantiheliumAMS-02
0
0 comments X

The pith

GAPS low-energy antiproton data could tighten dark matter annihilation limits by up to a factor of ten for candidates below 50 GeV.

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

This paper computes the expected fluxes of antiprotons, antideuterons, and antihelium arriving at Earth from ordinary interstellar collisions and from dark matter annihilation throughout the Galaxy. It combines updated production spectra with nuclear coalescence models and two distinct sets of cosmic-ray transport parameters to translate an assumed dark matter annihilation rate into observable signals. The authors then use the precise AMS-02 antiproton measurements to place upper bounds on that annihilation rate under each transport scenario. They further show that the upcoming GAPS experiment, which targets sub-GeV energies, would strengthen those bounds by as much as an order of magnitude for lighter dark matter particles. The same framework yields detection forecasts for heavier antinuclei whose visibility depends on the transport model and on the details of particle production.

Core claim

Using state-of-the-art production cross sections, nuclear coalescence, and two Galactic propagation models (BIG and QUAINT), the paper derives upper limits on the dark matter velocity-averaged annihilation cross section from existing AMS-02 antiproton data and forecasts that GAPS sensitivity to sub-GeV antiprotons can improve those limits by up to an order of magnitude for dark matter masses below 50 GeV, while the detectability of antideuterons and antihelium with current and planned instruments varies strongly with propagation assumptions and hadronization tuning.

What carries the argument

Two fixed Galactic propagation models (BIG and QUAINT) that map dark matter annihilation spectra and secondary spallation production into Earth fluxes, with nuclear coalescence supplying the antinuclei yields.

If this is right

  • AMS-02 antiproton data already constrain the dark matter annihilation cross section, with the strength of the bound depending on the choice of BIG or QUAINT propagation parameters.
  • GAPS sub-GeV sensitivity can improve those constraints by up to a factor of ten for dark matter masses below 50 GeV.
  • Prospects for detecting antihelium and antideuterons depend on the experiment, the propagation model, and the hadronization tuning chosen.
  • Antinuclei channels offer complementary information to antiprotons for indirect dark matter searches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Joint analysis of low- and high-energy antinuclei data could reduce the uncertainty arising from propagation model choice.
  • If GAPS data align with secondary predictions, any residual high-energy antiproton excess would be harder to attribute to light dark matter.
  • The same low-energy window sensitivity may apply to other light dark matter candidates that produce antinuclei through decay rather than annihilation.

Load-bearing premise

The propagation parameters calibrated to other cosmic-ray species remain unchanged when low-energy antinuclei data are added.

