Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 105 references

Potential Contribution of Young Pulsar Wind Nebulae to Galactic High-Energy Neutrino Emission

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that unresolved young pulsar wind nebulae, simulated as Crab-like systems, can contribute about 5 percent of the Galactic high-energy neutrino flux detected by IceCube at 100 TeV.

desk verdict A synthetic-population estimate of neutrino emission from young PWNe; the 5% IceCube contribution is an optimized upper bound, not a robust prediction, but the paper is honest about what it depends on. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08957 v1 pith:LQVNWYDU submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.HE

Xuan-Han Liang , Xiao-Bin Chen , Ben Li , Ruo-Yu Liu , Xiang-Yu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarwindnebulaehigh-energyneutrinosIceCubeCrabnebulahadronicaccelerationGalacticdiffuseemissionPeVatronspopulationsynthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether young pulsar wind nebulae, the magnetized bubbles blown by young neutron stars while they are still in the free-expansion phase, contribute measurably to the high-energy neutrino sky detected by IceCube. Instead of stacking resolved gamma-ray sources, the authors simulate a synthetic population of Galactic young PWNe, taking the Crab nebula as the standard template for how much pulsar spin-down energy goes into protons and how much target gas is available for proton-proton collisions. In the optimistic case, the predicted all-flavor neutrino flux from this population is about 5% of IceCube's measured flux around 100 TeV. At about 1 PeV, the contribution depends strongly on the proton injection index; with a hard index of 1.5 it can rival the KRA-gamma diffuse template, while with the canonical index 2.0 it falls quickly. The result matters because unresolved discrete sources may be a hidden component of the Galactic neutrino signal, and because young PWNe would be sites of hadronic PeVatron acceleration.

What carries the argument

The carrying machinery is a spherically symmetric, time-dependent model of a free-expanding pulsar wind nebula: pulsar spin-down drives radial advection, a power-law magnetic field $B(r)=B_0(r/R_{\rm ts})^{-0.5}$, and a transport equation for protons and electrons with diffusion, adiabatic and synchrotron losses, injection at the termination shock, and free escape at the outer boundary. The Crab nebula serves as the template fixing the model parameters, most importantly the proton energy fraction $\eta_p=0.05$ and the filament gas amplification factor $f_a$ (about 15 for proton index $\alpha_p=1.5$, about 60 for $\alpha_p=2.0$), tuned so that the hadronic component reproduces the LHAASO 1 PeV gamma-ray flux. This template is then applied to a synthetic Galactic population of roughly 50 young PWNe per realization, laid down with spiral-arm structure and realistic pulsar birth properties, whose pp neutrino spectra are summed for comparison with the IceCube diffuse templates.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the Crab's 1 PeV gamma-ray excess is fully accounted for by inverse Compton emission from electrons, leaving no hadronic component, would remove the calibration of $\eta_p$ and $f_a$ and collapse the template, falsifying the predicted 5% contribution. Alternatively, IceCube or KM3NeT measuring a Galactic-plane neutrino flux at 100 TeV that is statistically consistent with zero contribution from the three brightest young PWNe in the simulated sample would rule out the optimistic population prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that unresolved young PWNe, simulated as Crab-like systems, produce a collective high-energy neutrino flux that is small but not negligible, reaching roughly 5% of the IceCube-measured Galactic flux at 100 TeV in the optimistic case. To get there, the paper time-evolves each PWN's radius, termination shock, magnetic field, and particle distribution through the free-expansion phase, injects protons at the termination shock, and computes pp neutrino emission from a two-zone gas density whose filament amplification factor is calibrated so that the Crab's hadronic gamma-ray flux matches the LHAASO 1 PeV point. For the synthetic population, only sources younger than their reverse-shock collision time and older than 50 years are kept, and a flux cut removes three extremely bright nearby objects. The authors conclude that while the bulk of the Galactic neutrino flux remains diffuse, a few luminous young PWNe can shape the observable sky at the highest energies, especially if the proton spectrum is hard.