pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02208 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Hadronic Scenario for Galactic PeVatron LHAASO J1912+1014u Supported by Fermi-LAT γ-ray Data and FUGIN CO Data

Tsunefumi Mizuno , Hidetoshi Sano , Takeru Murase , Tomohiko Oka , Hiromasa Suzuki , Naohito Nakahara
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 19:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords PeVatronsgamma-ray sourcescosmic-ray protonsFermi-LATLHAASO J1912+1014uhadronic emissioninterstellar gasCO observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fermi-LAT and FUGIN CO data favor a hadronic scenario for the PeVatron LHAASO J1912+1014u.

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

The paper analyzes 15 years of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data from 0.4 to 409.6 GeV together with FUGIN CO observations of the region around LHAASO J1912+1014u. Refining the standard diffuse emission model reveals a statistically significant GeV excess whose hard spectrum (photon index about 2.1) matches interstellar gas templates at systemic velocities of 25 or 60 km/s. Full GeV-TeV spectral fitting shows both leptonic and hadronic models can describe the data, yet the hadronic interpretation is preferred once electron cooling is taken into account. This yields a cosmic-ray proton spectrum with index approximately 2.2 and a total energy content above 1 GeV of (1-5) times 10^49 erg, depending on the adopted velocity range of the associated gas, while X-ray upper limits further support proton acceleration to PeV energies.

Core claim

The authors establish that the gamma-ray emission from LHAASO J1912+1014u is produced by cosmic-ray protons interacting with dense interstellar gas, because the GeV excess exhibits a hard spectrum that aligns spatially and kinematically with CO-traced clouds at 25 or 60 km/s, and the resulting proton spectrum of index 2.2 with total energy (1-5) x 10^49 erg above 1 GeV naturally accounts for the sub-PeV emission observed by LHAASO and H.E.S.S.

What carries the argument

Kinematic and spatial association of the GeV gamma-ray excess with specific velocity components of interstellar gas traced by FUGIN CO data, used as templates in spectral energy distribution modeling that accounts for electron cooling.

If this is right

  • The source accelerates cosmic-ray protons to at least PeV energies with a total energy budget of order 10^49 erg.
  • Hadronic processes dominate the observed gamma-ray spectrum once electron energy losses are included.
  • Similar velocity-resolved gas templates can help classify other LHAASO sub-PeV sources as proton or electron accelerators.
  • Upper limits on diffuse X-rays constrain any leptonic contribution and reinforce the proton scenario.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Velocity-resolved CO maps combined with refined diffuse gamma-ray models offer a practical way to test hadronic origins for other unidentified PeVatrons.
  • The inferred proton energy content suggests that a modest number of such Galactic sources could supply a noticeable fraction of the local cosmic-ray density at PeV energies.
  • Future higher-resolution X-ray or neutrino observations could independently confirm or rule out the proton acceleration claim.

Load-bearing premise

The GeV excess is physically linked to the interstellar gas at 25 or 60 km/s rather than arising from residuals in the diffuse model or unrelated emission.

