Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Isolated Black Holes as Potential PeVatrons and Ultrahigh-energy Gamma-ray Sources

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stellar-mass isolated black holes in molecular clouds can accelerate protons to PeV energies and power LHAASO dark gamma-ray sources, potentially supplying a large share of the PeV cosmic rays observed on Earth.

desk verdict A genuinely new IBH-in-molecular-cloud scenario for LHAASO dark sources and PeV CRs, but the dark-source match is hand-picked and the 'no GeV-TeV gamma-rays' claim is untested against upper limits. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08136 v2 pith:7WS3X5JH submitted 2024-12-11 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Shigeo S. Kimura , Kengo Tomida , Masato I.N. Kobayashi , Koki Kin , Bing Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords isolatedblackholesPeVcosmicraysLHAASOdarksourcesmagneticallyarresteddiskmagneticreconnectionmolecularcloudsultrahigh-energygammaGalactic
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

This paper proposes that isolated stellar-mass black holes (IBHs) drifting through molecular clouds are hidden PeVatrons. The black hole accretes dense gas into a magnetically arrested disk, where magnetic reconnection accelerates protons to PeV energies. Low-energy protons fall into the black hole, but protons above an escape energy of about 41 TeV leave the disk and collide with cloud gas, producing TeV-PeV gamma rays with no GeV-TeV counterpart, exactly the signature of LHAASO's "dark" sources. Accounting for the Galactic distributions of IBHs and molecular gas, the authors further claim these systems can make a significant contribution to the PeV cosmic rays reaching Earth, with their reference model giving about 30% of the observed proton intensity near the knee.

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnetically arrested disk (MAD) that forms around a slowly moving IBH accreting from a molecular cloud. Magnetic reconnection, parameterized by an acceleration timescale $t_{\rm acc}\approx \eta_{\rm rec} r_L/c$ with $\eta_{\rm rec}=10$, produces a power-law proton spectrum with index 2. The escape energy $E_{p,\rm esc}$ is set by balancing Bohm-like diffusive escape against infall into the black hole; this energy filter is what removes the GeV-TeV gamma-ray counterpart, because only protons above $E_{p,\rm esc}$ reach the cloud and produce hadronic gamma rays. The proton cutoff energy $E_{p,\rm cut}\sim 0.48$ PeV for typical parameters scales as $M n_{MC}^{1/2} V_k^{-3/2}$, showing that low velocity, high black-hole mass, or high gas density pushes protons to PeV energies.

What would settle it

Measure the space velocities of a sample of isolated stellar-mass black holes via astrometric microlensing follow-up; if a large fraction move faster than roughly 100 km/s relative to ambient molecular gas, the predicted PeV cosmic-ray contribution collapses because the accretion rate scales as $V_{\rm eff}^{-3}$. A second decisive test is a sensitive molecular-line search toward LHAASO J0007+5659u: if no dense cloud of the required column is found, the proposed source class is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an IBH embedded in a molecular cloud forms a magnetically arrested disk (MAD), and magnetic reconnection in that disk accelerates cosmic-ray protons up to PeV energies. Because diffusive escape dominates over cooling, protons above the escape energy $E_{p,\rm esc}\sim 41$ TeV (scaling as $M_1 n_{MC,2}^{1/2}\lambda_{w,-1}^{1/2}V_{\rm eff,6.3}^{-3/2}$) escape from the MAD and are injected into the surrounding cloud. These sub-PeV protons undergo proton-proton collisions with cloud gas, producing gamma rays in the TeV-PeV band while GeV-TeV gamma rays are absent, because the lower-energy protons never escape the disk. The paper applies this to LHAASO dark sources such as J0007+5659u, and demonstrates with a Galactic population model that IBHs in molecular clouds can provide a significant contribution to the PeV cosmic-ray intensity observed on Earth, with the reference model yielding about 30% of the knee flux.