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that every young pulsar wind nebula behaves like the Crab, converting the same 5% of spin-down power into protons and having the same filament-amplified target gas density, calibrated to the Crab's 1 PeV gamma-ray excess; if that excess is leptonic, or if other nebulae accelerate protons more weakly, the predicted neutrino flux drops sharply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the optimistic prediction holds, unresolved young PWNe account for roughly one twentieth of IceCube's Galactic neutrino flux at 100 TeV, so diffuse-only templates slightly overestimate the truly diffuse component.
  • At about 1 PeV with a hard proton index of 1.5, the young-PWN population contributes about 45% of the KRA$^5_\gamma$ template, meaning discrete hadronic sources can dominate the highest-energy Galactic neutrino sky even if they are minor at 100 TeV.
  • The three brightest simulated sources alone set the upper bound of the predicted flux; removing them cuts the upper bound by nearly an order of magnitude, so the Milky Way's PeV neutrino sky is likely clumpy rather than smooth.
  • For the canonical soft proton spectrum with index 2.0, the neutrino flux declines steeply toward PeV energies, making the injection spectral index a decisive observable for distinguishing hadronic acceleration models.
  • The population approach sidesteps the TeV sensitivity bias of catalog-based stacking, so the 5% estimate includes sources too faint to appear in current gamma-ray catalogs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Crab-like template is representative, future detectors such as KM3NeT, IceCube-Gen2, or Baikal-GVD may resolve individual young PWNe as neutrino point sources, and the same data would directly measure the proton fraction that this paper only calibrates from the Crab.
  • The model's gas-density prescription is testable at other wavelengths: mapping filament mass and clumpiness in young PWNe of different ages, for example with ALMA or JWST, would confirm or reject the age-dependent amplification factor assumed here.
  • The paper deliberately excludes reverberation-phase PWNe, but those nebulae can be compressed to higher densities; if protons survive the reverse shock, a follow-up population including that phase could raise the total Galactic PWN neutrino flux above the 5% estimate.
  • Because the proton fraction is the single most sensitive parameter, a future multi-wavelength fit of any young PWN other than the Crab, such as Vela-X, that includes a hadronic PeV component would provide an independent check on whether the 5% number is a floor or a ceiling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a synthetic population of young, free-expanding pulsar wind nebulae in the Galaxy and computes their all-flavor high-energy neutrino emission using a time-dependent, spherically symmetric transport model. The Crab nebula is used as a template: its multi-wavelength spectrum is fitted with synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission from two electron populations plus a hadronic component, and the LHAASO 1 PeV gamma-ray point is used to fix the product of the proton energy fraction and the filament gas amplification factor. Applying the resulting Crab-like parameters to simulated young PWNe, the authors find that, in their optimistic case, the population contributes about 5% of the IceCube Galactic-plane flux around 100 TeV and that at PeV energies the contribution depends strongly on the proton injection index and on a few nearby bright sources.