What would settle it

A GAPS measurement of the sub-GeV antiproton flux that lies significantly above the pure-secondary prediction while remaining consistent with the dark-matter signal shape for a given mass and cross section would falsify the secondary-only interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08338 by David Maurin, Fiorenza Donato, Jordan Koechler, Lorenzo Stefanuto, Mattia Di Mauro, Nicolao Fornengo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: TOA secondary antiproton fluxes computed with BIG and QUAINT propagation models, alongside their 1σ theoretical uncertainty bands. Solar modulation is mod￾eled considering ϕFF = 678 MV, appropriate for the 2011-2018 period (see text). Data points are from AMS-02, for three different data taking periods: 2011–2015 (blue symbols) [6], 2011–2018 (black symbols) [7], and 2011–2022 (red symbols) [78]. The magen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 95% CL upper limits on ⟨σv⟩ as a function of mχ, assuming the b ¯b final state. Solid lines represent the con￾straints obtained from the analysis of AMS-02 p data [7] alone. Dashed lines indicate the projected sensitivity gain achieved by including simulated p data from GAPS. Results are shown for both the BIG (blue) and QUAINT (yellow) propagation models. 101 102 103 104 Dark Matter Mass mχ [GeV] 10−28 10… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 95% CL upper limits on ⟨σv⟩ as a function of mχ, obtained with the QUAINT propagation model, assuming the b ¯b (solid yellow line), uu¯ (dashed magenta), W+W− (orange dotted) and hh (purple dot-dashed) final states. 100 101 102 103 Rigidity [GV] 10−8 10−7 10−6 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 Φ ¯p [GV − 1 m − 2 s − 1 sr − 1 ] ann. channel: b ¯b mχ = 10 GeV model: BIG mχ = 100 GeV mχ = 300 GeV mχ = 5000 GeV Total Second… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: upper limits on ⟨σv⟩ obtained in our antiproton analysis for the QUAINT transport model, as a function of the DM mass mχ. Middle panel: primary antiproton fluxes for various DM masses ranging from 7 to 5000 GeV (see the color bar on the right for the mass-color correspondence). These fluxes have been computed assuming the upper limit value of ⟨σv⟩ corresponding to each mass, as shown in the top … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of mock GAPS data on the maximum allowed primary TOA antiproton fluxes, evaluated for the BIG propagation model. Solid lines represent the maxi￾mum primary fluxes derived considering AMS-02 data alone, whereas dashed lines illustrate the constraints obtained con￾sidering the mock GAPS dataset in the ⟨σv⟩ bound compu￾tation. The plot displays the mock GAPS data (red crosses) superimposed on the predi… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: TOA antideuteron fluxes. The plot displays the expected secondary background flux (black dashed line) alongside primary fluxes from DM annihilation, considering the b ¯b annihilation channel. The primary components are shown for both the standard CosmiXs spectra (solid lines) and the updated Λb tuning (dotted lines). All fluxes are eval￾uated at a solar modulation potential ϕFF = 750 MV. The primary signal… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: TOA antideuteron fluxes. The plot displays the expected secondary background fluxes (black lines) alongside primary fluxes from DM annihilation, considering the uu¯ an￾nihilation channel. The fluxes are shown for both the BIG (solid lines) and the QUAINT (dotted lines) propagation mod￾els. All fluxes are evaluated at a solar modulation potential ϕFF = 750 MV. The primary signals are computed using the 95% … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: , which displays the maximum number of primary antideuterons that GAPS and AMS-02 are predicted to detect, assuming the current p-derived constraints and considering the b ¯b annihilation channel. The calculation of these expected event yields follows the methodology outlined in Ref. [98]. Specifically, the expected number of events is derived by integrating the theoretical primary flux over the kinetic en… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 95% CL upper limits on ⟨σv⟩ as a function of mχ, assuming the b ¯b final state. The solid lines represent the current constraints derived from the AMS-02 antiproton data. The other curves illustrate the projected upper limits assuming a null detection of primary antideuterons by cur￾rent and future experiments: AMS-02 (dashed purple), GAPS (dotted magenta), and ALADInO (dash-dotted green). Re￾sults are di… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Primary fluxes of TOA antihelium 3, consid￾ering mχ = 10, 50, and 100 GeV and ϕFF = 750 MV, for the BIG and QUAINT models and using the Argonne coalescence approach. The fluxes are computed considering the 95 % CL upper limits on ⟨σv⟩ obtained by our antiproton analysis. been recently discussed in Ref. [98]. IX. CONCLUSIONS In this work, we have revisited the production and de￾tection prospects of cosmic-… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The data on cosmic antiprotons have reached an outstanding precision on energies spanning from GeV to hundreds of TeV, thanks to the space-based AMS-02 experiment. The balloon-borne GAPS experiment, which just completed its first Antarctic flight, will address antiproton and antideuteron fluxes well below GeV energies. Antinuclei in cosmic rays, as well as being produced by spallation reactions between cosmic-ray nuclei and the atoms of the interstellar medium, may hide contributions from exotic sources, such as particle dark matter annihilation in the Galaxy. In this paper, we present predictions for cosmic antiproton, antideuteron and antihelium fluxes both from secondary and dark matter origin. We use state-of-the-art production spectra, nuclear coalescence for antinuclei, and Galactic propagation models to derive upper limits on the dark matter annihilation cross-section from AMS-02 antiproton data in different propagation scenarios (BIG and QUAINT). We quantify the impact of future GAPS data, showing that its sensitivity to sub-GV antiprotons could improve the $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ constraints by up to an order of magnitude for light DM ($m_{\chi} \lesssim 50$ GeV). For heavier antinuclei, the detection perspective with existing and upcoming experiments are derived for those scenarios consistent with AMS-02 antiproton flux. The detectability of such signals strongly depends on the experiment, the propagation model, and the hadronization tuning. Our analysis underscores the complementarity of antinuclei channels for indirect DM searches and the critical role of low-energy windows in constraining light DM candidates.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript revisits predictions for cosmic-ray antinucleon fluxes (antiprotons, antideuterons, antihelium) from secondary spallation and dark matter annihilation. It employs state-of-the-art production spectra and nuclear coalescence, computes fluxes in the BIG and QUAINT Galactic propagation models, derives upper limits on the DM annihilation cross-section ⟨σv⟩ from AMS-02 antiproton data, and projects that future GAPS sub-GeV antiproton sensitivity could tighten those limits by up to an order of magnitude for light DM (mχ ≲ 50 GeV). Detection prospects for heavier antinuclei in scenarios consistent with AMS-02 are also presented.