Load-bearing premise

The scenario's output hinges on most isolated black holes moving slowly relative to molecular gas (velocity dispersion about 20 km/s), because the accretion luminosity falls as the third power of relative speed; a population with a sizable fraction of natal kicks above 100 km/s would suppress the predicted cosmic-ray and gamma-ray fluxes by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LHAASO dark sources with hard spectra above 100 TeV and no GeV-TeV counterparts can be understood as molecular clouds hosting a single IBH, with only sub-PeV protons leaking out to produce gamma rays.
  • The summed population of IBHs in molecular clouds can supply a sizable fraction of the PeV cosmic rays observed at Earth, with the reference model giving about 30% of the knee proton intensity, and higher values if the accretion efficiency is larger or the velocity dispersion is lower.
  • Future gamma-ray detectors in the southern sky (such as ALPACA and SWGO) should find additional dark sources, because molecular clouds and IBHs concentrate toward the inner Galaxy.
  • The scenario predicts hadronic neutrino emission accompanying the gamma rays, with a flux about an order of magnitude below current IceCube sensitivity but potentially reachable through stacking analyses or next-generation detectors.
  • Hard X-ray and mid-infrared follow-up of dark sources could reveal the accreting IBH, since soft X-rays and optical light are heavily absorbed by the molecular cloud.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the escape-energy filter is a generic spectral signature: any source class where acceleration happens in a compact region embedded in a thick target will produce gamma-ray spectra peaking above the escape energy, so future detections of a cutoff in dark-source spectra near tens of TeV would support this mechanism.
  • I infer that the same IBH+MAD mechanism could naturally explain the PeVatron activity in the Galactic center region, where both molecular gas and black holes are most concentrated, as the authors note in passing.
  • I infer that the ratio of neutrino to gamma-ray flux from a resolved dark source could distinguish this hadronic scenario from leptonic alternatives, and stacking many dark sources in the southern sky may yield a detection even if individual sources are weak.
  • I infer that the velocity distribution of isolated black holes is the single most informative observable to test the scenario: microlensing surveys with astrometric follow-up can measure the transverse speeds of IBHs, and if a large fraction exceed roughly 100 km/s, the predicted cosmic-ray and gamma-ray outputs would drop by orders of magnitude.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This Letter proposes that isolated stellar-mass black holes (IBHs) accreting from dense molecular gas enter a magnetically arrested disk (MAD) state in which magnetic reconnection accelerates protons to PeV energies. Protons above a characteristic escape energy E_p,esc ≈ 41 TeV (Eq. 6) leave the MAD and diffuse into the surrounding cloud, where pp collisions produce TeV–PeV gamma rays and neutrinos, while lower-energy protons are swallowed by the black hole. The model is applied to the LHAASO 'dark' source J0007+5659u and used with Galactic distributions of IBHs and molecular clouds to estimate the PeV cosmic-ray intensity at Earth, finding a 30% contribution at the knee in a reference model.

