Hunting Star-Forming Galaxies in the Gamma-Ray Domain

C. Boisson; J. Biteau; P. Cristofari; P. Kornecki

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 104 references

Hunting Star-Forming Galaxies in the Gamma-Ray Domain

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that almost a dozen star-forming galaxies, led by NGC 253, M82, NGC 1068, NGC 4945, and Circinus, may be detectable in the TeV band by the upcoming Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory.

desk verdict Useful target-selection census for next-gen TeV observatories, but the 'almost a dozen' count rests on a calibration that could be off by a factor of two. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17024 v1 pith:JWSFEUWR submitted 2025-04-23 astro-ph.HE hep-ex

P. Kornecki , J. Biteau , C. Boisson , P. Cristofari This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEhep-ex

keywords gamma-rayastronomystar-forminggalaxiesstarburstTeVgammaraysCherenkovTelescopeArrayObservatoryFermi-LATstarformationratecosmic-raytransport

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 which star-forming galaxies the next generation of ground-based gamma-ray telescopes, above all the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory, could finally detect in the TeV band. Using the measured relation between gamma-ray luminosity at 2 GeV and star formation rate, together with an assumed photon index of 2.2 extending from GeV to TeV energies and attenuation by the extragalactic background light, the authors predict that almost a dozen galaxies may rise above the 50-hour point-source sensitivity of CTAO. The strongest candidates are the starbursts NGC 253 and M82 plus NGC 1068, NGC 4945, and Circinus, with M83 and M33 sitting at the threshold. Such detections matter because TeV emission would probe cosmic-ray acceleration and transport in extragalactic star-forming environments, a regime currently sampled by only two galaxies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing relation is the observationally calibrated correlation between gamma-ray luminosity at 2 GeV and star formation rate, $L_{\gamma,2\,\mathrm{GeV}} = C\,\dot{M}_*^m$, converted into a flux prediction by $F(E) = L_{2\,\mathrm{GeV}}(\mathrm{SFR})/(4\pi d^2) \times (E/2\,\mathrm{GeV})^{2-\alpha} e^{-\tau(E,z)}$ with $\alpha = 2.2$ and EBL optical depth $\tau$. A second channel uses the straight power-law extrapolation of the 4FGL-DR4 spectra. Both are compared with the differential point-source sensitivity of CTAO, LHAASO, and SWGO, computed with the published instrument response functions.

What would settle it

A CTAO campaign reaching the 50-hour sensitivity at the predicted flux on NGC 1068, NGC 4945, and Circinus that finds no source would contradict the paper's central detection claim; likewise, measuring a spectral break in NGC 253 or M82 above roughly 10 TeV would show the unbroken power-law assumption fails and would lower the expected detectability of the ULIRGs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the GeV band already contains the raw material for TeV discoveries: extrapolating the Fermi-LAT spectra of the 14 GeV-detected galaxies, or scaling a 2 GeV luminosity to star formation rate, places NGC 253, M82, NGC 1068, NGC 4945, and Circinus above the CTAO 50-hour sensitivity curve, and M83 and M33 at its threshold. A revised correlation $L_{\gamma,2\,\mathrm{GeV}} = C\,\dot{M}_*^m$ with $m = 1.27 \pm 0.10$ (or $m = 1.31 \pm 0.08$ after removing five outliers) provides the normalization for the empirical model. The paper therefore concludes that almost a dozen star-forming galaxies may be detectable by upcoming gamma-ray telescopes, a significant increase over the two known TeV starbursts.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume the GeV power law continues unbroken to TeV energies with photon index 2.2, attenuated only by the extragalactic background light, while gamma-ray absorption inside the host galaxy, potentially strong in starbursts and ultraluminous infrared galaxies, is not modeled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the predictions hold, CTAO will go from two TeV star-forming galaxies (NGC 253 and M82) to roughly a dozen, enabling the first population-level study of TeV emission from star-forming galaxies.
TeV spectra of these galaxies would constrain cosmic-ray acceleration up to multi-TeV energies in extragalactic environments and test whether hadronic emission dominates outside the GeV band.
Observations beyond 10 TeV by LHAASO or SWGO would probe internal gamma-ray absorption inside galaxies, turning the predicted cutoff into a diagnostic of the radiation field.
The outlier galaxies NGC 3424, NGC 4945, Circinus, NGC 2403, and NGC 7059 are candidates for hidden AGN or misassociation, so TeV follow-up would help sort out the origin of their gamma-ray excesses.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension is to stack the predicted sub-threshold TeV fluxes of the many non-detected galaxies; a stacked signal could test the SFR-gamma-ray correlation in a regime where individual detections remain out of reach.
If internal absorption is mild, the same scaling law suggests that deeper exposures (e.g., 100 hours) would bring Arp 220, Arp 299, NGC 2403, and NGC 3424 into detectable range, making them interesting targets for a follow-up program.
The predicted TeV luminosities can be combined with neutrino expectations for star-forming galaxies; a CTAO detection of NGC 1068 would strengthen the case that its reported neutrino signal is hadronic and connected to star formation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Best read as a target-selection study, not as a set of firm predictions. It is a genuinely useful update: the 2 GeV L_gamma–SFR correlation from 4FGL-DR4, fresh Fermi-LAT upper limits for 13 non-detected galaxies, and a careful comparison with public CTAO prod5, LHAASO, and SWGO response functions. The case-by-case discussion is clear, and the authors deserve credit for flagging associations that are shaky (NGC2403, NGC7059) and for noting where their model is optimistic. The census demotes IC342 and NGC6946 relative to Shimono 2021 and promotes NGC1068, NGC4945, Circinus, M83, and M33 as CTAO targets. That is a real service.