Significance. If the estimate is taken as an upper bound, the paper provides a useful new estimate of an unresolved, population-level contribution to the Galactic high-energy neutrino flux that is not accessible to catalog stacking. The main strength is the forward-modeling approach: rather than relying on gamma-ray selected catalogs, the authors simulate the PWN population and propagate Crab-calibrated microphysics through a time-dependent transport equation. The paper also explicitly identifies several limitations, including the simplified filament treatment and the uncertain hadronic interpretation of the Crab's PeV excess. The central number, however, is not a measurement-based prediction: it is an optimistic upper limit under the assumption that the Crab's PeV gamma-ray excess is hadronic and that every young PWN shares the Crab's proton fraction and gas amplification. The manuscript would be strengthened by stating this status consistently and by quantifying the linear sensitivity of the neutrino flux to the calibrated parameters.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1 and Table 3 vs. §3 and Table 1] The synthetic population uses Vf = 0.5, while the Crab template fit that is supposed to calibrate the population uses Vf = 0.15. Since Vf enters Eq. (8) and therefore controls advective transport in Eq. (11), it directly sets the proton residence time and the pp neutrino yield. A source with Vf = 0.5 is not 'Crab-like' in this important respect, so the transfer of the calibrated ηp and fa from the Crab to the synthetic population is not internally consistent. Please either adopt the Crab value Vf = 0.15 for the population or show a sensitivity scan demonstrating that the 100 TeV and 1 PeV conclusions are insensitive to Vf.
  2. [§4.2, Abstract, and §6] The headline '5% of the measured flux by IceCube' is not supported by the quantitative statement in §4.2, which says the post-flux-cut upper band is '∼ 5% relative to the lower limit of the KRAγ model'. The lower edge of a diffuse-model 1σ band is not the same as the measured IceCube flux, and the conclusion's wording ('about 5% of the best-fit results from IceCube') is again different. Moreover, this 5% number is the upper bound of the band after applying the optional flux cut F > 10^-5 erg cm^-2 s^-1 that removes the three dominant nearby sources. The abstract and conclusion should be rephrased to say: under the optimistic hadronic assumption and after excluding a few ultra-bright sources, the upper bound of the predicted young-PWN flux is about 5% of the lower edge of the KRAγ diffuse template.
  3. [§3.1–3.2 and Eq. (27)] The neutrino normalization is calibrated to the Crab under a specific hadronic interpretation: ηp = 0.05 is obtained as the maximum allowed after requiring ηe ≥ 0.93, and fa is then tuned so that the pp gamma-ray flux matches the LHAASO 1 PeV point. Because the neutrino and gamma-ray fluxes are produced by the same pp mechanism, this is a circular normalization in the sense that the neutrino flux inherits the assumed hadronic gamma-ray flux, and the result scales linearly with the product ηp × fa. If the PeV excess is leptonic, or if ηp is lower than its maximum in other PWNe, the neutrino flux decreases proportionally. The paper should explicitly label this as an upper-limit scenario and provide at least a one-parameter scaling (e.g., 'the contribution scales as (ηp/0.05) × (fa/fa,Crab)') or a short sensitivity table over ηp and fa.
  4. [§4.2 and Figures 4] The quoted 5% result is the upper envelope of 100 Monte Carlo realizations after the age cut and the optional flux cut, not a central value with propagated uncertainties. The text reports only min/max bands over realizations with fixed physics parameters (ηp, fa, Vf, Crab fitting parameters); the wide distributions in Table 3 for P0, Bs, Esn, and Mej are sampled, but the calibrated parameters themselves are not varied. Since the conclusion depends on three excluded bright sources and on the adopted Vf value, a proper estimate of the spread around the 5% number, including variation of the Crab-calibrated parameters, is needed before this can be presented as a quantitative contribution rather than an illustrative optimistic curve.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] The text contains the typo 'spacial variance' in the description of the diffusion coefficient; it should be 'spatial variance'.
  2. [§3.2] The word 'manetohydrodynamic' appears in the discussion of filament simulations; it should be 'magnetohydrodynamic'.
  3. [§4.2] The sentence describing the number of removed sources is easy to misread: 'Among the sample 71 sources are removed according to the 50-year criterion' should specify that this is the total across 100 realizations, i.e., about 0.7 sources per realization, before the optional flux criterion is applied.
  4. [Eq. (27)] The definition of fa as a 'general effect of accumulation' differs from Atoyan & Aharonian (1996), but no explicit prescription is given for how fa multiplies n_m beyond Eq. (27). A one-sentence clarification that the effective density in the filament zone is neff = fa × nm would remove ambiguity.
  5. [Table 3] The caption and text use 'Log10-normal' for Esn and Bs and 'normal' for P0; please state explicitly whether the parameters are drawn in log10 space and cite the source choices for the standard deviations, since the σ = 35 ms for the initial spin period is stated to be 'somehow arbitrary'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutrino flux is a conditional prediction from a Crab-calibrated hadronic model, not a result defined by its own target.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: Section 2 sets up the transport and pp-emission equations, with Eq. 24 linking gamma-ray and neutrino emissivities to the same proton distribution and target gas density. Section 3 calibrates the Crab template: ηp is bounded by the leptonic fit (ηe ≥ 0.93) and fa is fitted to the LHAASO 1 PeV gamma-ray flux. Section 4 then applies these values to a synthetic population and compares the resulting neutrino flux to IceCube. This is model calibration followed by an out-of-sample prediction in a different messenger, not a circular reduction: the 5% figure is not obtained by fitting to IceCube neutrino data, and no model-defining equation contains the predicted neutrino flux as an input. The dependence of the predicted neutrino flux on the fitted product ηp × fa is a real model limitation, and the paper itself flags it in Section 5.2 ('the amplification factor fa only represents a general effect of accumulation and does not vary over time for a given injection index', and 'more observations of the filaments as well as precise gamma-ray measurement will definitely help constrain this factor'). The self-citations (Liu & Wang 2021; Liang et al. 2022; Chen et al. 2024a,b) are contextual and not load-bearing: the chosen ηp = 0.05 is obtained from the paper's own spectral fit, not from Liu & Wang's cited upper-limit range. The hadronic origin of the PeV excess is an assumption and a correctness risk, but no exhibited equation reduces the neutrino prediction to the gamma-ray fit by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The amplification factor fa is a phenomenological parameterization of known filament structures, not an invented entity. The central claim rests on the assumed hadronic interpretation of the Crab PeV gamma-ray excess and on the transfer of Crab-derived parameters to the whole synthetic population.