Significance. If correct, the scenario would identify a new class of Galactic PeVatrons and provide a natural explanation for the newly discovered LHAASO dark sources, with concrete predictions for southern-sky gamma-ray detectors and neutrino telescopes. Strengths include the internally consistent transport calculation, the anchoring of the acceleration rate and spectral index to PIC simulations (Zhang et al. 2023), the use of GRMHD-motivated MAD plasma parameters, and the explicit comparison of the model SED with LHAASO data in the >100 TeV band. However, the population-level predictions depend on several poorly constrained parameters (natal kick distribution, accretion reduction factor, total IBH number), and the dark-source match in the lower panel of Figure 3 uses parameters chosen after the fact, so the central claims require further validation and a quantitative GeV–TeV upper-limit comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 3] The claim in Section 4 that 'we do not expect GeV-TeV gamma-rays from the molecular cloud' is not supported by a quantitative comparison with the observed non-detection in the 0.1–2000 GeV band. Since the escaping proton spectrum extends continuously from E_p,esc ≈ 41 TeV (Eq. 6) to PeV energies, hadronic pp collisions produce a broad photon spectrum that reaches well below 0.1 E_p; the numerical SEDs in Figure 3 are only displayed for E > 100 GeV. The paper should show the full 0.1 GeV to 1 PeV SED for the J0007 model and overlay the Fermi-LAT and LHAASO-WCDA upper limits for J0007+5659u. If the predicted E^2 flux in the GeV–TeV band exceeds those limits, the source would not be dark and the central explanation would be inconsistent with the definition of a dark source; if it does not, the paper should state this explicitly as a test.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 4] The 'J0007' model in Table 1 is evidently constructed to reproduce the observed spectrum of J0007+5659u, making the bottom panel of Figure 3 a post-hoc fit rather than an a priori prediction. This circularity weakens the statement in the abstract that the scenario 'can explain' dark sources. I request that the authors either (i) treat the LHAASO measurement as an upper limit and propagate the observational uncertainties into the model parameters, or (ii) perform a forward calculation using the Galactic IBH and molecular-cloud distributions to predict the number of detectable dark sources and compare with the observed population (two sources satisfying the selection). Without one of these steps, the match to J0007+5659u is an existence proof, not an explanation.
  3. [Section 5, Eq. (1), Figure 4] The estimate that IBHs contribute ≈30% of the PeV cosmic-ray flux at the knee hinges on the assumed weak natal-kick distribution (σ_v ≈ 20 km/s). Because the accretion luminosity scales as V_eff^{-3} (Eq. 1), a population containing a significant fraction of black holes with V_k > 100 km/s would be suppressed by orders of magnitude, and such high-kick BHs are inferred from X-ray binary studies and from the Galactic BH mass distribution. The paper explores only two velocity dispersions and two values of λ_w in Figure 4. I request a population calculation that adopts a realistic kick-velocity distribution (e.g., a Maxwellian with a high-velocity tail or the distribution inferred from BH X-ray binary kinematics) and reports the resulting CR intensity and its uncertainty. This is necessary to substantiate the abstract's claim of a 'significant contribution' to PeV CRs.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (7)] The maximum proton energy E_p,cut depends on the reconnection-acceleration coefficient η_rec and the diffusion enhancement factor η_diff, which are assigned fiducial values (η_rec = η_diff = 10) based on PIC simulations for η_rec and a Bohm-diffusion assumption for η_diff. These quantities are not directly measured for IBH MADs, and E_p,cut scales as η_rec^{1/2} η_diff^{1/2}; a factor of ~3 uncertainty in either parameter changes the peak gamma-ray energy by a similar factor, potentially moving the predicted >100 TeV signal below the LHAASO threshold. The paper should provide a sensitivity study over the plausible ranges of η_rec and η_diff and state the fraction of the IBH population that would still reach PeV energies under conservative choices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'J0007+05659u' should be 'J0007+5659u'.
  2. [Section 6] There is a typo in 'hihg-sensitivity radio surveys'; it should read 'high-sensitivity'.
  3. [Equation (8)] Please verify the numerical coefficient in the expression for E_coh = e B_MC λ_coh. With λ_coh = R_MC/5, R_MC = 20 pc, and B_MC = 10 μG, the product e B λ gives approximately 0.036 EeV in Gaussian units, not 0.18 EeV; the discrepancy may indicate a different convention or a typo that could affect the diffusion timescale in Eq. (9).
  4. [Section 5] The assumption that dN/dM, dN/dV_k, and dξ/dn_MC are independent of Galactocentric radius is a strong simplification, and the paper should state whether this assumption biases the predicted CR intensity high or low.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The J0007 dark-source match is a postdiction: the Table 1 parameters are chosen to reproduce J0007+5659u, and the resulting curve is labeled 'prediction'; the PeV CR population calculation is largely independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (text after Eq. 11), Figure 3 caption, Table 1 'J0007' row]
    "Top and bottom panels are for a typical case in a typical molecular cloud and for an optimistic case that matches a LHAASO dark source (J0007+5659u), respectively. ... The black-solid and blue dashed curves are our prediction on gamma-ray and neutrinos, respectively. ... if we take an optimistic parameter set (see J0007 on Table 1), the resulting gamma-ray emission can be luminous enough to be detected by LHAASO, as shown in the bottom panel."

    The J0007 model parameters (M=20 Msun, n=1000 cm^-3, Vk=20 km/s, RMC=5 pc, BMC=30 uG, d=2 kpc) are not independently measured for this source; they are chosen after the fact so that the predicted flux matches J0007+5659u. The gamma-ray normalization is set by LCR in Eq. (3) and the distance d, so any desired flux can be accommodated by picking these values. Thus the bottom panel of Fig. 3 is an exercise in matching, not a prediction; the neutrino curve, being derived from the same tuned proton luminosity, inherits that accommodation. The PeV CR contribution in Section 5 uses independent population inputs and is not circular.

full rationale

The core MAD acceleration calculation (Eqs. 5-7) is a forward transport model with inputs from PIC and GRMHD simulations, and the escape/cutoff energies are derived rather than assumed. The PeV CR contribution integrates literature-based IBH and molecular-cloud distributions, so it is parameter-dependent but not circular. Self-citations to Kimura et al. (2021b) for plasma parameters are supported by external fits to quiescent X-ray binaries, so they are not counted as load-bearing circularity. The main circular element is the J0007 dark-source panel: the model parameters are selected to reproduce that LHAASO source, and the resulting curve is then called 'our prediction.' The claim that no GeV-TeV gamma rays are produced is physically under-supported because sub-PeV protons also generate lower-energy pionic photons, but that is a correctness/falsifiability concern rather than a circularity of the derivation. Overall, one central demonstration reduces to parameter accommodation, giving partial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a chain of adopted parameters and microphysical assumptions: the accretion reduction factor lambda_w, the CR production efficiency f_CR, the MAD parameters (alpha, beta, R), the reconnection and diffusion coefficients (eta_rec, eta_diff), and population inputs (N_IBH,tot, sigma_v, mass and density distributions). The dark-source match also uses the Table 1 parameters tuned to J0007+5659u. Independent support exists for the microphysics (PIC and GRMHD simulations), but the environmental and population assumptions are not yet validated observationally.

