Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Evidences of low-diffusion bubbles around Galactic pulsars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Across a sample of 27 pulsar wind nebulae, gamma-ray halos imply diffusion coefficients two orders of magnitude below the Galactic average, making low-diffusion bubbles of at least 80 pc a general property of Galactic pulsars.

desk verdict First sample-wide D0 measurement around 27 PWNe, with real forecasts and fit work, but the ISM-escape interpretation is explicitly conditional and the two-zone degeneracy remains unresolved. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03216 v2 pith:GKRLA5YF submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Mattia Di Mauro , Silvia Manconi , Fiorenza Donato This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords pulsarwindnebulaeinverseComptonscatteringcosmic-raydiffusionTeVgamma-rayhaloslow-diffusionbubblesastronomypositronexcess
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether the very slow cosmic-ray diffusion measured around the Geminga and Monogem pulsars is a quirk of those two objects or a general property of Galactic pulsar wind nebulae, and it argues for the second option. Using the extended gamma-ray halos of 27 pulsar wind nebulae from the HESS Galactic plane survey and the second HAWC catalog, the authors model the emission as inverse Compton scattering of electrons and positrons released into the interstellar medium. They find a mean diffusion coefficient of $D_0 = 9.1^{+17.4}_{-6.0}\times10^{25}\,\mathrm{cm^2\,s^{-1}}$ at 1 GeV, about two orders of magnitude below the average for the Galaxy, with halo sizes of tens of parsecs that require low-diffusion bubbles at least roughly 80 pc across. If right, the result turns the low-diffusion bubble from a local curiosity into a standard feature of pulsar environments, with consequences for the positron excess and for cosmic-ray transport modeling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-zone diffusion model, in which the diffusion coefficient is $D(E,r)=D_0(E/1\,\mathrm{GeV})^\delta$ inside a bubble of radius $r_b$ and jumps to the larger Galactic value outside. The electrons and positrons are injected continuously with a spin-down-powered spectrum $Q(E,t)\propto L(t)E^{-\gamma}e^{-E/E_c}$, propagated with energy losses and a diffusion length $\lambda$, and converted into gamma rays by inverse Compton scattering off the cosmic microwave background, infrared, and starlight fields. Halo sizes are quantified by the 68% containment angle $\theta_{68}$ and by the empirical $\theta_{\mathrm{ICS}}$ profile used for the catalog fits; the fitted surface-brightness profile is the mechanism that turns an observed angular extension into a diffusion coefficient.