free parameters (8)
  • eta_p (proton energy fraction) = 0.05
    Set to 1 - eta_B - eta_e after the Crab SED fit, described as the maximum allowed by current LHAASO data. It scales the neutrino flux linearly.
  • fa (filament gas amplification factor) = 15 for alpha_p=1.5, 60 for alpha_p=2.0
    Fitted so that the hadronic Crab gamma-ray flux at 1 PeV matches LHAASO, then applied to all simulated PWNe.
  • eta_B (magnetic energy fraction) = 0.02
    Chosen in the Crab SED fit and constrained by the ratio of magnetic to radiation energy density.
  • eta_e (electron energy fraction) = 0.93
    Chosen to fit the Crab synchrotron and IC spectrum; it indirectly sets the remaining proton fraction.
  • B0 (magnetic field at termination shock for Crab) = 234 microG
    Fit parameter of the Crab spectrum, consistent with prior phenomenological fits. It affects particle transport and maximum energy.
  • Crab electron injection parameters alpha1, alpha2, gamma_b, gamma_e_min = 1.7, 2.3, 1e6, 2e5
    Fit to the Crab multi-wavelength SED; they shape the electron population and radiation fields.
  • Vf (velocity factor) = 0.15 for Crab, 0.5 for population
    The Crab fit gives 0.15; the population uses the mean of 0 and 1, affecting advection versus diffusion and hence neutrino production efficiency.
  • Population priors for P0, Bs, Esn, Mej = P0 normal mu=50 ms sigma=35 ms; Bs lognormal mu=12.65 sigma=0.55; Esn lognormal mu=51 sigma=0.2; Mej normal mu=10…
    Chosen from the pulsar population synthesis literature. They control which sources are retained and how bright the sample is.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A spherically symmetric PWN with radial flow and a toroidal magnetic field adequately represents real young PWNe.
    Invoked throughout Section 2.1 via the velocity profile of Eq. 8 and the magnetic field profile of Eq. 9; ignores 3D structure, magnetic dissipation, and asymmetric expansion.
  • ad hoc to paper The LHAASO PeV gamma-ray excess in the Crab is mostly hadronic, produced by protons injected at the termination shock.
    Stated in Section 3.1 as an assumption. A leptonic origin is not ruled out, and if the hadronic interpretation is wrong the proton fraction and neutrino flux collapse.
  • ad hoc to paper All synthetic PWNe evolve with the same energy partition and filament prescription as the Crab.
    Section 4.1 fixes eta_B, eta_p, beta, and Vf to the Crab-derived values. This is the main bridge from the template to the population.
  • domain assumption Pulsar spin-down in the synthetic population follows pure dipole braking with n=3.
    Used in Section 4.1 to derive L0 and tau0, even though the Crab fit in Section 3 uses n=2.519, introducing an inconsistency in the luminosity histories.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-zone gas density model with time-independent amplification factor fa captures the hadronic target density in young PWNe.
    Defined in Eq. 27 and Section 4.2. The saturation levels and fall-back mass fractions are chosen by hand and fa does not evolve with time despite the paper acknowledging filament growth is nontrivial.
  • domain assumption The transport equation with free escape at the PWN boundary describes particle propagation and losses.
    Used in Section 2.2 following Vorster and Moraal 2013. It assumes no significant escape before the boundary and ignores possible 3D magnetic connectivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Potential Contribution of Young Pulsar Wind Nebulae to Galactic High-Energy Neutrino Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LQVNWYDU