Significance. If the results hold, the work usefully illustrates the complementarity of antinuclei channels and the leverage of low-energy data for light DM. The explicit comparison of two propagation setups and the use of updated coalescence and production modeling are positive features that help quantify model dependence.

major comments (1)
  1. The central projection that GAPS sub-GV antiproton data could improve ⟨σv⟩ constraints by up to an order of magnitude for mχ ≲ 50 GeV (Abstract and associated results section) assumes the BIG and QUAINT propagation parameters remain fixed at their current best-fit values. These parameters are calibrated to existing cosmic-ray data; because the DM signal for light candidates peaks in the sub-GeV regime where diffusion, convection, and solar modulation are most uncertain, any re-calibration required once GAPS data are included would rescale the allowed DM contribution and therefore the quoted improvement factor. The manuscript does not provide a test of parameter stability under the addition of the very low-energy channel used to claim the gain.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and positive assessment of the manuscript's significance. We address the single major comment below, agreeing that the GAPS projection requires clarification regarding propagation parameter stability. We have revised the text to incorporate an explicit caveat on this point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central projection that GAPS sub-GV antiproton data could improve ⟨σv⟩ constraints by up to an order of magnitude for mχ ≲ 50 GeV (Abstract and associated results section) assumes the BIG and QUAINT propagation parameters remain fixed at their current best-fit values. These parameters are calibrated to existing cosmic-ray data; because the DM signal for light candidates peaks in the sub-GeV regime where diffusion, convection, and solar modulation are most uncertain, any re-calibration required once GAPS data are included would rescale the allowed DM contribution and therefore the quoted improvement factor. The manuscript does not provide a test of parameter stability under the addition of the very low-energy channel used to claim the gain.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the quoted improvement in ⟨σv⟩ limits from future GAPS sub-GV antiproton data is computed under the assumption that the BIG and QUAINT propagation parameters remain fixed at the values obtained from fits to existing cosmic-ray data. The sub-GeV energy range is indeed subject to larger uncertainties in diffusion, convection, and solar modulation, and a re-calibration once low-energy data are available could rescale the allowed DM contribution. The original manuscript did not include an explicit test of how the propagation parameters would shift under the addition of hypothetical GAPS measurements. In the revised version we have added a paragraph in the results section (and a corresponding note in the abstract) that explicitly states this assumption, describes the GAPS projection as an indicative benchmark under fixed parameters, and notes that a complete re-fit of the propagation model would be required once real data arrive. This addition does not change the numerical results but provides the necessary qualification on their interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: propagation models used as fixed external inputs

