pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.08564 · v1 · pith:T2GU3K2Onew · submitted 2019-07-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.CO

The glow of annihilating dark matter in Omega Centauri

Anthony M. Brown , Richard Massey , Thomas Lacroix , Louis E. Strigari , Azadeh Fattahi , C\'eline B{\oe}hm This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 19:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO
keywords dark matter annihilationgamma-ray emissionOmega Centauridwarf galaxy remnantglobular cluster31 GeV particles
0
0 comments X

The pith

Omega Centauri emits gamma rays whose spectrum matches annihilation of 31 GeV dark matter particles.

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

The paper claims that Omega Centauri, viewed as the remnant core of a stripped dwarf galaxy, holds dark matter at densities comparable to compact dwarfs and produces gamma-ray emission whose energy spectrum fits the annihilation of particles with mass 31 plus or minus 4 GeV. Searches at other wavelengths have turned up no astrophysical objects that could generate the observed signal. A sympathetic reader would care because the cluster lies ten times closer than known dwarf galaxies, turning it into a potential nearby site for testing dark matter interactions beyond gravity. The argument treats the absence of alternative explanations as evidence that the gamma rays trace dark matter annihilation rather than ordinary sources.

Core claim

Omega Centauri contains dark matter with density as high as compact dwarf galaxies. It emits gamma-rays with an energy spectrum matching that expected from the annihilation of dark matter particles with mass 31 plus or minus 4 GeV at 68 percent . No astrophysical sources have been found that would otherwise explain Omega Centauri's gamma-ray emission, despite deep multi-wavelength searches.

What carries the argument

The match of Omega Centauri's observed gamma-ray spectrum to the predicted spectrum from 31 GeV dark matter annihilation.

If this is right

  • Omega Centauri would become the best nearby laboratory for studying dark matter interactions through forces other than gravity.
  • Deeper radio observations of Omega Centauri are expected to test the dark matter interpretation further.
  • If multi-wavelength searches continue to find no astrophysical explanations, the cluster would be reclassified as a clean dark matter target.
  • The result would support treating Omega Centauri as the core of a captured dwarf galaxy rather than a standard globular cluster.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar gamma-ray searches could be applied to other globular clusters suspected of being stripped dwarf remnants.
  • A confirmed 31 GeV mass scale would narrow the range of particle models worth testing in laboratory experiments.
  • If the signal holds, it would raise the priority of Omega Centauri for coordinated radio and gamma-ray monitoring campaigns.

Load-bearing premise

The gamma-ray emission cannot be produced by any astrophysical process and Omega Centauri contains a dark matter density profile comparable to compact dwarf galaxies.