@misc{pith2026250108957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Potential Contribution of Young Pulsar Wind Nebulae to Galactic High-Energy Neutrino Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LQVNWYDU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08957}
}
read the original abstract

Pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe), especially the young ones, are among the most energetic astrophysical sources in the Galaxy. It is usually believed that the spin-down energy injected from the pulsars is converted into magnetic field and relativistic electrons, but the possible presence of proton acceleration inside PWNe cannot be ruled out. Previous works have estimated the neutrino emission from PWNe using various source catalogs measured in gamma-rays. However, such results rely on the sensitivity of TeV gamma-ray observations and may omit the contribution by unresolved sources. Here we estimate the potential neutrino emission from a synthetic population of PWNe in the Galaxy with a focus on the ones that are still in the free expansion phase. In the calculation, we model the temporal evolution of the free-expanding PWNe and consider the transport of protons inside the PWNe. The Crab nebula is treated as a standard template for young PWNe to evaluate some model parameters, such as the energy conversion fraction of relativistic protons and the target gas density for the hadronic process, which are relevant to neutrino production. In the optimistic case, the neutrino flux from the simulated young PWNe may constitute to 5% of the measured flux by IceCube around 100 TeV. At higher energy around 1 PeV, the neutrino emission from the population highly depends on the injection spectral shape, and also on the emission of the nearby prominent sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08957 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The fitting result of the multi-wavelength energy spectrum of the Crab nebula. The synchrotron (solid) and IC (CMB: dotted; synchrotron: dash-dotted; infrared: dashed) radiation from the radio (r; cyan) and wind (w; magenta) electrons is produced in the spatial-varying magnetic field and seed photon fields. The dust component (solid blue line) and the data from radio to X-ray (pink diamonds) are directly taken from … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The spectral energy distribution above 1 GeV with proton population. Two injection indices αp = 1.5 and 2.0 are considered, shown with solid blue lines in the left and right panels. The IC radiation from the electrons as well as gamma-ray data are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of the simulated distribution of pul￾sars in the x − y plane. Each point represents the location of a pulsar on the Galactic plane. Solid lines with different colors trace the spiral arm centroids [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predicted all-flavor neutrino flux from the synthetic young PWNe population. The left and right panels are the cases with proton injection indices being 1.5 and 2.0, respectively. The combination of the blue and purple bands is the neutrino flux from the simulated sour…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2017a, Journal of Instrumentation, 12, P03012, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/P03012 —. 2017b, ApJ, 849, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8dfb —. 2020, ApJ, 898, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9fa0

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/p03012 2020

  2. [2]

    G., Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 48, 060501, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48

    doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48 2021

  3. [3]

    2023, Science, 380, 1338, doi: 10.1126/science.adc9818

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 1338, doi: 10.1126/science.adc9818

    doi:10.1126/science.adc9818 2023

  4. [4]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7d 2019

  5. [5]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936899 Adri´ an-Mart ´ ınez, S., Ageron, M., Aharonian, F., et al. 2016a, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 084001, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/43/8/084001 Adri´ an-Mart ´ ınez, S., Albert, A., Andr´ e, M., et al. 2016b, Physics Letters B, 760, 143, do...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936899 2020

  6. [6]

    A., Al Samarai, I., et al

    Ageron, M., Aguilar, J. A., Al Samarai, I., et al. 2011, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 656, 11, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2011.06.103

    doi:10.1016/j.nima.2011.06.103 2011

  7. [7]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 913, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1182-4

    Agostini, M., B¨ ohmer, M., Bosma, J., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 913, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1182-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1182-4 2020

  8. [8]

    2004, ApJ, 614, 897, doi: 10.1086/423931

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A., Beilicke, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 614, 897, doi: 10.1086/423931

    doi:10.1086/423931 2004

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    2024, A&A, 686, A308, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348651

    Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., Aschersleben, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A308, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348651

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2017, PRD, 96, 062001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.062001 —

    Albert, A., Andr´ e, M., Anghinolfi, M., et al. 2017, PRD, 96, 062001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.062001 —. 2018, ApJL, 868, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeecf

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, Physics Letters B, 841, 137951, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137951 Aleksi´ c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Albert, A., Alves, S., Andr´ e, M., et al. 2023, Physics Letters B, 841, 137951, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137951 Aleksi´ c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 5, 30, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.01.002

    2023

  4. [12]

    A., Avrorin, A

    Allakhverdyan, V. A., Avrorin, A. D., Avrorin, A. V., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.05608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.05608

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    2003, A&A, 402, 827, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030279

    Amato, E., Guetta, D., & Blasi, P. 2003, A&A, 402, 827, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030279

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    W., Bi, X

    Amenomori, M., Bao, Y. W., Bi, X. J., et al. 2019, PhRvL, 123, 051101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.051101

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9368

    Arakawa, M., Hayashida, M., Khangulyan, D., & Uchiyama, Y. 2020, ApJ, 897, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9368