free parameters (14)
  • lambda_w (accretion reduction factor) = 0.1 (reference; 0.3 in one variant)
    Section 2, Eq. (1); accounts for mass loss and feedback reducing Bondi accretion. The value is uncertain, and the CR luminosity scales linearly with it.
  • f_CR (CR proton production efficiency) = 0.035 (epsilon_diss=0.15, epsilon_NT=0.33, f_e=0.3)
    Section 2, Eq. (3); adopted from the quiescent X-ray binary MAD model of Kimura et al. (2021b). This directly sets the CR luminosity.
  • alpha (viscous parameter) = 0.3
    Section 2, Eq. (4); sets the infall velocity and escape energy, with the value taken from quiescent X-ray binary modeling.
  • beta (plasma beta in MAD) = 0.1
    Section 2, Eq. (4); controls the magnetic field strength and all energy cutoffs in the model.
  • R (emission radius in gravitational radii) = 10
    Shared parameter in Table 1; controls MAD size, magnetic field, and escape timescales.
  • eta_rec (reconnection acceleration coefficient) = 10
    Section 3, Eq. (7); from Zhang et al. (2023) PIC simulations; sets the PeV cutoff energy.
  • eta_diff (diffusion coefficient multiplier) = 10
    Section 3, Eq. (6); Bohm-like diffusion with a numerical factor; sets E_p,esc and hence the dark-source spectral gap.
  • s_inj (injection spectral index) = 2.0
    Table 1; taken from PIC reconnection simulations; sets the CR and gamma-ray spectral slope.
  • J0007 source model parameters (M, n_MC, V_k, R_MC, B_MC, d) = M=20 M_sun, n_MC=1000 cm^-3, V_k=20 km/s, R_MC=5 pc, B_MC=30 muG, d=2 kpc
    Table 1; chosen so the predicted spectrum matches the LHAASO dark source J0007+5659u. This is the main fitted element in the dark-source claim.
  • N_IBH,tot (total Galactic IBH number) = 6e8
    Section 5; from Abrams and Takada (2020), with admitted large uncertainty; the CR intensity scales linearly with it.
  • sigma_v (IBH velocity dispersion) = 20 km/s
    Section 5; weak natal kick assumption supported by BH X-ray binary population and one microlensing event; the accretion rate and CR luminosity scale as V_eff^-3.
  • H_IBH (IBH disk scale height) = 0.3 kpc
    Section 5; adopted from Tsuna et al. (2018); controls the number of IBHs inside molecular clouds.
  • BH mass distribution index = dN/dM proportional to M^-3.5 for 10-50 M_sun
    Section 5, footnote 3; approximates LIGO/Virgo merger masses, but the field BH mass distribution is not well constrained.
  • MC gas density distribution slope = d_xi/d_nMC proportional to n_MC^-2.8
    Section 5; adopted from Ioka et al. (2017) and Tsuna et al. (2018); controls how many IBHs sit in dense, gamma-ray-bright gas.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption A Galactic population of 10^8 to 10^9 stellar-mass isolated black holes exists, and N_IBH,tot = 6e8 is adopted.
    Section 5, Eq. (12): 'We set NIBH,tot = 6e8 (e.g., Abrams & Takada 2020), although this value has a large uncertainty.' The final CR intensity scales linearly with this number.
  • domain assumption Magnetic flux advected from the Bondi radius is sufficient to form a magnetically arrested disk around an IBH.
    Section 2: 'the magnetic flux within the Bondi radius is much higher than the saturation flux in a typical ISM environment... we expect the formation of a MAD.' This is supported by GRMHD simulations but not directly observed for isolated BHs.
  • domain assumption Relativistic magnetic reconnection accelerates protons with t_acc = eta_rec r_L/c and produces a power-law spectrum with index 2.
    Section 3, based on Zhang et al. (2023) PIC simulations. The PeV cutoff and the escaping spectrum follow from this assumed acceleration law.
  • domain assumption The escape threshold E_p,esc separates protons that fall into the BH (GeV-TeV) from those that escape (sub-PeV), creating the dark-source spectral gap.
    Section 3, Eq. (6). The absence of GeV-TeV gamma rays is a consequence of this modeled threshold, not an independently measured property of the source class.
  • domain assumption CR transport in molecular clouds follows Kolmogorov-style diffusion with coherence length R_MC/5 and weak streaming instability.
    Section 4, Eq. (8); Section 6 notes that streaming instability would increase confinement and gamma-ray brightness, so this assumption sets a lower bound on the eventual signal.
  • standard math Galactic CR confinement is modeled with a leaky box and grammage X_esc around 2.0 (E_p/250 GeV)^-delta.
    Section 5, Eq. (13). Standard propagation model used to convert Galactic injection to the Earth-observed CR flux.
  • ad hoc to paper The IBH mass distribution, velocity distribution, and molecular-cloud density distribution are independent of Galactic radius.
    Section 5: 'we assume that dN/dM, dN/dVk, and d_xi/d_nMC are independent of Rgc for simplicity.' This simplification could bias the inner-Galaxy contribution, where most clouds reside.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isolated Black Holes as Potential PeVatrons and Ultrahigh-energy Gamma-ray Sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WS3X5JH

