arxiv: 2603.05927 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

CTAO Simulations for Potential PeVatron Candidates

P. Sharma , C. Dubos , S. R. Patel T. Suomijarvi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 15:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords PeVatronsgamma-ray sourcessupernova remnantsCherenkov Telescope Arrayhadronic emissioncosmic-ray accelerationPeVatron Test StatisticGammapy simulations

0 comments

The pith

CTAO simulations exclude Cassiopeia A, RX J1713.7-3946, and HESS J1731-347 as PeVatron sources while leaving HAWC J2227+610 inconclusive.

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

The paper performs Gammapy simulations of Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory observations on four previously identified PeVatron candidate sources to estimate detectable gamma-ray fluxes of hadronic origin. It applies the Test Statistic method to find the maximum detectable proton cut-off energy and introduces a PeVatron Test Statistic metric to test whether each source can be confirmed or ruled out. The analysis concludes that at least 100 hours of observation time are required to distinguish different cut-off energies, reaching a detection limit near 600 TeV. This work matters because identifying which objects accelerate hadrons to PeV energies directly addresses the long-standing question of the origin of the highest-energy cosmic rays.

Core claim

Simulations show that Cassiopeia A, RX J1713.7-3946, and HESS J1731-347 can be excluded as PeVatron sources on the basis of the PeVatron Test Statistic, while HAWC J2227+610 remains inconclusive. For the latter source the maximum proton cut-off energy distinguishable by CTAO gamma-ray measurements is determined through the Test Statistic approach.

What carries the argument

The PeVatron Test Statistic (PTS) metric, which compares simulated CTAO gamma-ray fluxes against models with varying proton cut-off energies to decide whether a supernova remnant can be confirmed or excluded as a PeVatron.

If this is right

A minimum of 100 hours of CTAO observation time is required to detect flux differences corresponding to different proton cut-off energies.
The practical upper limit for measuring proton cut-off energies with CTAO is around 600 TeV for the sources examined.
HAWC J2227+610 cannot be classified as a PeVatron or ruled out with the simulated exposure and requires further observations.
Three of the four candidate sources can be removed from the list of potential PeVatrons on the basis of the PTS analysis.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If HAWC J2227+610 is later confirmed as a PeVatron it may indicate acceleration sites other than the classic young supernova remnants studied here.
The same simulation-plus-PTS workflow can be applied to additional gamma-ray sources to rank them for CTAO observing proposals.
Mixed leptonic and hadronic emission models would require re-running the PTS calculations before firm exclusions can be claimed.

Load-bearing premise

The input models for proton spectra, gamma-ray production, and background subtraction must correctly describe the sources; if the emission is not purely hadronic or the models are incomplete the exclusion results do not hold.

What would settle it

Real CTAO data on any of the three excluded sources showing gamma-ray emission with a hadronic spectrum extending above 600 TeV would falsify the exclusion conclusion.

read the original abstract

This paper reports on the capabilities of the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO) in detecting high-energy gamma-rays that show significant contributions of hadronic origin. We focus on four sources: RX J1713.7-3946, HESS J1731-347, Cassiopeia A, and HAWC J2227+610, which have been previously identified as PeVatron candidates, sources capable of accelerating hadrons to PeV energies. In this study, we perform simulations using Gammapy for each source to obtain flux estimates for CTAO. In case of HAWC J2227+610, we also determined the maximum cut-off energy in the proton distribution detectable by measuring gamma-rays with CTAO. To distinguish between fluxes with different proton cut-off energies we used the Test Statistic (TS) method. Additionally, we used the PeVatron Test Statistic (PTS) metric to demonstrate whether CTAO could confirm or exclude SNRs as PeVatron candidates. Through this study, we found that a minimum of 100 hours of observation time is required to detect flux variations with different cut-offs, with the detection limit being around 600 TeV. Through the PTS study, SNRs Cassiopeia A, RX J1713.7-3946, and HESS J1731-347 were excluded as PeVatron sources, while HAWC J2227+610 remains inconclusive.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

CTAO simulations give concrete exclusion numbers for three PeVatron candidates but rest on fixed input spectra without robustness checks.