The soft spot is the normalization of the empirical model. Equation (1) plugs SFR into a relation fitted to the same galaxies whose detectability is being predicted. The fit excludes five outliers and ignores all 13 upper limits. The authors mention Ambrosone's estimate that accounting for non-detections could move the normalization by a factor of two. A factor of two matters here: M83 and M33 sit right at the CTAO threshold, so a downward shift removes them. The 'almost a dozen' in the abstract is a count that includes objects at threshold and mere 'possibility' entries. I would not call that misleading—they qualify it in the text—but the headline is optimistic.

The Fermi-LAT extrapolations are somewhat more robust for the five 4FGL-detected candidates, but they inherit the usual power-law-extrapolation uncertainty into TeV. Internal absorption is a real effect but mostly above ~10 TeV; for M83/M33, the sub-TeV normalization is the issue, so the stress-test is right to put the normalization bias first.

Overall: the pipeline is standard, the data products are public, and the paper states its limitations openly. I'd send it to a competent referee. The revision should add a sensitivity test on the normalization (e.g., predictions with log C shifted by ±0.3) and tone down 'almost a dozen' to something like 'up to about a dozen, several of which are at the threshold.' The paper is worth citing as the current best target list for next-generation TeV observatories.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compiles a sample of 27 star-forming galaxies (14 detected by Fermi-LAT in 4FGL-DR4 and 13 not detected) and assesses their detectability at TeV energies with CTAO, LHAASO, and SWGO. The GeV analysis uses standard Fermipy procedures on roughly 15 years of Fermi-LAT data, yielding upper limits for the non-detected galaxies. The authors update the L_gamma-SFR correlation at 2 GeV using the 4FGL-detected galaxies, then predict TeV fluxes with two models: an empirical SFR-scaled power law of photon index 2.2 (Eq. 1) and a straight extrapolation of the 4FGL power laws, both attenuated by the EBL. These predictions are compared with public CTAO prod5 IRFs, LHAASO, and SWGO sensitivities. The main result is that almost a dozen star-forming galaxies may be detectable by upcoming gamma-ray telescopes, with NGC 253, M82, NGC 1068, NGC 4945, and Circinus above the CTAO 50-hour sensitivity, M83 and M33 at the threshold, and Arp 220, Arp 299, NGC 2403, and NGC 3424 as possible targets with longer exposures.

