Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Study of the IC 443 region with the HAWC observatory

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using 2966 days of HAWC data, this paper reports that IC 443's gamma-ray spectrum extends to about 30 TeV without a cutoff, keeping the supernova remnant a viable PeVatron candidate, and identifies a new extended source near pulsar…

desk verdict Careful HAWC analysis of IC 443 with a solid extended-source detection, but the PeVatron interpretation rests on a point-source association the authors themselves concede is not secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12613 v3 pith:GSF43FJJ submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.HE

R. Alfaro , C. Alvarez , M. Araya , J.C. Arteaga-Velázquez , D. Avila Rojas , H.A. Ayala Solares , R. Babu , A. Bernal
show 84 more authors
K.S. Caballero-Mora T. Capistran A. Carramiñana S. Casanova U. Cotti J. Cotzomi S. Coutiño de León E. De la Fuente D. Depaoli P. Desiati N. Di Lalla R. Diaz Hernandez B.L. Dingus M.A. DuVernois J.C. Díaz-Vélez T. Ergin C. Espinoza K. Fang N. Fraija S. Fraija J.A. García-González H. Goksu J.A. González-Cervera M.M. González J.A. Goodman S. Groetsch J.P. Harding S. Hernández-Cadena I. Herzog J. Hinton D. Huang F. Hueyotl-Zahuantitla P. Hüntemeyer S. Kaufmann A. Lara J. Lee H. León Vargas J.T. Linnemann A.L. Longinotti G. Luis-Raya K. Malone O. Martinez J. Martínez-Castro J.A. Matthews P. Miranda-Romagnoli J.A. Montes J.A. Morales-Soto E. Moreno M. Mostafá M. Najafi L. Nellen M.U. Nisa R. Noriega-Papaqui L. Olivera-Nieto N. Omodei M. Osorio E. Ponce Y. Pérez Araujo E.G. Pérez-Pérez C.D. Rho D. Rosa-González M. Roth E. Ruiz-Velasco H. Salazar A. Sandoval M. Schneider G. Schwefer J. Serna-Franco A.J. Smith Y. Son R.W. Springer O. Tibolla K. Tollefson I. Torres R. Torres-Escobedo R. Turner X. Wang Z. Wang I.J. Watson H. Wu S. Yu S. Yun-Cárcamo H. Zhou C. de León
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords IC443supernovaremnantsPeVatrongamma-rayastronomyTeVhalopulsarwindnebulaHAWCobservatorycosmic-rayacceleration
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

Using 2966 days of data from the HAWC observatory, this paper asks whether the supernova remnant IC 443 accelerates cosmic rays to PeV energies. It reports a point source that it associates with IC 443, with a simple power-law spectrum of index $-3.14\pm0.18$ and no evidence for a cutoff up to about 30 TeV. Because electrons in this environment cannot easily reach the energies needed to produce such gamma rays, the authors argue that the tail is best explained by hadronic cosmic rays and that IC 443 remains a viable PeVatron candidate. The same analysis uncovers a new extended source, HAWC J0615+2213, with a harder spectrum (index $-2.49\pm0.08$), which the paper proposes may be a TeV halo powered by the middle-aged pulsar B0611+22. The point source sits 0.26 degrees from the catalog position of IC 443, and the paper itself notes that emission from the pulsar wind nebula should not be discarded.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a maximum-likelihood source-search pipeline applied to HAWC data, which first adds point sources one by one when the test-statistic improvement exceeds 25, then tests each point source as a Gaussian extended source, and finally tests spectral curvature by comparing a simple power law with a log-parabola and an exponential cutoff. The spectral analyses use a power-law form $\Phi(E) = \Phi_0 (E/E_{\rm piv})^\alpha$ with pivot energy 2.3 TeV, and the hadronic interpretation is evaluated with a Markov Chain Monte Carlo spectral-fitting routine by comparing a broken power law and an exponential cutoff for the parent proton population. The decisive quantities are the test-statistic differences between models, the Bayesian Information Criterion between the broken power-law and cutoff proton spectra, and the flat posterior of the maximum proton energy, which together indicate that the data prefer a continuation of the spectrum over a cutoff.