@misc{pith2026241208136,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isolated Black Holes as Potential PeVatrons and Ultrahigh-energy Gamma-ray Sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WS3X5JH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08136}
}
read the original abstract

The origin of PeV cosmic rays is a long-standing mystery, and ultrahigh-energy gamma-ray observations would play a crucial role in identifying it. Recently, LHAASO reported the discovery of ``dark'' gamma-ray sources that were detected above 100 TeV without any GeV--TeV gamma-ray counterparts. The origins of these dark gamma-ray sources are unknown. We propose isolated black holes (IBHs) wandering in molecular clouds as the origins of PeV cosmic rays and LHAASO dark sources. An IBH accretes surrounding dense gas, which forms a magnetically arrested disk (MAD) around the IBH. Magnetic reconnection in the MAD can accelerate cosmic-ray protons up to PeV energies. Cosmic-ray protons of GeV-TeV energies fall to the IBH, whereas cosmic-ray protons at sub-PeV energies can escape from the MAD, providing PeV CRs into the interstellar medium. The sub-PeV cosmic-ray protons interact with the surrounding molecular clouds, producing TeV-PeV gamma rays without emitting GeV-TeV gamma rays. This scenario can explain the dark sources detected by LHAASO. Taking into account the IBH and molecular cloud distributions in our Galaxy, we demonstrate that IBHs can provide a significant contribution to the PeV cosmic rays observed on Earth. Future gamma-ray detectors in the southern sky and neutrino detectors would provide a concrete test to our scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08136 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic picture of our scenario. An IBH in a molecular cloud accretes the surrounding gas, forming a MAD. Protons are accelerated in the MAD and high-energy protons can escape from the MAD. Some of these protons interact with the ambient gas, emitting TeV-PeV gamma rays that can explain LHAASO dark sources. The majority of the protons escape from the molecular cloud, which contribute to the PeV CRs observed on E… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Various timescales as a function of proton ener￾gies for a typical IBH in a typical molecular cloud (top) and for parameters that can explain a LHAASO dark source, J0007+05659u (bottom). The solid-blue, solid-red, and solid-black lines represent the cooling, escape, and accelera￾tion timescales, respectively. The thin-red-dashed and thin￾red-dotted lines represent diffusion and inflall timescales, re￾spectively. The… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gamma-ray spectra from molecular clouds that host IBHs. Top and bottom panels are for a typical case in a typical molecular cloud and for an optimistic case that matches a LHAASO dark source (J0007+5659u), re￾spectively. Their parameter sets are tabulated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of our model prediction to the ob￾served CR intensity on Earth. The red line represents our prediction. The data points are from KASCADE (Apel et al. 2013), IcethTop (Aartsen et al. 2019), TALE (Abbasi et al. 2018), Tibet-III (Amenomori et al. 2008), and LHA…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Galactic Isolated Stellar-Mass Black Holes with the Magnetospheric Spark Gap as Possible GeV-TeV Gamma-ray Unidentified Sources

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Isolated stellar-mass black holes accreting from the interstellar medium may shine as GeV-TeV gamma-ray sources through magnetospheric spark gaps, potentially explaining some unidentified Fermi and H.E.S.S. sources.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    4j6*H5ab5FC Rk uu0* U!R 4JU j? 8v!R kXcI- *3 7ԭE kadZ Be&Nƺhj ?EtòtM Űl

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    Aartsen, M., et al. 2020 a . 2008.04323

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    G., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al

    Aartsen , M. G., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al. 2019, , 100, 082002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.082002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.082002 2019

  6. [6]

    G., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., et al. 2020 b , Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 051103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.051103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.051103 2020

  7. [7]

    U., Abe , M., Abu-Zayyad , T., et al

    Abbasi , R. U., Abe , M., Abu-Zayyad , T., et al. 2018, , 865, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/aada05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aada05 2018