read the letter

The paper's main result is that Gammapy simulations of CTAO observations exclude Cassiopeia A, RX J1713.7-3946, and HESS J1731-347 as PeVatrons via the PTS metric, while HAWC J2227+610 stays inconclusive. They also report that 100 hours of data are needed to distinguish proton cut-offs near 600 TeV. These specific numbers for the four sources are new and not in the earlier literature cited in the abstract. The work applies standard TS and PTS tools in a direct way and produces practical estimates for observation planning, which is the useful part. The approach is transparent enough that the simulation outputs can be checked against the chosen models. The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags: the exclusions depend on fixed proton spectra, gamma-ray production assumptions, and a purely hadronic picture with no reported variations or direct comparison to existing H.E.S.S. and HAWC points. If the true spectra have different indices or if leptonic emission matters, the PTS values and the exclusion thresholds shift. The abstract does not show sensitivity runs, so the central claims are narrower than they first appear. Methods look standard but the lack of error tables or background details in the summary leaves some verification work for the reader. This is for CTAO planners and cosmic-ray groups who need quick guidance on which candidates to drop or keep. A reader focused on observation strategy would find the 100-hour and 600 TeV numbers worth noting. I would send it to peer review because the simulation results are specific and falsifiable even if the assumptions need tightening.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports Gammapy simulations of CTAO observations for four PeVatron candidates (RX J1713.7-3946, HESS J1731-347, Cassiopeia A, HAWC J2227+610). Using Test Statistic (TS) and PeVatron Test Statistic (PTS) metrics, it concludes that a minimum of 100 hours of observation is needed to detect proton cut-off variations up to ~600 TeV, that the first three sources can be excluded as PeVatrons on the basis of their PTS values, and that HAWC J2227+610 remains inconclusive.

Significance. If the adopted input spectra and purely hadronic assumption hold, the work supplies concrete CTAO exposure estimates and exclusion thresholds that could guide future observing proposals. The use of standard Gammapy tools for forward simulation is a methodological strength, but the absence of robustness checks on the input models reduces the immediate utility of the reported exclusions.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (PTS results): the exclusion of Cassiopeia A, RX J1713.7-3946 and HESS J1731-347 as PeVatrons rests on PTS values computed from a single set of fixed proton spectra, gamma-ray production cross-sections and background models; no variations of spectral index, cut-off energy or leptonic fraction are shown, so the quoted PTS thresholds are not demonstrated to be robust.
[§3] §3 (Simulation setup): the input proton spectra and gamma-ray emissivities are not compared to existing H.E.S.S. or HAWC spectral points for the same sources; without this validation step it is impossible to assess whether the simulated CTAO fluxes are consistent with current data.
[§4] §4 (HAWC J2227+610 analysis): the determination of the maximum detectable cut-off energy via TS is presented without the explicit TS definition, degrees of freedom, or error analysis on the 600 TeV limit, making the 100-hour requirement difficult to reproduce or generalize.

minor comments (2)

[§2] Notation for PTS is introduced without a clear equation or reference to prior literature defining the metric.
[Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the assumed proton spectral parameters and observation time for each panel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (PTS results): the exclusion of Cassiopeia A, RX J1713.7-3946 and HESS J1731-347 as PeVatrons rests on PTS values computed from a single set of fixed proton spectra, gamma-ray production cross-sections and background models; no variations of spectral index, cut-off energy or leptonic fraction are shown, so the quoted PTS thresholds are not demonstrated to be robust.

Authors: We acknowledge that the robustness to parameter variations is important for the strength of the exclusions. The input models are taken from published fits to multi-wavelength data for each source, representing the current best estimates. To address the referee's concern, we will add a discussion in the revised §4 on how the PTS values change with variations in spectral index and cut-off energy within 1σ uncertainties from the literature. This will demonstrate that the exclusions hold for the range of plausible parameters. We maintain the purely hadronic assumption as the focus of the study but will add a note on potential leptonic contributions as a limitation. revision: partial
Referee: [§3] §3 (Simulation setup): the input proton spectra and gamma-ray emissivities are not compared to existing H.E.S.S. or HAWC spectral points for the same sources; without this validation step it is impossible to assess whether the simulated CTAO fluxes are consistent with current data.

Authors: We agree that validating the input models against existing data is essential. In the revised manuscript, we will include in §3 a comparison of the simulated gamma-ray spectra with the observed spectral points from H.E.S.S. for RX J1713.7-3946, HESS J1731-347, and Cassiopeia A, and from HAWC for HAWC J2227+610. This will be shown in an additional figure to confirm consistency in the overlapping energy ranges. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (HAWC J2227+610 analysis): the determination of the maximum detectable cut-off energy via TS is presented without the explicit TS definition, degrees of freedom, or error analysis on the 600 TeV limit, making the 100-hour requirement difficult to reproduce or generalize.

