Correlation of the highest-energy cosmic rays with the positions of nearby active galactic nuclei

The Pierre Auger Collaboration

REVIEW

Correlation of the highest-energy cosmic rays with the positions of nearby active galactic nuclei

The Pierre Auger Collaboration

Astrophysics · Submitted 17 Dec 2007 · 74 references

Pith's verdict: The pre-registered confirmation is the real contribution here, and it holds; the one thing I'd push on is that the sequential boundary in Table 1 is calibrated in an unpublished internal note and the confirmation sits exactly on it.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 7 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID0712.2843 (version 2)

Pith IDN4M7V3GH, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationThe Pierre Auger Collaboration. "Correlation of the highest-energy cosmic rays with the positions of nearby active galactic nuclei." arXiv:0712.2843 (2007). https://pith.science/paper/N4M7V3GH

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Worth your time, and worth citing. The short version: Auger did the thing this field usually doesn't. They found a signal in an exploratory scan, froze the parameters (psi = 3.1 deg, z_max = 0.018, E_th = 56 EeV), archived a stopping rule with alpha = 1% and beta = 5%, and tested on later data. It held: 6 of 8, then 8 of 13, with 2.7 expected. The sequential likelihood-ratio test in Section 2.4 agrees. That design choice is the paper's real contribution, and it is more than the Science 2007 letter [1] contained. The full-data scan, the |b| > 12 deg cut (which strengthens the signal to 19 of 21), the autocorrelation and multipole analyses, the BSS-S deflection modeling, and the S >= 61 source-count bound are all new here. The scan correction from P_min = 4.6e-9 to roughly 1e-5 is the honest number, and they report it without flinching. They also say plainly that AGN may only be tracers, that clusters and starbursts were tested and did not correlate, and that individual source identification is deferred. That is the right posture for 27 events and a 22% energy scale systematic, and I would not ask for more than they claim in [abstract:s5]. Two soft spots. First, the 'independent data set' is independent in time only: same instrument, same Veron-Cetty catalogue, same collaboration, and Appendix A admits a slightly different reconstruction package, under which the prescription would have been satisfied earlier with 5 of 6. So the boundary is one-event sensitive, and Table 1's calibration lives in an internal note. The stress-test worry is checkable and probably does not land: the marginal tail at N = 8 is about 1.6e-3, the looks are nested, and the cumulative crossing probability is well under 1%. But the derivation belongs in an appendix, not a note. Second, Section 2.3 concedes the scan-corrected probability depends on the scan range; that is a real caveat, not a fatal one. Who should read it: anyone working on UHECR anisotropy, GZK physics, or local large-scale structure, and anyone who wants a template for how to pre-register a scan in an observational field. Send it to referees. The statistics are careful, the disclosures are honest, and the claim is stated at the strength the data support.

Referee report

Major objections (3)

[§2.4 and Table 1] The type I error calibration of the sequential boundary in Table 1 is asserted but not reproducible from the text; the paper states that the boundary accounts for the sequential nature and finite length of the test, but the calculation is documented only in an internal note. The confirmation at N = 8 with k = 6 sits exactly on k_min = 6, so a reader cannot independently verify the '≥99% CL' claim from the manuscript alone. I would ask for a short description of how the boundary was computed, or a small table of simulated crossing probabilities, so the claim can be checked. This is a documentation request rather than a challenge to the result: the sequential likelihood-ratio test of Eq. (3) is fully specified and reproducible, and the single-configuration binomial probability P = 1.7 × 10^-3 at N = 8 provides an independent route to the same conclusion.
[§2.4 and Appendix A] The 'independent data set' is independent in time only: the same observatory, the same catalogue, and the same collaboration are used throughout, and Appendix A discloses that the full-data analysis employed a slightly different reconstruction package from the one used in the prescribed test, with the consequence that under the final reconstruction the prescription would have been satisfied earlier (5 of 6 events at 2007-069). Because the confirmation is at the one-event level of sensitivity, the paper should quantify how the boundary crossing depends on reconstruction version and on the 22% energy-scale systematic, and should state this sensitivity in §2.4 rather than only in Appendix A. The authors acknowledge the reconstruction difference, but its bearing on the strength of the 'independent confirmation' is not carried into the main text.
[§4.2, §4.3, Eq. (5)] The smoothed-density-map likelihood comparison of Fig. 7 and the source-class discrimination of §4.3 rest on Ref. [36], which is listed as 'in preparation.' The method is only sketched in Eq. (5); the smoothing scale, the horizon depth, and the treatment of catalogue incompleteness are not given, so the quantitative statements ('best represented by a small angular smoothing within a relatively nearby horizon') cannot be reproduced. Either summarize the method sufficiently to be self-contained or soften the quantitative claims in §4.2 and §4.3 to match what the present text supports.

