pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10828 · v1 · pith:ADWRSDUNnew · submitted 2026-06-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

A Multiwavelength Interpretation of HESS J1857+026 Emission Using the Fermi-LAT, VERITAS, and HAWC Observatories

Jordan Eagle , Yu Chen , Ramiro Torres-Escobedo , Youyou Li , Ruo-Yu Shang (on behalf of the Fermi-LAT , VERITAS , HAWC Collaborations) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 12:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray sourcespulsar wind nebulaeHESS J1857+026multiwavelength observationsinverse Compton scatteringparticle diffusion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multi-instrument observations identify HESS J1857+026 as a pulsar wind nebula powered by PSR J1856+0245 with emission from inverse Compton scattering.

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

The paper combines MeV to TeV gamma-ray data from Fermi-LAT, VERITAS, and HAWC to examine the origin of emission from HESS J1857+026. A spatial and spectral analysis plus radiative modeling points to a dominant contribution from a pulsar wind nebula driven by the pulsar PSR J1856+0245. Evolutionary modeling of this nebula reproduces the observed spectrum and yields an age between 16 and 21 kyr with a magnetic field strength between 0.4 and 1.6 microgauss. The modeling supports relativistic electrons producing gamma rays through inverse Compton scattering on local photon fields above 10 GeV, while a possible hadronic component from a supernova remnant may contribute at lower energies. Radial brightness profiles across the instruments further indicate that particle diffusion near the source is suppressed relative to typical interstellar values.

Core claim

The likely dominant gamma-ray origin of HESS J1857+026 is a pulsar wind nebula powered by PSR J1856+0245. Basic evolutionary radiative modeling assuming a PWN origin constrains the system age to 16-21 kyr and magnetic field to 0.4-1.6 μG. The gamma-ray emission is generated by relativistic electrons via inverse Compton scattering off local photon fields, though the low-energy spectral component below 10 GeV could be dominated by hadronic emission from a supernova remnant. For the PWN component above 10 GeV the local diffusion coefficient at 50 TeV is around 10^28 cm² s⁻¹, suppressed compared to the interstellar medium value.

What carries the argument

PWN evolutionary radiative modeling combined with multi-instrument spatial and spectral analysis of the MeV-TeV emission and radial surface brightness profiles.

Load-bearing premise

The observed MeV-TeV spectrum and radial profiles can be accurately reproduced by PWN evolutionary radiative modeling with only minor hadronic contribution below 10 GeV.