Significance. If the predictions hold, the paper provides a useful and timely target list for CTAO, LHAASO, and SWGO, extending earlier work by including non-4FGL galaxies and using updated instrument response functions. Strengths include the use of public IRFs, a standard and reproducible Fermi-LAT analysis pipeline, the validation that spectra above the differential sensitivity curves correspond to combined significance above 5 sigma, and the transparent case-by-case discussion of candidates. The main value is in identifying which galaxies deserve dedicated VHE observations and in framing the L_gamma-SFR correlation as a tool for population predictions. However, the central quantitative claim depends on a correlation normalization that is not robust to the treatment of upper limits and excluded outliers, and the 'almost a dozen' count is not tied to a crisp detectability criterion.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.3, Eq. (1), Fig. 3, Table B.1] The empirical model that places M83 and M33 at the CTAO detection threshold is calibrated with an ODR fit to only 9 of the 14 4FGL-detected galaxies, after excluding NGC 3424, NGC 4945, Circinus, NGC 2403, and NGC 7059, and the fit ignores all 13 upper limits from Table 1. The footnote in Section 2.3 acknowledges that Ambrosone et al. estimate the normalization could shift by a factor of two if non-detected galaxies are properly accounted for, but this systematic uncertainty is not propagated into the detectability claims. A factor-of-two downward shift in the normalization is roughly four times the quoted statistical uncertainty on log C (38.19 +/- 0.08) and would push M83 and M33 below the CTAO sensitivity curve and weaken the 'o' classifications for Arp 220 and Arp 299. Please either perform a censored or mixture regression that includes the upper limits, or explicitly present the candidate list as conditional on the optimistic normalization and show how the list changes under a factor-of-two systematic shift.
[Abstract, Section 3.2, Table B.1] The headline claim that 'almost a dozen' star-forming galaxies may be detectable is not backed by a well-defined criterion. The paper states that a spectrum above the differential sensitivity curve corresponds to a combined significance above 5 sigma, yet the 'almost a dozen' count appears to include galaxies classified as 'o' (possibility) and '?' (detailed study needed), whose spectra lie below the 50-hour sensitivity curve. Please provide a quantitative definition of 'detectable' (e.g., predicted combined significance, or flux relative to the sensitivity curve integrated over the CTAO band) and state explicitly how many galaxies satisfy that criterion, and how that number changes under the normalization uncertainty discussed above.
[Section 3.1, Eq. (1)] The paper correctly cautions that internal gamma-ray absorption is not modeled and that results are optimistic beyond 10 TeV, but for the borderline candidates M83 and M33 the CTAO-band fluxes are controlled by sub-TeV emission, so internal absorption is not the dominant uncertainty for those objects. The dominant uncertainty is the normalization of the SFR scaling relation. The manuscript would be strengthened by separating these two caveats and by showing the predicted CTAO-band integrated flux (or significance) with a band that includes both the fit parameter uncertainties and the factor-of-two systematic, rather than only the shaded region based on the best-fit line.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] Several figures contain typographical spacing issues in the energy axis label, e.g., 'T eV' instead of 'TeV'; please correct these in the final version.
[Section 2.3] The sentence 'The figure show that NGC 3424, NGC 4945, Circinus, NGC 2403 and NGC 7059 stand out...' has a subject-verb agreement error; please revise.
[Eq. (1) and Table 2] The notation L_2GeV(SFR) in Eq. (1) would be clearer if it matched the L_gamma,2GeV notation used in Section 2.3, and if the units of each quantity in Eq. (1) were stated explicitly.
[Table B.1] The last column header 'LHAASO, SWGO' is ambiguous because each row has a single symbol that may apply to either instrument or both; please clarify the correspondence, for example by splitting the column or defining the convention in the caption.
[Section 3.1] The statement that a minimum of 5 signal counts per bin and 3 sigma per-bin significance are imposed would benefit from a reference or justification, since these thresholds affect the derived sensitivity curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TeV detectability claims rest on independent Fermi-LAT extrapolations and an explicitly calibrated SFR scaling applied to new targets, with admitted non-circular caveats.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not reductions of their inputs. Section 3.1 defines the empirical model in Eq. (1) as F = L_2GeV(SFR)/(4πd^2) × (E/2 GeV)^{2−α} e^{−τ}, where L_2GeV(SFR) is the ODR fit from Section 2.3 (m=1.31, log C=38.19). For the nine galaxies used in that fit, the empirical model is a re-expression of the fit, but the paper does not use this model as the primary evidence for their detectability: for every 4FGL-detected galaxy the detectability calls in Figs. 2–4 and Table B.1 are based on the extrapolated 4FGL-DR4 power law, an external measurement independent of the fitted correlation. The only non-detected galaxies promoted to 'interesting candidates' by the empirical model are M83 and M33 (Fig. 3), for which the model is an extrapolation of a relation calibrated on other objects, not a fit to their own fluxes; this is genuine prediction, not statistical forcing. The sample selection in Section 2.1 uses SFR/4πd^2 as a pre-filter, but the final assessment is against external CTAO/LHAASO/SWGO response functions, and the paper explicitly reports many selected galaxies as undetectable, so the comparison has content. The admitted limitations are not circular: the Section 2.3 footnote (Ambrosone et al. normalization factor-of-two) and the Section 3.1 caveat that the simple model is optimistic beyond 10 TeV due to unmodeled internal absorption are robustness concerns about a scaling-relation extrapolation and a physical assumption, respectively. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted quantity is smuggled in under the name of prediction; the empirical model is explicitly labeled 'simple empirical model normalized to the star formation rate.'