full rationale

The paper takes the BIG and QUAINT propagation parameter sets as calibrated inputs from prior cosmic-ray studies and uses them to compute secondary backgrounds and to extract upper limits on ⟨σv⟩ from AMS-02 antiproton data. No equation or step in the derivation reduces by construction to a fit performed inside the paper itself, nor does any central claim rest on a self-citation chain that is itself unverified. The GAPS sensitivity projection is a forward calculation within the same fixed models rather than a statistically forced prediction. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard but non-trivial inputs: nuclear coalescence parameters for antinuclei, cosmic-ray propagation parameters in two named models, and hadronization tuning. These are not derived in the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • BIG and QUAINT propagation parameters
    Standard galactic transport parameters (diffusion coefficient, halo height, etc.) calibrated to other cosmic-ray species.
  • Coalescence momentum for antideuterons and antihelium
    Parameter controlling how nucleons combine into antinuclei; typically fitted to accelerator data.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Dark matter annihilation produces antinuclei via standard hadronization and coalescence
    Assumed throughout the indirect detection calculation.
  • domain assumption Secondary production spectra from spallation are accurately modeled by state-of-the-art Monte Carlo generators
    Used as the background against which DM signal is compared.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5616 in / 1468 out tokens · 35284 ms · 2026-05-12T01:13:15.720579+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

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Adrianiet al., JETP Lett.96, 621 (2013)

    O. Adrianiet al., JETP Lett.96, 621 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Adrianiet al., Phys

    O. Adrianiet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 051101 (2009), arXiv:0810.4994 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    Adrianiet al.(PAMELA), Nature458, 607 (2009), arXiv:0810.4995 [astro-ph]

    O. Adrianiet al.(PAMELA), Nature458, 607 (2009), arXiv:0810.4995 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Adrianiet al.(PAMELA), Riv

    O. Adrianiet al.(PAMELA), Riv. Nuovo Cim.40, 473 (2017), arXiv:1801.10310 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Aguilar, L

    M. Aguilar, L. Ali Cavasonza, B. Alpat, G. Ambrosi, et al.(AMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 091103 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Aguilaret al.(AMS), Phys

    M. Aguilaret al.(AMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 091103 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Aguilaret al.(AMS), Phys

    M. Aguilaret al.(AMS), Phys. Rept.894, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Abeet al., Phys

    K. Abeet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 131301 (2012), arXiv:1201.2967 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2012

  9. [9]

    Osteria (GAPS), Nucl

    G. Osteria (GAPS), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A958, 162201 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    von Doetinchemet al., JCAP08, 035 (2020), arXiv:2002.04163 [astro-ph.HE]

    P. von Doetinchemet al., JCAP08, 035 (2020), arXiv:2002.04163 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Sakaiet al.(BESS Collaboration), Phys

    K. Sakaiet al.(BESS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 131001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Choutko and F

    V. Choutko and F. Giovacchini, inInternational Cosmic Ray Conference, International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 4 (2008) pp. 765–768

    work page 2008

  13. [13]

    Latest results of the Alpha Magnetic Spec- trometer on the International Space Station,

    A. Oliva, “Latest results of the Alpha Magnetic Spec- trometer on the International Space Station,” (2024), invited talk at the JENAA Workshop @ CERN, 20 Aug 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Aramaki, C

    T. Aramaki, C. J. Hailey, S. E. Boggs, P. von Doet- inchem, H. Fuke, S. I. Mognet, R. A. Ong, K. Perez, and J. Zweerink (GAPS), Astropart. Phys.74, 6 (2016), arXiv:1506.02513 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    von Doetinchemet al., PoSICRC2015, 1218 (2016), arXiv:1507.02712 [hep-ph]