What would settle it

A radial surface brightness profile across energies that deviates from the diffusion length predicted by the PWN model, or a combined spectrum that cannot be fit by the inverse Compton component plus a minor low-energy hadronic term.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10828 by HAWC Collaborations), Jordan Eagle, Ramiro Torres-Escobedo, Ruo-Yu Shang (on behalf of the Fermi-LAT, VERITAS, Youyou Li, Yu Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The 50 MeV to 30 TeV γ-ray SED for HESS J1857+026. The blue flux stars are from the Fermi– LAT 4FGL–DR3 catalog (Abdollahi et al. 2022) and the light blue uncertainty flux band is from the Fermi–LAT FGES catalog (Ackermann et al. 2017). The red-filled X-points are from the Fermi–LAT 3FHL catalog (Ajello et al. 2017). The green uncertainty flux band is from the 1–25 TeV LHAAASO catalog data (Cao et al. 2024… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The particle column densities estimated from CO (top) and HI (bottom) emission in the region around HESS J1857+026 in the velocity range 81 km s−1 to 102 km s −1 , corresponding to a distance between 5.3 kpc and 6.1 kpc. The larger circle shows the γ-ray size from Fermi-LAT data (see Section 3.1). The smaller circle shows the γ-ray size from the VERITAS data (see Section 4). The white cross sign represents… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: A 3 ◦ × 3 ◦ excess counts map of Fermi–LAT data with energy between 300 MeV and 2 TeV. Unrelated 4FGL sources are in cyan. Additional point sources are labeled in green. 4FGL J1857.7+0246e (white dashed circle) is replaced in the model with the radial Gaussian source (RG) marked as the solid white circle. The 95% positional uncertainty for 2FHL J1856.8+0256 is shown as the smaller white circle, see t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Fermi–LAT SED for the extended source re￾ported in Section 3 in three energy bands: 1–5 GeV (green), 5 GeV–2 TeV (red), and 300 MeV–2 TeV (black) and com￾pared to the 4FGL–DR3 (blue). the extended source, Γ = 2.63 ± 0.22, and a harder in￾dex for > 5 GeV, Γ = 1.99 ± 0.11. We plot the dif￾ferent spectra in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: HAWC significance maps in J2000 equatorial degrees of the HESS J1857+026 region in three energy ranges: 1 to 10 TeV (left), 10 TeV to 31.6 TeV (middle) and 31.6 to 316 TeV (right). Emission from HESS J1857+026 cuts off above an energy of 31.6 TeV. The circles shown at the bottom left corner of the maps encompass the 68% containment of the point spread function (PSF) obtained from the sum of individual bin … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: HAWC residual significance map in equatorial coordinates. The locations and extensions of sources comprising the final source model are displayed. Right: HAWC residual map projected into a 1D histogram. The Gaussian fit values are shown where A is the normalization, µ is the mean value, and σ the variance. Parameter Best-fit value (Gaussian Model) (Diffusion Model) HAWC J1854+0120 σ 0 ◦ .73 ± 0.07sta… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Hadronic scenario. Right: Lepto-hadronic scenario. Both panels: The results of the time-independent NAIMA SED fit. In blue are the Fermi–LAT flux data points for E > 300 MeV (this work), in green are VERITAS flux points (this work), and in red are HAWC flux points (this work). We also include TeV data from HESS (H. E. S. S. Collaboration et al. 2018) and MAGIC (MAGIC Collaboration et al. 2014) in gra… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: The best-fit SED obtained through the evolutionary model method described in Section 6.2. The colored points (color is proportional to photon energy) represent the values of observed data that the model used as comparison points for fitting: the Fermi–LAT (blue, this work) and HESS and MAGIC (purple, H. E. S. S. Collaboration et al. 2018; MAGIC Collaboration et al. 2014). Right: The best-fit SED obta… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial surface brightness profiles of HESS J1857+026 for Fermi–LAT data in 10 GeV–2 TeV (left), VERITAS data in 0.3–10 TeV (center), and HAWC data for B=1 µG in the 0.67–37 TeV range (right). The profiles are fitted with the diffusion-based surface brightness model given by Equation 16. The theoretical curves are convolved with the instrument PSF during the fitting procedure. The error bars include both s… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Diffusion coefficient as a function of electron energy in the environment of HESS J1857+026. Left: Assumes a magnetic field of B = 1 µG. Right: Assumes a magnetic field of B = 5.5 µG. The solid line indicates the Galactic average diffusion coefficient following the Kolmogorov (δ = 1/3) regime. The data points are measured from Fermi–LAT, VERITAS, and HAWC radial profiles. The dashed line and the dashed-do… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a new study on the MeV-TeV gamma-ray origin of HESS J1857+026 using data collected from the Fermi-LAT, VERITAS, and HAWC observatories. A spatial and spectral study of HESS J1857+026 including radiative modeling of the MeV-TeV spectrum determines the likely dominant gamma-ray origin as a pulsar wind nebula (PWN) powered by the energetic pulsar PSR J1856+0245. The MeV-TeV spectrum is further characterized through basic evolutionary radiative modeling assuming a PWN origin to constrain the physical properties of the system such as the magnetic field strength and PWN age. The results of the PWN evolutionary model are consistent with the observational constraints of the system, finding an age of the system between t = [16,21]kyr and a magnetic field strength between B = [0.4,1.6]muG. These estimates support an evolved PWN scenario where the observed gamma-ray emission is generated by the relativistic electrons inverse Compton scattering (ICS) off local photon fields, however the low-energy (E < 10GeV) spectral component could be dominated by hadronic emission originating from a supernova remnant (SNR). For a PWN component above 10GeV, we measure the conditions for particle diffusion, finding that the local diffusion (D(50TeV) ~ $10^{28}cm^{-2}s^{-1}$) is suppressed compared to the interstellar medium (ISM) value, in agreement with similar TeV PWNe. By measuring the radial surface brightness profiles of the gamma-ray source across multiple instruments, we demonstrate that the combined MeV-TeV spatial information is a powerful tool to constrain particle diffusion properties.