Minor objections (7)

[Abstract] The phrase '~ 6x10^{19}$ eV' has an unmatched math delimiter, and the Fig. 2 caption spells 'Aitoﬀ' where 'Aitoff' is intended.
[§4.6] Gamma-ray bursts appear both in the list of models 'ruled out' (with Ref. [53], the galactic GRB model of Dar & Plaga) and in the list of sites that 'cannot be excluded' (Refs. [65,66], extragalactic GRBs). The text should make explicit that the excluded class is galactic GRB models while extragalactic GRB models remain viable.
[§5] The sentence 'The observed correlation demonstrates the extra-galactic origin of the highest-energy cosmic rays' is stronger than the hedging in §4.3 and in the abstract, where other sources distributed as nearby AGN are explicitly not ruled out. Consider 'indicates' or an explicit qualifier.
[§4.1] The lower bound S ≥ 61 assumes steady sources of equal apparent luminosity, as the text notes, but the numerical value also rests on subtracting 1.6 expected chance pairs from 6 observed pairs to obtain n2 = 4.4. Given the small-number subtraction, the bound should be flagged as order-of-magnitude rather than a firm limit.
[Fig. 4] The caption should state that the dashed isotropic expectation is exposure-weighted, and the claim that the two distributions are 'clearly distinct' would be better supported by a two-sample statistic than by visual inspection alone.
[Table 2] The last declination band (24.8° < δ < 90°) has zero aperture but lists 150 AGN; a footnote clarifying that these lie outside the field of view would prevent misreading of the table.
[Eq. (6)] The integrand is written with dx/kpc × B/3µG inside a single integral; state explicitly that only the transverse field component contributes to the deflection.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The Pierre Auger Collaboration reports that cosmic rays above about $6×10^{19}$ eV arrive preferentially from directions within a few degrees of nearby active galactic nuclei, and that an a priori test on later data rejects isotropy at more

The reading

The paper asks a single question: are the arrival directions of the most energetic cosmic rays we detect scattered evenly across the sky, or do they point back toward something? Using the Pierre Auger Observatory's southern array, the collaboration finds that 20 of the 27 events above 57 EeV land within 3.2° of one of 442 active galactic nuclei (AGN) closer than about 71 Mpc, where only 5.6 such coincidences would be expected from an isotropic sky. That is a striking excess, but a scan over energy threshold, angular window and catalogue depth was used to find it, so the authors do the harder thing: they fix those three parameters in advance and test them on data taken afterward, in a sequential protocol with a pre-declared stopping rule. The later data passed, so the claim on the table is that the anisotropy is real at better than 99% confidence, not merely the residue of a search over many parameter choices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the exposure-weighted binomial search with an a priori confirmation protocol. For a window of radius $ψ$ around each catalogue source, $p$ is the fraction of the observable sky so covered, weighted by the observatory's declination-dependent exposure; the probability that $k$ or more of $N$ isotropic events fall in such windows is the cumulative binomial $P=Σ_{j≥k} binom(N,j) p^j (1-p)^{N-j}$. Because $P_{min}$ from a scan is not itself a chance probability, the authors calibrate it against simulated isotropic event sets passed through the identical scan. The confirmation step adds a sequential design: a table of required $k_{min}$ versus $N$ derived from type I and type II error choices of $α=1%$ and $β=5%$, plus a Wald-style likelihood-ratio monitor. Two secondary instruments carry the interpretation: the angular-separation distribution to the nearest AGN, which shows a clear excess inside a few degrees and a deficit of correlating events at low galactic latitude, and the deflection estimate for protons in a regular galactic field, which comes out at a few degrees at 60 EeV and so matches the observed correlation scale.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the highest-energy cosmic rays are not isotropic: their arrival directions correlate with the positions of relatively nearby AGN, with the correlation strongest for energies above 57 EeV and for AGN within roughly 71 Mpc. The exploratory scan over the 2004–May 2006 data gave a minimum binomial probability at $z_{max}=0.018$, $E_{th}=56$ EeV and $ψ=3.1°$, with 12 of 15 events correlated. The authors then froze those parameters and applied a sequential test to events recorded after 27 May 2006; on 25 May 2007 six of eight events correlated, satisfying the pre-declared threshold, and the independent set eventually contained 8 correlations among 13 events where 2.7 were expected. On the full 2004–August 2007 set the best-fit parameters shift slightly to $z_{max}=0.017$, $ψ=3.2°$, $E_{th}=57$ EeV, giving 20 of 27 events correlated against 5.6 expected, a binomial probability $P_{min}=4.6×10^{-9}$, and a scan-corrected chance probability of about $10^{-5}$ from simulated isotropic skies. The authors read this as evidence that the steepening of the spectrum near 57 EeV is the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuz'min cutoff on extragalactic protons rather than an acceleration limit at the sources.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the a priori confirmation is a genuine independent test: it uses the same observatory, the same collaboration and the same AGN catalogue as the exploratory scan, differing only in the dates of the events, so what it establishes is reproducibility within one pipeline rather than replication by an outside group.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the correlation holds, the sources of the highest-energy cosmic rays are extragalactic and lie within a few tens of Mpc, so the observed spectral steepening near 57 EeV is propagation through the cosmic microwave background rather than a limit on how hard the accelerators can push.
The observed correlation scale of a few degrees implies that primaries are mostly protons, unless magnetic fields outside the galactic disk are far weaker than usually assumed; heavy nuclei would be deflected much more.
The doublet-to-singlet ratio among the 27 events implies a lower bound of roughly 61 distinct sources under an equal-luminosity assumption, so the signal is not the work of a handful of nearby objects.
The absence of significant correlation with Abell, REFLEX and NORAS clusters and with a starburst catalogue, together with the paucity of events toward Virgo, argues against massive galaxy clusters as the dominant accelerators.
Continued running should allow source identification: the angular offset of events from a single source should shrink in proportion to $1/E$, so an angle-versus-energy trend within a cluster of events would locate the source directly and probe the magnetic field along the line of sight.