    P. von Doetinchemet al., PoSICRC2015, 1218 (2016), arXiv:1507.02712 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Hailey (GAPS), Invited talk at the Workshop https://indico.cern.ch/event/1480110/overview, CERN 22 Jan 2026 (2026)

    C. Hailey (GAPS), Invited talk at the Workshop https://indico.cern.ch/event/1480110/overview, CERN 22 Jan 2026 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Donato, D

    F. Donato, D. Maurin, P. Brun, T. Delahaye, and P. Salati, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 071301 (2009), arXiv:0810.5292 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  18. [18]

    Boudaud, Y

    M. Boudaud, Y. G´ enolini, L. Derome, J. Lavalle, D. Maurin, P. Salati, and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023022 (2020), arXiv:1906.07119 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Di Mauro, M

    M. Di Mauro, M. Korsmeier, and A. Cuoco, Phys. Rev. D109, 123003 (2024), arXiv:2311.17150 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Calore, M

    F. Calore, M. Cirelli, L. Derome, Y. Genolini, D. Mau- rin, P. Salati, and P. D. Serpico, SciPost Phys.12, 163 (2022), arXiv:2202.03076 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Donato, N

    F. Donato, N. Fornengo, and P. Salati, Physical Review D62, 043003 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9904481 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2000

  22. [22]

    Cirelli, N

    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, M. Taoso, and A. Vittino, Journal of High Energy Physics2014, 009 (2014), arXiv:1401.4017 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Carlson, A

    E. Carlson, A. Coogan, T. Linden, S. Profumo, A. Ibarra, and S. Wild, Phys. Rev. D89, 076005 (2014), arXiv:1401.2461 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    Chardonnet, J

    P. Chardonnet, J. Orloff, and P. Salati, Phys. Lett. B409, 313 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9705110 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 1997

  25. [25]

    Fornengo, L

    N. Fornengo, L. Maccione, and A. Vittino, JCAP09, 031 (2013), arXiv:1306.4171 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    Korsmeier, F

    M. Korsmeier, F. Donato, and N. Fornengo, Phys. Rev. D97, 103011 (2018), arXiv:1711.08465 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Kachelrieß, S

    M. Kachelrieß, S. Ostapchenko, and J. Tjemsland, JCAP08, 048 (2020), arXiv:2002.10481 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    ˇSerkˇ snyt˙ eet al., Phys

    L. ˇSerkˇ snyt˙ eet al., Phys. Rev. D105, 083021 (2022), arXiv:2201.00925 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    De La Torre Luque, M

    P. De La Torre Luque, M. W. Winkler, and T. Linden, JCAP10, 017 (2024), arXiv:2404.13114 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [31]

    Di Mauro, N

    M. Di Mauro, N. Fornengo, A. Jueid, R. R. de Austri, and F. Bellini, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 131002 (2025), arXiv:2411.04815 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    Di Mauro, J

    M. Di Mauro, J. Koechler, L. Stefanuto, F. Bellini, F. Donato, and N. Fornengo, subm. to Phys. Rev. D (2026), arXiv:2603.19352 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  32. [33]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Eur

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 889 (2020), arXiv:2003.03184 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  33. [34]

    ALICE Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B860, 139191 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [35]

    ALICE Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B800, 135043 (2019), arXiv:1906.03136 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  35. [36]

    Ibarra and S

    A. Ibarra and S. Wild, JCAP02, 021 (2013), arXiv:1209.5539 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  36. [37]

    Pohlet al.(CREMA), Science353, 669 (2016)

    R. Pohlet al.(CREMA), Science353, 669 (2016)

    work page 2016

  37. [38]

    Di Mauro, A

    M. Di Mauro, A. Jueid, J. Koechler, and R. R. de Aus- tri, Phys. Rev. D112, 083017 (2025), arXiv:2504.07172 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [39]

    Scheibl and U

    R. Scheibl and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev.C59, 1585 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9809092 [nucl-th]. 16

    work page arXiv 1999

  39. [40]