What would settle it

A future observation with angular resolution good enough to localize the >10 TeV emission to the pulsar wind nebula rather than to the remnant shell would break the association with IC 443; alternatively, detecting a spectral cutoff below about 30 TeV in the point source would contradict the paper's central no-cutoff claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the gamma-ray spectrum of the region around IC 443 continues as a featureless power law to roughly 30 TeV, with the likelihood analysis finding no significant curvature or cutoff. A maximum-likelihood fit to 2966 days of HAWC data yields a point source at $\alpha = 94.42^\circ$, $\delta = 22.35^\circ$ with spectral index $-3.14\pm0.18$, consistent with earlier TeV measurements, and the paper associates this point source with IC 443. In a combined spectral fit that includes prior GeV and TeV measurements plus the new HAWC data, a pion-decay model with a broken power-law proton spectrum is preferred over one with an exponential cutoff, and the posterior for the maximum proton energy stays flat out to 1 PeV, meaning the data do not require a cutoff. Alongside the point source the analysis finds an extended component, HAWC J0615+2213, with index $-2.49\pm0.08$; the extended emission is not well described by cosmic-ray illumination of known gas, and its centroid lies 0.29 degrees from the pulsar B0611+22, leading the authors to propose a TeV halo interpretation while deferring a full model to a later paper.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the point source belongs to the supernova remnant IC 443, even though its best-fit position sits 0.26 degrees from the remnant's catalog position and closer to the pulsar wind nebula; the paper itself concedes that the pulsar wind nebula interpretation should not be discarded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result holds, IC 443 remains a viable hadronic PeVatron, with protons plausibly accelerated beyond the ~65 TeV limit of standard diffusive shock acceleration.
  • The extended source HAWC J0615+2213, if a TeV halo, adds a ~90-kyr-old pulsar to the known halo population and implies a diffusion coefficient below the interstellar value by about a factor of 45.
  • The non-detection of the neighbouring remnant G189.6+03.3, despite a hard GeV counterpart, means its flux must fall steeply above 1 TeV.
  • Both sources are adequately described by simple power laws; the likelihood does not prefer a log-parabola or exponential-cutoff form for either.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is a joint spectral-spatial search with a more sensitive instrument above 10 TeV: if the no-cutoff tail belongs to the remnant, the point-source flux should continue to fall as a power law beyond 30 TeV.
  • If the point source is actually dominated by the pulsar wind nebula, the hadronic interpretation is not destroyed, because inverse-Compton emission from the nebula is suppressed at the highest energies by the Klein-Nishina effect, so some hadronic contribution would still be required.
  • The flat posterior on the maximum proton energy implies the current data cannot distinguish a cutoff at 65 TeV from one near 1 PeV; only observations that push the measured spectrum above ~50 TeV can make that discrimination.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a maximum-likelihood analysis of 2966 days of HAWC data toward the IC 443 region. The authors find a point source at (α = 94.42°, δ = 22.35°) that they associate with IC 443, with a power-law spectrum of index −3.14 ± 0.18 and no significant spectral curvature, and an extended source named HAWC J0615+2213 with index −2.49 ± 0.08 and Gaussian width 1.05°. They interpret the point source as gamma-ray emission from IC 443, argue that leptonic models cannot explain emission up to ~30 TeV, and conclude that IC 443 remains a viable hadronic PeVatron candidate. For the extended source, they discuss cosmic-ray illumination of interstellar gas, unresolved faint sources, and a possible TeV halo powered by pulsar B0611+22, deferring a detailed analysis to a future publication. The paper also reports upper limits on G189.6+03.3 and compares its model with LHAASO's catalog result for the region.

