Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Self-generated turbulence in cosmic filaments confines ultra-high-energy nuclei below the EV scale, suppressing their escape and causing heavy nuclei to photodisintegrate into secondary protons.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 20:21 UTC pith:TT5MO2U6

load-bearing objection The paper extends self-confinement to mixed nuclei in a leaky-box setup and shows photodisintegration can supply secondary protons below the ankle for cluster-compatible parameters, but the outcome depends on NRSI dominating the turbulence. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.14869 v1 pith:TT5MO2U6 submitted 2026-05-14 astro-ph.HE

Self-confinement of ultra-high-energy nuclei in cosmic filaments: implications for the UHECR spectrum and composition

Alessandro Cermenati , Roberto Aloisio , Carmelo Evoli This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords ultra-high-energy cosmic raysself-confinementcosmic filamentsphotodisintegrationUHECR spectrumUHECR compositionnon-resonant streaming instabilityleaky-box model
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that ultra-high-energy cosmic ray sources hosted in galaxy clusters produce particles whose escape through cosmic filaments generates magnetic turbulence via the non-resonant streaming instability. This turbulence confines the nuclei for long enough that heavy species break apart on background photons, yielding lighter secondary protons. The net result is a suppressed low-rigidity flux that appears as a harder spectrum above the ankle, together with a composition that matches Auger data. The same process keeps the associated neutrino and gamma-ray backgrounds within current observational bounds for plausible source luminosities and coherence lengths.

Core claim

Extending the self-confinement scenario to a mixed nuclear composition in an effective leaky-box model that includes escape, photodisintegration, and secondary production shows that self-generated turbulence suppresses the escaping flux below the EV scale for source luminosities and magnetic-field coherence lengths compatible with UHECR sources in galaxy clusters propagating through cosmic filaments. During confinement, heavy nuclei efficiently photodisintegrate, producing secondary protons that contribute below the ankle and help account for the observed composition.

What carries the argument

Effective leaky-box model of the confinement region that incorporates escape, photodisintegration, secondary production, and turbulence generated by the non-resonant streaming instability.

Load-bearing premise

The non-resonant streaming instability dominates turbulence generation and sets the confinement time in the leaky-box model for the chosen source luminosities and coherence lengths.

What would settle it

Detection of an unsuppressed flux of heavy nuclei below the EV scale from cluster-hosted sources, or a cosmogenic neutrino flux exceeding the levels predicted for the extreme configurations, would falsify the suppression.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Escaping flux of UHECRs is suppressed below the EV scale for source parameters compatible with galaxy clusters and filaments.
  • Heavy nuclei photodisintegrate during confinement, yielding secondary protons that contribute below the ankle.
  • The resulting spectrum and composition are compatible with Auger measurements.
  • The predicted cosmogenic neutrino flux remains within current limits.
  • The diffuse gamma-ray background constrains the most extreme source configurations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The mechanism implies that viable UHECR sources must reside in environments whose magnetic coherence lengths allow the instability to operate before external turbulence takes over.
  • Future high-statistics composition measurements below the ankle could directly test the predicted secondary-proton fraction.
  • The same transport physics could be applied to lower-energy cosmic-ray populations escaping from other magnetized structures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper extends the self-confinement scenario for UHECRs to a mixed nuclear composition using a leaky-box model that incorporates escape, photodisintegration, and secondary production. It claims that turbulence generated by the non-resonant streaming instability can suppress the escaping flux below the EV scale for source luminosities and coherence lengths compatible with galaxy-cluster sources in cosmic filaments; during confinement, heavy nuclei photodisintegrate to produce secondary protons that contribute below the ankle. The resulting spectrum and composition are compared to Auger data, and associated cosmogenic neutrino and gamma-ray fluxes are computed, remaining compatible with limits except for extreme cases.