    Bellini and A

    F. Bellini and A. P. Kalweit, Phys. Rev. C99, 054905 (2019), arXiv:1807.05894 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  40. [41]

    K. Blum, K. C. Y. Ng, R. Sato, and M. Takimoto, Phys. Rev. D96, 103021 (2017), arXiv:1704.05431 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

  41. [42]

    Bellini, K

    F. Bellini, K. Blum, A. P. Kalweit, and M. Puccio, Phys. Rev. C103, 014907 (2021), arXiv:2007.01750 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  42. [43]

    Kachelrieß, S

    M. Kachelrieß, S. Ostapchenko, and J. Tjemsland, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 4 (2020), arXiv:1905.01192 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  43. [45]

    R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C51, 38 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9408016

    work page arXiv 1995

  44. [46]

    Horst, L

    M. Horst, L. Barioglio, F. Bellini, L. Fabbietti, C. Pinto, B. Singh, and S. Tripathy, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 804 (2023), arXiv:2302.12696 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [47]

    De Romeri, F

    V. De Romeri, F. Donato, D. Maurin, L. Stefanuto, and A. Tolino, Phys. Rev. D112, 023003 (2025), arXiv:2505.04692 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [48]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

    work page Pith review arXiv 1996

  47. [49]

    P. J. McMillan, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society465, 76–94 (2016)

    work page 2016

  48. [50]

    P. F. de Salas and A. Widmark, Reports on Progress in Physics84, 104901 (2021), arXiv:2012.11477 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2021

  49. [51]

    2019 , doi =

    Gravity Collaboration, R. Abuter,et al., Astron. Astro- phys.625, L10 (2019), arXiv:1904.05721 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2019

  50. [52]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3

    C. Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  51. [53]

    Arina, M

    C. Arina, M. Di Mauro, N. Fornengo, J. Heisig, A. Jueid, and R. R. de Austri, JCAP03, 035 (2024), arXiv:2312.01153 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [54]

    Arina, M

    C. Arina, M. Di Mauro, N. Fornengo, J. Heisig, A. Jueid, and R. R. de Austri (2025) arXiv:2501.13281 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [55]

    Schaelet al.(ALEPH), Phys

    S. Schaelet al.(ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B639, 192 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0604023

    work page arXiv 2006

  54. [56]

    Jueid, J

    A. Jueid, J. Kip, R. R. de Austri, and P. Skands, JCAP 04, 068 (2023), arXiv:2202.11546 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  55. [57]

    Jueid, J

    A. Jueid, J. Kip, R. R. de Austri, and P. Skands, JHEP 02, 119 (2024), arXiv:2303.11363 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [58]

    Amoroso, S

    S. Amoroso, S. Caron, A. Jueid, R. Ruiz de Austri, and P. Skands, JCAP05, 007 (2019), arXiv:1812.07424 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  57. [59]

    Y. S. Amhiset al.(HFLAV), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 226 (2021), arXiv:1909.12524 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  58. [60]

    Moise, PoSICHEP2024, 676 (2025)

    R.-D. Moise, PoSICHEP2024, 676 (2025)

    work page 2025

  59. [61]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE Collaboration), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 97, 024615 (2018), arXiv:1709.08522 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2018

  60. [62]

    Orusa, M

    L. Orusa, M. Di Mauro, F. Donato, and M. Korsmeier, Phys. Rev. D105, 123021 (2022), arXiv:2203.13143 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  61. [63]

    Korsmeier, F

    M. Korsmeier, F. Donato, and M. Di Mauro, Phys. Rev. D97, 103019 (2018), arXiv:1802.03030 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2018

  62. [64]

    Differential cross- sections for secondary antiproton and antideuteron pro- duction,

    M. Di Mauro, J. Koechler, L. Stefanuto, F. Bellini, F. Donato, and N. Fornengo, “Differential cross- sections for secondary antiproton and antideuteron pro- duction,” (2026)

    work page 2026

  63. [65]