What would settle it

A clear spatial or kinematic mismatch between the GeV excess and the CO distribution at 25 or 60 km/s, or detection of diffuse X-ray emission above the reported upper limit, would undermine the hadronic PeVatron interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02208 by Hidetoshi Sano, Hiromasa Suzuki, Naohito Nakahara, Takeru Murase, Tomohiko Oka, Tsunefumi Mizuno.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) The TS map in 1.6–12.8 GeV constructed using standard background models. The 4FGL sources are marked by squares (for those with a “c” identifier) and crosses (for others). The position and size of 4FGL J1908.6+0915e, modeled by a uniform disk, are shown by a white dashed circle. LHAASO sub-PeV sources, modeled by a 2D Gaussian, are indicated by cyan dashed (WCDA) and solid (KM2A) circles. The position … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Template maps tested to reproduce the GeV excess emission toward the LHAASO/H.E.S.S. source. (a) The H.E.S.S. intensity map. (b) The Np map of Su et al. (2017) velocity range (58.4–62.2 km s−1 ). (c) The Np map of Sano et al. (2018) velocity range (23.2–26.4 km s−1 ). (d) The same as (c), but Np in the annulus is scaled by 1/2.10 (see text for details). There, the solid circle (radius of 0. ◦ 49; the same … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SEDs and TS maps of the other two templates and numerical values of the fluxes are given in Appendix 1 view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Fermi-LAT GeV spectrum of the LHAASO/H.E.S.S. source counterpart (red points) obtained using the Sano et al. (2018) Np map (radius of 0. ◦ 87) as a template. The best-fit spectral models for LHAASO J1912+1014u, as reported by Z. Cao et al. (2024), are also plotted. (b) The TS map in ≥12.8 GeV obtained using the Sano et al. (2018) Np map. model fitting but employ a phenomenological approach based on obs… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SED fit results for four representative Kep-ngas parameter sets assuming no electron cooling. (a) IC-dominated case with (Kep, ngas) = (100 , 10−2 cm−3 ), (b) eB-dominated case with (Kep, ngas) = (100 , 102 cm−3 ), (c) pp-dominated case with (Kep, ngas) = (10−4 , 102 cm−3 ), and (d) nominal case with (Kep, ngas) = (10−2 , 101 cm−3 ). In each panel, the filled squares and open triangles represent the spectr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative contribution by each emission component (IC, eB, and pp) in the nominal case. Thin lines and thick lines show the results with Ecut,e = Ecut,p and Ecut,e = 30 TeV, respectively. The dashed and dotted vertical lines indicate the normalization energies of the fitted functions for WCDA and KM2A, as reported in Z. Cao et al. (2024). 4.4.1. Search for X-ray Counterpart As discussed in Section 3.2, we i… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) A 0.5–5.0 keV Chandra image and (b) energy spectrum with the best-fit spectral model. The spectrum was extracted from the green circle in panel (a). The blue, orange, and black lines indicate the sky background, particle-induced background, and total model, respectively. The upper limit for the power-law component, used as the counterpart to the γ-ray excess, is shown by the red dashed line view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Synchrotron spectra of each representative case. The dashed, dot-dashed, solid, and dotted lines represent the IC-dominated, eB-dominated, pp-dominated, and nominal cases, respectively. The thick red and thin black lines indicate the cases with Ecut,e = Ecut,p and Ecut,e = 30 TeV, respectively. The circle shows the upper limit taken from W. Reich & X.-H. Sun (2019), while the square shows the upper limit d… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Fermi-LAT GeV spectrum of the LHAASO/H.E.S.S. source counterpart (red points) obtained using the Su et al. (2017) Np map (radius of 0. ◦ 87) as a template. The best-fit spectral models for LHAASO J1912+1014u in Z. Cao et al. (2024) are also plotted. (b) The TS map in ≥12.8 GeV obtained using the Su et al. (2017) Np map. (c) and (d) are the same as panels (a) and (b), respectively, but obtained using LH… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Summary of the parameter scan with no electron cooling: (a) Wp, (b) We, (c) spectral index, and (d) Ecut. The white circle, triangle, square, and star represent Kep and ngas for IC-, eB-, pp-dominated, and nominal cases. Cummings, A. C., Stone, E. C., Heikkila, B. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/18 Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, ApJ, 547, 792, doi: 10.1086/3183… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

LHAASO has reported 43 sub-PeV $\gamma$-ray sources, which are promising candidates for cosmic-ray (CR) accelerators above the PeV energy, commonly called as PeVatrons. Multi-wavelength observations are crucial for identifying the underlying particle species and estimating the CR energy content of these sources. In this work we investigate the region around LHAASO J1912+1014u (and HESS J1912+101) using Fermi-LAT $\gamma$-ray data and FUGIN CO data. We analyzed 15 years of Fermi-LAT data in the 0.4--409.6 GeV energy range. By improving the standard Fermi-LAT diffuse emission model, we significantly reduced the large residuals around the source in the 1.6-12.8 GeV band. We detected a statistically significant excess above the diffuse background, which likely represents $\ge$10 GeV emission associated with the LHAASO/H.E.S.S. source. The GeV excess exhibits a hard spectrum (photon index of about 2.1) and is well reproduced by interstellar gas templates with systemic velocities of about 25 $\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$ or 60 $\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$. We performed a comprehensive fit to the GeV--TeV spectral energy distribution. Although a leptonic scenario can reproduce the observed spectrum, a hadronic scenario is favored once electron cooling is considered. The inferred CR proton spectrum has an index of $\sim$2.2, and the total CR proton energy above 1 GeV is (1--5) $\times 10^{49}~\mathrm{erg}$, depending on the assumed velocity range of the associated interstellar gas. A stringent upper limit on diffuse X-ray emission further supports the proton PeVatron scenario.