Significance. If the central assumption holds, the work supplies a transport-based mechanism that accounts for the hard low-rigidity spectrum and composition transition without requiring unusual source injection spectra. The inclusion of secondary protons from photodisintegration and the explicit computation of neutrino and gamma-ray backgrounds are concrete strengths that allow falsifiable tests against existing and future data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / leaky-box model] Abstract and model description: the suppression of flux below the EV scale is presented as an outcome of self-generated turbulence, yet it is obtained only after selecting source luminosities (~10^44 erg/s) and coherence lengths (~kpc) stated to be 'compatible' with the desired effect; no demonstration is given that the result is independent of these choices or that it survives variation within the plausible range.
  2. [Model / NRSI dominance] Instability section: the leaky-box confinement time is tied directly to the non-resonant streaming instability growth rate, but no quantitative comparison is supplied showing that this rate exceeds damping or external turbulence (filament shear, pre-existing cluster fields) for the adopted parameters; if resonant streaming or external turbulence instead sets the scattering rate, the suppression and secondary-proton contribution both disappear.
  3. [Results / Auger comparison] Comparison with Auger: the abstract states that the model 'reproduces' the observed spectrum and composition for plausible parameters, yet no quantitative fit metrics, error treatment, or sensitivity tests to the free parameters (luminosity, coherence length) are reported, preventing assessment of whether the agreement is robust or post-hoc.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Model description] Notation for the coherence length and source luminosity should be defined explicitly at first use with units.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report recommending major revision. We agree that additional demonstrations of parameter robustness, instability comparisons, and quantitative fit metrics are required. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the necessary revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / leaky-box model] Abstract and model description: the suppression of flux below the EV scale is presented as an outcome of self-generated turbulence, yet it is obtained only after selecting source luminosities (~10^44 erg/s) and coherence lengths (~kpc) stated to be 'compatible' with the desired effect; no demonstration is given that the result is independent of these choices or that it survives variation within the plausible range.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript presents results for selected fiducial values without a systematic exploration. In the revised version we will add an appendix showing the escaping flux suppression as a function of luminosity (spanning 10^43–10^45 erg/s) and coherence length (0.1–10 kpc), using ranges drawn from cluster and filament observations. This will identify the portion of parameter space where the effect persists and quantify its sensitivity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Model / NRSI dominance] Instability section: the leaky-box confinement time is tied directly to the non-resonant streaming instability growth rate, but no quantitative comparison is supplied showing that this rate exceeds damping or external turbulence (filament shear, pre-existing cluster fields) for the adopted parameters; if resonant streaming or external turbulence instead sets the scattering rate, the suppression and secondary-proton contribution both disappear.

    Authors: The comment correctly identifies a missing justification. The revised manuscript will include explicit calculations comparing the NRSI growth rate to relevant damping rates (ion-neutral, nonlinear Landau) and to estimated levels of external turbulence or shear for the fiducial parameters, thereby clarifying the conditions under which NRSI dominance holds. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results / Auger comparison] Comparison with Auger: the abstract states that the model 'reproduces' the observed spectrum and composition for plausible parameters, yet no quantitative fit metrics, error treatment, or sensitivity tests to the free parameters (luminosity, coherence length) are reported, preventing assessment of whether the agreement is robust or post-hoc.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative assessment is necessary. The revision will report chi-squared (or equivalent) values for the spectrum and composition fits, incorporating Auger statistical and systematic uncertainties, and will include sensitivity plots varying luminosity and coherence length around the fiducial point to demonstrate robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper constructs an effective leaky-box transport model incorporating escape, photodisintegration, and secondary production under the assumption that non-resonant streaming instability generates the turbulence. It then evaluates the escaping flux, spectrum, and composition for source luminosities and coherence lengths described as compatible with cluster/filament environments, and compares the output to Auger data plus cosmogenic fluxes. This is a standard forward-model calculation whose outputs are not equivalent to the inputs by construction; the suppression below the EV scale emerges from solving the transport equations rather than from re-labeling a fitted parameter or from a self-citation that itself contains the target result. No self-definitional step, uniqueness theorem imported from the same authors, or ansatz smuggled via citation is exhibited in the abstract or described chain. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the dominance of the non-resonant streaming instability for turbulence generation, the validity of the leaky-box approximation for filament propagation, and the choice of source parameters that are tuned to produce the observed hardening.