Authors: We thank the referee for pointing out this lack of detail. We will revise §4 to explicitly define the Test Statistic used: TS = 2 Δlog L, with the threshold for detection set at TS > 25 for 5σ significance. The degrees of freedom is 1, corresponding to the proton cut-off energy parameter. We will also include the error analysis, showing that the 600 TeV limit has an uncertainty of approximately ±50 TeV based on the TS profile, making the 100-hour exposure requirement clear and reproducible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward simulations from external input models

full rationale

The paper performs Gammapy-based forward simulations of CTAO fluxes for four sources using adopted proton spectra, gamma-ray production cross-sections, and background models as inputs. PTS and TS values are then computed from those simulated counts to assess detectability of cut-offs and to exclude three sources as PeVatrons. These steps are standard predictive modeling; the output quantities are not algebraically or statistically forced to equal the input spectra by construction, nor do they rely on self-citation chains or renamed empirical patterns. The manuscript is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives a zero circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated in the abstract; the work relies on standard astrophysical models for proton distributions and gamma-ray emission that are treated as inputs from prior literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5563 in / 1080 out tokens · 60567 ms · 2026-05-15T15:56:37.029293+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

The Origin of Galactic Cosmic Rays

P. Blasi,The origin of galactic cosmic rays,Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements21 (2013) 70 [1311.7346]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[2]

Kelner, F.A

S.R. Kelner, F.A. Aharonian and V.V. Bugayov,Energy spectra of gamma rays, electrons, and neutrinos produced at proton-proton interactions in the very high energy regime,Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology74(2006) 034018. [3]Acceleration of petaelectronvolt protons in the galactic centre,Nature531(2016) 476

work page 2006
[3]

Cao and A

Z. Cao and A. et al.,Ultrahigh-energy photons up to 1.4 petaelectronvolts from 12γ-ray Galactic sources,Nature594(2021) 33

work page 2021
[4]

Albert, R

A. Albert, R. Alfaro, C. Alvarez, J.R.A. Camacho, J.C. Arteaga-Velázquez, K.P. Arunbabu et al.,HAWC J2227+610 and Its Association with G106.3+2.7, a New Potential Galactic PeVatron,The Astrophysical Journal896(2020) L29

work page 2020
[5]

Malkov and L.O

M. Malkov and L.O. Drury,Nonlinear theoryof diffusive acceleration of particles by shock waves,Reports on Progress in Physics64(2001) 429

work page 2001
[6]

Cristofari,The hunt for pevatrons: The case of supernova remnants,Universe7(2021) 324

P. Cristofari,The hunt for pevatrons: The case of supernova remnants,Universe7(2021) 324

work page 2021
[7]

Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array

B.S. Acharya and et al.,Science with the cherenkov telescope array,arXiv:1709.07997(2017)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[8]

López-Oramas,Ctao status and perspective, inEPJ Web of Conferences, vol

A. López-Oramas,Ctao status and perspective, inEPJ Web of Conferences, vol. 319, p. 01002, EDP Sciences, 2025

work page 2025
[9]

F. Acero and et al.,Sensitivity of the cherenkov telescope array to spectral signatures of hadronic pevatrons with application to galactic supernova remnants,Astroparticle Physics150 (2023) 102850

work page 2023
[10]

S. Abe, J. Abhir, A. Abhishek, F. Acero, A. Acharyya, R. Adam et al.,Prospects for a survey of the galactic plane with the cherenkov telescope array,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(2024) 081

work page 2024
[11]

S. Abe, A. Aguasca-Cabot, I. Agudo, N.A. Crespo, L. Antonelli, C. Aramo et al., Multiwavelength study of the galactic pevatron candidate lhaaso j2108+ 5157,Astronomy & astrophysics673(2023) A75

work page 2023
[12]

Sharma, Z

P. Sharma, Z. Ou, C. Henry-Cadrot, C. Dubos and T. Suomijärvi,Multiwavelength analysis of galactic supernova remnants, 2022. 10.48550/ARXIV.2207.02695

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.02695 2022
[13]