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical model has two fitted correlation parameters and a fixed photon index of 2.2 as its core; the selection threshold also steers the candidate list. There are no invented physical entities: the paper explicitly declines to model internal absorption. The main burden is that the central predictions inherit the fitted Lgamma-SFR correlation, whose scatter is large.

free parameters (4)

slope m of Lgamma-SFR correlation = 1.27 +/- 0.10 (all); 1.31 +/- 0.08 (excluding 5 outliers)
Fitted to the 2 GeV luminosities and SFRs of 14 Fermi-LAT detected galaxies in Section 2.3. The empirical model in Eq. (1) uses this fitted slope to predict the flux of every galaxy.
normalization C of Lgamma-SFR correlation = log C = 38.28 +/- 0.10 (all); 38.19 +/- 0.08 (fiducial)
Fitted normalization at 2 GeV in Section 2.3, used directly in the empirical model for the predicted TeV flux.
photon index alpha = 2.2 = 2.2
Adopted for the empirical model based on pionic emission expectations and used to convert upper limits to 2 GeV fluxes. This is a chosen value, not derived in this paper.
selection threshold alpha = 1/3.5 relative to NGC 253 = 0.286
Chosen so that galaxies with flux above about one mCrab in 50 hours are selected; this hand-set factor determines which galaxies enter the candidate sample.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The GeV-to-TeV gamma-ray emission of star-forming galaxies is dominated by hadronic pion decay and follows a power law with index near 2.2.
Invoked in Section 3.1 to build the empirical model. This is the standard pionic scenario in the cited literature, but the paper notes alternative leptonic and AGN-related contributions exist.
domain assumption The SFR values from FUV, H-alpha, and IR tracers, and the MANGROVE stellar-mass-based SFRs, are reliable proxies for the cosmic-ray injection power.
The entire SFR scaling rests on these photometric estimates, which have 0.3-0.8 dex dispersion for the MANGROVE sample. The authors verify internal consistency among tracers for nine galaxies, but the calibration constants still carry uncertainty.
domain assumption The Fermi-LAT 4FGL-DR4 associations with SFGs are correct, including the contested association of 4FGL J0737.4+6535 with NGC 2403.
Section 2.3 uses all 14 associations as data points in the correlation. The paper itself discusses that Bruzewski et al. (2023) identify 4FGL J0737.4+6535 as a possible blazar, and NGC 7059's association is questioned by Foschini et al. (2022).
standard math EBL attenuation follows the Dominguez et al. (2011) model.
Used in Eq. (1) to attenuate multi-TeV spectra. Standard practice; the choice is a given external input, not justified in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hunting Star-Forming Galaxies in the Gamma-Ray Domain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JWSFEUWR