free parameters (1)
  • source luminosity and magnetic coherence length
    Selected to be compatible with cluster-hosted sources that produce the required suppression below the EV scale.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Non-resonant streaming instability sets the dominant turbulence level and confinement time.
    Invoked to justify the self-confinement effect in the leaky-box model.
  • standard math Photodisintegration and secondary production occur on standard cosmic photon backgrounds during confinement.
    Standard nuclear and photon interaction physics assumed without re-derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5751 in / 1507 out tokens · 22872 ms · 2026-06-30T20:21:12.032485+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The spectrum and composition of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) suggest that the population dominating above the ankle releases particles with an unusual hard spectrum at low rigidity, below the EV scale. In self-confinement scenarios, such an apparent hardening arises from transport: escaping UHECRs generate magnetic turbulence that delays their own release from the magnetized environments surrounding their sources. We extend the self-confinement scenario based on the non-resonant streaming instability to a mixed nuclear composition. We describe the confinement region with an effective leaky-box model including escape, photodisintegration, and secondary production. We then compare the resulting spectrum and composition with Auger measurements and compute the associated cosmogenic neutrino and gamma-ray emission. We find that self-generated turbulence can suppress the escaping flux below the EV scale for source luminosities and magnetic-field coherence lengths compatible with UHECR sources hosted in galaxy clusters and propagating through cosmic filaments. During confinement, heavy nuclei efficiently photodisintegrate, producing secondary protons that contribute below the ankle and help account for the observed composition. The predicted neutrino flux remains compatible with current limits, while the diffuse gamma-ray background provides a potentially strong constraint on the most extreme configurations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14869 by Alessandro Cermenati, Carmelo Evoli, Roberto Aloisio.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Relevant timescales (computed at z = 0) for representative light (left panel) and heavy (right panel) nuclei in the reference scenario. Solid lines show the escape time, including the lower bound set by the flux-tube crossing time, λB/c ∼ 0.1 Gyr. Dashed lines indicate the relevant interaction timescales (γN for nuclei and γp for protons), while dotted lines show the timescale for Bethe– Heitler pair produ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Emissivity E 2Q(E), computed at z = 0, of different mass groups in the presence of self-confinement, shown for three choices of the magnetic-field coherence length: λB = 15 Mpc (dotted), λB = 30 Mpc (solid), and λB = 50 Mpc (dashed). For each mass interval, the plotted emissivity is the sum of the primary contribution and all secondary nuclei generated by the disintegration of heavier primaries and ending … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: UHECR spectrum at Earth for λB = 30 Mpc. The spectra of the different mass groups are shown according to the assumed primary composition. The total contribution from the secondary low-energy (LE) population is indicated by the grey dashed line, while the total predicted spectrum is shown by the black solid line. Data points correspond to the all-particle UHECR spectrum measured by Auger (The Pierre A… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UHECR spectrum and corresponding Xmax moments at Earth, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: UHECR spectrum and corresponding Xmax moments at Earth, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Diffuse neutrino fluxes associated with the benchmark UHECR spectra shown in Figs. 4, 3, and 5. The contribution produced inside the confinement region is shown with dashed lines, while the standard cosmogenic contribution from particles after escape is shown with dotted lines. The total flux is shown with solid lines. Model predictions are compared with the latest upper limits from IceCube (Abbasi e… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Parameter space in the L–λB plane relevant for self-confinement in the inter-cluster medium. Shaded regions indicate the excluded parameter space. Blue curves denote the combinations of source luminosity and magnetic-field coherence length required to produce a suppression of the escaping flux at 500 PV (dashed), 1 EV (solid), and 2 EV (dotted). Right: Schematic representation of self-confinement: UH… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Cosmic ray heating of cold streams: Implications for the gas supply and growth of massive galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Externally entrained cosmic-web CRs weakly heat dense cold-stream cores but can strongly heat diffuse and mixed interface gas in massive haloes, adding selectivity to cold accretion.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aartsen, M. G. et al. 2021, J. Phys. G, 48, 060501