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Atoyan, A. M. 1999, A&A, 346, L49, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9905204

    1999 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    M., & Aharonian, F

    Atoyan, A. M., & Aharonian, F. A. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/278.2.525

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    M., & Nahapetian, A

    Atoyan, A. M., & Nahapetian, A. 1989, A&A, 219, 53

    1989

  11. [19]

    2011, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 639, 30, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2010.09.137

    Avrorin, A., Aynutdinov, V., Belolaptikov, I., et al. 2011, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 639, 30, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2010.09.137

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    Torres, D. F. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2956 —. 2023a, MNRAS, 520, 2451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad134

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Bandiera, R., Bucciantini, N., Olmi, B., & Torres, D. F. 2023b, MNRAS, 525, 2839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2387

    doi

  14. [22]

    2002, A&A, 386, 1044, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020325

    Bandiera, R., Neri, R., & Cesaroni, R. 2002, A&A, 386, 1044, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020325

    2002 doi

  15. [23]

    1983, A&A, 126, 7

    Bandiera, R., Pacini, F., & Salvati, M. 1983, A&A, 126, 7

    1983

  16. [24]

    2003, A&A, 407, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030929

    Bednarek, W. 2003, A&A, 407, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030929

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    2003, A&A, 405, 689, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030593

    Bednarek, W., & Bartosik, M. 2003, A&A, 405, 689, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030593

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    Bednarek, W., & Protheroe, R. J. 1997, PhRvL, 79, 2616, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.2616

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    Bouyahiaoui, M., Kachelrieß, M., & Semikoz, D. V. 2020, PRD, 101, 123023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123023

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    M., & Del Zanna, L

    Bucciantini, N., Amato, E., Bandiera, R., Blondin, J. M., & Del Zanna, L. 2004, A&A, 423, 253, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040360

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 381, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17449.x

    Bucciantini, N., Arons, J., & Amato, E. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 381, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17449.x

    2011

  22. [30]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 602, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01936-8

    Bucciantini, N., Ferrazzoli, R., Bachetti, M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 602, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01936-8

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, Science, 373, 425, doi: 10.1126/science.abg5137

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2021, Science, 373, 425, doi: 10.1126/science.abg5137

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Q., Huang, Y., Hou, L

    Chen, B. Q., Huang, Y., Hou, L. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1400, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1357

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2024a, ApJ, 976, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad87d2

    Chen, X.-B., Liang, X.-H., Liu, R.-Y., & Wang, X.-Y. 2024a, ApJ, 976, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad87d2

    doi

  26. [34]

    2024b, MNRAS, 527, 7915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3733

    Chen, X.-B., Liu, R.-Y., Wang, X.-Y., & Chang, X.-C. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 7915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3733

    doi

  27. [35]

    S., Cheung, T., Lau, M

    Cheng, K. S., Cheung, T., Lau, M. M., Yu, K. N., & Kwok, P. W. 1990, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 16, 1115, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/16/7/022

    1990 doi

  28. [36]

    A., & Gull, T

    Chevalier, R. A., & Gull, T. R. 1975, ApJ, 200, 399, doi: 10.1086/153802

    1975 doi

  29. [37]

    B., et al

    Cristofari, P., Gabici, S., Humensky, T. B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1574 Del Zanna, L., Amato, E., & Bucciantini, N. 2004, A&A, 421, 1063, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035936 14 Di Palma, I., Guetta, D., & Amato, E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 159, doi: 10.3847/15...

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, A&A, 671, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243578

    Dirson, L., & Horns, D. 2023, A&A, 671, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243578

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Drury, L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002

    1983 doi

  32. [40]

    2007, JCAP, 2007, 003, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2007/06/003 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kaspi, V

    Evoli, C., Grasso, D., & Maccione, L. 2007, JCAP, 2007, 003, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2007/06/003 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Kaspi, V. M. 2006, ApJ, 643, 332, doi: 10.1086/501516

    2007 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 1439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac019

    Fiori, M., Olmi, B., Amato, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac019

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2013, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13, 680, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/13/6/007

    Fouka, M., & Ouichaoui, S. 2013, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13, 680, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/13/6/007

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    M., & Slane, P

    Gaensler, B. M., & Slane, P. O. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    2015, ApJL, 815, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/2/L25

    Gaggero, D., Grasso, D., Marinelli, A., Urbano, A., & Valli, M. 2015, ApJL, 815, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/2/L25