  8. [8]

    2023, Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    S., & Takada , M

    Abrams , N. S., & Takada , M. 2020, , 905, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc6aa

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Abreu, P., et al. 2019. 1907.07737

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    2013, Science, 339, 807, 10.1126/science.1231160

    Ackermann, M., et al. 2013, Science, 339, 807, 10.1126/science.1231160

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 084001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/8/084001

    Adri \'a n-Mart \' nez , S., Ageron , M., Aharonian , F., et al. 2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 084001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/8/084001

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Bazilevskaya , G

    Adriani , O., Barbarino , G. C., Bazilevskaya , G. A., et al. 2014, , 791, 93, 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/93

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, Nature Astron., 4, 913, 10.1038/s41550-020-1182-4

    Agostini, M., et al. 2020, Nature Astron., 4, 913, 10.1038/s41550-020-1182-4

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, Physical Review Letters, 117, 231102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.231102

    Aguilar , M., Ali Cavasonza , L., Ambrosi , G., et al. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 117, 231102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.231102

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2017, 12A105, 10.1093/ptep/ptx021

    Ahlers , M., & Halzen , F. 2017, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2017, 12A105, 10.1093/ptep/ptx021

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    L., et al

    Ahnen, M. L., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 472, 2956, 10.1093/mnras/sty382, 10.1093/mnras/stx2079

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    C., et al

    Alfaro , R., Alvarez , C., Arteaga-Vel \'a zquez , J. C., et al. 2024, , 634, 557, 10.1038/s41586-024-07995-9

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2008, Astrophys

    Amenomori, M., et al. 2008, Astrophys. J., 678, 1165, 10.1086/529514

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Bi , X

    Amenomori , M., Bao , Y. W., Bi , X. J., et al. 2021, , 126, 141101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141101

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2010, , 518, L102, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014666

    Andr \'e , P., Men'shchikov , A., Bontemps , S., et al. 2010, , 518, L102, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014666

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14550, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14550

    Anzorena , M., de la Fuente , E., Fujita , K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14550, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14550

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    D., Arteaga-Vel \'a zquez , J

    Apel , W. D., Arteaga-Vel \'a zquez , J. C., Bekk , K., et al. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 47, 54, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.06.004

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    T., Padovani , M., & Marcowith , A

    Araudo , A. T., Padovani , M., & Marcowith , A. 2021, , 504, 2405, 10.1093/mnras/stab635

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Y., Bi , X

    Bai , X., Bi , B. Y., Bi , X. J., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02773. 1905.02773

    2019

  18. [26]

    2018, , 853, 184, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa42f

    Ball , D., \"O zel , F., Psaltis , D., Chan , C.-K., & Sironi , L. 2018, , 853, 184, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa42f

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    Bell , A. R. 2004, , 353, 550, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x

    2004

  20. [29]

    2000, Gas in Galaxies , ed

    Bland-Hawthorn , J., & Reynolds , R. 2000, Gas in Galaxies , ed. P. Murdin , 2636, 10.1888/0333750888/2636

    2000 doi

  21. [30]

    D., & Begelman , M

    Blandford , R. D., & Begelman , M. C. 1999, , 303, L1, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02358.x

    1999

  22. [31]

    2011, , 737, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/94

    Cao , X. 2011, , 737, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/94

    2011 doi

  23. [32]

    2023, , 131, 151001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.151001

    Cao , Z., Aharonian , F., An , Q., et al. 2023, , 131, 151001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.151001

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    2024, , 271, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    ---. 2024, , 271, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    2024, Phys

    Cao, Z., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 132, 131002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.131002

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Gaggero , D., Markoff , S., & Zhang , S

    Cooper , A. J., Gaggero , D., Markoff , S., & Zhang , S. 2020, , 493, 3212, 10.1093/mnras/staa373

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    Crutcher , R. M. 2012, , 50, 29, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514

    2012 doi

  29. [38]

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

    Dame , T. M., Hartmann , D., & Thaddeus , P. 2001, , 547, 792, 10.1086/318388

    2001 doi

  30. [39]

    Dhang , P., Bai , X.-N., & White , C. J. 2023, , 944, 182, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb534

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    Fujita , Y., Murase , K., & Kimura , S. S. 2017, , 4, 037, 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/04/037

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11486, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.11486

    Galishnikova , A., Philippov , A., Quataert , E., Chatterjee , K., & Liska , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11486, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.11486

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    2024, Universe, 10, 203, 10.3390/universe10050203

    Giuliani, A., & Cardillo, M. 2024, Universe, 10, 203, 10.3390/universe10050203

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    2020, Physics of Plasmas, 27, 080501, 10.1063/5.0012094