What would settle it

Discovery of a specific astrophysical object or process inside Omega Centauri that fully accounts for the gamma-ray flux and spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.08564 by Anthony M. Brown, Azadeh Fattahi, C\'eline B{\oe}hm, Louis E. Strigari, Richard Massey, Thomas Lacroix.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ω Cen contains a spatially extended component of DM. Panel a shows the tangential velocity dispersion of stars moving within ω Cen’s gravitational potential, as a function of radius from its centre, reproduced from Watkins et al. (2015)35 . Models that include DM (red: Moore, black: NFW, blue: Burkert) are a better fit than a model without DM (dashed). Panel b shows 68% and 95% confidence limits on the mas… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ω Cen is an ideal target for DM indirect detection experiments, being nearby and containing a higher density of DM than most dSph galaxies (and even the centre of the Milky Way) although it is truncated and contains less DM in total. It most resembles compact dwarf galaxy M32, likely the remnant core of a massive galaxy that was tidally stripped by the Milky Way’s neighbouring Andromeda galaxy with contrac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: ω Cen emits γ-rays, and their energy spectrum is consistent with DM annihilation via the bb¯ channel (solid line). It is a poor match to the spectral shape of local MSPs (dashed line). Data points show the energy flux detected by Fermi-LAT, integrated over 10 years. Error bars show ±1σ statistical uncertainties, or 2σ upper limits for those spectral bins with detection test statistic TS < 20. 4/13 [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Constraints on the J-factor of ω Cen, the squared density of its DM along a line of sight. Along with the interaction cross section, this determines the total number of photons produced by DM annihilation. Thick lines show the median, and boxes show 68% containment regions of the posterior probability distribution for a model with DM in a (red: Moore, black: NFW, blue: Burkert) profile. or a cored Burkert4… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Map of γ-ray emission near ω Cen. Colour scales represent the number of 0.1–100 GeV photons per 0.1 ◦ ×0.1 ◦ pixel, during the 10-year Fermi mission. Panel a shows all detected photons. The bright region at the bottom left is diffuse γ-ray emission from the Galactic plane. Panel b shows the (statistically insignificant) residuals once all sources of γ-rays except ω Cen have been modelled and subtracted. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The γ-ray flux from ω Cen has shown no (statistically significant) sign of variability over the 10 years of the Fermi mission. Data points show the mean and 1σ statistical uncertainty of energy flux in 1–1000 GeV photons, binned in 1 year intervals. Flux from ω Cen is significantly (σ > 7) detected in each individual bin. A likelihood analysis finds this time series to be consistent with a constant flux: t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Dark matter (DM) is the most abundant material in the Universe, but has so far been detected only via its gravitational effects. Several theories suggest that pairs of DM particles can annihilate into a flash of light at gamma-ray wavelengths. While gamma-ray emission has been observed from environments where DM is expected to accumulate, such as the centre of our Galaxy, other high energy sources can create a contaminating astrophysical gamma-ray background, thus making DM detection difficult. In principle, dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way are a better place to look -- they contain a greater fraction of DM with no astrophysical gamma-ray background -- but they are too distant for gamma-rays to have been seen. A range of observational evidence suggests that Omega Centauri (omega Cen or NGC 5139), usually classified as the Milky Way's largest globular cluster, is really the core of a captured and stripped dwarf galaxy. Importantly, Omega Cen is ten times closer to us than known dwarfs. Here we show that not only does Omega Cen contain DM with density as high as compact dwarf galaxies, but also that it emits gamma-rays with an energy spectrum matching that expected from the annihilation of DM particles with mass 31$\pm$4 GeV (68\% confidence limit). No astrophysical sources have been found that would otherwise explain Omega Cen's gamma-ray emission, despite deep multi-wavelength searches. We anticipate our results to be the starting point for even deeper radio observations of Omega Cen. If multi-wavelength searches continue to find no astrophysical explanations, this pristine, nearby clump of DM will become the best place to study DM interactions through forces other than gravity.

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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that Omega Centauri (NGC 5139), interpreted as the stripped core of a dwarf galaxy, exhibits gamma-ray emission detected by Fermi-LAT whose spectrum matches the expectation from dark matter annihilation into gamma rays for a particle mass of 31 ± 4 GeV (68% CL). It further asserts that Omega Cen has a DM density comparable to compact dwarfs, that no astrophysical sources (despite deep multi-wavelength searches) can explain the emission, and that this makes it a promising target for DM studies.

Significance. If the central claim holds after quantitative exclusion of astrophysical alternatives, the result would be significant as the first reported indirect detection of DM annihilation from a nearby, high-density target. The proximity advantage over classical dwarfs is a clear strength, and the identification of Omega Cen as a DM-rich environment could motivate deeper multi-wavelength follow-up. The work also highlights a potential new class of targets (stripped dwarf remnants) for indirect searches.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'no astrophysical sources have been found that would otherwise explain Omega Cen's gamma-ray emission' is presented without quantitative support. Globular clusters host millisecond pulsar populations whose collective emission can produce spectra overlapping the 1-10 GeV band; the manuscript must include an explicit upper limit on MSP number or total gamma-ray luminosity derived from radio/X-ray data, or a population synthesis showing that any plausible MSP contribution under- or over-predicts the observed flux and spectrum.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and results on spectral fit: The reported DM mass of 31 ± 4 GeV is obtained by fitting the observed Fermi-LAT spectrum to annihilation models. This makes the 'matching' result circular by construction; the manuscript should clarify whether the mass was predicted a priori from independent constraints or whether the fit is purely descriptive, and report the goodness-of-fit metrics and any priors used.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that Omega Cen 'contain[s] DM with density as high as compact dwarf galaxies' depends on an assumed density profile and stellar-to-DM mass ratio after tidal stripping. The J-factor calculation and its uncertainties (including variations in core vs. cusp assumptions) must be shown explicitly, as order-of-magnitude changes in the assumed profile alter the expected annihilation flux.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'deep multi-wavelength searches' but provides no references or data selection criteria; these should be cited or summarized with specific flux limits.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below and have made revisions to improve the manuscript's clarity and quantitative support where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'no astrophysical sources have been found that would otherwise explain Omega Cen's gamma-ray emission' is presented without quantitative support. Globular clusters host millisecond pulsar populations whose collective emission can produce spectra overlapping the 1-10 GeV band; the manuscript must include an explicit upper limit on MSP number or total gamma-ray luminosity derived from radio/X-ray data, or a population synthesis showing that any plausible MSP contribution under- or over-predicts the observed flux and spectrum.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative bound on the MSP contribution would strengthen the claim. The original manuscript cites the lack of identified astrophysical sources from deep multi-wavelength data but does not derive numerical upper limits. In the revised version we will add an estimate of the maximum MSP gamma-ray luminosity consistent with existing radio and X-ray constraints on Omega Centauri, showing that even optimistic populations fall short of the observed flux. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results on spectral fit: The reported DM mass of 31 ± 4 GeV is obtained by fitting the observed Fermi-LAT spectrum to annihilation models. This makes the 'matching' result circular by construction; the manuscript should clarify whether the mass was predicted a priori from independent constraints or whether the fit is purely descriptive, and report the goodness-of-fit metrics and any priors used.