@misc{pith2026250417024,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hunting Star-Forming Galaxies in the Gamma-Ray Domain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JWSFEUWR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17024}
}

read the original abstract

Context. Star-forming galaxies emit {\gamma}rays with relatively low luminosity, but the study of their emission is no less captivating. While it is known that their {\gamma}-ray luminosity in the GeV band is strongly linked to their star formation, the origin of their emission at higher energies remains uncertain due to limited observations. Aims. Our aim is to assemble the largest possible sample of star-forming galaxies with potential detectability by the new-generation of Cherenkov telescopes. Methods. To achieve this, we compile a comprehensive sample of galaxies, including those previously detected by Fermi-LAT in the GeV energy range as well as a larger sample of star-forming galaxies in the Local Volume that have been cataloged in the near-infrared band. We estimate their {\gamma}-ray flux assuming a proportional relationship with their star formation rate, and then select the brightest candidates. The predicted spectra in the TeV band are derived using a simple empirical model normalized to the star formation rate and a model based on extrapolating the latest Fermi-LAT data to higher energies. The ground-based detectability of {\gamma}-ray emission from these sources is assessed through a comparison to the most recent instrument response functions. Results. Our investigation reveals that almost a dozen star-forming galaxies may be detectable by upcoming {\gamma}-ray telescopes. Conclusions. The observation of numerous star-forming galaxies in the TeV band is a fundamental piece of the panchromatic puzzle for understanding the physics inside these galaxies. The significant increase in the number of galaxies that can be studied in detail in the near future, particularly with the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory, promises a major step forward in the study of the conditions of acceleration and transport of cosmic rays in nearby extragalactic environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17024 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Upper panel: Lγ, 2 GeV – SFR observed correlation. The dotted green line corresponds to the best-fit model for all the data points of detected SFGs and the shaded region represents the 68% confidencelevel band. The dashed pink line and associated shaded region shows the best-fit model excluding blue markers. The upper limits obtained in section 2.1, shown as downward pointing triangles, are not taken into account i… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** SEDs of the top candidates selected from the GeV-detected sample of SFGs. In each panel, pink dots denote spectral points from FermiLAT, the gray line and gray shaded region represent the best power-law fit to the γ-ray data, as provided in the 4FGL-DR4 catalog, including absorption on the EBL at multi-TeV energies. The orange dotted line and associated shaded region depict the empirical model scaled to the SFR of … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** SEDs of interesting candidates detected at GeV energies, namely M31 (upper panel), or on the verge of GeV detection, namely M33 (mid panel) and M83 (lower panel). The line and color code match that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: SEDs of possibly interesting candidates from the GeV detected sample. The line and color code match that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[1]

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

Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2010 a , , 188, 405

2010
[2]

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

Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2010 b , , 523, L2

2010
[3]

2012, , 757, 158

Abramowski , A., Acero , F., Aharonian , F., et al. 2012, , 757, 158

2012
[4]

A., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L

Acciari , V. A., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L. A., et al. 2019, , 883, 135

2019
[5]

2023, , 523, 5353

Acharyya , A., Adam , R., Aguasca-Cabot , A., et al. 2023, , 523, 5353

2023
[6]

2017, , 836, 208

Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Albert , A., et al. 2017, , 836, 208

2017
[7]

2012, , 755, 164

Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2012, , 755, 164

2012
[8]

S., & Garrappa , S

Ajello , M., Di Mauro , M., Paliya , V. S., & Garrappa , S. 2020, , 894, 88

2020

Show all 104 references

[9]

2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.08429

Albert , A., Alfaro , R., Ashkar , H., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.08429

2019 arXiv
[10]

Ambrosone , A., Chianese , M., Fiorillo , D. F. G., Marinelli , A., & Miele , G. 2021, , 919, L32

2021
[11]

2024, , 2024, 040

Ambrosone , A., Chianese , M., & Marinelli , A. 2024, , 2024, 040

2024
[12]

Antonucci , R. R. J. & Miller , J. S. 1985, , 297, 621

1985
[13]

I., Leer , E., & Skadron , G

Axford , W. I., Leer , E., & Skadron , G. 1977, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 11, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 132

1977
[14]

H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

Ballet , J., Bruel , P., Burnett , T. H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration . 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546

2023 arXiv
[15]

Bell , A. R. 1978, , 182, 147

1978
[16]

Bell , E. F. 2003, , 586, 794

2003
[17]

2021, , 256, 15

Biteau , J. 2021, , 256, 15

2021
[18]