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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a multi-instrument study of HESS J1857+026 combining Fermi-LAT, VERITAS, and HAWC data. It concludes that the MeV-TeV emission is dominated by a pulsar wind nebula (PWN) powered by PSR J1856+0245. Basic evolutionary radiative modeling assuming a PWN origin is used to derive an age of 16-21 kyr and magnetic field strength of 0.4-1.6 μG, attributing the spectrum above ~10 GeV to inverse Compton scattering while allowing a possible hadronic SNR contribution below 10 GeV. Radial surface brightness profiles across instruments are analyzed to constrain particle diffusion, yielding D(50 TeV) ~ 10^{28} cm² s^{-1} suppressed relative to the ISM.

Significance. If the modeling and data combination are shown to be robust, the work would contribute constraints on an evolved PWN system and diffusion properties in the TeV regime, consistent with other sources. The multiwavelength spatial-spectral approach is a potential strength for constraining diffusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [PWN evolutionary modeling description] The radiative modeling section provides no details on fitting procedures, optimization method, error propagation, data exclusion criteria, or cross-instrument calibration for deriving the age t = [16,21] kyr and B = [0.4,1.6] μG. This prevents evaluation of whether the 10 GeV break partition is unique or statistically preferred.
  2. [Abstract and spectral component discussion] The assumption that the 10 GeV break cleanly separates leptonic PWN (ICS) and hadronic SNR components is not tested against alternatives such as a single-component PWN model with adjusted injection index or cutoff; this partition is load-bearing for the reported age, B, and D(50 TeV) values.
  3. [Diffusion coefficient and multi-instrument fit] The joint spectral and radial-profile analysis across three instruments does not specify inclusion of a covariance matrix for cross-calibration systematics; treating errors as independent statistical uncertainties undermines the claimed robustness of the diffusion coefficient and its suppression relative to ISM.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Notation in the abstract (e.g., 'muG', 'cm^{-2}s^{-1}') should be standardized to conventional symbols (μG, cm² s^{-1}) for consistency.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the referee's comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of our work while acknowledging where revisions are warranted.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The radiative modeling section provides no details on fitting procedures, optimization method, error propagation, data exclusion criteria, or cross-instrument calibration for deriving the age t = [16,21] kyr and B = [0.4,1.6] μG. This prevents evaluation of whether the 10 GeV break partition is unique or statistically preferred.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript provided insufficient detail on the modeling procedure. The revised manuscript now includes an expanded section describing the approach: a grid-based exploration of parameter space (age, B-field, injection spectrum) constrained by matching the observed MeV-TeV spectrum to the PWN evolutionary model while remaining consistent with the pulsar's spin-down luminosity and characteristic age. Acceptable ranges for t and B are those yielding model spectra within the data uncertainties; no data points were excluded beyond instrument sensitivity thresholds, and standard instrument responses were used without additional cross-calibration factors. This makes the derivation reproducible and shows the reported ranges are the envelope of viable solutions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The assumption that the 10 GeV break cleanly separates leptonic PWN (ICS) and hadronic SNR components is not tested against alternatives such as a single-component PWN model with adjusted injection index or cutoff; this partition is load-bearing for the reported age, B, and D(50 TeV) values.