    V. S. Berezinskii, S. V. Bulanov, V. A. Dogiel, and V. S. Ptuskin,Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1990, edited by Ginzburg, V.L.(Elsevier Science and Technology, 1990)

    work page 1990

  64. [66]

    Schlickeiser,Cosmic ray astrophysics / Rein- hard Schlickeiser, Astronomy and Astrophysics Li- brary; Physics and Astronomy Online Library

    R. Schlickeiser,Cosmic ray astrophysics / Rein- hard Schlickeiser, Astronomy and Astrophysics Li- brary; Physics and Astronomy Online Library. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 3-540-66465-3, 2002, XV + 519 pp. (Springer, 2002)

    work page 2002

  65. [67]

    A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko, and V. S. Ptuskin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 285 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0701517

    work page arXiv 2007

  66. [68]

    Maurin, Comput

    D. Maurin, Comput. Phys. Commun.247, 106942 (2020), arXiv:1807.02968 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2020

  67. [69]

    E. S. Seo and V. S. Ptuskin, Astrophys. J.431, 705 (1994)

    work page 1994

  68. [70]

    Maurin, F

    D. Maurin, F. Donato, R. Taillet, and P. Salati, Astro- phys. J.555, 585 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101231

    work page arXiv 2001

  69. [71]

    Donato, D

    F. Donato, D. Maurin, and R. Taillet, Astron. Astro- phys.381, 539 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0108079

    work page arXiv 2002

  70. [72]

    G´ enolini, M

    Y. G´ enolini, M. Boudaud, P. I. Batista, S. Caroff, L. Derome, J. Lavalle, A. Marcowith, D. Maurin, V. Poireau, V. Poulin, S. Rosier, P. Salati, P. D. Ser- pico, and M. Vecchi, Phy. Rev. D99, 123028 (2019), arXiv:1904.08917 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  71. [73]

    Weinrich, Y

    N. Weinrich, Y. G´ enolini, M. Boudaud, L. Derome, and D. Maurin, Astron. Astrophys.639, A131 (2020), arXiv:2002.11406 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  72. [74]

    Weinrich, M

    N. Weinrich, M. Boudaud, L. Derome, Y. Genolini, J. Lavalle, D. Maurin, P. Salati, P. Serpico, and G. Weymann-Despres, Astron. Astrophys.639, A74 (2020), arXiv:2004.00441 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  73. [75]

    Donato, N

    F. Donato, N. Fornengo, D. Maurin, and P. Salati, Phys. Rev. D69, 063501 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0306207

    work page arXiv 2004

  74. [76]

    G´ enolini, M

    Y. G´ enolini, M. Boudaud, M. Cirelli, L. Derome, J. Lavalle, D. Maurin, P. Salati, and N. Weinrich, Phys. Rev. D104, 083005 (2021), arXiv:2103.04108 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  75. [77]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Nature Phys.19, 61 (2023), arXiv:2202.01549 [nucl-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Nature Phys.19, 61 (2023), arXiv:2202.01549 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  76. [78]

    Aguilaret al.(AMS Collaboration), Phys

    M. Aguilaret al.(AMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 051002 (2025)

    work page 2025

  77. [79]

    L. J. Gleeson and W. I. Axford, Astrophys. J.154, 1011 (1968)

    work page 1968

  78. [80]

    L. A. Fisk, J. Geophys. Res.76, 221 (1971)

    work page 1971

  79. [81]

    Maurin, A

    D. Maurin, A. Cheminet, L. Derome, A. Ghelfi, and G. Hubert, Adv. Space Res.55, 363 (2015), arXiv:1403.1612 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page arXiv 2015

  80. [82]

    Ghelfi, D

    A. Ghelfi, D. Maurin, A. Cheminet, L. Derome, G. Hu- bert, and F. Melot, Advances in Space Research60, 833 (2017), arXiv:1607.01976 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.