    Authors: The quoted mass is the result of a spectral fit to the Fermi-LAT data rather than an a priori prediction. We will revise the abstract and methods to state this explicitly, report the goodness-of-fit statistic (chi-squared per degree of freedom), and describe the likelihood procedure together with any priors adopted during the fit. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that Omega Cen 'contain[s] DM with density as high as compact dwarf galaxies' depends on an assumed density profile and stellar-to-DM mass ratio after tidal stripping. The J-factor calculation and its uncertainties (including variations in core vs. cusp assumptions) must be shown explicitly, as order-of-magnitude changes in the assumed profile alter the expected annihilation flux.

    Authors: The J-factor and profile assumptions appear in the main text, but the abstract claim would be better supported by an explicit summary. We will expand the revised manuscript with a short dedicated subsection or table that quotes the adopted J-factor, lists the stellar-to-DM mass ratio after stripping, and quantifies the variation under core versus cusp profiles together with the resulting range in expected flux. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

DM mass of 31 GeV is a fit parameter presented as spectral match

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "it emits gamma-rays with an energy spectrum matching that expected from the annihilation of DM particles with mass 31±4 GeV (68% confidence limit)"

    The value 31±4 GeV is the best-fit mass obtained by fitting the Fermi-LAT spectrum to DM annihilation templates; the claim of 'matching' is therefore the direct output of that fit to the same data rather than a prediction or first-principles result.

full rationale

The paper's central result is that the observed gamma-ray spectrum matches DM annihilation for a specific particle mass. Inspection of the abstract shows this mass is obtained by fitting the data to the annihilation model, so the reported match is the output of that fit rather than an independent derivation or prediction. No other load-bearing steps in the provided text reduce by construction to self-citation, ansatz smuggling, or renaming. The assertion that no astrophysical sources explain the emission is a qualitative statement, not a derived equation that collapses to inputs. The analysis remains partially self-contained as a standard spectral fit, but the framing elevates the fit result to a 'matching' claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on several untested modeling choices and background assumptions that are not independently verified in the provided abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • DM particle mass
    Fitted to the gamma-ray spectrum to produce the reported 31±4 GeV value.
  • DM density normalization in Omega Cen
    Scaled to match compact dwarf galaxies without independent dynamical measurement shown in abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Omega Centauri is the stripped core of a dwarf galaxy with high central DM density
    Invoked to justify DM density comparable to dwarfs; stated as 'a range of observational evidence suggests'
  • domain assumption No astrophysical gamma-ray sources exist in Omega Cen capable of producing the observed signal
    Central to ruling out alternatives; stated as 'no astrophysical sources have been found despite deep multi-wavelength searches'

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5850 in / 1649 out tokens · 21878 ms · 2026-05-24T19:10:02.497880+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Tim, T.M.P., 2018, Nature, 562, 51

    Bertone, G. & Tim, T.M.P., 2018, Nature, 562, 51

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Strigari L., 2018, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, no.5, 056901

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    & Linden, T., 2011, PhRvD, 84, 123005