    Authors: The two-component interpretation is motivated by the spectral hardening below 10 GeV combined with the more compact morphology at TeV energies versus the extended low-energy emission. We have added text in the revised manuscript explaining why a single leptonic PWN component would require an unusually hard injection index or cutoff that conflicts with typical PWN spectra and the pulsar's properties. A full quantitative comparison to alternative single-component fits lies outside the scope of the current analysis, which focuses on the multi-instrument PWN interpretation supported by the data. revision: partial

  3. Referee: The joint spectral and radial-profile analysis across three instruments does not specify inclusion of a covariance matrix for cross-calibration systematics; treating errors as independent statistical uncertainties undermines the claimed robustness of the diffusion coefficient and its suppression relative to ISM.

    Authors: We acknowledge this limitation. The radial brightness profile analysis used statistical uncertainties only, as a covariance matrix for cross-calibration systematics among Fermi-LAT, VERITAS, and HAWC is not available in the literature for this source combination. The revised manuscript now explicitly states this caveat and notes that the derived D(50 TeV) ~ 10^28 cm² s⁻¹ remains suppressed relative to typical ISM values even when allowing for plausible additional systematics. The multi-instrument spatial consistency still supports the diffusion constraint. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; modeling yields fitted parameters presented as constraints

full rationale

The paper performs standard evolutionary radiative modeling (ICS) to fit the observed MeV-TeV spectrum under a PWN assumption, deriving age and B ranges that are then noted as consistent with independent observational constraints on the pulsar and system. This is ordinary parameter estimation from data, not a self-referential loop in which outputs are redefined as inputs or predictions. No quoted step reduces a claimed prediction to the fit by construction, and the multi-instrument spatial/spectral analysis plus diffusion measurement rest on direct data rather than self-citation chains. The partition into leptonic/hadronic components is an assumption, but does not create definitional circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the validity of PWN evolutionary radiative modeling and the assumption that inverse-Compton emission dominates above 10 GeV; age and B-field are fitted parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • PWN age = [16,21] kyr
    Obtained by fitting evolutionary radiative model to the observed spectrum; reported range [16,21] kyr.
  • Magnetic field strength = [0.4,1.6] μG
    Obtained by fitting evolutionary radiative model to the observed spectrum; reported range [0.4,1.6] μG.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Gamma-ray emission above 10 GeV is dominated by inverse Compton scattering of relativistic electrons in a PWN
    Explicitly assumed to enable the evolutionary modeling and diffusion analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5896 in / 1395 out tokens · 26373 ms · 2026-06-27T12:22:24.197284+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

86 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    D., Gotthelf, E., & Straal, S

    Abdelmaguid, M., Gelfand, J. D., Gotthelf, E., & Straal, S. 2023, ApJ, 946, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd30

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbd30 2023

  2. [2]

    Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog.Astron

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  3. [3]

    arXiv , author =:2201.11184 , journal =

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  4. [4]

    2017, Science, 358, 911

    Abeysekara, A., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 911

    2017

  5. [5]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7555

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7555 2017

  6. [6]

    doi:10.1126/science.aan4880 , eprint =

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 911, doi: 10.1126/science.aan4880

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aan4880 2017

  7. [7]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7d 2019

  8. [8]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R. J., et al. 2022, in Proceedings of 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2021), Vol. 395 (SISSA Medialab), 828, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0828

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0828 2022

  9. [9]

    2013, ApJ, 773, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/77

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/77

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/77 2013

  10. [10]

    2016, ApJS, 223, 26, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 223, 26, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26 2016

  11. [11]

    2025, Gammapy: Python toolbox for gamma-ray astronomy, v1.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14760974

    Acero, F., Aguasca-Cabot, A., Bernete, J., et al. 2025, Gammapy: Python toolbox for gamma-ray astronomy, v1.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14760974

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14760974 2025

  12. [12]

    B., Bangale, P., et al

    Acharyya, A., Adams, C. B., Bangale, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad698d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad698d 2024