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.

Referee Report

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes 15 years of Fermi-LAT data (0.4-409.6 GeV) around LHAASO J1912+1014u, improving the standard diffuse emission model to reduce residuals in the 1.6-12.8 GeV band and detect a statistically significant GeV excess with photon index ~2.1. This excess is spatially and kinematically matched to FUGIN CO templates at systemic velocities of ~25 or 60 km/s. A GeV-TeV SED fit shows that while a leptonic model can reproduce the data, a hadronic scenario is preferred once electron cooling is included, yielding a CR proton index of ~2.2 and total energy (1-5)×10^49 erg above 1 GeV (depending on velocity range). An X-ray upper limit is cited to further support the hadronic PeVatron interpretation.

Significance. If the kinematic association is robust, the result supplies multi-wavelength constraints on a candidate Galactic PeVatron, with the derived proton energy budget representing a plausible fraction of a supernova remnant's output and a hard spectrum consistent with efficient acceleration to PeV energies. The improved diffuse modeling and direct use of velocity-resolved gas templates are methodological strengths that could be applied to other LHAASO sources.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fermi-LAT analysis and CO template correlation] The physical association of the GeV excess with the specific 25 or 60 km/s CO components is load-bearing for the hadronic claim and the subsequent energy budget. The manuscript should quantify this association (e.g., via spatial correlation coefficients, TS maps, or explicit tests against other velocity slices) to address velocity crowding and distance ambiguity in the inner Galaxy.
  2. [SED fitting section] The preference for the hadronic scenario after including electron cooling requires explicit statistical support. The paper should report fit statistics (likelihood ratio or Δχ²) comparing leptonic and hadronic models both with and without cooling, and specify the assumed B-field strength and target photon fields used for the cooling calculation.
  3. [Results and discussion of energy content] The reported CR proton energy range (1-5)×10^49 erg depends on the chosen velocity component and associated distance. Systematic uncertainties from gas-mass estimation, distance ambiguity, and residual diffuse-model systematics must be propagated and discussed explicitly rather than presented as a simple range.
  4. [X-ray constraints paragraph] The X-ray upper limit is invoked to support the proton scenario, but the manuscript should derive the expected synchrotron flux from the best-fit leptonic electron spectrum (including the same cooling assumptions) and show that it exceeds the observed limit by a quantified factor.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and introduction] Clarify in the text whether LHAASO J1912+1014u and HESS J1912+101 refer to the same object or overlapping regions, and update the abstract accordingly.
  2. [Figures] Ensure residual maps (before/after diffuse-model improvement) and SED panels are labeled with exact energy bands, model components, and statistical significance values for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have identified several areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested revisions to improve the quantitative support for our conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Fermi-LAT analysis and CO template correlation] The physical association of the GeV excess with the specific 25 or 60 km/s CO components is load-bearing for the hadronic claim and the subsequent energy budget. The manuscript should quantify this association (e.g., via spatial correlation coefficients, TS maps, or explicit tests against other velocity slices) to address velocity crowding and distance ambiguity in the inner Galaxy.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of the spatial and kinematic association is valuable for addressing potential velocity crowding. In the revised manuscript we will add Pearson spatial correlation coefficients between the GeV residual map and the FUGIN CO templates for the 25 km/s and 60 km/s slices, together with the same coefficients for neighboring velocity slices. We will also include TS maps obtained by fitting the GeV excess with each velocity-resolved CO template to demonstrate the statistical preference for the cited components. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [SED fitting section] The preference for the hadronic scenario after including electron cooling requires explicit statistical support. The paper should report fit statistics (likelihood ratio or Δχ²) comparing leptonic and hadronic models both with and without cooling, and specify the assumed B-field strength and target photon fields used for the cooling calculation.

    Authors: We will revise the SED section to supply the requested statistical measures. We will report the likelihood-ratio test statistic (or Δχ² for the binned fits) between the leptonic and hadronic models, both with and without electron cooling. The assumed magnetic-field strength (10–20 μG) and the target photon fields (CMB, infrared, and optical) used in the cooling calculation will be stated explicitly. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results and discussion of energy content] The reported CR proton energy range (1-5)×10^49 erg depends on the chosen velocity component and associated distance. Systematic uncertainties from gas-mass estimation, distance ambiguity, and residual diffuse-model systematics must be propagated and discussed explicitly rather than presented as a simple range.