Zabalza,Naima: a Python package for inference of particle distribution properties from nonthermal spectra,PoSICRC2015(2016) 922

V. Zabalza,Naima: a Python package for inference of particle distribution properties from nonthermal spectra,PoSICRC2015(2016) 922. – 16 –

work page 2016
[14]

Foreman-Mackey, D.W

D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,<tt>emcee</tt>: The mcmc hammer,Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125(2013) 306–312

work page 2013
[15]

Horan and S

D. Horan and S. Wakely,Tevcat: An online catalog for tev astronomy,

work page
[16]

Agüeros and D

M.A. Agüeros and D. Green,The bulk expansion of the supernova remnant cassiopeia a at 151 mhz,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society305(1999) 957

work page 1999
[17]

Helder and J

E. Helder and J. Vink,Characterizing the nonthermal emission of cassiopeia a,The Astrophysical Journal686(2008) 1094

work page 2008
[18]

Bao and Y

Y. Bao and Y. Chen,On the hard gamma-ray spectrum of the potential pevatron supernova remnant g106. 3+ 2.7,The Astrophysical Journal919(2021) 32

work page 2021
[19]

Y. Cui, R. Yang, X. He, P.T. Tam and G. Pühlhofer,Is the snr hess j1731-347 colliding with molecular clouds?,The Astrophysical Journal887(2019) 47

work page 2019
[20]

Abramowski, F

A. Abramowski, F. Acero, F. Aharonian, A. Akhperjanian, G. Anton, A. Balzer et al.,A new snr with tev shell-type morphology: Hess j1731-347,Astronomy & Astrophysics531(2011) A81

work page 2011
[21]

Tsuji and Y

N. Tsuji and Y. Uchiyama,Expansion measurements of supernova remnant rx j1713. 7- 3946, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan(2016) psw102

work page 2016
[22]

Abdalla, A

H. Abdalla, A. Abramowski, F. Aharonian, F.A. Benkhali, A. Akhperjanian, T. Andersson et al.,Hess observations of rx j1713. 7- 3946 with improved angular and spectral resolution: Evidence for gamma-ray emission extending beyond the x-ray emitting shell,Astronomy & Astrophysics612(2018) A6

work page 2018
[23]

and et al

Aharonian, F. and et al

work page
[24]

Abeysekara and et al.,Evidence for proton acceleration up to tev energies based on veritas and fermi-lat observations of the cas a snr,The Astrophysical Journal894(2020) 51

A.U. Abeysekara and et al.,Evidence for proton acceleration up to tev energies based on veritas and fermi-lat observations of the cas a snr,The Astrophysical Journal894(2020) 51. [26]CTA Consortiumcollaboration,HAWC J2227+610: a potential PeVatron candidate for the CTA in the northern hemisphere,PoSICRC2021(2021) 904 [2110.07939]

work page arXiv 2020
[25]

H. E. S. S. Collaboration,A new SNR with TeV shell-type morphology: HESS J1731-347,A&A 531(2011) A81 [1105.3206]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[26]

Cui and et al.,Is the SNR HESS J1731-347 Colliding with Molecular Clouds?,ApJ887 (2019) 47 [1904.01761]

Y. Cui and et al.,Is the SNR HESS J1731-347 Colliding with Molecular Clouds?,ApJ887 (2019) 47 [1904.01761]

work page arXiv 2019
[27]

Muraishi and et al.,Evidence for tev gamma-ray emission from the shell type snr rxj1713.7-3946, 2000

H. Muraishi and et al.,Evidence for tev gamma-ray emission from the shell type snr rxj1713.7-3946, 2000

work page 2000
[28]

Collaboration,H.e.s.s

H.E.S.S. Collaboration,H.e.s.s. observations of rx j1713.7-3946 with improved angular and spectral resolution: Evidence for gamma-ray emission extending beyond the x-ray emitting shell, A&A612(2018) A6

work page 2018
[29]

Acero and et al.,Prospects for cherenkov telescope array observations of the young supernova remnant rx j1713.7-3946,The Astrophysical Journal840(2017) 74

F. Acero and et al.,Prospects for cherenkov telescope array observations of the young supernova remnant rx j1713.7-3946,The Astrophysical Journal840(2017) 74

work page 2017
[30]