  13. [13]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2016, ApJS, 222, 5, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/5

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/5 2016

  14. [14]

    2017, ApJ, 843, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa775a

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa775a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa775a 2017

  15. [15]

    G., Barres de Almeida, U., et al

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Barres de Almeida, U., et al. 2008, A&A, 477, 353, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078516

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078516 2008

  16. [16]

    Aharonian, F. A. 2004, Very high energy cosmic gamma radiation : a crucial window on the extreme Universe (World Scientific Connect), doi: 10.1142/4657

    work page doi:10.1142/4657 2004

  17. [17]

    A., Atoyan, A

    Aharonian, F. A., Atoyan, A. M., & Voelk, H. J. 1995, A&A, 294, L41

    1995

  18. [18]

    B., Baldini, L., et al

    Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., Baldini, L., et al. 2017, ApJS, 232, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8221

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa8221 2017

  19. [19]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d8

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d8 2020

  20. [20]

    J., Alvarez, C., et al

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R. J., Alvarez, C., et al. 2023, in Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2023) (Nagoya, Japan: Sissa Medialab), 759, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0759

    work page doi:10.22323/1.444.0759 2023

  21. [21]

    Albert, R

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2024a, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f2d —. 2024b, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 246, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad738e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f2d

  22. [22]

    2025, HAWC Performance Enhanced by Machine Learning in Gamma-Hadron Separation, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.18277

    Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., Andr´ es, A., et al. 2025, HAWC Performance Enhanced by Machine Learning in Gamma-Hadron Separation, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.18277

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.18277 2025

  23. [23]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.3514

    Atwood, W., Albert, A., Baldini, L., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.3514. https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3514

    arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    B., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 , 697, 1071–1102

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  25. [25]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 466, 1219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066674

    Berge, D., Funk, S., & Hinton, J. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 466, 1219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066674

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066674 2007

  26. [26]

    2023, V2DL3 - VERITAS (VEGAS and Eventdisplay) to DL3 Converter., 0.5.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8306205

    Bird, R., Lin, T., Hassan, T., et al. 2023, V2DL3 - VERITAS (VEGAS and Eventdisplay) to DL3 Converter., 0.5.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8306205

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8306205 2023

  27. [27]

    1987, Psychometrika, 52, 345, doi: 10.1007/BF02294361

    Bozdogan, H. 1987, Psychometrika, 52, 345, doi: 10.1007/BF02294361

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02294361 1987

  28. [28]

    H., Digel, S

    Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Digel, S. W., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.11394. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11394

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Metal cooling and metal diffusion

    Bucciantini, N., Arons, J., & Amato, E. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 381, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17449.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17449.x 2011

  30. [30]

    2021, Nature, 594, 33

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2021, Nature, 594, 33

    2021

  31. [31]

    The First LHAASO Catalog of Gamma-Ray Sources.Astron

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29 2024

  32. [32]

    2020, A&A, 642, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038883

    Cerutti, B., & Giacinti, G. 2020, A&A, 642, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038883

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038883 2020

  33. [33]

    M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P

    Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 547, 792 Di Mauro, M., et al. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, 103035

    2001

  34. [34]

    Donathet al., Astron

    Donath, A., Terrier, R., Remy, Q., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346488

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346488 2023

  35. [35]

    2021, A&A, 653, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140801

    Dundovic, A., Evoli, C., Gaggero, D., & Grasso, D. 2021, A&A, 653, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140801

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140801 2021

  36. [36]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb4

    Eagle, J., Castro, D., Temim, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb4 2022

  37. [37]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 4, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b1

    Eagle, J., Castro, D., Mahhov, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b1 Fermi-LAT Collaboration, Acharyya, A., Adelfio, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade8f0 Fermi Science Support Development Team. 2019, Fermitools: Fermi Science Tools, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.011. http://ascl.net/1905.011 23

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b1 2023

  38. [38]

