Exploring the capability of the HH 80-81 protostellar jet to accelerate relativistic particles

E. de O\~na Wilhelmi; J. M\'endez-Gallego; J. Otero-Santos; R. Fedriani; R. L\'opez-Coto; Y. Cant\"urk

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Exploring the capability of the HH 80-81 protostellar jet to accelerate relativistic particles

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read After 15 years of Fermi-LAT data, the paper argues that the gamma-ray excess above 300 MeV in this region most probably comes from the HH 80-81 protostellar jet, not from the neighboring radio source J1819, and that the spectrum can be…

desk verdict A useful, honest Fermi-LAT study of HH 80-81, but the source association rests on a circular localization and an unpropagated diffuse-systematic, so the central claim remains conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01261 v1 pith:6YQ7ZVYP submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

J. Méndez-Gallego , R. López-Coto , E. de Oña Wilhelmi , R. Fedriani , J. Otero-Santos , Y. Cantürk This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

keywords cosmicraysgammamassiveyoungstellarobjectsIRAS18162-2048protostellarjetsHH80-81

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 sets out to determine whether the HH 80-81 protostellar jet, a 10-parsec outflow driven by a ~20-solar-mass protostar, can accelerate particles to relativistic energies and emit gamma rays. Working with 15 years of Fermi-LAT data from 300 MeV to 100 GeV, the authors find a ~5-sigma point-like excess at a position compatible within 1 sigma with IRAS 18162-2048, the star that powers the jet. They go through every plausible counterpart in the error region and conclude that HH 80-81, not the compact radio source J1819 nor residual Galactic diffuse emission, is the most probable source of the excess. Radiative fits show that both a hadronic population (proton-proton collisions producing pion decay) and a leptonic population (relativistic bremsstrahlung) can reproduce the measured spectrum, with total particle energies and injection times that fit inside the jet's ~40,000-year lifetime. If the association holds, the jet is a genuine gamma-ray emitter and a local accelerator of relativistic particles.

What carries the argument

The physical mechanism assumed is diffusive shock acceleration, in which charged particles gain energy by crossing the shocks formed where the jet rams into dense interstellar material; the paper leans on the existing detection of polarized non-thermal radio emission from HH 80-81 as evidence that this acceleration is happening. The modeling machinery is a power-law-with-exponential-cutoff particle distribution, $\phi(E) = \phi_0 (E / 1\ \mathrm{GeV})^{-\Gamma} \exp(-E/E_{\mathrm{cutoff}})$, with the gamma-ray photon index carried over to the particle index and with cutoff energies set by cooling: about $3$ TeV for electrons (synchrotron) and about $12$ TeV for protons (pion decay at $100\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}$). Radiative fitting then compares relativistic bremsstrahlung and proton-proton pion decay against the Fermi-LAT spectrum, and the decisive diagnostic is the implied total energy and injection time relative to the jet's known lifetime.