& Meyer , M

Biteau , J. & Meyer , M. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 39

2022
[19]

J., Paglione , T

Blom , J. J., Paglione , T. A. D., & Carrami \ n ana , A. 1999, , 516, 744

1999
[20]

Bouquin , A. Y. K., Gil de Paz , A., Mu \ n oz-Mateos , J. C., et al. 2018, , 234, 18

2018
[21]

K., & Taylor , G

Bruzewski , S., Schinzel , F. K., & Taylor , G. B. 2023, , 943, 51

2023
[22]

Bykov , A. M. & Fleishman , G. D. 1992, , 255, 269

1992
[23]

2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02773

Cao , Z., della Volpe , D., Liu , S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02773

2019
[24]

2003, , 115, 763

Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

2003
[25]

2024, , 527, 7915

Chen , X.-B., Liu , R.-Y., Wang , X.-Y., & Chang , X.-C. 2024, , 527, 7915

2024
[26]

S., Agudo , I., et al

Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium , Acharya , B. S., Agudo , I., et al. 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array

2019
[27]

Condon , J. J. 1992, , 30, 575

1992
[28]

2012, , 544, A101

Cortese , L., Boissier , S., Boselli , A., et al. 2012, , 544, A101

2012
[29]

2008, , 388, 1595

da Cunha , E., Charlot , S., & Elbaz , D. 2008, , 388, 1595

2008
[30]

2021, , 104, 123016

Do , A., Duong , M., McDaniel , A., et al. 2021, , 104, 123016

2021
[31]

& Torres , D

Domingo-Santamar \' a , E. & Torres , D. F. 2005, , 444, 403

2005
[32]

R., Rosario , D

Dom \' nguez , A., Primack , J. R., Rosario , D. J., et al. 2011, , 410, 2556

2011
[33]

2023, , 678, A157

Donath , A., Terrier , R., Remy , Q., et al. 2023, , 678, A157

2023
[34]

Dorfi , E. A. & Breitschwerdt , D. 2012, , 540, A77

2012
[35]

G., Corre , D., Leroy , N., & Le Floch , E

Ducoin , J. G., Corre , D., Leroy , N., & Le Floch , E. 2020, , 492, 4768

2020
[36]

D., et al

Eckner , C., Hou , X., Serpico , P. D., et al. 2018, , 862, 79

2018
[37]

L., Andernach , H., et al

Foschini , L., Lister , M. L., Andernach , H., et al. 2022, Universe, 8, 587

2022
[38]

2011, , 534, A31

Gavazzi , G., Savorgnan , G., & Fumagalli , M. 2011, , 534, A31

2011
[39]

F., et al

Gil de Paz , A., Boissier , S., Madore , B. F., et al. 2007, , 173, 185

2007
[40]

Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Aharonian , F., et al

H.E.S.S. Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Aharonian , F., et al. 2018, , 617, A73

2018
[41]

& Zanin , R

Hofmann , W. & Zanin , R. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.12888

2023 arXiv
[42]

2022, Science, 378, 538

IceCube Collaboration , Abbasi , R., Ackermann , M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 538

2022
[43]

D., Kaisina , E

Karachentsev , I. D., Kaisina , E. I., & Makarov , D. I. 2018, , 479, 4136

2018
[44]

D., Stroh , M

Kaur , A., Falcone , A. D., Stroh , M. D., Kennea , J. A., & Ferrara , E. C. 2019, , 887, 18

2019
[45]

1998, , 498, 541

Kennicutt , Robert C., J. 1998, , 498, 541

1998
[46]

C., Funes , J

Kennicutt , Robert C., J., Lee , J. C., Funes , J. G., et al. 2008, , 178, 247

2008
[47]

Kennicutt , R. C. & Evans , N. J. 2012, , 50, 531

2012
[48]

J., del Palacio , S., et al

Kornecki , P., Pellizza , L. J., del Palacio , S., et al. 2020, , 641, A147

2020
[49]

Kornecki , P., Peretti , E., del Palacio , S., Benaglia , P., & Pellizza , L. J. 2022, , 657, A49

2022
[50]