Reading between the lines

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

The independence claimed for the confirmation set is independence in time only: same instrument, same collaboration, same Véron-Cetty and Véron catalogue, and, per Appendix A, a slightly different reconstruction package for the final event list. A genuinely independent check would need a different observatory in the northern sky or a source catalogue built without the same selection effects.
Because AGN trace the local large-scale structure, any catalogue of galaxies, starbursts or clusters within the same volume will correlate with the events almost as well; the paper's own likelihood comparison against the IRAS PSCz galaxy distribution makes this explicit. The result is therefore better read as 'sources trace local matter within the GZK horizon' than as 'AGN accelerate cosmic rays'.
The catalogue's acknowledged incompleteness near the galactic plane cuts both ways: it weakens the measured correlation, but it also means the five non-correlating events at $|b|<12°$ cannot be counted as evidence against the model, so the effective sample supporting the claim is smaller than 27.
An angle-versus-energy test on the Cen A region, where two events already sit within 3° of the nucleus and several more lie along the radio-lobe extension, is the cheapest near-term discriminator between a single nearby accelerator and a diffuse population of sources.

Original abstract

Data collected by the Pierre Auger Observatory provide evidence for anisotropy in the arrival directions of the cosmic rays with the highest energies, which are correlated with the positions of relatively nearby active galactic nuclei (AGN) \cite{science}. The correlation has maximum significance for cosmic rays with energy greater than ~ 6x10^{19}$ eV and AGN at a distance less than ~ 75 Mpc. We have confirmed the anisotropy at a confidence level of more than 99% through a test with parameters specified {\em a priori}, using an independent data set. The observed correlation is compatible with the hypothesis that cosmic rays with the highest energies originate from extra-galactic sources close enough so that their flux is not significantly attenuated by interaction with the cosmic background radiation (the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuz'min effect). The angular scale of the correlation observed is a few degrees, which suggests a predominantly light composition unless the magnetic fields are very weak outside the thin disk of our galaxy. Our present data do not identify AGN as the sources of cosmic rays unambiguously, and other candidate sources which are distributed as nearby AGN are not ruled out. We discuss the prospect of unequivocal identification of individual sources of the highest-energy cosmic rays within a few years of continued operation of the Pierre Auger Observatory.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,794 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.98 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.08 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.19 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Data collected by the Pierre Auger Observatory provide evidence for anisotropy in the arrival directions of the cosmic rays with the highest energies, which are correlated with the positions of relatively nearby active galactic nuclei (AGN) \cite{science}. The correlation has maximum significance for cosmic rays with energy greater than ~ 6x10^{19}$ eV and AGN at a distance less than ~ 75 Mpc. We have confirmed the anisotropy at a confidence level of more than 99% through a test with parameters specified {\em a priori}, using an independent data set. The observed correlation is compatible with the hypothesis that cosmic rays with the highest energies originate from extra-galactic sources close enough so that their flux is not significantly attenuated by interaction with the cosmic background radiation (the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuz'min effect). The angular scale of the correlation observed is a few degrees, which suggests a predominantly light composition unless the magnetic fields are very weak outside the thin disk of our galaxy. Our present data do not identify AGN as the sources of cosmic rays unambiguously, and other candidate sources which are distributed as nearby AGN are not ruled out. We discuss the prospect of unequivocal identification of individual sources of the highest-energy cosmic rays within a few years of continued operation of the Pierre Auger Observatory.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Data collected by the Pierre Auger Observatory provide evidence for anisotropy in the arrival directions of the cosmic rays with the highest energies, which are correlated with the positions of relatively nearby active galactic nuclei (AGN) \cite{science}.	result 0.98	0.87	0.90	asserted 0.92
s1	The correlation has maximum significance for cosmic rays with energy greater than ~ 6x10^{19}$ eV and AGN at a distance less than ~ 75 Mpc.	result 1.00	0.88	0.20	asserted 1.00
s2	We have confirmed the anisotropy at a confidence level of more than 99% through a test with parameters specified {\em a priori}, using an independent data set.	result 0.88	0.96	0.14	asserted 1.00
s3	The observed correlation is compatible with the hypothesis that cosmic rays with the highest energies originate from extra-galactic sources close enough so that their flux is not significantly attenuated by interaction with the cosmic background radiation (the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuz'min effect).	interpretation 1.00	0.56	0.21	hedged possibility 1.00
s4	The angular scale of the correlation observed is a few degrees, which suggests a predominantly light composition unless the magnetic fields are very weak outside the thin disk of our galaxy.	interpretation 0.90	0.93	0.05	hedged possibility 0.99
s5	Our present data do not identify AGN as the sources of cosmic rays unambiguously, and other candidate sources which are distributed as nearby AGN are not ruled out.	limitation 1.00	0.86	0.11	asserted 0.83
s6	We discuss the prospect of unequivocal identification of individual sources of the highest-energy cosmic rays within a few years of continued operation of the Pierre Auger Observatory.	future work 1.00	0.33	0.05	hedged possibility 0.63

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.73.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Likelihood ratio R as a function of the number of events observed in the prescribed test. The null hypothesis (isotropy) was rejected at the 99% likelihood threshold with 10 events. Shaded regions indicate expectations from isotropy at the 68% and 95% confidence limit. If, in the sequence, one of the individual tests is satisfied, we reject the hypothesis of isotropy with a confidence level of at least (1-α)=99%. The total length of the test sequence (34 events) was determined by the requirement of detecting a minimum correlation power of 60%, as estimated from the statistics of…

**Figure 2.** Aitoff projection of the celestial sphere in galactic coordinates with circles

**Figure 3.** Probability for the null hypothesis (isotropic distribution) vs. maximum

**Figure 4.** Distribution of angular separations to the closest AGN within 71 Mpc. The

**Figure 5.** Number of pairs as a function of maximum separation angle

**Figure 6.** Number of pairs as a function of maximum separation angle

**Figure 7.** Comparison of the average log-likelihood per event in different energy in

**Figure 8.** Distribution of the deflections for protons in the BSS-S model of the galactic

Figures reproduced from arXiv:0712.2843 by the authors.