Significance. If the point-source association with IC 443 is correct, the work extends the known gamma-ray spectrum of this supernova remnant to ~30 TeV and supports hadronic acceleration above the ~65 TeV diffusive-shock-acceleration limit, which is directly relevant to Galactic PeVatron searches. The newly reported extended source HAWC J0615+2213 is also potentially valuable as a TeV-halo candidate around pulsar B0611+22. The analysis has notable strengths: it uses a transparent model-selection algorithm with explicit TS thresholds, compares two independent binning schemes, includes detector and modeling systematics, and shows residual significance maps consistent with background. However, the significance of the paper is tempered by two load-bearing weaknesses: the point-source identification with IC 443 is not quantitatively secured, and the claimed absence of a cutoff above ~30 TeV rests on sparse high-energy data. These issues mainly affect the astrophysical interpretation rather than the raw detections.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 (Table 1), §4.1] The point-source association with IC 443 is not secured. The best-fit position is 0.26° from the Green-catalog position of IC 443 and 0.14° from the pulsar wind nebula CXOU J061705.3+222212, while the combined statistical and systematic position uncertainty in Table 1 is of order 0.1°. The paper itself states in §4.1 that 'emission from the pulsar wind nebula should not be discarded' and that HAWC cannot distinguish where the emission originates. Because the hadronic-PeVatron conclusion in §4.1 and §5 depends on this identification, the manuscript should present the association as a working hypothesis and support it with a quantitative test, for example a likelihood comparison of models with the point source placed at the IC 443 position, at the PWN position, or left free, together with a chance-coincidence estimate given the source density in the region.
  2. [§4.1] The leptonic-exclusion argument is environment-specific and does not apply if the point-source emission originates in the pulsar wind nebula. The electron maximum-energy bounds of roughly 3–10 TeV cited in §4.1 are derived for the SNR shock environment and do not constrain electrons accelerated in a young pulsar wind nebula. A PWN origin would be leptonic and could plausibly produce a hard, power-law-like gamma-ray spectrum; the Klein-Nishina remark in §4.1 does not by itself rule out emission at the highest observed energies. Consequently, the sentence concluding that 'hadronic processes are a more plausible explanation' is not established for the point-source emission as long as the PWN alternative remains viable.
  3. [Abstract; §3.3; Appendix B] The claim that the spectrum extends to ~30 TeV with no cutoff is stronger than the data support. In Table 3, the highest SED point with a statistically significant TS is at 15.4 TeV (TS = 11.1); the 38.2 TeV bin is an upper limit, and the 1σ energy range [0.3, 30] TeV is a derived detection interval rather than a direct detection of 30 TeV photons. The exponential-cutoff model is not preferred (Table 9), but this test has little sensitivity to a cutoff near or above 30 TeV given the sparse high-energy points. The conclusion should be framed as 'no cutoff is required by the data' rather than as a positive statement that the spectrum extends to ~30 TeV without a cutoff.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Footnote 48] The pulsar discovery is cited as 'Davies, J. and Lyne, A. and Seiradakis, J. (1972)'; please use standard author-year formatting, and correct the typo 'used to measured the distance'.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The X-ray compact object is written as 'CXOU J061705.3+222122' in the caption but as 'CXOU J061705.3+222212' in the text and Table 1; the spelling should be unified.
  3. [§4.2.3, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) gives an upper limit on the diffusion coefficient, but the following sentence says 'We find that the diffusion coefficient to be 2.21 × 10^28 cm^2 s^-1'; please use 'upper limit' consistently in the text.
  4. [§4.2.3] The sentence 'All estimates are below ∼0.1 cm−3, the energy density of the interstellar medium' should have units of eV cm^-3 for the energy density.
  5. [§4.2.1] The sentence 'This would mean that there would still be some emission left that is not described by these faint sources' is unclear; please rephrase to indicate what fraction of the extended-source flux remains unexplained after accounting for unresolved sources.
  6. [Table 2] Adding the systematic uncertainties for the energy-scheme parameters would make the cross-check more informative; as printed, the table shows only statistical uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral measurements, cutoff search, and halo diffusion estimate are direct fits to HAWC data with external cross-checks.