What would settle it

Measure one bright halo, such as HESS J1825-137, out to radii well beyond its fitted bubble with CTA or HAWC: if the surface brightness breaks to the steeper, more extended profile predicted for Galactic diffusion beyond $r_b$, the two-zone picture is confirmed; if the steep low-diffusion profile continues to several hundred parsecs with no break, the bubble is much larger than 80 pc. If instead deep X-ray or radio mapping shows no escaping particles beyond the PWN boundary, the assumption that the TeV halo is made of interstellar-diffusing leptons collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that essentially every pulsar wind nebula in the sample sits inside a region where cosmic rays diffuse far more slowly than they do in the bulk of the Galaxy. The evidence is morphological: the TeV surface-brightness profiles of the 27 sources are well described by a leptonic inverse-Compton halo model with a low diffusion coefficient, whereas a simple Gaussian is often a worse fit. The mean fitted value is $D_0 = 9.1^{+17.4}_{-6.0}\times10^{25}\,\mathrm{cm^2\,s^{-1}}$ at 1 GeV, equivalent to $D(1\,\mathrm{TeV}) = 8.2^{+20.9}_{-5.9}\times10^{26}\,\mathrm{cm^2\,s^{-1}}$, with no significant difference between pulsars younger or older than 20 kyr and no trend with age. The inferred halo radii, typically about 35 pc and exceeding 100 pc for several sources, are then read as lower limits on the bubble radius $r_b$: for $D_0\sim10^{26}\,\mathrm{cm^2\,s^{-1}}$, bubbles smaller than about 80 pc would truncate the observed degree-scale halos. On this basis the paper concludes that low-diffusion bubbles of at least 80 pc are a general property of Galactic pulsar wind nebulae.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed TeV emission is inverse-Compton radiation from electrons and positrons that have escaped the pulsar wind nebula and are diffusing in the interstellar medium, so the fitted $D_0$ measures interstellar diffusion rather than confinement inside the nebula.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the low-diffusion bubble is a standard feature of pulsar wind nebulae, so models of cosmic-ray escape from pulsars must place every source in an $r_b \gtrsim 80$ pc low-diffusion region rather than assigning only Geminga and Monogem a special environment.
  • With a few-percent conversion efficiency, HAWC and HESS should already have detected a few tens of inverse-Compton halos, and CTA should detect roughly four times more, about 100–130, making the population testable in the near future.
  • The ranking by predicted inverse-Compton flux is a strong selection tool: 21 of the 23 brightest predicted pulsars in the HAWC field are already in the 2HWC catalog, and PSR B1951+32 and PSR J1740+1000 are predicted as likely future detections.
  • The absence of an age dependence in $D_0$ argues against a strong evolution of the diffusion coefficient with pulsar age over the sampled 3–340 kyr range.
  • Reinterpreting halo sizes with $\theta_{\mathrm{ICS}}$ roughly doubles the halo volumes used in earlier confinement estimates; for at least one source, HESS J1825-137, the revised electron density drops below the interstellar value, weakening the case that all these halos are still nebular rather than interstellar.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A decisive follow-up would measure one bright halo, such as HESS J1825-137, at GeV and TeV energies simultaneously with Fermi-LAT and CTA; the joint fit could break the $D_0$–$r_b$ degeneracy that the paper's own two-zone check exposes, turning the current lower limit on the bubble radius into a measured value.
  • If low-diffusion bubbles are ubiquitous, the standard practice of using a single average Galactic diffusion coefficient for cosmic-ray propagation may need to treat pulsar surroundings as a population of 'slow zones', which would alter predictions of the pulsar contribution to the AMS-02 positron excess.
  • The paper's finding of no age trend in $D_0$ contradicts the theoretical expectation of a strong increase in diffusion after roughly 100 kyr; if confirmed by a larger sample, transport models around old pulsars must be revised.
  • Because the TeV halo size is tied to the bubble radius, the same low-diffusion regions should also suppress the arrival of lower-energy cosmic rays from those directions, a signature that might be observable through the gamma-ray shadows of background sources seen behind the bubbles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper investigates whether the low-diffusion halos seen around Geminga and Monogem are a generic property of Galactic pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe). The authors model the inverse-Compton (IC) gamma-ray emission from electrons/positrons injected by PWNe, using a one-zone diffusion model with a two-zone variant containing an inner low-diffusion bubble of radius r_b, and study the 68% containment angle as a function of pulsar age, distance, D0 and r_b. They forecast the number of IC halos detectable by HAWC, HESS and CTA as a function of the pulsar-to-lepton efficiency η, and they construct a sample of 27 HGPS/HAWC sources associated with PWNe. Fitting the HGPS surface-brightness maps and the HAWC data for Geminga and Monogem source by source with D0 and η free, they obtain a sample-mean D0 ≈ 9×10^25 cm2/s at 1 GeV (D(1 TeV) ≈ 8×10^26 cm2/s), about two orders of magnitude below the average Galactic value, and infer low-diffusion bubbles of size at least about 80 pc around the sources. The paper also ranks pulsars by predicted IC flux and identifies the brightest expected halos.