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4960

    Gagliardini, S., Langella, A., Guetta, D., & Capone, A. 2024, ApJ, 969, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4960

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    D., Slane, P

    Gelfand, J. D., Slane, P. O., & Zhang, W. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2051, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2051

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.10251, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.10251

    Giacinti, G., & Semikoz, D. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.10251, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.10251

    2023 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    2003, Astroparticle Physics, 19, 403, doi: 10.1016/S0927-6505(02)00221-9

    Guetta, D., & Amato, E. 2003, Astroparticle Physics, 19, 403, doi: 10.1016/S0927-6505(02)00221-9

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    Hester, J. J. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 127, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110608

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J., Stone, J

    Hester, J. J., Stone, J. M., Scowen, P. A., et al. 1996, ApJ, 456, 225, doi: 10.1086/176643

    1996 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Funk, S., Parsons, R

    Hinton, J. A., Funk, S., Parsons, R. D., & Ohm, S. 2011, ApJL, 743, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L7

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    Horns, D., Aharonian, F., Santangelo, A., Hoffmann, A. I. D., & Masterson, C. 2006, A&A, 451, L51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065116

    2006 doi

  45. [53]

    G., & Han, J

    Hou, L. G., & Han, J. L. 2014, A&A, 569, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424039

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    Q., Cao, Z., Chen, M., et al

    Huang, T. Q., Cao, Z., Chen, M., et al. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 1080

    2024

  47. [55]

    A., Karastergiou, A., & Kramer, M

    Johnston, S., Smith, D. A., Karastergiou, A., & Kramer, M. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2110

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    Jones, F. C. 1968, Physical Review, 167, 1159, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.167.1159

    1968 doi

  49. [57]

    1998, ApJ, 499, 282, doi: 10.1086/305627

    Jun, B.-I. 1998, ApJ, 499, 282, doi: 10.1086/305627

    1998 doi

  50. [58]

    Kasen, D., & Woosley, S. E. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2205, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2205

    2009 doi

  51. [59]

    F., & Coroniti, F

    Kennel, C. F., & Coroniti, F. V. 1984a, ApJ, 283, 694, doi: 10.1086/162356 —. 1984b, ApJ, 283, 710, doi: 10.1086/162357

    doi

  52. [60]

    2021, PRD, 104, 123027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123027

    Koldobskiy, S., Kachelrieß, M., Lskavyan, A., et al. 2021, PRD, 104, 123027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123027

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    Y., Plavin, A

    Kovalev, Y. Y., Plavin, A. V., & Troitsky, S. V. 2022, ApJL, 940, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca1ae LHAASO Collaboration. 2024, Science Bulletin, 69, 449, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2023.12.040

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    2022, Universe, 8, 547, doi: 10.3390/universe8100547

    Liang, X.-H., Li, C.-M., Wu, Q.-Z., Pan, J.-S., & Liu, R.-Y. 2022, Universe, 8, 547, doi: 10.3390/universe8100547

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    2018, PRD, 98, 043003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043003

    Lipari, P., & Vernetto, S. 2018, PRD, 98, 043003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043003

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ba0

    Liu, R.-Y., & Wang, X.-Y. 2021, ApJ, 922, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ba0

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/43

    Lu, F.-W., Gao, Q.-G., & Zhang, L. 2017, ApJ, 834, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/43

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93c0

    Luo, Y., Lyutikov, M., Temim, T., & Comisso, L. 2020, ApJ, 896, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93c0

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 2403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2023

    Lyutikov, M., Temim, T., Komissarov, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2023

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Martin, J., & Torres, D. F. 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 36, 128, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.09.003 Mart ´ ın, J., Torres, D. F., & Rea, N. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 415, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22014.x

    2022

  61. [69]

    2022, A&A, 666, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244002

    Martin, P., Tibaldo, L., Marcowith, A., & Abdollahi, S. 2022, A&A, 666, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244002

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 1864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4046

    Martin, T., Milisavljevic, D., & Drissen, L. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4046

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Meagher, K. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 34, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 792, doi: 10.22323/1.236.0792

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    Meyer, M., Horns, D., & Zechlin, H. S. 2010, A&A, 523, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014108

    2010 doi

  65. [73]

    2023, PRD, 108, 103044, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103044

    Kouchner, A. 2023, PRD, 108, 103044, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103044