full rationale

This is an observational measurement paper rather than a derivation that reduces to its inputs. The two central results—the point-source power-law index (-3.14 ± 0.18, no significant cutoff up to ~30 TeV) and the extended source HAWC J0615+2213 with index (-2.49 ± 0.08)—are obtained from maximum-likelihood fits to HAWC data using explicit model-comparison thresholds (TS > 25, TS > 16), and the SED points in Tables 3 and 4 are produced by fixing all model parameters except the normalization in each energy bin. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction of the same quantity. The Naima hadronic modeling takes the measured SED as input, uses externally motivated parameters (e.g., n = 20 cm^-3 from Ackermann et al. 2013, distances from parallax), and the flat posterior on the maximum proton energy is a data-driven result, not an assumed input. The TeV-halo diffusion coefficient D <= 2.21e28 cm2/s follows from the measured Gaussian width (theta = 1.05 deg), the externally measured pulsar distance (d0 = 3.55 kpc), and the standard cooling-time formula (Eq. 7); it is not fitted within the same model. Self-citations (A. Albert et al. 2023; A. U. Abeysekara et al. 2022; A. Albert et al. 2024) are methodological references for the analysis framework, energy reconstruction, and source-searching algorithm, and none is used to forbid alternative models or to supply a uniqueness theorem. The HAWC results are also cross-checked against external LHAASO catalog measurements in Appendix C, so the paper is self-contained against an independent benchmark. The association of the point source with IC 443 rather than the nearby pulsar wind nebula is an astrophysical interpretation, and the paper explicitly concedes that 'emission from the pulsar wind nebula should not be discarded'; this is a source-association caveat, not a circular derivation. No circular step could be identified with quoted text and a specific reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an observational analysis. Its central claims rest on fitted spectral parameters and astrophysical assumptions about source association, distances, and the galactic diffuse background, rather than on newly postulated physical entities. The free parameters are the fitted source and background normalizations, spectral indices, and the extension width. The assumptions are instrument calibration, the GDE template's accuracy, the source identifications, and the distance and ISM properties used for the halo interpretation.

free parameters (6)
  • Point source normalization Φ0 = 5.9e-14 TeV^-1 cm^-2 s^-1 at 2.3 TeV
    Fitted to the gamma-ray flux in the maximum likelihood analysis; central to the reported spectrum.
  • Point source spectral index α = -3.14 ± 0.18
    Fitted power-law index for the source associated with IC 443.
  • Extended source normalization Φ0 = 3.18e-13 TeV^-1 cm^-2 s^-1 at 2.3 TeV
    Fitted normalization of the new extended source.
  • Extended source spectral index α = -2.49 ± 0.08
    Fitted power-law index for HAWC J0615+2213.
  • Extended source Gaussian width σ = 1.05 deg
    Fitted extension of the new source; used directly in the TeV halo diffusion estimate.
  • GDE scale factor = 2.62 ± 1.20
    Free normalization of the HERMES galactic diffuse emission model in the region fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The HAWC gamma/hadron selection and detector response are correct as described in previous HAWC papers.
    The analysis relies on the HAWC performance and calibration papers (e.g., A. Albert et al. 2024) for event selection and energy reconstruction.
  • domain assumption The HERMES galactic diffuse emission template accurately represents the gamma-ray background in the IC 443 region.
    The GDE model is a spatial template based on DRAGON cosmic-ray propagation; an inaccurate template could bias the fitted point and extended source parameters.
  • domain assumption The point source found at (94.42, 22.35) is the same object as IC 443 despite a 0.26 degree offset from the catalog position.
    Stated in Section 3.2 'We associate the point source with IC 443.' The proximity of the pulsar wind nebula CXOU J061705.3+222212 makes this association uncertain.
  • domain assumption The extended source lies at the distance of the pulsar B0611+22, 3.55 kpc, for the halo calculations.
    The paper uses the parallax distance from A. T. Deller et al. (2019) but notes the dispersion measure gives an alternative distance of 1.74 kpc; a different distance changes the inferred radius and energy density.
  • domain assumption The interstellar medium diffusion coefficient is 1e30 cm^2/s and the electron cooling time is 12 kyr at 100 TeV.
    These literature values are used in Section 4.2.3 to judge whether the measured extent is consistent with a TeV halo rather than normal cosmic-ray diffusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of the IC 443 region with the HAWC observatory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GSF43FJJ