Significance. If correct, the result would generalize the Geminga/Monogem low-diffusion halos to a substantial sample of Galactic PWNe, with implications for cosmic-ray transport in the inner Galaxy and for the pulsar contribution to the positron excess. The paper's strengths are its use of public HGPS and HAWC data, the source-by-source surface-brightness fits, the report of statistical errors, the explicit test of the correlation-radius choice, and the falsifiable predictions (source ranking and detection counts) that can be checked with future HAWC and CTA observations. The central inference, however, is conditional on the assumption that the TeV emission is produced by leptons that have escaped into the interstellar medium; the one-zone fits measure an effective diffusion scale in the emission region, and the two-zone fit shows a D0–r_b degeneracy. The sample-wide claim is therefore plausible but not yet demonstrated at the level claimed in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. I and VI, Eqs. (5), (9), (11)] The identification of the fitted D0 with the interstellar diffusion coefficient is the load-bearing step and is not established. The model assumes a point-like injector in a homogeneous ISM, so the profile fits in Sec. VI can only yield D0 in this interpretation if the radiating e± have actually left the PWN/SNR. The paper itself flags this as unresolved in Sec. I and cites Ref. [11], which concludes that for most HGPS PWNe the e± density exceeds the ISM value, i.e., confinement. The rebuttal in Sec. VI, that Ref. [11] underestimates halo sizes by about a factor of two, changes the density estimates but does not by itself demonstrate escape; a confined electron population radiating inside the PWN/SNR environment would also produce an extended profile that the one-zone diffusion fit could absorb into a low effective D0. This concern is concrete: the sample includes objects whose TeV emission is commonly attributed to the PWN itself, e.g., HESS J0835-455 (Vela X) in Tab. III. Please either soften the claim to an effective diffusion coefficient in the emission region or add a model component that distinguishes confined and escaped leptons.
  2. [Sec. VI, Fig. 11] The claim of a low-diffusion bubble size of at least 80 pc is not directly constrained by the data. The one-zone fits in Tab. IV fix r_b effectively infinite, and the only two-zone fit, HESS J1825-137 in Fig. 11, shows a strong D0–r_b degeneracy: the text reports r_b > 60 pc, with the best-fit D0 changing from about 16×10^26 cm2/s at r_b = 60 pc to about 2×10^26 cm2/s at r_b = 120 pc, and a chi2 that is flat for r_b > 70 pc. The 80 pc value therefore comes from combining the one-zone D0 with the model curves in Fig. 4, not from a fit. Please present the bubble-size result as a model-dependent lower limit under the one-zone assumption and report the degenerate D0–r_b range explicitly.
  3. [Sec. V.B, Sec. VI] The surface-brightness fits do not include a background component. The paper states in Sec. V.B that, assuming the background is isotropic, it should act as a mere normalization without changing significantly the angular profile of the TeV surface brightness. This is not correct: a constant isotropic background adds a constant to the azimuthally averaged surface brightness, which flattens the profile at large angles and changes the fitted slope of the diffusion model unless the background is fitted simultaneously. Since the ROIs extend to 0.7–1.1 degrees and the HGPS maps contain interstellar emission and unresolved sources, the fitted D0 values may be biased. Please add a constant background parameter to the fits or demonstrate with off-source regions that the effect is negligible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Tab. IV] The abstract states that all sources are extended with gamma-ray emission of about 15–80 pc, but the sizes in Tab. IV range from about 6 pc (HESS J1026-582) to about 180 pc (HESS J1841-055); please clarify which statistic is quoted in the abstract and make the numbers consistent.
  2. [Sec. VI] The same numerical value 8.2+20.9-5.9 appears both as D0 = 8.2×10^25 cm2/s for annuli of 0.1 degrees and as D(1 TeV) = 8.2×10^26 cm2/s, without stating the assumed spectral index delta used for the energy rescaling; please make the D0-to-D(E) relation explicit.
  3. [Tabs. III–IV] Tab. III uses HESS J1837-069 / 2HWC J1837-065 while Tab. IV and parts of the text use HESS J1837-065; please unify the source naming.
  4. [Sec. IV.A] The forecast uses a fixed HAWC sensitivity of 10^-14 (TeV cm2 s)^-1 and a fixed HESS sensitivity of 10^-12 (TeV cm2 s)^-1, with no declination or longitude dependence; the predicted detection numbers should be labeled as order-of-magnitude estimates.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos and minor wording issues: 'PNW gamma-ray emission' in Sec. III.A, 'with an efficiency a slow as a few %' in Sec. IV.A, 'the constrain of the HAWC field of view' in Sec. IV.B, and 'an other one' before Fig. 4.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central D0 values come from external HGPS/HAWC fits; one non-load-bearing circular consistency check where θ68 is computed from assumed D0 and then used to 'imply' that same D0.