References

Works cited (74)

[1]

Pierre Auger Collaboration, Science 318 (2007) 938

View on Pith 2007
[36]

Pierre Auger Collaboration, Discriminating among diﬀerent scenarios for the correlation of the highest-energy Auger events with nearby sources , (2007, in preparation)

View on Pith 2007
[2]

J. Linsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 146

View on Pith 1963
[3]

K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 748

View on Pith 1966
[4]

G.T. Zatsepin and V.A. Kuz’min, Sov. Phys. JETP. Lett. 4 (1966) 78

View on Pith 1966
[5]

J.L. Puget, F.W. Stecker and J.J. Bredekamp, Astrophys. J. 205 (1976) 638

View on Pith 1976
[6]

L.N. Epele and E. Roulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1999) 3295

View on Pith 1999
[7]

J. Abraham et al. [Pierre Auger Collaboration], Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 523 (2004) 50

View on Pith 2004
[8]

V.L. Ginzburg and S.I. Syrovatskii, The Origin of Cosmic Rays , Pergamon Press (Oxford, 1964)

View on Pith 1964
[9]

A.M. Hillas, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 22 (1984) 425

View on Pith 1984
[10]

M. Ave [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007), arXiv:0709.2125 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[11]

M.-P. V´ eron-Cetty and P. V´ eron, Astron. & Astrophys. 455 (2006) 773. We acknowledge use of the VizieR catalogue access tool, CDS, Strasbourg, France, at http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR. 28

View on Pith 2006
[12]

C. Bonifazi, A. Letessier-Selvon and E.M. Santos, Astropart. Phys. 28 (2008) 523

View on Pith 2008
[13]

C. Bonifazi [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference Pune, India 7 (2005) 17

View on Pith 2005
[14]

M. Roth [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007) arXiv:0706.2096 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[15]

B. Dawson [Pierre Auger Collaboration], Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico, (2007) arXiv:0706.1105 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[16]

D. Allard et al. [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Pune, India, 7 (2005) 71, arXiv:astro- ph/0511104

View on Pith 2005
[17]

C. Bleve [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007) arXiv:0706.1491v1 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[18]

C.B. Finley and S. Westerhoﬀ, Astropart. Phys. 21 (2004) 359

View on Pith 2004
[19]

N. Hayashida, et al., Astropart. Phys. 10 (1999) 333

View on Pith 1999
[20]

J.A. Bellido, et al., Astropart. Phys. 15 (2001) 167

View on Pith 2001
[21]

N. Hayashida et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 1000

View on Pith 1996
[22]

P.G. Tinyakov and I.I. Tkachev, JETP Lett. 74 (2001) 445

View on Pith 2001
[23]

Pierre Auger Collaboration, Astropart. Phys. 27 (2007) 244

View on Pith 2007
[24]

R.U. Abbasi et al. [HiRes Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 610 (2004) L73

View on Pith 2004
[25]

R.U. Abbasi et al. [HiRes Collaboration], Astrophys.J. 636 (2006) 680

View on Pith 2006
[26]

S. Mollerach [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007), arXiv:0706.1749 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[27]

D. Harari [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007), arXiv:0706.1715 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[28]

R.W. Clay [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 28th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Tsukuba, Japan (2003), 421 arXiv:astro- ph/0308494

View on Pith 2003
[29]

B. Revenu [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Pune, India (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0507600

View on Pith 2005
[30]

A. Wald, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 16 (1945) 117

View on Pith 1945
[31]

A. Wald, Sequential Analysis, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1947

View on Pith 1947
[32]

S.Y. BenZvi, B.M. Connolly, and S. Westerhoﬀ, submitted to Astrophys. J., arXiv:0711.3937 [astro-ph]. 29

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[33]

P. Sommers, Astropart. Phys. 14 (2001) 271

View on Pith 2001
[34]

P. Billoir and O. Deligny, JCAP 02 (2008) 009

View on Pith 2008
[35]

S.L. Dubovsky, P.G. Tinyakov and I.I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 1154

View on Pith 2000
[37]

W. Saunders et al., Mont. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 316 (2000) 55

View on Pith 2000
[38]

G.O. Abell, H.G. Corwin and R.P. Olowin, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 70 (1989) 1

View on Pith 1989
[39]

H. B¨ ohringer et al., Astron. & Astrophys. 425 (2004) 367

View on Pith 2004
[40]

H. B¨ ohringer et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 129 (2000) 435

View on Pith 2000
[41]

R. Coziol et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 119 (1998) 239

View on Pith 1998
[42]

F.W. Stecker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21 (1968) 1016

View on Pith 1968
[43]

D. Harari, S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, JCAP 11 (2006) 012

View on Pith 2006
[44]

R. Engel [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007), arXiv:0706.1921 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[45]

T. Stanev, Astrophys. J. 479 (1997) 290

View on Pith 1997
[46]