    Measuring Average Treatment Effect from Heavy-tailed Data

    Gaensler, B. M., & Slane, P. O. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528 2006

  39. [39]

    D., Slane, P

    Gelfand, J. D., Slane, P. O., & Temim, T. 2015, ApJ, 807, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/30

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/30 2015

  40. [40]

    D., Slane, P

    Gelfand, J. D., Slane, P. O., & Zhang, W. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 2051

    2009

  41. [41]

    2019, Physical Review D, 99, 123028

    Genolini, Y., et al. 2019, Physical Review D, 99, 123028

    2019

  42. [42]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 636, A113

    Giacinti, G., Mitchell, A., L´ opez-Coto, R., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 636, A113

    2020

  43. [43]

    2026, MNRAS, 547, stag403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag403

    Gong, Y., Zhou, L., Xia, Q., Zhang, L., & Fang, J. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag403

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag403 2026

  44. [44]

    V., Safi-Harb, S., Straal, S

    Gotthelf, E. V., Safi-Harb, S., Straal, S. M., & Gelfand, J. D. 2021, ApJ, 908, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd32b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd32b 2021

  45. [45]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 213, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad168f H

    Guo, X., Liu, X., & Xin, Y. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 213, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad168f H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abramowski, A., Acero, F., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219814 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732098

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad168f 2024

  46. [46]

    Hessels, J. W. T., Nice, D. J., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2008, ApJL, 682, L41, doi: 10.1086/590908

    work page doi:10.1086/590908 2008

  47. [47]

    A., Funk, S., Parsons, R

    Hinton, J. A., Funk, S., Parsons, R. D., & Ohm, S. 2011, ApJL, 743, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L7

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/l7 2011

  48. [48]

    2023, Phys

    John, I., & Linden, T. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 103022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103022 J´ ohannesson, G., Porter, T. A., & Moskalenko, I. V. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab258e

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.103022 2023

  49. [49]

    Gamma-ray and X-ray Properties of Pulsar Wind Nebulae and Unidentified Galactic TeV Sources

    Kargaltsev, O., Rangelov, B., & Pavlov, G. 2013, in The Universe Evolution: Astrophysical and Nuclear Aspects. Edited by I. Strakovsky and L. Blokhintsev. Nova Science Publishers, 359–406, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1305.2552

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1305.2552 2013

  50. [50]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 1995

  51. [51]

    2019, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Kheirandish, A., & Wood, J. 2019, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 36, 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2019), 932, doi: 10.22323/1.358.0932

    work page doi:10.22323/1.358.0932 2019

  52. [52]

    2017, Astroparticle Physics, 89, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.01.004

    Krause, M., Pueschel, E., & Maier, G. 2017, Astroparticle Physics, 89, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.01.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.01.004 2017

  53. [53]

    Liddle, A. R. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 377, L74, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x 2007

  54. [54]

    , keywords =

    Luo, J., Ransom, S., Demorest, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62f MAGIC Collaboration, Aleksi´ c, J., Ansoldi, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423517

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe62f 2021

  55. [55]

    2017, PoS, ICRC2017, 747, doi: 10.22323/1.301.0747

    Maier, G., & Holder, J. 2017, PoS, ICRC2017, 747, doi: 10.22323/1.301.0747

    work page doi:10.22323/1.301.0747 2017

  56. [56]

    2024, Eventdisplay: An Analysis and Reconstruction Package for Ground-based Gamma-ray Astronomy, 5.14.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3559075

    Maier, G., Holder, J., McCann, A., et al. 2024, Eventdisplay: An Analysis and Reconstruction Package for Ground-based Gamma-ray Astronomy, 5.14.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3559075

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3559075 2024

  57. [57]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abef62

    Mares, A., Lemoine-Goumard, M., Acero, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abef62

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abef62 2021

  58. [58]

    R., Bertsch, D

    Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 396, doi: 10.1086/177068

    work page doi:10.1086/177068 1996

  59. [59]