  1. self definitional [Sec. V A (sample selection; Tab. III caption and text)]
    "We report also the predicted size of ICS emission calculated, for each source, with θ68, i.e. as the 68% containment radius (see Eq. 12), at 1 TeV and for D0 = 7 · 10^25 cm2/s. ... Overall, we find a good match between the measured and predicted size of extension, implying that the morphology of the γ-ray emission from these sources should be consistent with a diffusion environment with D0∼ 10^26 cm2/s."

    The predicted θ68 is computed by construction from the assumed value D0 = 7e25 cm2/s. Concluding from the match to the measured extensions that 'D0 ∼ 1e26 cm2/s' merely recovers the input assumption; the apparent consistency is not independent evidence. The same circular pattern appears in Sec. IV B / Tab. I, where θ68 is calculated with D0 = 7e25 and the text says 'This implies that D0 should be of the order of ∼10^26 cm2/s'. This step is not load-bearing for the main result, because Sec. VI re-fits D0 directly to the HESS/HAWC surface-brightness profiles with D0 and η as free parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central D0 determination is a source-by-source fit to external HGPS flux maps and HAWC surface-brightness data (Secs. V-VI), with D0 and η free; those data are not generated from the model, so the low-D0 result is not an input renamed as an output. The detection-rate forecasts and pulsar rankings use assumed efficiencies and D0 = 7e25 cm2/s taken from prior Geminga/HAWC work, and are checked against the 2HWC/HGPS catalogs rather than fitted to them, so they are predictions, not circular fits. The one clear circular-consistency moment is in Sec. V A (and similarly in Tab. I), where θ68 is computed from the assumed D0 and the match to measured sizes is then said to imply D0 ∼ 1e26 cm2/s; this reduces by construction to the assumed value, but it is not the basis of the final D0 values. The paper's acknowledged assumption that the e± have escaped into the ISM (with the alternative confinement scenario cited from Ref. [11]) is a model-dependence/correctness concern, not circularity, and the explicit two-zone fit in Sec. VI exposing the D0-rb degeneracy further shows the authors are not hiding the model dependence. Overall: central derivation self-contained; one minor non-load-bearing circular-consistency statement.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on modeling choices: continuous injection, one-zone diffusion, escape of e± into the ISM, and a fixed δ for energy rescaling. The main fitted quantities are D0, η, and γe. The bubble radius rb is not fit for the full sample; its lower bound comes from Sec III/Fig. 4 and a two-zone check on one source. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • D0 = 2.4e24 to 9.3e26 cm2/s at 1 GeV, per source; sample mean 9.1e25 cm2/s
    Free parameter in the surface brightness fit; it controls the angular extent of the ICS halo and is the central inferred quantity. Values in Table IV.
  • η = per source; some values exceed 1; assumed 0.01 in forecasts
    Normalization in Eq. 3 converting spin-down luminosity into e±. Fitted to HESS flux in Sec VI and assumed in Sec IV for detection forecasts. Affects predicted halo counts but not D0.
  • γe = 1.2 to 3.0 per source
    Injection spectral index fitted to the observed gamma-ray slope in Sec VI. Used to compute η; shows large spread.
  • τ0 = 12 kyr
    Pulsar spin-down timescale in Eq. 2, fixed following Refs [1,3]. Controls the time profile of injection.
  • Ec = 10^3 TeV
    Exponential cutoff in Eq. 1, fixed. Far above the TeV energies constraining the fits.
  • E1 = 0.1 GeV
    Lower integration bound in Eq. 3, fixed from earlier literature. Affects absolute η but not the halo profile.
  • δ = not explicitly stated (standard value assumed)
    Spectral index of diffusion in Eq. 9; required to convert D0 at 1 GeV to D(1 TeV) in Fig. 9. Its value is not given in the text.
  • rb = not fit for the sample; explored 10 to 200 pc for HESS J1825-137
    Low-diffusion bubble radius in Eq. 9. The one-zone benchmark sets it effectively infinite; Sec III and Fig. 4 argue rb ≥ 80 pc, and the two-zone check shows a degeneracy with D0.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The VHE gamma-ray emission is produced by inverse Compton scattering of e± that have escaped the PWN into the ISM.
    Explicit in the abstract and Sec V: the entire D0 derivation converts observed halo morphology into a diffusion coefficient. If the e± are still confined inside the PWN/SNR, as argued by Ref. [11], the fitted D0 is not the ISM diffusion coefficient.
  • domain assumption A one-zone diffusion model with a uniform low D0 applies out to the halo radius.
    Sec II benchmark uses one-zone diffusion with low D0 everywhere; the two-zone check in Sec VI shows an rb-D0 degeneracy. The quoted sample-wide D0 values use the one-zone assumption.
  • domain assumption Continuous injection follows the magnetic dipole spin-down law with τ0 = 12 kyr and Ec = 10^3 TeV.
    Eqs. 1-2 and Sec II; these choices set the injection time profile and energy cutoff. A burst-like or different τ0 would change the halo profiles.
  • domain assumption Background emission in the surface brightness fits is isotropic and acts only as a normalization.
    Sec V B: no explicit background component is fit; the authors argue an isotropic background does not change the angular profile. Non-isotropic interstellar emission or nearby sources could bias D0.
  • domain assumption The diffusion spectral index δ is fixed to a standard value when rescaling D0.
    Eq. 9 and Sec VI; the numerical value of δ is not stated in the paper, yet Fig. 9 and the comparison with Galactic values depend on it.
  • domain assumption Pulsar proper motion does not significantly distort the TeV halos in the sample.
    Sec III A and Eq. 15: at 1 TeV, θmotion above 1 degree occurs only for vT > 300 km/s and close sources; most sample sources are farther, so the effect is neglected in the fits.
  • domain assumption The local ISRF model of Vernetto and Lipari [37] describes the radiation fields around all sources.
    Sec II uses the local ISRF energy density; the authors check one alternative model, but the radiation field determines the ICS emissivity and thus the fitted profile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidences of low-diffusion bubbles around Galactic pulsars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GKRLA5YF