What would settle it

Track the >300 MeV excess with an instrument of better angular resolution than Fermi-LAT, such as one of the next-generation imaging atmospheric Cherenkov arrays: if the centroid is resolved onto J1819, or if the flux varies on month-to-year timescales in step with J1819's radio flaring, the paper's association fails. A matched hard-X-ray observation of J1819 that detects emission at or above the level expected for an AGN would also remove the paper's strongest alternative candidate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the gamma-ray excess detected above 300 MeV is real and belongs to HH 80-81. After swapping the catalog source 4FGL J1818.5-2036 for a point-like source at the protostar's coordinates, the likelihood improves substantially, and the source has a test statistic $\mathrm{TS}\approx 29$ above 300 MeV (about $5\sigma$) and a power-law spectrum with photon index $\Gamma = 2.62 \pm 0.12$, harder than the previous detection. The source is stable over 15 years, pointing away from a blazar interpretation, and the compact radio source J1819 sits outside the $2\sigma$ containment while the protostar sits inside the $1\sigma$ region. Both a leptonic model (relativistic bremsstrahlung) and a hadronic model ($\pi^0$ decay from proton-proton collisions) fit the spectrum, with inverse Compton scattering ruled out energetically; the required particle energies are $(1.4 \pm 0.3)\times 10^{46}$ erg and $(2.9 \pm 0.5)\times 10^{47}$ erg for a density of $100\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, and the corresponding injection times, about $10^3$ yr and $2\times 10^4$ yr, are compatible with the jet lifetime of about $4\times 10^4$ yr. The paper therefore concludes that HH 80-81 is the most probable counterpart, while leaving the hadronic-versus-leptonic question open.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the association of the gamma-ray excess with HH 80-81 itself, which rests on positional overlap within one sigma, the absence of variability, and the lack of X-ray detection of the alternate candidate J1819; if the excess is actually powered by J1819 or is an artifact of the Galactic diffuse template, the conclusion that the protostellar jet accelerates relativistic particles does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The gamma-ray excess above 300 MeV is a genuine point-like detection at about 5 sigma, so HH 80-81 can be studied as a gamma-ray-emitting protostellar jet and not merely as a catalog coincidence.
Because both hadronic and leptonic models fit, the particle accelerator at the termination shock can supply either relativistic electrons or protons, and the injected energy is consistent with a few percent of the jet's kinetic power.
The 100-300 MeV band is too contaminated by Galactic diffuse emission for reliable spectral measurements; future analyses of this source should start at 300 MeV or higher.
Inverse Compton scattering is effectively excluded as the dominant gamma-ray mechanism under the assumed IR photon density, narrowing the radiative channels to bremsstrahlung and pion decay.
A future gamma-ray flare coincident with a radio or infrared flare from the jet would settle the association between young stellar objects and gamma-ray emission.

Reading between the lines

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

If the excess is hadronic, the implied proton energy of roughly $3\times10^{47}$ erg accumulated over about $2\times10^4$ years makes HH 80-81 a non-negligible local source of cosmic rays; extrapolating to the population of massive protostellar jets would require knowing their duty cycle, which this paper does not address.
The modeling degeneracy could be broken by the predicted cutoffs: electrons should run out of energy near $3$ TeV and protons near $12$ TeV, so a future imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescope detection above a few hundred GeV with a measured cutoff would discriminate the two populations.
The paper's spatial coincidence between the gamma-ray excess and the L291 molecular gas suggests a hadronic contribution, because pion decay scales with target density; mapping the excess with better angular resolution could test whether the emission follows the dense gas rather than the jet axis.
A direct extension would be to use the gamma-ray flux as a calorimeter: combining the measured total energy with an assumed cosmic-ray injection spectrum yields an estimate of the jet's mechanical feedback on its host cloud, a step the paper does not take.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This paper gives the deepest look yet at the Fermi-LAT excess near HH 80-81, with 15 years of data and a spectrum that extends above 700 MeV. The new spectral index of 2.62±0.12 is meaningfully harder than Yan et al.'s 3.53, and the authors are careful to check point-source morphology, spectral curvature, and variability. The radiative fits are honest: both hadronic and leptonic models can reproduce the SED, and they do not claim to break the degeneracy. The likelihood gain (~42) from replacing the 4FGL source with a point source at the IRAS position is a real piece of evidence favoring the protostellar jet over the catalog position.

The soft spots are in the source identification. The 300 MeV energy cutoff is justified by noting that a ~1% change in the Galactic diffuse template equals the source flux, but no systematic error from the template is propagated through the detection significance or the spectral index. The index could shift outside the quoted uncertainty. More seriously, the localization is performed with the source already fixed at the IRAS coordinates, so the statement that J1819 lies outside the 2σ contour is not a fair test: the model is biased toward IRAS. The authors never fit J1819 as a candidate gamma-ray point source, so the two hypotheses are not directly compared. The non-variability argument is also weak, since many AGN are steady in gamma-rays over 15 years and the light curve is mostly upper limits.