2023, PoS, Gamma2022, 216

Kornecki, P., Peretti, E., del Palacio, S., Marcowith, A., & Araudo, A. 2023, PoS, Gamma2022, 216

2023
[51]

R., Crocker , R

Krumholz , M. R., Crocker , R. M., Xu , S., et al. 2020, , 493, 2817

2020
[52]

Lacki , B. C. & Thompson , T. A. 2013, , 762, 29

2013
[53]

C., Thompson , T

Lacki , B. C., Thompson , T. A., Quataert , E., Loeb , A., & Waxman , E. 2011, , 734, 107

2011
[54]

2019, Astroparticle Physics, 112, 16

Lamastra , A., Tavecchio , F., Romano , P., Landoni , M., & Vercellone , S. 2019, Astroparticle Physics, 112, 16

2019
[55]

P., Ricci , C., T \"u rler , M., Dorner , D., & Walter , R

Lenain , J. P., Ricci , C., T \"u rler , M., Dorner , D., & Walter , R. 2010, , 524, A72

2010
[56]

& Tingay , S

Lenc , E. & Tingay , S. J. 2009, , 137, 537

2009
[57]

2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2101.03508

LHAASO collaboration . 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2101.03508

2021 arXiv
[58]

2012, Astroparticle Physics, 35, 797

Mannheim , K., Els \"a sser , D., & Tibolla , O. 2012, Astroparticle Physics, 35, 797

2012
[59]

2014, , 564, A61

Martin , P. 2014, , 564, A61

2014
[60]

2019, , 100, 023014

McDaniel , A., Jeltema , T., & Profumo , S. 2019, , 100, 023014

2019
[61]

G., de Freitas Pacheco , J

Nasonova , O. G., de Freitas Pacheco , J. A., & Karachentsev , I. D. 2011, , 532, A104

2011
[62]

Observatory, C. T. A. & Consortium, C. T. A. 2021, CTAO Instrument Response Functions - prod5 version v0.1

2021
[63]

& Hinton , J

Ohm , S. & Hinton , J. A. 2013, , 429, L70

2013
[64]

2019, , 487, 168

Peretti , E., Blasi , P., Aharonian , F., & Morlino , G. 2019, , 487, 168

2019
[65]

2020, , 493, 5880

Peretti , E., Blasi , P., Aharonian , F., Morlino , G., & Cristofari , P. 2020, , 493, 5880

2020
[66]

G., et al

Peretti , E., Lamastra , A., Saturni , F. G., et al. 2023, , 526, 181

2023
[67]

2022, , 511, 1336

Peretti , E., Morlino , G., Blasi , P., & Cristofari , P. 2022, , 511, 1336

2022
[68]

P., Spoon , H

P \'e rez-Beaupuits , J. P., Spoon , H. W. W., Spaans , M., & Smith , J. D. 2011, , 533, A56

2011
[69]

2008, , 486, 143

Persic , M., Rephaeli , Y., & Arieli , Y. 2008, , 486, 143

2008
[70]

2024, , 685, A47

Persic , M., Rephaeli , Y., & Rando , R. 2024, , 685, A47

2024
[71]

M., & Springel , V

Pfrommer , C., Pakmor , R., Simpson , C. M., & Springel , V. 2017, , 847, L13

2017
[72]

2020, , 641, A6

Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6

2020
[73]

A., Meisenheimer , K., Marco , O., et al

Prieto , M. A., Meisenheimer , K., Marco , O., et al. 2004, , 614, 135

2004
[74]

J., Soifer , B

Rice , W., Lonsdale , C. J., Soifer , B. T., et al. 1988, , 68, 91

1988
[75]

& Araya , M

Rojas-Bravo , C. & Araya , M. 2016, , 463, 1068

2016
[76]

E., M \"u ller , A

Romero , G. E., M \"u ller , A. L., & Roth , M. 2018, , 616, A57

2018
[77]

A., Krumholz , M

Roth , M. A., Krumholz , M. R., Crocker , R. M., & Celli , S. 2021, , 597, 341

2021
[78]

A., Krumholz , M

Roth , M. A., Krumholz , M. R., Crocker , R. M., & Thompson , T. A. 2023, , 523, 2608

2023
[79]