    Guo , F., Liu , Y.-H., Li , X., et al. 2020, Physics of Plasmas, 27, 080501, 10.1063/5.0012094

    2020 doi

  35. [44]

    u ver , T., & \

    G \"u ver , T., & \"O zel , F. 2009, , 400, 2050, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x

    2009

  36. [45]

    2014, , 89, 123001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.123001

    Harari , D., Mollerach , S., & Roulet , E. 2014, , 89, 123001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.123001

    2014 doi

  37. [46]

    2016, , 531, 476, 10.1038/nature17147

    HESS Collaboration , Abramowski , A., Aharonian , F., et al. 2016, , 531, 476, 10.1038/nature17147

    2016 doi

  38. [47]

    C.-C., et al

    Hirotani , K., Pu , H.-Y., Lin , L. C.-C., et al. 2016, , 833, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/142

    2016 doi

  39. [48]

    2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 1080, 10.22323/1.444.1080

    Huang, T.-Q., Cao, Z., Chen, M., et al. 2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 1080, 10.22323/1.444.1080

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    2023, Science, 380, 1338, 10.1126/science.adc9818

    Icecube Collaboration , Abbasi , R., Ackermann , M., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 1338, 10.1126/science.adc9818

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    2017, , 470, 3332, 10.1093/mnras/stx1337

    Ioka , K., Matsumoto , T., Teraki , Y., Kashiyama , K., & Murase , K. 2017, , 470, 3332, 10.1093/mnras/stx1337

    2017 doi

  42. [51]

    M., & Vila , G

    Kafexhiu , E., Aharonian , F., Taylor , A. M., & Vila , G. S. 2014, , 90, 123014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.123014

    2014 doi

  43. [52]

    R., Aharonian , F

    Kelner , S. R., Aharonian , F. A., & Bugayov , V. V. 2006, , 74, 034018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.034018

    2006 doi

  44. [53]

    Kim , Y., & Most , E. R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.12359, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.12359

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    S., Kashiyama , K., & Hotokezaka , K

    Kimura , S. S., Kashiyama , K., & Hotokezaka , K. 2021 a , , 922, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac35dc

    2021 doi

  46. [55]

    S., Murase , K., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P

    Kimura , S. S., Murase , K., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2018, , 866, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc0a

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    S., Sudoh , T., Kashiyama , K., & Kawanaka , N

    Kimura , S. S., Sudoh , T., Kashiyama , K., & Kawanaka , N. 2021 b , , 915, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/abff58

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    S., & Toma , K

    Kimura , S. S., & Toma , K. 2020, , 905, 178, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc343

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    S., & Levinson , A

    Kin , K., Kisaka , S., Toma , K., Kimura , S. S., & Levinson , A. 2024, , 964, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20cd

    2024 doi

  50. [59]

    Kin , K., Kuze , R., & Kimura , S. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.09181, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.09181

    2025 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    Kobayashi , M. I. N., Inutsuka , S.-i., Kobayashi , H., & Hasegawa , K. 2017, , 836, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/175

    2017 doi

  52. [61]

    Kobayashi , M. I. N., Kobayashi , H., Inutsuka , S.-i., & Fukui , Y. 2018, , 70, S59, 10.1093/pasj/psy018

    2018 doi

  53. [62]

    2024, , 973, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5feb

    Koshimoto , N., Kawanaka , N., & Tsuna , D. 2024, , 973, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5feb

    2024 doi

  54. [63]

    S., & Fang , K

    Kuze , R., Kimura , S. S., & Fang , K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17467, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17467

    2025 doi arXiv

  55. [64]

    S., & Toma , K

    Kuze , R., Kimura , S. S., & Toma , K. 2022, , 935, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ec1

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08988, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.08988

    LHAASO Collaboration . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08988, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.08988

    2024 doi

  57. [66]

    C., & Newman , J

    Licquia , T. C., & Newman , J. A. 2015, , 806, 96, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96

    2015 doi

  58. [67]

    2020, , 494, 3656, 10.1093/mnras/staa955

    Liska , M., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Quataert , E. 2020, , 494, 3656, 10.1093/mnras/staa955

    2020 doi

  59. [68]

    H., Papaloizou , J

    Lubow , S. H., Papaloizou , J. C. B., & Pringle , J. E. 1994, , 267, 235, 10.1093/mnras/267.2.235

    1994 doi

  60. [70]

    Murase , K., Ahlers , M., & Lacki , B. C. 2013, , 88, 121301, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.121301

    2013 doi

  61. [71]