These are not fatal flaws. The paper is clearly written, uses standard tools, and the conclusion is appropriately hedged as 'most probable.' But the central claim is conditional on excluding the J1819 and diffuse-residual alternatives by assumption rather than by likelihood comparison. I would send this to a referee, but the referee should ask for a dedicated J1819 fit and a diffuse-model systematics study. If those come back clean, the case for a protostellar jet accelerator is considerably stronger.

Worth discussing in a reading group as a case study in source association pitfalls.

Best.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 15 years of Fermi-LAT data toward the HH 80-81 protostellar jet, reports a gamma-ray excess above 300 MeV, and uses positional, variability, and multiwavelength arguments to associate it with HH 80-81. It then fits the gamma-ray SED with leptonic (relativistic Bremsstrahlung) and hadronic (π0 decay) models, finding both compatible and deriving total particle energies and injection times that are consistent with the jet lifetime.

Significance. If the association with HH 80-81 holds, this would be an important piece of evidence that protostellar jets accelerate particles to relativistic energies and may contribute to Galactic cosmic rays. The paper uses the full 15-year Fermi-LAT dataset and openly documented analysis tools (fermipy, naima, GAMERA). The radiative modeling is clearly described, the authors acknowledge the leptonic/hadronic degeneracy, and they give quantitative energy and timescale arguments. However, the central source identification has not been properly confronted with the principal alternative, the compact radio source J1819, and the detection claim relies on a diffuse-model assumption that is not tested for systematics.

major comments (2)

[Sect. 2.1 (Table 1, Fig. 2)] The exclusion of all data below 300 MeV is justified by the statement that a roughly 1% variation in the Galactic diffuse template corresponds to the measured source flux, yet no systematic uncertainty from the diffuse model is propagated into the detection significance or the spectral index. This is load-bearing because the claimed 5σ excess and the hard spectrum (Γ=2.62±0.12) are derived with a fixed gll_iem_v07 template. Please repeat the likelihood analysis with alternative diffuse-model normalizations or different interstellar emission templates and report how the TS and spectral index change. If the excess does not survive at >5σ under reasonable diffuse-model variations, the central detection claim is not robust.
[Sect. 3 (Fig. 5, Table 3)] The association with HH 80-81 is not actually tested against the J1819 hypothesis. The localization is computed after replacing 4FGL J1818.5-2036 with a point source fixed at the IRAS coordinates, so the resulting best-fit position is biased toward those coordinates. To make the identification discriminating, the authors should fit a point source at the J1819 coordinates and compare the maximum likelihood (or TS) with the IRAS-centered model, and also show the localization result when the test source is initialized at J1819. Given that the LAT PSF is several degrees for the bulk of the 1445 predicted counts and the separation is only about 0.2 deg, the statement that J1819 is outside the 2σ region cannot by itself exclude this alternative. The non-variability argument is also weak: the light curve in Fig. 4 is dominated by non-detections and upper limits, and many flat-spectrum radio quasars do not show variability in Fermi data on 15-year timescales.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and throughout] There are numerous typographical and rendering errors (e.g., 'di ffusive' in the abstract, 'spacial' in Sect. 2.1, 'loosing' for 'losing' in Sect. 4, and square symbols that replace minus signs, degree signs, and other LaTeX constructs in the provided text). These should be corrected before publication.
[Sect. 2.2] The cross-reference to 'Table 3' appears before that table is introduced; Table 3 is in Sect. 3. Use a forward reference or restructure.
[Sect. 3] The placeholder 'GGD catalog (?)' should be replaced with a proper catalog name or citation.
[References] The Araudo et al. (2008) reference is incomplete: 'arXiv preprint arXiv: . . . [arXiv:arXiv:0806.2306v1]' needs a full bibliographic entry.
[Abstract] The phrase 'the detected spectrum can be explained by both hadronic and leptonic particle components' is a fitted consequence rather than a test, as the paper itself acknowledges the degeneracy in Sect. 4. Consider rephrasing to indicate that the data are consistent with both models without implying a unique physical conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fermi-LAT analysis, source association, and radiative modeling are fits validated against external data, not predictions that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the gamma-ray excess above 300 MeV is most plausibly associated with the HH 80-81 protostellar jet. The derivation chain is not circular. In Section 2, the authors build a standard Fermi-LAT ROI model using the 4FGL catalog and replace the catalog source 4FGL J1818.5-2036 with a point source at the IRAS 18162-2048 coordinates, reporting a likelihood-ratio improvement of ~42. This is a direct model comparison between two candidate positions, not a consequence of assuming the conclusion. The source identification in Section 3 is based on this comparison, on the localize fit, and on external multiwavelength data (X-ray upper limits, radio properties, variability), so it does not reduce to an input assumption. The radiative modeling in Section 4 is explicitly described as 'fitting' the LAT SED with naima and GAMERA; the conclusion that both leptonic and hadronic models can reproduce the spectrum is a fit result, and the paper itself notes the 'considerable degeneracy intrinsic to the problem.' The energetics estimates use literature values (jet lifetime, density, magnetic field, kinetic luminosity) and compare derived injection times to the jet lifetime; this is a consistency check, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The only self-citations (e.g., de Oña Wilhelmi et al. 2023) are motivational examples of MYSO flaring and are not load-bearing for the central association or spectral conclusions. No equation or claimed prediction is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard likelihood statistics, the assumed accuracy of the Galactic diffuse model, the point-source placement at the protostar, and literature values for density, magnetic field, jet power, and acceleration efficiency. The radiative fits cannot determine which particle population dominates, and the derived energies scale with the assumed density.