    Authors: We accept that the energy budget requires a more explicit treatment of systematics. In the revised text we will propagate uncertainties arising from the choice of X_CO conversion factor, the near/far kinematic distance ambiguity for each velocity component, and residual diffuse-model variations obtained by varying the diffuse-model parameters within their uncertainties. These contributions will be discussed separately and folded into the quoted (1–5)×10^49 erg range. revision: yes

  4. Referee: [X-ray constraints paragraph] The X-ray upper limit is invoked to support the proton scenario, but the manuscript should derive the expected synchrotron flux from the best-fit leptonic electron spectrum (including the same cooling assumptions) and show that it exceeds the observed limit by a quantified factor.

    Authors: We agree that a direct comparison strengthens the argument. We will add a calculation of the synchrotron X-ray flux predicted by the best-fit leptonic electron spectrum under the identical cooling assumptions used in the GeV–TeV fit. The predicted flux will be compared quantitatively to the reported X-ray upper limit, and the factor by which it exceeds the limit will be stated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained from data fits

full rationale

The paper's chain starts from Fermi-LAT observations, improves the diffuse model to isolate a GeV excess, matches it to CO templates at specific velocities, and fits the resulting SED to standard leptonic/hadronic models. The proton index ~2.2 and energy (1-5)x10^49 erg are direct outputs of the SED fit to the observed spectrum, not inputs redefined as predictions. Electron cooling is applied as an external physical constraint to compare scenarios, without self-definition or renaming. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatze imported from prior work appear in the derivation; the association with velocity components is an explicit assumption tested against data rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The hadronic interpretation depends on the assumption that the GeV excess traces the same gas as the TeV emission and on standard cosmic-ray propagation and interaction physics. Two velocity ranges are tested as free choices; the total energy is derived rather than fitted as a free parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • systemic velocity of associated gas
    Two discrete values (25 and 60 km/s) are selected to match the spatial distribution of the GeV excess; the choice affects the inferred gas mass and therefore the total CR energy.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard hadronic gamma-ray production via pion decay and leptonic production via inverse Compton and bremsstrahlung apply without modification.
    Invoked when fitting the GeV-TeV SED and when stating that electron cooling favors the hadronic model.
  • domain assumption The improved Fermi-LAT diffuse emission model accurately represents the Galactic background in the 1.6-12.8 GeV band after the described adjustments.
    Central to claiming a statistically significant excess associated with the source.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5688 in / 1731 out tokens · 44747 ms · 2026-05-08T19:09:37.722133+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • Cost.FunctionalEquation (Jcost = ½(x+x⁻¹)−1) washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We assume that CR spectra can be characterized by a power-law function with an exponential cutoff: f(E)∝(E/E0)^{-α} exp(-E/E_cut). We obtain the spectral index α, the cutoff energy E_cut, and the normalizations ... through SED model fitting.

  • Foundation (parameter-free derivations) reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    we scan these two parameters over wide ranges, K_ep ∈[10^−5,10^2] and n_gas ∈[10^−3,10^3] cm^−3, and attempt to identify viable scenarios for plausible accelerators and environments

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 843, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7556 17 Energy (eV) 810 910 1010 1110 1210 1310 1410 1510 )-2 cm-1 dN/dE (eV s2E 1−10 1 10 Fermi-LAT LHAASO WCDA LHAASO KM2A (a) Galactic Longitude (deg) Galactic Latitude (deg) (b) Energy (eV) 810 910 1010 1110 1210 1310 1410 1510 )-2 cm-1 dN/dE (eV s2E 1−10 1...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7556 2017

  3. [3]

    Extended gamma-ray sources around pulsars constrain the origin of the positron flux at Earth

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2017b, Science, 358, 911, doi: 10.1126/science.aan4880

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aan4880

  4. [4]

    G., Barres de Almeida, U., et al

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Barres de Almeida, U., et al. 2008a, A&A, 484, 435, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078715

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078715

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077765 , Eprint =

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2008b, A&A, 481, 401, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077765