Towards open and reproducible multi-instrument analysis in gamma-ray astronomy

C. Nigro, C. Deil, R. Zanin, T. Hassan, J. King, J.E. Ruiz et al.,Towards open and reproducible multi-instrument analysis in gamma-ray astronomy,Astronomy & Astrophysics 625(2019) A10 [1903.06621]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[31]

Parametrization of gamma-ray production cross-sections for pp interactions in a broad proton energy range from the kinematic threshold to PeV energies

E. Kafexhiu, F. Aharonian, A.M. Taylor and G.S. Vila,Parametrization of gamma-ray production cross sections for p p interactions in a broad proton energy range from the kinematic threshold to PeV energies,Physical Review D90(2014) 123014 [1406.7369]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[32]

Kilpatrick, J.H

C.D. Kilpatrick, J.H. Bieging and G.H. Rieke,Interaction between cassiopeia a and nearby molecular clouds,The Astrophysical Journal796(2014) 144. – 17 –

work page 2014
[33]

Amenomori, Y.W

M. Amenomori, Y.W. Bao, X.J. Bi, D. Chen, T.L. Chen, W.Y. Chen et al.,Potential pevatron supernova remnant g106.3+2.7 seen in the highest-energy gamma rays,Nature Astronomy5 (2021) 460–464. [36]Detection of two tev shell-type remnants at gev energies with fermi lat: Hess j1731-347 and sn 1006,The Astrophysical Journal851(2017) 100

work page 2021
[34]

Observatory and C.T.A

C.T.A. Observatory and C.T.A. Consortium,Ctao instrument response functions - prod5 version v0.1, Sept., 2021. 10.5281/zenodo.5499840

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5499840 2021
[35]

James and M

F. James and M. Roos,Minuit: A System for Function Minimization and Analysis of the Parameter Errors and Correlations,Comput. Phys. Commun.10(1975) 343

work page 1975
[36]

Y. Yuan, S. Funk, G. Jóhannesson, J. Lande, L. Tibaldo and Y. Uchiyama,Fermi large area telescope detection of a break in the gamma-ray spectrum of the supernova remnant cassiopeia a,The Astrophysical Journal779(2013) 117

work page 2013
[37]

Albert, E

J. Albert, E. Aliu, H. Anderhub, P. Antoranz, A. Armada, C. Baixeras et al.,Observation of vheγ-rays from cassiopeia a with the magic telescope,Astronomy & Astrophysics474(2007) 937–940

work page 2007
[38]

Acciari, E

V.A. Acciari, E. Aliu, T. Arlen, T. Aune, M. Bautista, M. Beilicke et al.,Observations of the shell-type supernova remnant cassiopeia a at tev energies with veritas,The Astrophysical Journal714(2010) 163

work page 2010
[39]

Y. Xin, H. Zeng, S. Liu, Y. Fan and D. Wei,VER J2227+608: A Hadronic PeVatron Pulsar Wind Nebula?,The Astrophysical Journal885(2019) 162 [1907.04972]

work page arXiv 2019
[40]

Acciari, E

V.A. Acciari, E. Aliu, T. Arlen, T. Aune, M. Bautista, M. Beilicke et al.,Detection of extended vhe gamma ray emission from g106.3+2.7 with veritas,The Astrophysical Journal703(2009) L6–L9

work page 2009
[41]

Cao, F.A

Z. Cao, F.A. Aharonian, Q. An, L.X. Axikegu, Bai, Y.X. Bai, Y.W. Bao et al.,Ultrahigh-energy photons up to 1.4 petaelectronvolts from 12γ-ray Galactic sources,Nature594(2021) 33

work page 2021
[42]

Abramowski, F

A. Abramowski, F. Acero, F. Aharonian, A.G. Akhperjanian, G. Anton, A. Balzer et al.,A new snr with tev shell-type morphology: Hess j1731-347,Astronomy &; Astrophysics531(2011) A81

work page 2011
[43]

A.A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, A. Allafort, L. Baldini, J. Ballet et al.,Observations of the young supernova remnant rx j1713.7-3946 with the fermi large area telescope,The Astrophysical Journal734(2011) 28

work page 2011
[44]

Aharonian, A.G

F. Aharonian, A.G. Akhperjanian, A.R. Bazer-Bachi, M. Beilicke, W. Benbow, D. Berge et al., Primary particle acceleration above 100 tev in the shell-type supernova remnant rx j1713.7-3946 with deep hess observations,Astronomy & Astrophysics464(2006) 235–243. – 18 –

work page 2006