@misc{pith2026190803216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidences of low-diffusion bubbles around Galactic pulsars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GKRLA5YF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03216}
}
abstract

Recently, a few-degrees extended $\gamma$-ray halo in the direction of Geminga pulsar has been detected by HAWC, Milagro and Fermi-LAT. These observations can be interpreted with positrons ($e^+$) and electrons ($e^-$) accelerated by Geminga pulsar wind nebula (PWN), released in a Galactic environment with a low diffusion coefficient ($D_0$), and inverse Compton scattering (ICS) with the interstellar radiation fields. We inspect here how the morphology of the ICS $\gamma$-ray flux depends on the energy, the pulsar age and distance, and the strength and extension of the low-diffusion bubble. In particular we show that $\gamma$-ray experiments with a peak of sensitivity at TeV energies are the most promising ones to detect ICS halos. We perform a study of the sensitivity of HAWC, HESS and the future CTA experiment finding that, with efficiencies of the order of a few %, the first two experiments should have already detected a few tens of ICS halos while the latter will increase the number of detections by a factor of 4. We then consider a sample of sources associated to PWNe and detected in the HESS Galactic plane survey and in the second HAWC catalog. We use the information available in these catalogs for the $\gamma$-ray spatial morphology and flux of these sources to inspect the value of $D_0$ around them and the $e^{\pm}$ injection spectrum. All sources are detected as extended with a $\gamma$-ray emission extended about $15-80$ pc. Assuming that most of the $e^{\pm}$ accelerated by these sources have been released in the interstellar medium, the diffusion coefficient is $2-30 \cdot 10^{26}$ cm$^2$/s at 1 TeV, i.e. two orders of magnitude smaller than the value considered to be the average in the Galaxy. These observations imply that Galactic PWNe have low-diffusion bubbles with a size of at least 80 pc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03216 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Size of extension ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Ratio between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Surface brightness for the ICS flux as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Angular distortion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Prediction for the number of ICS halos powered by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Map of the flux integrated above 1 TeV taken from the publicly available data for the HGPS catalog. We have used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Surface brightness above 1 TeV calculated from the flux maps publicly available for the HGPS catalog. We show in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Diffusion coefficient at 1 TeV derived for the PWNe in our sample. Blue (black) points are the results for PWNe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Size of the ICS emission from the PWNe in our sample calculated using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Results of the fit to the HESS J1825-137 PWN sur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Giacinti, A