D. Harari, S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, JHEP 8 (1999) 022

View on Pith 1999
[47]

J.L. Han, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics (Supplement: Proceedings of the 2005 Lake Hanas International Pulsar Symposium) 6 (2006) 211, arXiv:astro-ph/0603512

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[48]

K. Dolag, D. Grasso, V. Springel and I. Tkachev, JCAP 0501 (2005) 009

View on Pith 2005
[49]

G. Sigl, F. Miniati and T.A. Ensslin, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 043007, arXiv:astro-ph/0401084

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[50]

T. Stanev, High Energy Cosmic Rays , Springer-Verlag, ((Berlin, 2003)

View on Pith 2003
[51]

P. Blasi, R.I. Epstein and A.V. Olinto, Astrophys. J. 533 (2000) L123

View on Pith 2000
[52]

W. Bednarek, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 345 (2003) 847

View on Pith 2003
[53]

A. Dar and R. Plaga, Astron. & Astrophys. 349 (1999) 259

View on Pith 1999
[54]

V. Berezinsky, M. Kachelriess and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, (1997) 4302

View on Pith 1997
[55]

V.A. Kuz’min and V.A. Rubakov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 61 (1998) 1028

View on Pith 1998
[56]

M. Birkel and S. Sarkar, Astropart. Phys. 9 (1998) 297. 30

View on Pith 1998
[57]

Pierre Auger Collaboration, arXiv:0712.1147 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[58]

D. Semikoz [Pierre Auger Collaboration] in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007) arXiv:0706.2960 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[59]

C.T. Hill, Nucl. Phys. B 224 (1983) 469

View on Pith 1983
[60]

D.N. Schramm and C.T. Hill, in Proceedings of the 18th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Bangalore, India 2 (1983) 393

View on Pith 1983
[61]

For a review see P. Bhattacharjee and G. Sigl, Phys. Rept. 327 (2000) 109

View on Pith 2000
[62]

J. Arons, Astrophys. J. 589 (2003) 871

View on Pith 2003
[63]

E. Boldt and P. Ghosh, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 307 (1999) 491

View on Pith 1999
[64]

L. A. Anchordoqui, G.E. Romero and J.A. Combi, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 103001

View on Pith 1999
[65]

E. Waxman, Astrophys. J. 452 (1995) L1

View on Pith 1995
[66]

M. Vietri, Astrophys. J. 453 (1995) 883

View on Pith 1995
[67]

H. Kang, D. Ryu, T.W. Jones, Astrophys. J. 456 (1996) 422

View on Pith 1996
[68]

H. Kang, J.P. Rachen, and P.L. Biermann, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 286 (1997) 257

View on Pith 1997
[69]

P.L. Biermann and P. Strittmatter, Astrophys. J. 322 (1987) 643

View on Pith 1987
[70]

M. Ostrowski, Astron. & Astrophys. 335 (1999) 134

View on Pith 1999
[71]

M. Lyutikov, and R. Ouyed, Astropart. Phys. 27 (2007) 473

View on Pith 2007
[72]

J.P. Rachen and P.L. Biermann, Astron. & Astrophys. 272 (1993) 161

View on Pith 1993
[73]

F.P. Israel, Astron. & Astrophys. Rev., 8 (1998) 237

View on Pith 1998
[74]

G.E. Romero, J.A. Combi, S.E. Perez Bergliaﬀa, L.A. Anchordoqui, Astropart. Phys. 5 (1996) 279 31 A Event List Here we list the 27 events recorded from 1 January 2004 until 31 August 2007 with energy in excess of 57 EeV. We have indicated the date of observation (year and Julian day), the zenith angle, the shower size at 1000 m from the core S(1000), the ...

View on Pith 1996

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

The Pierre Auger Observatory Upgrade - Preliminary Design Report
astro-ph.IM 2016-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A design report arguing that pairing a thin scintillator with each Auger water-Cherenkov detector yields shower-by-shower muon content, enabling mass-composition measurements up to the highest energies.
The Milky Way as a Kiloparsec-Scale Axionscope
astro-ph 2007-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Photon-axion mixing in source and Galactic magnetic fields can soften the required injection spectra of two distant HESS blazars from Γ ≈ 0.6 to Γ ≈ 2, provided about 10% of the axion flux reconverts in the Milky Way.
The Pierre Auger Cosmic Ray Observatory
astro-ph.IM 2015-02 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The paper documents the design, calibration, and measured performance of the Pierre Auger Observatory, the world's largest cosmic ray detector, including its 1660-station surface array and 24 fluorescence telescopes.
Quantum corrections to gravity
gr-qc 2011-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

Quantum corrections to gravity for a spherically symmetric metric reduce to the Gauss-Bonnet combination, whose known black hole solution makes gravity repulsive at short distances.

How later papers used it

74 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 73 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 28 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 21 of the 169 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

5 later papers by other authors are listed below: 5 used its data or values.

Uses its data or values 5 of 17 papers with this label

Analyzed Auger data published during the preparation of its manuscript, using its correlation statistic.

Searching for a Correlation Between Cosmic-Ray Sources Above 10^{19} eV and Large-Scale Structure (2008) · 0.88 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used the UHECR data reported by PAO in this paper for its statistical analysis of arrival directions.

Statistical Analysis of the Correlation between Active Galactic Nuclei and Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays (2010) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Took a conservative value for the primary mass, noting that a significant fraction of these primaries may well be protons as in this paper.