B., Mazzarella , J

Sanders , D. B., Mazzarella , J. M., Kim , D. C., Surace , J. A., & Soifer , B. T. 2003, , 126, 1607

2003
[80]

2021, , 506, 6212

Shimono , N., Totani , T., & Sudoh , T. 2021, , 506, 6212

2021
[81]

Strickland , D. K. & Heckman , T. M. 2009, , 697, 2030

2009
[82]

W., Orlando , E., & Jaffe , T

Strong , A. W., Orlando , E., & Jaffe , T. R. 2011, , 534, A54

2011
[83]

2018, , 70, 49

Sudoh , T., Totani , T., & Kawanaka , N. 2018, , 70, 49

2018
[84]

N., et al

Tombesi , F., Cappi , M., Reeves , J. N., et al. 2010, , 521, A57

2010
[85]

B., Kourkchi , E., Courtois , H

Tully , R. B., Kourkchi , E., Courtois , H. M., et al. 2023, , 944, 94

2023
[86]

Vecchiotti , V., Pagliaroli , G., & Villante , F. L. 2022, Communications Physics, 5, 161

2022
[87]

2005, , 43, 769

Veilleux , S., Cecil , G., & Bland-Hawthorn , J. 2005, , 43, 769

2005
[88]

A., Aliu , E., et al

VERITAS Collaboration , Acciari , V. A., Aliu , E., et al. 2009, , 462, 770

2009
[89]

J., Aharonian , F

V \"o lk , H. J., Aharonian , F. A., & Breitschwerdt , D. 1996, , 75, 279

1996
[90]

& Fields , B

Wang , X. & Fields , B. D. 2018, , 474, 4073

2018
[91]

2021, , 505, 3295

Werhahn , M., Pfrommer , C., Girichidis , P., & Winner , G. 2021, , 505, 3295

2021
[92]

& Nied \'z wiecki , A

Wojaczy \'n ski , R. & Nied \'z wiecki , A. 2017, , 849, 97

2017
[93]

2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

Wood , M., Caputo , R., Charles , E., et al. 2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 301, 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017), 824

2017
[94]

L., Eisenhardt , P

Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868

2010
[95]

2020 a , , 896, L33

Xi , S.-Q., Liu , R.-Y., Wang , X.-Y., et al. 2020 a , , 896, L33

2020
[96]

2020 b , , 901, 158

Xi , S.-Q., Zhang , H.-M., Liu , R.-Y., & Wang , X.-Y. 2020 b , , 901, 158

2020
[97]

2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 263

Xiang , Y.-C., Jiang , Z.-J., & Tang , Y.-Y. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 263

2021
[98]

& Wang , Z

Xing , Y. & Wang , Z. 2023, , 952, 112

2023
[99]

2023, , 945, L22

Xing , Y., Wang , Z., Zheng , D., & Li , J. 2023, , 945, L22

2023
[100]

& Razzaque , S

Yang , L. & Razzaque , S. 2019, , 99, 083007

2019
[101]

M., Everett , J

Yoast-Hull , T. M., Everett , J. E., Gallagher , J. S., I., & Zweibel , E. G. 2013, , 768, 53

2013
[102]

S., Reddy , N

Yun , M. S., Reddy , N. A., & Condon , J. J. 2001, , 554, 803

2001
[103]

, " * 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.sent...
[104]

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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2010 a , , 188, 405

2010

[2] [2]

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

Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2010 b , , 523, L2

2010

[3] [3]

2012, , 757, 158

Abramowski , A., Acero , F., Aharonian , F., et al. 2012, , 757, 158

2012

[4] [4]

A., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L

Acciari , V. A., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L. A., et al. 2019, , 883, 135

2019

[5] [5]

2023, , 523, 5353

Acharyya , A., Adam , R., Aguasca-Cabot , A., et al. 2023, , 523, 5353

2023

[6] [6]

2017, , 836, 208

Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Albert , A., et al. 2017, , 836, 208

2017

[7] [7]

2012, , 755, 164

Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2012, , 755, 164

2012

[8] [8]

S., & Garrappa , S

Ajello , M., Di Mauro , M., Paliya , V. S., & Garrappa , S. 2020, , 894, 88

2020