@misc{pith2026250112613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of the IC 443 region with the HAWC observatory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GSF43FJJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12613}
}
abstract

Supernova remnants are one potential source class considered a PeVatron (i.e. capable of accelerating cosmic rays above PeV energies). The shock fronts produced after the explosion of the supernova are ideal regions for particle acceleration. IC 443 is a supernova remnant that has been studied extensively at different wavelengths. Using 2966 days of gamma-ray data from the HAWC observatory, we study the emission of IC 443 with the objective of finding signatures of cosmic-ray acceleration at the PeV scale. Using a maximum likelihood method, we find a point source located at ($\alpha$=94.42$^{\circ}$, $\delta$=22.35$^{\circ}$) that we associate with IC 443. The measured spectrum is a simple power law with an index of $-3.14\pm$0.18, which is consistent with previous TeV observations. Although we cannot confirm that IC 443 is a hadronic PeVatron, we do not find any sign that the spectrum has a cut off at tens of TeV energies, with the spectrum extending to $\sim$30 TeV. Furthermore, we also find a new extended component in the region whose emission is described by a simple power law with an index of $-2.49\pm$0.08 and which we call HAWC J0615+2213. While we show evidence that this new source might be a new TeV halo, we defer a detailed analysis of this new source to another publication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12613 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. IC 443 region seen by HAWC using the fhit analysis bins. The map assumes a point source morphology with an index of -3.14. The radio contours (in white) are from J.-J. Lee et al. (2008). Left: The region of interest used for the analysis is also shown with the change of brightness in the sky map. The positions of IC 443 and G189.6+03.3 are from the Green Catalog D. A. Green (2019). Position of CXOU J061705.3+222122 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Residual sky map after fitting the best-fit model using the fhit analysis bins. The region of interest used for the analysis is also shown with the change of brightness in the skymap. Right: Best-fit sky map model. No significant excesses are observed after subtracting the best-fit model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Residual maps of the region for the fhit analysis bins. Left: subtracting the extended source. Right: subtracting the point source. In the second significance map, we made it assuming an extension of 1.05◦ . On the lower left of the plot the Geminga Halo is visible. The region of interest used for the analysis is shown with the change of brightness in the sky map. 3.2.1. Systematics To account for detector biases, w… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectrum of the two sources seen by HAWC. Left is the spectrum of the point source, which we associate with IC 443. Right is the spectrum of the extended source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectrum of IC 443 in gamma rays. The model is a pion decay with a parent proton spectrum following a broken power law (BPL) or exponential cutoff spectrum (ECPL). On the left, the maximum energy of the protons is 65 TeV, on the right it is 1 PeV. These values are base…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Prior and Posterior distribution of the maximum energy of the proton distribution after fitting a hadronic model with Naima. The distribution is still relatively flat compared to the prior distribution which is a uniform distribution in log space between 65 TeV and 10 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: The map is the same as the second map in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectrum of the extended source. A physical model assuming only inverse Compton is tested. Both simpler power law and exponential cutoff models for the electron spectrum can describe the data. The results of the parameters are used to estimate the electron energy densi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spectrum of G189.6+03.3. Shown are the spectral points from Fermi data and upper limits from HAWC data. The limits suggest that the emission above 1 TeV is suppressed below HAWC’s sensitivity. proton energy to be above the theoretical minimum of 65 TeV, with no evidenc…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: Sky map with the positions measured by LHAASO and HAWC using only a 2D Gaussian morphology. Circles are the 1σ of the Gaussian function. Right: SED of the extended source. Fluxes are consistent within uncertainties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Significance histograms of the residual maps. First histogram is from the map where the extended sources is described by a 2D Gaussian. Second histogram is where the extended source is described by the gas template. First histogram is closer to what we expect from onl…

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. Gamma rays as a signature of r-process producing supernovae: remnants and future Galactic explosions

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using a magnetorotational supernova model, the paper predicts that gamma-ray lines from tin-126 and iron-60 in Galactic remnants, and from tellurium, iodine, and antimony isotopes in a future nearby supernova, would b...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 53 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 edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2009, ApJL, 706, L1