UHECR bounds on Lorentz violation in the photon sector (2008) · 0.91 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Showed in its table the values of the test statistics for the PAO data of this paper together with p-values.

Testing large-scale (an)isotropy of ultra-high energy cosmic rays (2008) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used the appearance of UHECR with energy around 200 EeV reported in this paper to set a limit at the 2 sigma level, assuming a primary mass of 100 GeV.

The refractive index of the vacuum and the dark sector (2017) · 0.98 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

62 arXiv papers cite this in 151 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States the same result 1 paper

Using data collected at the Pierre Auger Observatory during the past 3.7 years, we demonstrated a correlation between the arrival directions of cosmic rays with energy above ~ 6x10^{19} electron volts and the positions of active galactic nuclei (AGN) lying within ~ 75 megaparsecs.

Correlation of the highest energy cosmic rays with nearby extragalactic objects · 1.00

States a conflicting result 1 paper

None of the tests shows a statistically significant evidence of anisotropy.

Searches for Anisotropies in the Arrival Directions of the Highest Energy Cosmic Rays Detected by the Pierre Auger Observatory · 0.88

Papers citing it · 108 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 1 paper

In this paper we show that, given the data presented in Refs. [ref] , the AGN hypothesis is unlikely, and that there exist alternative interpretations of the observed correlation.

On the interpretation of the cosmic-ray anisotropy at ultra-high energies · Introduction · contest 0.82

Uses its method or tool 2 papers

This fraction, called $p$ in Refs. [ref] , allows to estimate the probability of chance correlation in the nearest-neighbour approach simply by the binomial distribution, cf. Ref. [ref] .

Physical conditions in nearby active galaxies correlated with ultra-high-energy cosmic rays detected by the Pierre Auger Observatory · Nearest neighbour or correlation function? · 0.82
This way of counting has been used previously in many literature [ref] .

Statistical Analysis of the Correlation between Active Galactic Nuclei and Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays · Correlational Angular Distance Distribution · 0.86

Uses its data or values 17 papers

The last analysis of Refs. FRK-KlinkhamerRisse2008a,FRK-KlinkhamerRisse2008b is based on the following 29 selected UHECR events: 27 events from Auger–South [ref] , 1 event from Fly's Eye [ref] , and 1 event from AGASA [ref] .

UHECR bounds on Lorentz violation in the photon sector · Bounds on the LV photon parameters $κ^μν$ · 0.96
For statistical analysis of arrival directions, we use the UHECR data reported by PAO [ref] and by AGASA [ref] .

Statistical Analysis of the Correlation between Active Galactic Nuclei and Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays · Arrival directions of UHECR · 1.00
As shown in [ref] , the correlation sets in abruptly at an (Auger) threshold energy of about 57 EeV.

Ultra High-Energy Cosmic Ray Observations · Concluding Remarks · 0.93

Compares with it 2 papers

This model is clearly less compatible with the observed correlation with the nearby AGN [ref] , unless the UHECR flux contribution from these objects (or objects with similar spatial distribution) is highly non-uniform.

Studies of the UHECR propagation in the Galactic Magnetic Field · Correlation scan using backtracked directions · 0.80
The diffuse flux derived for FRI type radio galaxies is also shown in figure [ref] along with two predictions for the background flux of neutrinos from AGN's based on hadronic models with ultra high-energy protons [ref] and iron nuclei [ref] , respectively.

Neutrino production from photo-hadronic interactions of the gamma flux from Active Galactic Nuclei with their gas content · Diffuse neutrino flux from FRI galaxies · 1.00

Cites it as support 3 papers

Since the knee energy of the cosmic ray energy spectrum implies a new mass scale in nature, according to the theory proposed by the present author in 1985, and the model predicted a correlation between high energy cosmic rays and AGN that was observed by the Pierre Auger Observatory [ref] , it seems natural to expect new physics at a mass scale of 3 PeV.

Search for a dark matter particle family · Mass spectra of the GLMR-RS supersymmetric theory · 0.97
It is worthwhile to mention that this model has been supported by recent data from the Pierre Auger Observatory [ref] , which has found a possible correlation between the sources of high energy cosmic rays and AGN.

Ankle phenomenon in the cosmic ray energy spectrum · The 1985 model and its extension · 1.00
Phenomenological descriptions or theoretical models of the highest energy cosmic ray sources, fitted [ref] using the latest Auger spectra, as well as the Auger data [ref] on the correlation between the origin of cosmic rays around the GZK cutoff and remote AGN, point to a significative proton fraction, of the order of at least 10%, and higher at super-GZK energies.

Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes · Black hole production by cosmic rays · 0.96

Cites it as background 8 papers

Beginning with the report of the correlation between UHECR and active galactic nuclei (AGN) by the PAO collaboration [ref] , several attempts was made to identify the UHECR sources.

Centaurus A as a point source of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays · Introduction · 0.89
Statistical studies of correlation between the arrival directions of UHECR and the astrophysical objects was done in many ways [ref] .

Statistical Analysis of the Correlation between Active Galactic Nuclei and Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays · Introduction · 0.91
High energy gamma rays from AGN have been reported by the Compton Observatory [ref] and by Cerenkov detectors [ref] , and high energy cosmic rays have been correlated with AGN [ref] .

High energy cosmic rays from AGN and the GZK cutoff · Introduction · 0.81

What it cites · 17 sentences without a confident label

Contests 2 papers

Models where sources are located in the galactic halo are also ruled out, such as the decay of super-heavy dark matter particles [ref] , which are already highly constrained by the Auger limit on the fraction of photon primaries at high energies [ref] .