    2019, , 99, 063012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063012

    Murase , K., & Fukugita , M. 2019, , 99, 063012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063012

    2019 doi

  62. [72]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16847, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16847

    Nagarajan , P., & El-Badry , K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16847, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16847

    2024 doi arXiv

  63. [73]

    2016, , 68, 5, 10.1093/pasj/psv108

    Nakanishi , H., & Sofue , Y. 2016, , 68, 5, 10.1093/pasj/psv108

    2016 doi

  64. [74]

    2024, , 528, 2588, 10.1093/mnras/stae195

    Ogata , E., Ohsuga , K., Fukushima , H., & Yajima , H. 2024, , 528, 2588, 10.1093/mnras/stae195

    2024 doi

  65. [75]

    2000, , 539, 809, 10.1086/309267

    Quataert , E., & Gruzinov , A. 2000, , 539, 809, 10.1086/309267

    2000 doi

  66. [76]

    P., & Nelemans , G

    Repetto , S., Igoshev , A. P., & Nelemans , G. 2017, , 467, 298, 10.1093/mnras/stx027

    2017 doi

  67. [77]

    G., Duffy , P., & O'Sullivan , S

    Reville , B., Kirk , J. G., Duffy , P., & O'Sullivan , S. 2007, , 475, 435, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078336

    2007 doi

  68. [78]

    2022, , 924, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    Ripperda , B., Liska , M., Chatterjee , K., et al. 2022, , 924, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    2022 doi

  69. [79]

    C., Anderson , J., Casertano , S., et al

    Sahu , K. C., Anderson , J., Casertano , S., et al. 2022, , 933, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739e

    2022 doi

  70. [80]

    2021, , 366, 58, 10.1007/s10509-021-03960-4

    Sano , H., & Fukui , Y. 2021, , 366, 58, 10.1007/s10509-021-03960-4

    2021 doi

  71. [81]

    2022, , 666, A165, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039610

    Schneider , N., Ossenkopf-Okada , V., Clarke , S., et al. 2022, , 666, A165, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039610

    2022 doi

  72. [82]

    1975, , 172, 557, 10.1093/mnras/172.3.557

    Skilling , J. 1975, , 172, 557, 10.1093/mnras/172.3.557

    1975 doi

  73. [83]

    A., Lund , M

    Street , R. A., Lund , M. B., Khakpash , S., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.03137, 10.48550/arXiv.1812.03137

    2018 doi arXiv

  74. [84]

    Sudoh , T., & Beacom , J. F. 2023, , 107, 043002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043002

    2023 doi

  75. [85]

    2017, , 469, 62, 10.1093/mnras/stx769

    Sugimura , K., Hosokawa , T., Yajima , H., & Omukai , K. 2017, , 469, 62, 10.1093/mnras/stx769

    2017 doi

  76. [86]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2011, , 418, L79, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  77. [87]

    2018, , 477, 791, 10.1093/mnras/sty699

    Tsuna , D., Kawanaka , N., & Totani , T. 2018, , 477, 791, 10.1093/mnras/sty699

    2018 doi

  78. [88]

    2017, , 69, 78, 10.1093/pasj/psx061

    Umemoto , T., Minamidani , T., Kuno , N., et al. 2017, , 69, 78, 10.1093/pasj/psx061

    2017 doi

  79. [89]

    J., Stone , J

    White , C. J., Stone , J. M., & Quataert , E. 2019, , 874, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c0c

    2019 doi

  80. [90]

    2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

    Wilms , J., Allen , A., & McCray , R. 2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  81. [91]

    Xie, C., Liu, Y., Shao, C., Cui, Y., & Yang, L. 2024. 2408.02070

    2024 arXiv

  82. [92]

    2012, , 427, 1580, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22030.x

    Xie , F.-G., & Yuan , F. 2012, , 427, 1580, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22030.x

    2012

  83. [93]

    2019, , 624, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834337

    Yan , Q.-Z., Zhang , B., Xu , Y., et al. 2019, , 624, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834337

    2019 doi

  84. [94]

    P., Hu , F., Tian , W., et al

    Ye , Z. P., Hu , F., Tian , W., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1497, 10.1038/s41550-023-02087-6

    2023 doi

  85. [95]

    2014, , 52, 529, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan , F., & Narayan , R. 2014, , 52, 529, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

  86. [96]

    2001, , 562, L63, 10.1086/337972

    Zenitani , S., & Hoshino , M. 2001, , 562, L63, 10.1086/337972

    2001 doi

  87. [97]

    2023, , 956, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe7c

    Zhang , H., Sironi , L., Giannios , D., & Petropoulou , M. 2023, , 956, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe7c

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.