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077765

  6. [6]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et a...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  7. [7]

    2013, ArXiv e-prints

    Atwood, W., Albert, A., Baldini, L., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.3514, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1303.3514

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1303.3514 2013

  8. [8]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  9. [9]

    A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.12546 2023

  10. [10]

    L., Dame, T

    Bertsch, D. L., Dame, T. M., Fichtel, C. E., et al. 1993, ApJ, 416, 587, doi: 10.1086/173261

    work page doi:10.1086/173261 1993

  11. [11]

    1993, A&A, 275, 67

    Brand, J., & Blitz, L. 1993, A&A, 275, 67

    1993

  12. [12]

    H., Digel, S

    Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Digel, S. W., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.11394, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1810.11394

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.11394 2018

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29 2024

  14. [14]

    2008, ApJ, 682, 1177, doi: 10.1086/589225

    Chang, C., Konopelko, A., & Cui, W. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1177, doi: 10.1086/589225

    work page doi:10.1086/589225 2008

  15. [15]

    Crutcher, R. M. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 29, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514 18 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 ngas [cm 3] 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 Kep (a) Wp (>1 GeV) 1e+48 1e+49 1e+50 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 ngas [cm 3] 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 Kep (b) We (>1 GeV) 1e+48 1e+49 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 ngas [cm 3] 10 ...

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514 2012

  16. [16]

    C., Stone, E

    Cummings, A. C., Stone, E. C., Heikkila, B. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/18

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/18 2016

  17. [17]

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

    Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, ApJ, 547, 792, doi: 10.1086/318388 D’Angelo, M., Morlino, G., Amato, E., & Blasi, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2828

    work page doi:10.1086/318388 2001

  18. [18]

    M., & Lockman, F

    Dickey, J. M., & Lockman, F. J. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 215, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.001243

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.001243 1990

  19. [19]

    2023, A&A, 672, A195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245819 Fermi Science Support Development Team

    Duvidovich, L., & Petriella, A. 2023, A&A, 672, A195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245819 Fermi Science Support Development Team. 2019, Fermitools: Fermi Science Tools,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.011 http://ascl.net/1905.011

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245819 2023

  20. [20]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  21. [21]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  22. [22]

    2015, ApJ, 798, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/6

    Fukui, Y., Torii, K., Onishi, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/6

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/6 2015

  23. [23]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/59

    Fukui, Y., Okamoto, R., Kaji, R., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/59

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/1/59 2014

  24. [24]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9219

    Fukui, Y., Sano, H., Sato, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9219

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9219 2017

  25. [25]

    doi:10.1007/s10509-007-9427-6 , Eprint =

    Gabici, S., Aharonian, F. A., & Blasi, P. 2007, Ap&SS, 309, 365, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9427-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-007-9427-6 2007

  26. [26]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adae90

    Gong, Y., Zhou, L., Xia, Q., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adae90

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adae90 2025

  27. [27]

    Gorham, P. W. 1990, ApJ, 364, 187, doi: 10.1086/169401 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., et al. 2018a, A&A, 612, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732098 19 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., et al. 2018b, A&A, 612, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730737

    work page doi:10.1086/169401 1990

  28. [28]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  29. [29]

    Heiles, C., & Troland, T. H. 2005, ApJ, 624, 773, doi: 10.1086/428896 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¥”oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    work page doi:10.1086/428896 2005

  30. [30]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 775, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041864

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041864 2005

  31. [31]

    Kassim, N. E. 1988, ApJL, 328, L55, doi: 10.1086/185159

    work page doi:10.1086/185159 1988

  32. [32]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.14126, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.14126

    Kuboike, Y., Sato, T., Suzuki, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.14126, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.14126

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.14126 2025

  33. [33]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace344

    Li, Y., Liu, S., & He, Y. 2023, ApJ, 953, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace344

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace344 2023

  34. [34]

    Ma,et al., Chapter 1 LHAASO Instruments and Detector technology.Chinese Physics C46(3), 030001 (2022), doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac3fa6

    Ma, X.-H., Bi, Y.-J., Cao, Z., et al. 2022, Chinese Physics C, 46, 030001, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac3fa6

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac3fa6 2022

  35. [35]

    The ATNF Pulsar Catalogue

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 396, doi: 10.1086/177068

    work page doi:10.1086/177068 1996

  37. [37]