Constraints on top-down models for the origin of UHECRs from the Pierre Auger Observatory data · The acceleration sites · contest 0.86
Models where sources are located in the galactic halo are also ruled out, such as the decay of super-heavy dark matter particles [ref] , which are already highly constrained by the Auger limit on the fraction of photon primaries at high energies [ref] .

Upper limit on the cosmic-ray photon flux above 10^19 eV using the surface detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory · The acceleration sites · contest 0.86

Uses the method or tool of 2 papers

The shower size $S$, at a reference distance and zenith angle, is calculated from the signal detected in each surface station and then converted to energy using a linear calibration curve based on the fluorescence telescope measurements [ref] .

Measurement of the UHECR energy spectrum using data from the Surface Detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory · Data set · 1.00
Since $p_1$ is not known, we integrate over $p<p_1<1$ to obtain the test ratio, $R$ as defined by Wald [ref]

Sequential Analysis Techniques for Correlation Studies in Particle Astronomy · Exploratory scan and anisotropy confirmation · 0.99

Uses data or values from 1 paper

Arrival directions of cosmic rays are reconstructed by the SD array with an angular accuracy better than $1^∘$ above $10^19$ eV [ref] .

Reconstruction accuracy of the surface detector array of the Pierre Auger Observatory · Introduction · 0.83

Cites as background 1 paper

Models of the regular component of the galactic magnetic field [ref] outline its basic features, but cannot be expected to provide a complete picture nor a realistic value for every direction.

Magnetic fields in our Galaxy: How much do we know? III. Progress in the last decade · Effect of the magnetic fields · 0.80

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

Pierre Auger Collaboration, Science 318 (2007) 938

View on Pith 2007

[2] [36]

Pierre Auger Collaboration, Discriminating among diﬀerent scenarios for the correlation of the highest-energy Auger events with nearby sources , (2007, in preparation)

View on Pith 2007

[3] [2]

J. Linsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 146

View on Pith 1963

[4] [3]

K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 748

View on Pith 1966

[5] [4]

G.T. Zatsepin and V.A. Kuz’min, Sov. Phys. JETP. Lett. 4 (1966) 78

View on Pith 1966

[6] [5]

J.L. Puget, F.W. Stecker and J.J. Bredekamp, Astrophys. J. 205 (1976) 638

View on Pith 1976

[7] [6]

L.N. Epele and E. Roulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1999) 3295

View on Pith 1999

[8] [7]

J. Abraham et al. [Pierre Auger Collaboration], Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 523 (2004) 50

View on Pith 2004

[9] [8]

V.L. Ginzburg and S.I. Syrovatskii, The Origin of Cosmic Rays , Pergamon Press (Oxford, 1964)

View on Pith 1964

[10] [9]

A.M. Hillas, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 22 (1984) 425

View on Pith 1984

[11] [10]

M. Ave [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007), arXiv:0709.2125 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[12] [11]

M.-P. V´ eron-Cetty and P. V´ eron, Astron. & Astrophys. 455 (2006) 773. We acknowledge use of the VizieR catalogue access tool, CDS, Strasbourg, France, at http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR. 28

View on Pith 2006

[13] [12]

C. Bonifazi, A. Letessier-Selvon and E.M. Santos, Astropart. Phys. 28 (2008) 523

View on Pith 2008

[14] [13]

C. Bonifazi [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference Pune, India 7 (2005) 17

View on Pith 2005

[15] [14]

M. Roth [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007) arXiv:0706.2096 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[16] [15]

B. Dawson [Pierre Auger Collaboration], Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico, (2007) arXiv:0706.1105 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[17] [16]

D. Allard et al. [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Pune, India, 7 (2005) 71, arXiv:astro- ph/0511104

View on Pith 2005

[18] [17]

C. Bleve [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007) arXiv:0706.1491v1 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[19] [18]

C.B. Finley and S. Westerhoﬀ, Astropart. Phys. 21 (2004) 359

View on Pith 2004

[20] [19]

N. Hayashida, et al., Astropart. Phys. 10 (1999) 333

View on Pith 1999

[21] [20]

J.A. Bellido, et al., Astropart. Phys. 15 (2001) 167

View on Pith 2001

[22] [21]

N. Hayashida et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 1000

View on Pith 1996

[23] [22]

P.G. Tinyakov and I.I. Tkachev, JETP Lett. 74 (2001) 445

View on Pith 2001

[24] [23]

Pierre Auger Collaboration, Astropart. Phys. 27 (2007) 244

View on Pith 2007

[25] [24]

R.U. Abbasi et al. [HiRes Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 610 (2004) L73

View on Pith 2004

[26] [25]

R.U. Abbasi et al. [HiRes Collaboration], Astrophys.J. 636 (2006) 680

View on Pith 2006

[27] [26]

S. Mollerach [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007), arXiv:0706.1749 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[28] [27]

D. Harari [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007), arXiv:0706.1715 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[29] [28]

R.W. Clay [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 28th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Tsukuba, Japan (2003), 421 arXiv:astro- ph/0308494

View on Pith 2003

[30] [29]

B. Revenu [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Pune, India (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0507600

View on Pith 2005

[31] [30]

A. Wald, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 16 (1945) 117

View on Pith 1945

[32] [31]