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Abbasi, R. et al. 2025, arXiv [arXiv:2502.01963]

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    2016, Phys

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 151105

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 86

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 86

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    2025, Physical Review X, 15, 031016

    Adriani, O., Aiello, S., Albert, A., et al. 2025, Physical Review X, 15, 031016

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    2025, Ideas and Requirements for the Global Cosmic-Ray Observatory (GCOS)

    Ahlers, M., Allekotte, I., Alvarez-Muniz, J., et al. 2025, Ideas and Requirements for the Global Cosmic-Ray Observatory (GCOS)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Ajello, M. et al. 2015, Astrophys. J. Lett., 800, L27

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    & Berezinsky, V

    Aloisio, R. & Berezinsky, V . 2004, ApJ, 612, 900

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    2013, Astroparticle Physics, 41, 94

    Aloisio, R., Berezinsky, V ., & Grigorieva, S. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 41, 94

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Aloisio, R., Boncioli, D., di Matteo, A., et al. 2017, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2017, 009 Álvarez-Muñiz, J. et al. 2020, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 63, 219501

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    & Mészáros, P

    Asano, K. & Mészáros, P. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 023005

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Bell, A. R. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550

    work page 2004

  13. [13]

    R., Schure, K

    Bell, A. R., Schure, K. M., Reville, B., & Giacinti, G. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 415

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    2006, Phys

    Berezinsky, V ., Gazizov, A., & Grigorieva, S. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 043005

    work page 2006

  15. [15]

    & Kalashev, O

    Berezinsky, V . & Kalashev, O. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 023007

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    S., Blasi, P., & Ptuskin, V

    Berezinsky, V . S., Blasi, P., & Ptuskin, V . S. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 487, 529

    work page 1997

  17. [17]

    & Farrar, G

    Bister, T. & Farrar, G. R. 2024, ApJ, 966, 71

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    & Eichler, D

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

    work page 1987

  19. [19]

    & Amato, E

    Blasi, P. & Amato, E. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 051101

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    2015, Phys

    Blasi, P., Amato, E., & D’Angelo, M. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 115, 121101

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    I., & Olinto, A

    Blasi, P., Epstein, R. I., & Olinto, A. V . 2000, ApJ, 533, L123 Böhringer, H., Chon, G., & Collins, C. A. 2014, A&A, 570, A31

    work page 2000

  22. [22]

    2024, Proc

    Boncioli, D. 2024, Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Fermi, 208, 315

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.17402

    Bondarenko, K., Boyarsky, A., Sokolenko, A., & V ovk, I. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.17402

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    P., Vacca, V ., et al

    Carretti, E., O’Sullivan, S. P., Vacca, V ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2273

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    P., et al

    Carretti, E., Vacca, V ., O’Sullivan, S. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 945

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    & Pierre Auger Collaboration

    Castellina, A. & Pierre Auger Collaboration. 2019, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol. 210, European Physical Journal Web of Confer- ences (EDP), 06002

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    2026, A&A, 707, A19

    Cermenati, A., Aloisio, R., Blasi, P., & Evoli, C. 2026, A&A, 707, A19

    work page 2026

  28. [28]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.11993

    Cermenati, A., Ambrosone, A., Aloisio, R., Boncioli, D., & Evoli, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.11993

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    J., Zdziarski, A

    Chodorowski, M. J., Zdziarski, A. A., & Sikora, M. 1992, ApJ, 400, 181

    work page 1992

  30. [30]

    2023, Phys

    Condorelli, A., Boncioli, D., Peretti, E., & Petrera, S. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 083009