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 459

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

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

    Abeysekara , A. U., Albert , A., Alfaro , R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 134

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

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

    Abeysekara , A. U., Albert , A., Alfaro , R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 39

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

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

    Abeysekara , A. U., Albert , A., Alfaro , R., et al. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 828

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

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

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2023, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 1052, 168253

    work page 2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    A., et al

    Abramowski , A., Aharonian , F., Benkhali , F. A., et al. 2016, , 531, 476

    2016

  2. [10]

    A., Aliu , E., Arlen , T., et al

    Acciari , V. A., Aliu , E., Arlen , T., et al. 2009, ApJL, 698, L133

    2009

  3. [11]

    2013, Science, 339, 807

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2013, Science, 339, 807

    2013

  4. [12]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 144

    Albert , A., Alfaro , R., Alvarez , C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 144

    2024

  5. [13]

    2021, , 914, 106

    Albert , A., Alfaro , R., Alvarez , C., et al. 2021, , 914, 106

    2021

  6. [14]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 76

    Albert , A., Alfaro , R., Alvarez , C., & HAWC Collaboration . 2020, ApJ, 905, 76

    2020

  7. [15]

    2023, , 954, 205

    Albert , A., Alvarez , C., Avila Rojas , D., et al. 2023, , 954, 205

    2023

  8. [16]

    2007, ApJL, 664, L87

    Albert , J., Aliu , E., Anderhub , H., et al. 2007, ApJL, 664, L87

    2007

  9. [17]

    2017, , 472, 51

    Ambrocio-Cruz , P., Rosado , M., de la Fuente , E., Silva , R., & Blanco-Pi \ n on , A. 2017, , 472, 51

    2017

  10. [18]

    M., Aharonian , F

    Atoyan , A. M., Aharonian , F. A., & V \"o lk , H. J. 1995, , 52, 3265

    1995

  11. [19]

    G., Ellison , D

    Baring , M. G., Ellison , D. C., Reynolds , S. P., Grenier , I. A., & Goret , P. 1999, ApJ, 513, 311

    1999

  12. [20]

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

    2004

  13. [21]

    R., Schure, K

    Bell, A. R., Schure, K. M., Reville, B., & Giacinti, G. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 415

    2013

  14. [22]

    & Becker , W

    Camilloni , F. & Becker , W. 2023, AAP, 680, A83

    2023

  15. [23]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 25

    Cao , Z., Aharonian , F., An , Q., Axikegu , & (The Lhaaso Collaboration) . 2024, ApJS, 271, 25

    2024

  16. [24]

    2009, MNRAS, 395, 895

    Caprioli, D., Blasi, P., Amato, E., & Vietri, M. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 895

    2009

  17. [25]

    Castelletti , G., Dubner , G., Clarke , T., & Kassim , N. E. 2011, AAP, 534, A21

    2011

  18. [26]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1999, ApJ, 511, 798

    1999

  19. [27]

    2020, Astroparticle Physics, 123, 102492

    Cristofari, P., Blasi, P., & Amato, E. 2020, Astroparticle Physics, 123, 102492

    2020

  20. [28]

    M., Ungerechts , H., Cohen , R

    Dame , T. M., Ungerechts , H., Cohen , R. S., et al. 1987, ApJ, 322, 706

    1987

  21. [29]

    and Lyne, A

    Davies, J. and Lyne, A. and Seiradakis, J. 1972, Nature, 240, 229

    1972

  22. [30]

    T., Goss , W

    Deller , A. T., Goss , W. M., Brisken , W. F., et al. 2019, , 875, 100

    2019

  23. [31]

    Drury, L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973

    1983

  24. [32]

    2021, AAP, 653, A18

    Dundovic , A., Evoli , C., Gaggero , D., & Grasso , D. 2021, AAP, 653, A18

    2021

  25. [33]

    Erickson , W. C. & Mahoney , M. J. 1985, ApJ, 290, 596

    1985

  26. [34]

    2017, JCAP, 2017, 015

    Evoli , C., Gaggero , D., Vittino , A., et al. 2017, JCAP, 2017, 015

    2017

  27. [35]