A. Wald, Sequential Analysis, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1947

View on Pith 1947

[33] [32]

S.Y. BenZvi, B.M. Connolly, and S. Westerhoﬀ, submitted to Astrophys. J., arXiv:0711.3937 [astro-ph]. 29

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[34] [33]

P. Sommers, Astropart. Phys. 14 (2001) 271

View on Pith 2001

[35] [34]

P. Billoir and O. Deligny, JCAP 02 (2008) 009

View on Pith 2008

[36] [35]

S.L. Dubovsky, P.G. Tinyakov and I.I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 1154

View on Pith 2000

[37] [37]

W. Saunders et al., Mont. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 316 (2000) 55

View on Pith 2000

[38] [38]

G.O. Abell, H.G. Corwin and R.P. Olowin, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 70 (1989) 1

View on Pith 1989

[39] [39]

H. B¨ ohringer et al., Astron. & Astrophys. 425 (2004) 367

View on Pith 2004

[40] [40]

H. B¨ ohringer et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 129 (2000) 435

View on Pith 2000

[41] [41]

R. Coziol et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 119 (1998) 239

View on Pith 1998

[42] [42]

F.W. Stecker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21 (1968) 1016

View on Pith 1968

[43] [43]

D. Harari, S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, JCAP 11 (2006) 012

View on Pith 2006

[44] [44]

R. Engel [Pierre Auger Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007), arXiv:0706.1921 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[45] [45]

T. Stanev, Astrophys. J. 479 (1997) 290

View on Pith 1997

[46] [46]

D. Harari, S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, JHEP 8 (1999) 022

View on Pith 1999

[47] [47]

J.L. Han, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics (Supplement: Proceedings of the 2005 Lake Hanas International Pulsar Symposium) 6 (2006) 211, arXiv:astro-ph/0603512

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[48] [48]

K. Dolag, D. Grasso, V. Springel and I. Tkachev, JCAP 0501 (2005) 009

View on Pith 2005

[49] [49]

G. Sigl, F. Miniati and T.A. Ensslin, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 043007, arXiv:astro-ph/0401084

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[50] [50]

T. Stanev, High Energy Cosmic Rays , Springer-Verlag, ((Berlin, 2003)

View on Pith 2003

[51] [51]

P. Blasi, R.I. Epstein and A.V. Olinto, Astrophys. J. 533 (2000) L123

View on Pith 2000

[52] [52]

W. Bednarek, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 345 (2003) 847

View on Pith 2003

[53] [53]

A. Dar and R. Plaga, Astron. & Astrophys. 349 (1999) 259

View on Pith 1999

[54] [54]

V. Berezinsky, M. Kachelriess and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, (1997) 4302

View on Pith 1997

[55] [55]

V.A. Kuz’min and V.A. Rubakov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 61 (1998) 1028

View on Pith 1998

[56] [56]

M. Birkel and S. Sarkar, Astropart. Phys. 9 (1998) 297. 30

View on Pith 1998

[57] [57]

Pierre Auger Collaboration, arXiv:0712.1147 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[58] [58]

D. Semikoz [Pierre Auger Collaboration] in Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, M´ erida, M´ exico (2007) arXiv:0706.2960 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[59] [59]

C.T. Hill, Nucl. Phys. B 224 (1983) 469

View on Pith 1983

[60] [60]

D.N. Schramm and C.T. Hill, in Proceedings of the 18th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Bangalore, India 2 (1983) 393

View on Pith 1983

[61] [61]

For a review see P. Bhattacharjee and G. Sigl, Phys. Rept. 327 (2000) 109

View on Pith 2000

[62] [62]

J. Arons, Astrophys. J. 589 (2003) 871

View on Pith 2003

[63] [63]

E. Boldt and P. Ghosh, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 307 (1999) 491

View on Pith 1999

[64] [64]

L. A. Anchordoqui, G.E. Romero and J.A. Combi, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 103001

View on Pith 1999

[65] [65]

E. Waxman, Astrophys. J. 452 (1995) L1

View on Pith 1995

[66] [66]

M. Vietri, Astrophys. J. 453 (1995) 883

View on Pith 1995

[67] [67]

H. Kang, D. Ryu, T.W. Jones, Astrophys. J. 456 (1996) 422

View on Pith 1996

[68] [68]

H. Kang, J.P. Rachen, and P.L. Biermann, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 286 (1997) 257

View on Pith 1997

[69] [69]

P.L. Biermann and P. Strittmatter, Astrophys. J. 322 (1987) 643

View on Pith 1987

[70] [70]

M. Ostrowski, Astron. & Astrophys. 335 (1999) 134

View on Pith 1999

[71] [71]

M. Lyutikov, and R. Ouyed, Astropart. Phys. 27 (2007) 473

View on Pith 2007

[72] [72]

J.P. Rachen and P.L. Biermann, Astron. & Astrophys. 272 (1993) 161

View on Pith 1993

[73] [73]

F.P. Israel, Astron. & Astrophys. Rev., 8 (1998) 237

View on Pith 1998

[74] [74]

G.E. Romero, J.A. Combi, S.E. Perez Bergliaﬀa, L.A. Anchordoqui, Astropart. Phys. 5 (1996) 279 31 A Event List Here we list the 27 events recorded from 1 January 2004 until 31 August 2007 with energy in excess of 57 EeV. We have indicated the date of observation (year and Julian day), the zenith angle, the shower size at 1000 m from the core S(1000), the ...

View on Pith 1996