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    A., Biermann, P

    Ensslin, T. A., Biermann, P. L., Kronberg, P. P., & Wu, X.-P. 1997, ApJ, 477, 560

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    2026, Astroparticle Physics, 179, 103239

    Evoli, C., Vaiman, I., Petrera, S., & Salamida, F. 2026, Astroparticle Physics, 179, 103239

    work page 2026

  33. [33]

    & The Pierre Auger Collaboration

    Fitoussi, T. & The Pierre Auger Collaboration. 2023, in Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2023), V ol. 444, 319

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    2016, A&A, 587, A142

    Fotopoulou, S., Buchner, J., Georgantopoulos, I., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A142

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    C., Somerville, R

    Gilmore, R. C., Somerville, R. S., Primack, J. R., & Domínguez, A. 2012, MN- RAS, 422, 3189

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    T., & Murase, K

    Jiang, Y ., Zhang, B. T., & Murase, K. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 043017

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Kelner, S. R. & Aharonian, F. A. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 034013

    work page 2008

  38. [38]

    E., Sajina, A., et al

    Lacy, M., Ridgway, S. E., Sajina, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 102

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    2005, Phys

    Lemoine, M. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 083007

    work page 2005

  40. [40]

    Lisanti, M., Mishra-Sharma, S., Necib, L., & Safdi, B. R. 2016, ApJ, 832, 117

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    & Roulet, E

    Mollerach, S. & Roulet, E. 2013, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2013, 013

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    S., Farrar, G

    Muzio, M. S., Farrar, G. R., & Unger, M. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023022

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    S., Unger, M., & Farrar, G

    Muzio, M. S., Unger, M., & Farrar, G. R. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 103008

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    & The Pierre Auger Collaboration

    Niechciol, M. & The Pierre Auger Collaboration. 2023, in Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2023), V ol. 444, 1488 O’Sullivan, S. P., Brüggen, M., Vazza, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2607

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    M., Yatsenko, E., & Werner, K

    Pierog, T., Karpenko, I., Katzy, J. M., Yatsenko, E., & Werner, K. 2015, Phys. Rev. C, 92, 034906 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    L., Stecker, F

    Puget, J. L., Stecker, F. W., & Bredekamp, J. H. 1976, ApJ, 205, 638

    work page 1976

  47. [47]

    K., & Stanev, T

    Riehn, F., Engel, R., Fedynitch, A., Gaisser, T. K., & Stanev, T. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 063002

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    2010, A&A, 515, A8

    Rodighiero, G., Vaccari, M., Franceschini, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, A8

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    2023, Phys

    Sironi, L., Comisso, L., & Golant, R. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 055201

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    2015, Space Sci

    Sironi, L., Keshet, U., & Lemoine, M. 2015, Space Sci. Rev., 191, 519 The Pierre Auger Collaboration. 2014a, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 122005 The Pierre Auger Collaboration. 2014b, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 122006 The Pierre Auger Collaboration. 2017, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2017, 038 The Pierre Auger Collaboration. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 062005 The Pierre Auger...

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    R., & Anchordoqui, L

    Unger, M., Farrar, G. R., & Anchordoqui, L. A. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 123001

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    & Buitink, S

    Winchen, T. & Buitink, S. 2018, Astroparticle Physics, 102, 25

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    R., Han, Q., Inoue, Y ., & Luo, L

    Wu, K., Owen, E. R., Han, Q., Inoue, Y ., & Luo, L. 2024, Universe, 10

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 1048 Article number, page 11 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Zhang, Y ., Guo, H., Yang, X., & Wang, P. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1048 Article number, page 11 A&A proofs:manuscript no. Main Appendix A: Advection/Diffusion equation and Leaky Box We model particle transport within a flux tube of sizeλ B, un- der the effects of advection and diffusion. In our picture, parti- cles are emitted at the origin of the flux tube and ...

    work page 2024