    Fesen , R. A. 1984, ApJ, 281, 658

    1984

  28. [36]

    M., Chatterjee , S., Slane , P

    Gaensler , B. M., Chatterjee , S., Slane , P. O., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 1037

    2006

  29. [37]

    Giacinti , G., Mitchell , A. M. W., L \'o pez-Coto , R., et al. 2020, , 636, A113

    2020

  30. [38]

    Green , D. A. 2019, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 40, 36

    2019

  31. [39]

    2014, PRL, 113, 155005

    Guo, F., Li, H., Daughton, W., & Liu, Y.-H. 2014, PRL, 113, 155005

    2014

  32. [40]

    2016, AAP, 594, A116

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, AAP, 594, A116

    2016

  33. [41]

    Lagage, P. O. & Cesarsky, C. J. 1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 118, 223

    1983

  34. [42]

    S., et al

    Lee , J.-J., Koo , B.-C., Yun , M. S., et al. 2008, , 135, 796

    2008

  35. [43]

    S., et al

    Lee, J.-J., Koo, B.-C., Yun, M. S., et al. 2008, The Astronomical Journal, 135, 796

    2008

  36. [44]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 226

    Li , J., Jiang , B., & Zhao , H. 2022, ApJ, 927, 226

    2022

  37. [45]

    2017, Phys

    Linden, T., Auchettl, K., Bramante, J., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 103016

    2017

  38. [46]

    M., Clearfield , C

    Olbert , C. M., Clearfield , C. R., Williams , N. E., Keohane , J. W., & Frail , D. A. 2001, , 554, L205

    2001

  39. [47]

    2012, Space Science Reviews, 173, 535

    Petrosian, V. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 173, 535

    2012

  40. [48]

    2011, A&A, 536, 16

    Planck Collaboration et al. 2011, A&A, 536, 16

    2011

  41. [49]

    R., et al

    Rajwade , K., Seymour , A., Lorimer , D. R., et al. 2016, , 462, 2518

    2016

  42. [50]

    M., et al

    Seta , M., Hasegawa , T., Dame , T. M., et al. 1998, , 505, 286

    1998

  43. [51]

    2023, JCAP, 2023, 027

    Sharma , P., Ou , Z., Henry-Cadrot , C., Dubos , C., & Suomij \"a rvi , T. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 027

    2023

  44. [52]

    2008, , 485, 777

    Troja , E., Bocchino , F., Miceli , M., & Reale , F. 2008, , 485, 777

    2008

  45. [53]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 689, L125

    Troja, E., Bocchino, F., Miceli, M., Reale, F., & Dubner, G. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 689, L125

    2008

  46. [54]

    2006, , 649, 258

    Troja , E., Bocchino , F., & Reale , F. 2006, , 649, 258

    2006

  47. [55]

    2021, AAP, 649, A14

    Ustamujic , S., Orlando , S., Greco , E., et al. 2021, AAP, 649, A14

    2021

  48. [56]

    J., Younk , P., et al

    Vianello , G., Lauer , R. J., Younk , P., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1507.08343

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    2022, Frascati Phys.Ser., 74, 153

    Vink , J. 2022, Frascati Phys.Ser., 74, 153

    2022

  50. [58]

    V., Balser , D

    Wenger , T. V., Balser , D. S., Anderson , L. D., & Bania , T. M. 2018, , 856, 52

    2018

  51. [59]

    1893, AN, [3130] 131, 157

    Wolf , M. 1893, AN, [3130] 131, 157

  52. [60]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 705, L6

    Yamaguchi, H., Ozawa, M., Koyama, K., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 705, L6

    2009

  53. [61]

    M., Manchester , R

    Yao , J. M., Manchester , R. N., & Wang , N. 2017, , 835, 29

    2017

  54. [62]

    2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Zabalza , V. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 34, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 922

    2015

  55. [63]

    & Yan, H

    Zhang, B. & Yan, H. 2011, ApJ, 726, 90

    2011

  56. [64]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 141

    Zhang , S., Tang , X., Zhang , X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 141

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.