    G. Giacinti, A. M. W. Mitchell, R. L´ opez-Coto, V. Joshi, R. D. Parsons, and J. A. Hinton (2019), 1907.12121

    arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    and about 15 ◦ at 10 GeV [3]. On the other hand, sources younger than about 200 kyr have extension at 1 TeV that is slightly larger than the one at 10 GeV because for these ages 1 TeVe± have a propagation lengthλ (see Eq. 7) that is larger than the one at 10 GeV. We also observe that the larger is D0 the larger is θ68. For example, for a source as Geminga...

    work page arXiv 1925

  3. [2]

    A. A. Abdo, B. T. Allen, T. Aune, et al., ApJL 700, L127 (2009), 0904.1018

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  4. [3]

    Di Mauro, S

    M. Di Mauro, S. Manconi, and F. Donato (2019), 1903.05647

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    A. U. Abeysekara et al. (HAWC), Science 358, 911 (2017), 1711.06223

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    Ackermann, M

    M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, Allafort, et al., Physical Re- view Letters 108, 011103 (2012), 1109.0521

    arXiv 2012

  7. [6]

    Aguilar, L

    M. Aguilar, L. Ali Cavasonza, G. Ambrosi, et al. (AMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 041102 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.122.041102

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Adriani et al

    O. Adriani et al. (PAMELA), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 081102 (2013), 1308.0133

    arXiv 2013

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Genolini, A

    Y. Genolini, A. Putze, P. Salati, and P. D. Serpico, As- tron. Astrophys. 580, A9 (2015), 1504.03134

    2015 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Genolini et al

    Y. Genolini et al. (2019), 1904.08917

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Kappl, A

    R. Kappl, A. Reinert, and M. W. Winkler, JCAP 1510, 034 (2015), 1506.04145

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Abdalla et al

    H. Abdalla et al. (HESS), Astron. Astrophys. 612, A1 (2018), 1804.02432

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hooper, I

    D. Hooper, I. Cholis, T. Linden, and K. Fang, Phys. Rev. D96, 103013 (2017), 1702.08436

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Tang and T

    X. Tang and T. Piran (2018), 1808.02445

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Fang, X.-J

    K. Fang, X.-J. Bi, P.-F. Yin, and Q. Yuan, Astrophys. J. 863, 30 (2018), 1803.02640

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Xi, R.-Y

    S.-Q. Xi, R.-Y. Liu, Z.-Q. Huang, K. Fang, H. Yan, and X.-Y. Wang (2018), 1810.10928

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    In the present study, we argue that the most promising energy range for searching for ICS halos is above 100 GeV, where IACTs, and HAWC and Milagro operate

    and, as we have shown in [3], this effect distorts the ICS γ-ray morphology. In the present study, we argue that the most promising energy range for searching for ICS halos is above 100 GeV, where IACTs, and HAWC and Milagro operate. We then use the ICS flux to predict the brigh...

  10. [18]

    B. S. Acharya et al. (Cherenkov Telescope Array Consor- tium) (2017), 1709.07997

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. U. Abeysekara et al., Astrophys. J. 843, 40 (2017), 1702.02992

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hobbs, D

    G. Hobbs, D. R. Lorimer, A. G. Lyne, and M. Kramer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 360, 974 (2005), astro- ph/0504584

    2005

  13. [21]

    Amato, International Journal of Modern Physics Con- ference Series 28, 1460160 (2014), 1312.5945

    E. Amato, International Journal of Modern Physics Con- ference Series 28, 1460160 (2014), 1312.5945

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    R. N. Manchester, G. B. Hobbs, A. Teoh, and M. Hobbs, AJ 129, 1993 (2005), astro-ph/0412641

    2005 arXiv

  15. [23]

    X. Chi, K. S. Cheng, and E. C. M. Young, ApJL 459, L83 (1996)

    1996

  16. [24]

    J. D. Gelfand, P. O. Slane, and W. Zhang, ApJ 703, 2051 (2009), 0904.4053

    2009 arXiv

  17. [25]

    B. M. Gaensler and P. O. Slane, Ann. Rev. Astron. As- trophys. 44, 17 (2006), astro-ph/0601081

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    R. A. Chevalier, in Supernovae, edited by D. N. Schramm (1977), vol. 66 of Astrophysics and Space Science Library, p. 53