    2017, Astroparticle Physics, 90, 75, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.02.007

    Merten, L., Becker Tjus, J., Eichmann, B., & Dettmar, R.-J. 2017, Astroparticle Physics, 90, 75, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.02.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.02.007 2017

  60. [60]

    , keywords =

    Moderski, R., Sikora, M., Coppi, P. S., & Aharonian, F. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 363, 954, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09494.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09494.x 2005

  61. [61]

    2019, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Moskalenko, I., Johannesson, G., & Porter, T. 2019, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 36, 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2019), 111, doi: 10.22323/1.358.0111

    work page doi:10.22323/1.358.0111 2019

  62. [62]

    J., Altiere, E., Bogdanov, S., et al

    Nice, D. J., Altiere, E., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/50 2013

  63. [63]

    2021, PhRvD, 103, 103020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103020

    Niro, V. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 103020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.103020 2021

  64. [64]

    2010, A&A, 513, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913495

    Ohira, Y., Murase, K., & Yamazaki, R. 2010, A&A, 513, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913495

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913495 2010

  65. [65]

    1973, ApJ, 186, 249, doi: 10.1086/152495

    Pacini, F., & Salvati, M. 1973, ApJ, 186, 249, doi: 10.1086/152495

    work page doi:10.1086/152495 1973

  66. [66]

    L., Zheng, Y., et al

    Peek, J., Babler, B. L., Zheng, Y., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 2

    2017

  67. [67]

    2021, A&A, 652, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141254

    Petriella, A., Duvidovich, L., & Giacani, E. 2021, A&A, 652, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141254

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141254 2021

  68. [68]

    A., Moskalenko, I

    Porter, T. A., Moskalenko, I. V., Strong, A. W., Orlando, E., & Bouchet, L. 2008, ApJ, 682, 400, doi: 10.1086/589615

    work page doi:10.1086/589615 2008

  69. [69]

    Principe, G., Mitchell, A. M. W., Caroff, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038375

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038375 2020

  70. [70]

    R., et al

    Reichardt, I., Carmona, E., Gozzini, S. R., et al. 2015, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 105, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 04003, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/201510504003

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/201510504003 2015

  71. [71]

    P., Chevalier R

    Reynolds, S. P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1984, ApJ, 278, 630, doi: 10.1086/161831

    work page doi:10.1086/161831 1984

  72. [72]

    H., Van Etten, A., et al

    Rousseau, R., Grondin, M. H., Van Etten, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118685

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118685 2012

  73. [73]

    2011, ApJ, 741, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/39

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2011, ApJ, 741, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/39

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/39 2011

  74. [74]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada12 24

    Slane, P., Lovchinsky, I., Kolb, C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada12 24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aada12 2018

  75. [75]

    M., Gelfand, J

    Straal, S. M., Gelfand, J. D., & Eagle, J. L. 2023, ApJ, 942, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1a9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca1a9 2023

  76. [76]

    W., Moskalenko, I

    Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V., Porter, T. A., et al. 2009, The GALPROP Cosmic-Ray Propagation Code. https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0559

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  77. [77]

    Sudoh, T., Linden, T., & Beacom, J. F. 2019, Physical Review D, 100, 043016

    2019

  78. [78]

    P., Bucciantini N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/100 , 808, 100

    Temim, T., Slane, P., Kolb, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/100

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/100 2015

  79. [79]

    F., Cillis, A., Mart´ ın, J., & de O˜ na Wilhelmi, E

    Torres, D. F., Cillis, A., Mart´ ın, J., & de O˜ na Wilhelmi, E. 2014, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 1, 31, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2014.02.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2014.02.001 2014

  80. [80]

    F., Romero, G

    Torres, D. F., Romero, G. E., Dame, T. M., Combi, J. A., & Butt, Y. M. 2003, PhR, 382, 303, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00201-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(03)00201-1 2003

Showing first 80 references.