    2025, PASJ, 77, 965, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf069

    Mizuno, T., Hayashi, K., Ochi, H., et al. 2025, PASJ, 77, 965, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf069

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf069 2025

  38. [38]

    R., Tout, C

    Morris, D. J., Hobbs, G., Lyne, A. G., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 275, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05551.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05551.x 2002

  39. [39]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18040, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.18040

    Murase, T., Sano, H., Matsubara, K., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18040, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.18040

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.18040 2026

  40. [40]

    L., Pinfield, D

    Ohira, Y., Yamazaki, R., Kawanaka, N., & Ioka, K. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 91, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21908.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21908.x 2012

  41. [41]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adec80

    Oka, T., Ishizaki, W., Mori, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adec80

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adec80 2025

  42. [42]

    A., J´ohannesson, G., & Moskalenko, I

    Porter, T. A., J´ ohannesson, G., & Moskalenko, I. V. 2017, ApJ, 846, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa844d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa844d 2017

  43. [43]

    Ranasinghe, D

    Ranasinghe, S., & Leahy, D. 2023, ApJS, 265, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc1de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc1de 2023

  44. [44]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 045, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/3/45

    Reich, W., & Sun, X.-H. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 045, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/3/45

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/3/45 2019

  45. [45]

    2018, in Astronomical Society of Japan Annual Meeting (2018 Spring) Abstract book, Q15a

    Sano, H., Yoshiike, S., Yamane, Y., et al. 2018, in Astronomical Society of Japan Annual Meeting (2018 Spring) Abstract book, Q15a

    2018

  46. [46]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 445, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.3.445

    Sawada, T., Ikeda, N., Sunada, K., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 445, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.3.445

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/60.3.445 2008

  47. [47]

    Seta, A., & McClure-Griffiths, N. M. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 1024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf520

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf520 2025

  48. [48]

    M., Taylor, A

    Stil, J. M., Taylor, A. R., Dickey, J. M., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1158, doi: 10.1086/505940

    work page doi:10.1086/505940 2006

  49. [49]

    2017, ApJ, 845, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f2a

    Su, Y., Zhou, X., Yang, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f2a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f2a 2017

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Sun, X.-N., Yang, R.-Z., & Liang, E.-W. 2022, A&A, 659, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142394

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142394 2022

  51. [51]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab80ba

    Suzuki, H., Bamba, A., Enokiya, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab80ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab80ba 2020

  52. [52]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33b5

    Suzuki, H., Bamba, A., Yamazaki, R., & Ohira, Y. 2022, ApJ, 924, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33b5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac33b5 2022

  53. [53]

    P., Gaetz, T

    Suzuki, H., Plucinsky, P. P., Gaetz, T. J., & Bamba, A. 2021, A&A, 655, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141458

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141458 2021

  54. [54]

    2025, ApJL, 978, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9d11

    Suzuki, H., Tsuji, N., Kanemaru, Y., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9d11

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9d11 2025

  55. [55]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/61

    Temim, T., Slane, P., Castro, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/61

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/1/61 2013

  56. [56]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/100 The LHAASO Collaboration

    Temim, T., Slane, P., Kolb, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/100 The LHAASO Collaboration. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.15537, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.15537 Tibet ASγCollaboration, Amenomori, M., Bao, Y. W., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 460, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01294-9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/100 2015

  57. [57]

    G., & Koyama, K

    Uchiyama, H., Nobukawa, M., Tsuru, T. G., & Koyama, K. 2013, PASJ, 65, 19, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.1.19

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/65.1.19 2013

  58. [58]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 78, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx061 van Dishoeck, E

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

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx061 2017

  59. [59]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  60. [60]

    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, doi: 10.22323/1.301.0824

    work page doi:10.22323/1.301.0824 2017

  61. [61]

    34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015) , year = 2015, series =

    Zabalza, V. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 34, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 922, doi: 10.22323/1.236.0922

    work page doi:10.22323/1.236.0922 2015

  62. [62]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe37e

    Zeng, H., Xin, Y., Zhang, S., & Liu, S. 2021, ApJ, 910, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe37e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe37e 2021

  63. [63]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5af6

    Zhang, H.-M., Xi, S.-Q., Liu, R.-Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5af6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5af6 2020