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac348d

    Nie, L., Liu, Y., Jiang, Z., & Geng, X. 2022, ApJ, 924, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac348d

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    T., Gritschneder, M., & Lesch, H

    Nodes, C., Birk, G. T., Gritschneder, M., & Lesch, H. 2004, A&A, 423, 13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20047065

    2004 doi

  68. [76]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2308

    Bucciantini, N. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2308

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816000957

    Mignone, A. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816000957

    2016 doi

  70. [78]

    J., & Barlow, M

    Owen, P. J., & Barlow, M. J. 2015, ApJ, 801, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/141

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    Parker, E. N. 1965, Planet. Space Sci., 13, 9, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(65)90131-5 15

    1965 doi

  72. [80]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4161

    Peng, Q.-Y., Bao, B.-W., Lu, F.-W., & Zhang, L. 2022, ApJ, 926, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4161

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    S., & Keppens, R

    Porth, O., Komissarov, S. S., & Keppens, R. 2014a, MNRAS, 438, 278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2176 —. 2014b, MNRAS, 443, 547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1082

    doi

  74. [82]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737

    2009 doi

  76. [84]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1004

    Smith, N. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1004

    2013 doi

  77. [85]

    Stecker, F. W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 919, doi: 10.1086/156919

    1979 doi

  78. [86]

    T., Kresse, D., et al

    Stockinger, G., Janka, H. T., Kresse, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1691

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    J., & Asano, K

    Tanaka, S. J., & Asano, K. 2017, ApJ, 841, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f13

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    J., & Takahara, F

    Tanaka, S. J., & Takahara, F. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1248, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1248

    2010 doi

  81. [89]

    M., & Manchester, R

    Tauris, T. M., & Manchester, R. N. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 625, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01369.x

    1998

  82. [90]

    M., Kavanagh, P

    Temim, T., Laming, J. M., Kavanagh, P. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 968, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad50d1

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    F., Cillis, A., Mart ´ ın, J., & de O˜ na Wilhelmi, E

    Torres, D. F., Cillis, A., Mart ´ ın, J., & de O˜ na Wilhelmi, E. 2014, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 1, 31, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2014.02.001

    2014 doi

  84. [92]

    F., Mart ´ ın, J., de O˜ na Wilhelmi, E., & Cillis, A

    Torres, D. F., Mart ´ ın, J., de O˜ na Wilhelmi, E., & Cillis, A. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1793

    2013 doi

  85. [93]

    Troitsky, S. V. 2024, Physics Uspekhi, 67, 349, doi: 10.3367/UFNe.2023.04.039581

    2024 doi

  86. [94]

    K., & McKee, C

    Truelove, J. K., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJS, 120, 299, doi: 10.1086/313176

    1999 doi

  87. [95]

    J., & Moraal, H

    Vorster, M. J., & Moraal, H. 2013, ApJ, 765, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/30

    2013 doi

  88. [96]

    J., Tibolla, O., Ferreira, S

    Vorster, M. J., Tibolla, O., Ferreira, S. E. S., & Kaufmann, S. 2013, ApJ, 773, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/139

    2013 doi

  89. [97]

    P., & Romani, R

    Watters, K. P., & Romani, R. W. 2011, ApJ, 727, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/123

    2011 doi

  90. [98]

    C., Elsner, R

    Weisskopf, M. C., Elsner, R. F., Kolodziejczak, J. J., O’Dell, S. L., & Tennant, A. F. 2012, ApJ, 746, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/41

    2012 doi

  91. [99]

    2024, ApJL, 963, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2850

    Hobbs, G. 2024, ApJL, 963, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2850

    2024 doi

  92. [100]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    2017 doi

  93. [101]

    P., Hu, F., Tian, W., et al

    Ye, Z. P., Hu, F., Tian, W., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1497, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02087-6

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50c6

    You, K.-A., Chen, K.-J., Pan, Y.-C., Tsai, S.-H., & Ou, P.-S. 2024, ApJ, 970, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50c6

    2024 doi

  95. [103]

    2004, A&A, 422, 545, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040152

    Yusifov, I., & K¨ u¸ c¨ uk, I. 2004, A&A, 422, 545, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040152

    2004 doi

  96. [104]

    Zhang, L., & Yang, X. C. 2009, ApJL, 699, L153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L153

    2009 doi

  97. [105]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 3477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2151

    Zhang, X., Chen, Y., Huang, J., & Chen, D. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2151

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.