    Hooper, D. & Linden, T., 2011, PhRvD, 84, 123005

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Gordon, C & Macias, O, 2013, PhRvD, 88, 3521

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    K., & Slatyer, T

    Leane, R. K., & Slatyer, T. R. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.08430

    work page arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    et al., 2017, ApJ, 840, 43

    Ackermann, M. et al., 2017, ApJ, 840, 43

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    & Biermann, P., 2017, Phys

    de Boer, W., Bosse, L., Gebauer, I., Neumann, A. & Biermann, P., 2017, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043012

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    & Pohl, M., 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 387

    Macias, O., Gordon, C., Crocker, R., Coleman, B., Paterson, D., Horiuchi, S. & Pohl, M., 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 387

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    et al., 2017, ApJ, 834, 110

    Albert, A. et al., 2017, ApJ, 834, 110

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Lee, Y .-W., Joo J.-M., Sohn Y .-J., Rey S.-C., Lee H.-C.& Walker, A.R., 1999, Nature, 402, 55

    work page 1999

  11. [11]

    Piotto, G., et al., 2005, ApJ, 621, 777

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    & Pasquini, L., 2005, ApJ, 634, 332

    Sollima, A., Pancino, E., Ferraro, F.R., Bellazzini, M., Straniero, O. & Pasquini, L., 2005, ApJ, 634, 332

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    & Bianchini, 2019, Nature Astronomy, tmp 258l

    Ibata, R.A., Bellazzini, M., Malhan, K., Martin, N. & Bianchini, 2019, Nature Astronomy, tmp 258l

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    & Freeman K

    Bekki K. & Freeman K. C., 2003, MNRAS, 346, L11

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    & Zhao, 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2834

    Henleywillis, S., Cool, A.M., Haggard, D., Heinkie, C., Callanan, P. & Zhao, 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2834

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    T., van Straten, W

    Edwards, R. T., van Straten, W. & Bailes, M., 2001, ApJ, 560, 365

    work page 2001

  17. [17]

    Possenti, A., D’Amico, N., Corongiu, A., Manchester, D., Sarkissian, J., Camilo, F.& Lyne, A., 2005, ASPC, 328, 189

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    Steigman, G., Dasgupta, B., & Beacom, J. F. 2012, PRD, 86, 023506

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    Baumgardt, H., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2174

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    1996, AJ, 112, 1487

    Harris, W.E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487

    work page 1996

  21. [21]

    Dinescu, D.I., Girard, T.M., van Altena, W.F., 1999, AJ, 117, 1792

    work page 1999

  22. [22]

    & Bridges, T., 2007, Astronomical Journal, 133, 1447

    Weldrake, D., Sackett, P. & Bridges, T., 2007, Astronomical Journal, 133, 1447

    work page 2007

  23. [23]

    P., & Anderson, J

    van der Marel, R. P., & Anderson, J. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1063

    work page 2010

  24. [24]

    & Tosi, M., 2009, ARA&A, 2009, 47, 371

    Tolstoy, E., Hill, V . & Tosi, M., 2009, ARA&A, 2009, 47, 371

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    & Bell, E., 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 737

    D’Souza, R. & Bell, E., 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 737

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    & Fardal, M., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 435

    Abadi, M., Navarro, J. & Fardal, M., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 435

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    & Gladstone, J.C., 2013, ApJ, 766, 136

    Bahramian, A., Heinke, C.O., Sivaokoff, G.R. & Gladstone, J.C., 2013, ApJ, 766, 136

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    & Djorgovski, S.G., 2013, ApJ,774, 106

    Santana, F.A., Munoz, R.R., Geha, M, Cote, P., Stetson, P., Simon, J.D. & Djorgovski, S.G., 2013, ApJ,774, 106

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    et al., 2014, Science, 345, 554

    Ackermann M. et al., 2014, Science, 345, 554

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Neronov, A., & Aharonian F.A., 2008, ApJ, 671, 85

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    K., Kumar, J., & Strigari, L

    Boddy, K. K., Kumar, J., & Strigari, L. E., 2018, PRD, 98, 063012

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 5591

    Kamann, S., Husser, T.-O., Dreizler, S, et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5591

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    & Hilker, M., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520

    Baumgardt, H. & Hilker, M., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    & Bellini, A., 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5138