    1977

  19. [27]

    Yuksel, M

    H. Yuksel, M. D. Kistler, and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 051101 (2009), 0810.2784

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    van der Swaluw, A

    E. van der Swaluw, A. Achterberg, Y. A. Gallant, and G. T´ oth, A&A380, 309 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    S. P. Reynolds and R. A. Chevalier, ApJ278, 630 (1984)

    1984

  22. [30]

    Profumo, J

    S. Profumo, J. Reynoso-Cordova, N. Kaaz, and M. Sil- verman, Phys. Rev. D97, 123008 (2018), 1803.09731

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Buesching, O

    I. Buesching, O. C. de Jager, M. S. Potgieter, and C. Ven- ter, Astrophys. J. 678, L39 (2008), 0804.0220

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Sushch and B

    I. Sushch and B. Hnatyk, Astron. Astrophys. 561, A139 (2014), 1312.0777

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Posselt, G

    B. Posselt, G. G. Pavlov, P. O. Slane, R. Romani, N. Buc- ciantini, A. M. Bykov, O. Kargaltsev, M. C. Weisskopf, and C.-Y. Ng, ApJ 835, 66 (2017), 1611.03496

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Evoli, T

    C. Evoli, T. Linden, and G. Morlino, Phys. Rev. D98, 063017 (2018), 1807.09263

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Slane (2017), 1703.09311

    P. Slane (2017), 1703.09311

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Delahaye, J

    T. Delahaye, J. Lavalle, R. Lineros, F. Donato, and N. Fornengo, A&A 524, A51 (2010), 1002.1910

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    G. R. Blumenthal and R. J. Gould, Reviews of Modern Physics 42, 237 (1970)

    1970

  30. [38]

    Cirelli, G

    M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hutsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci, M. Raidal, F. Sala, and A. Strumia, JCAP 1103, 051 (2011), [Erratum: JCAP1210,E01(2012)], 1012.4515

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    C. C. Popescu, R. Yang, R. J. Tuffs, G. Natale, M. Rush- ton, and F. Aharonian, MNRAS 470, 2539 (2017), 1705.06652. 20

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Vernetto and P

    S. Vernetto and P. Lipari, Phys. Rev. D94, 063009 (2016), 1608.01587

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    T. A. Porter, I. V. Moskalenko, and A. W. Strong, ApJL 648, L29 (2006), astro-ph/0607344

    2006 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Abdalla et al

    H. Abdalla et al. (HESS), Astron. Astrophys. 612, A2 (2018), 1702.08280

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Faherty, F

    J. Faherty, F. Walter, and Anderson, Astrophysics and Space Science 308, 225230 (2007), astro-ph/0504584

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Acero et al

    F. Acero et al. (Fermi-LAT Collaboration), ApJS 218, 23 (2015), 1501.02003

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Joshi and A

    V. Joshi and A. Jardin-Blicq (HAWC), PoS ICRC2017, 806 (2018), [35,806(2017)], 1708.04032

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Mazin (CTA Consortium), in 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 2019) Madison, Wisconsin, USA, July 24-August 1, 2019 (2019), 1907.08530

    D. Mazin (CTA Consortium), in 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 2019) Madison, Wisconsin, USA, July 24-August 1, 2019 (2019), 1907.08530

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ambrogi, S

    L. Ambrogi, S. Celli, and F. Aharonian, Astropart. Phys. 100, 69 (2018), 1803.03565

    2018 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Blasi and E

    P. Blasi and E. Amato, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings 21, 624 (2011), 1007.4745

    2011 arXiv

  41. [50]

    D. F. Torres, A. Cillis, J. Martn, and E. de Oa Wilhelmi, JHEAp 1-2, 31 (2014), 1402.5485

    2014 arXiv

  42. [105]

    If this factor is considered in their calculation, many of their sources would have a e± density comparable to the one of the ISM

    The differences in the halo size is for most of the sources about a factor of 2 thus bringing a difference in halo volume of almost 1 order of magnitude. If this factor is considered in their calculation, many of their sources would have a e± density comparable to the one of the...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.