    Baumgardt, H., Hilker, Solima, A. & Bellini, A., 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5138

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    L., van der Marel, R

    Watkins, L. L., van der Marel, R. P., Bellini, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 29

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    & Pe˜narrubia, J., 2011, ApJ, 742, 20

    Walker, M. & Pe˜narrubia, J., 2011, ApJ, 742, 20

    work page 2011

  37. [37]

    & Theuns, T., 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1147

    Barber, C., Schaye, J., Bower, R., Crain, R., Schaller, M. & Theuns, T., 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1147

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Chua, K. T. E., Pillepich, A., V ogelsberger, M. & Hernquist, L., 2019, MNRAS, 484, 476

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    & McConnachie, A., 2009, ApJ, 698, 222

    Penarrubia, J., Navarro, J. & McConnachie, A., 2009, ApJ, 698, 222

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    2018, A&A, 616, A12

    Gaia Collaboration, Helmi, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A12

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    & White, S., 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 5/13

    Navarro, J., Frenk, C. & White, S., 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 5/13

    work page 1996

  42. [42]

    & Tozzi, P., 1999, ApJL, 524, 19

    Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J. & Tozzi, P., 1999, ApJL, 524, 19

    work page 1999

  43. [43]

    Burkert, A., 1995, ApJL, 447, 25

    work page 1995

  44. [44]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601

    work page 2009

  45. [45]

    & White, M., 2009, ApJ, 699, 486

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. & White, M., 2009, ApJ, 699, 486

    work page 2009

  46. [46]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 1220

    Wolf, J., Martinez, G., Bullock, J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1220

    work page 2010

  47. [47]

    McConnachie, A., 2012, AJ, 144,4

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    & 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3816

    Fattahi, A., Navarro, J., Frenk, C., et al. & 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3816

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    2008, A&A, 487, 921

    Mieske, S., Hilker, M., Jord´an, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 487, 921

    work page 2008

  50. [50]

    & Dekel, A., 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1453

    Woo, J., Courteau, S. & Dekel, A., 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1453

    work page 2008

  51. [51]

    Sofue, Y ., 2013, PASJ, 65, 118

    work page 2013

  52. [52]

    2016, 460, 1214

    Ludlow, A., Bose, S., et al. 2016, 460, 1214

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    M., Guhathakurta, P., van der Marel, R., et al

    Howley, K. M., Guhathakurta, P., van der Marel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 65

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    2008, MNRAS, 385, 2136

    Goerdt, T., Moore, B., Kazantzidis, S., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 2136

    work page 2008

  55. [55]

    & Chadwick, P., 2018, PhRvD, 98, 1301

    Brown, A.M., Lacroix, T., Lloyd, S., Boehm, C. & Chadwick, P., 2018, PhRvD, 98, 1301

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Fermi-LAT Collaboration, 2019, arxiv:1902.10045

    work page arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    2017, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 35, 824

    Wood, M., Caputo, R., Charles, E., et al. 2017, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 35, 824

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    Mattox, J.R., et al., 1996, ApJ, 461, 396

    work page 1996

  59. [59]

    Sj¨ostrand T., Mrenna S., Skands P., 2008, CoPhC, 178, 852

    work page 2008

  60. [60]

    2011, JCAP, 2011, 051

    Cirelli, M., Corcella, G., Hektor, A., et al. 2011, JCAP, 2011, 051

    work page 2011

  61. [61]

    & Wang, Z., 2016, ApJ, 831, 143

    Xing, Y . & Wang, Z., 2016, ApJ, 831, 143

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    & Freire, P.C., 2005, ApJ, 625, 796

    Heinke, C.O., Grindlay, J.E., Edmonds, P.D., Cohn, H.N., Lugger, P.M., Camilo, G., Bogdanov, S. & Freire, P.C., 2005, ApJ, 625, 796

    work page 2005

  63. [63]

    http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat/

    work page

  64. [64]

    Freire, P., 2018, http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/pfreire/GCpsr.html

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    Abdo, A.A., et al., 2010, A&A, 524, 75 Acknowledgements We acknowledge the excellent data and analysis software provided by theFermi-LAT collaboration. A.M.B. , R.M. and A.F. acknowledge financial support from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council, grant ST/P000541/1. T.L. has received financial support from CNRS-IN2P3 and the University of Montp...

    work page 2010