free parameters (9)

Gamma-ray spectral index Gamma = 2.62 +/- 0.12
Fitted to the Fermi-LAT SED with a power-law model and used as the particle spectral index in the radiative fits.
Power-law normalization phi0 = (7.6 +/- 2.2) x 10^-13 MeV^-1 cm^-2 s^-1
Fitted normalization at E0 = 1 GeV; sets the overall flux and therefore the required particle energy.
Ambient gas density n = 100 cm^-3
Adopted from Bally and Reipurth (2023) as the most restrictive value; the integrated particle energy and injection time scale inversely with n.
Magnetic field B = 0.1 mG
Adopted from Carrasco-Gonzalez et al. (2010) and Rodriguez-Kamenetzky et al. (2019); sets synchrotron cooling and the electron cutoff estimate.
IR photon density U_IR = 3 eV cm^-3
Derived from the IRAS luminosity in a 2.5 pc region; used to evaluate inverse Compton cooling.
Acceleration efficiency eta = 5%
Adopted from Araudo et al. (2021); directly sets the injection time calculation.
Jet kinetic luminosity L_jet = about 1e37 erg s^-1
Estimated from mass loss rate and outflow velocity; used to compute the particle injection time.
Shock velocity v_sh = 400 km s^-1
Adopted from jet kinematic studies; used in the acceleration timescale estimate.
Jet lifetime t_jet = 4 x 10^4 yr
Adopted from Qiu et al. (2019); used as the feasibility bound for injection times.

assumptions (6)

standard math The Fermi-LAT likelihood formalism and TS distribution as chi-square are valid for assessing detection significance.
Used throughout Section 2 for TS maps and spectral model comparisons.
domain assumption The Galactic diffuse template gll_iem_v07 and isotropic template iso_P8R3_SOURCE_V3_v1 accurately describe the background.
Invoked in Section 2; the source flux is comparable to a 1% variation in the diffuse model, so the result depends on this template.
ad hoc to paper The gamma-ray excess can be modeled as a point-like source centered on IRAS 18162-2048.
Adopted in Sections 2.1 and 2.2; the 4FGL catalog source was replaced by a source at the protostar position, and the extension test was not significant.
domain assumption Diffusive shock acceleration operates in the HH 80-81 termination shocks with the assumed shock velocity and Bohm diffusion.
Used in Section 4 to estimate acceleration and cooling timescales; not independently verified in this work.
domain assumption The jet kinetic power is about 1e37 erg s^-1 and 5% of it goes into particle acceleration.
Used in the injection-time calculation in Section 4; both values come from the literature.
domain assumption The ambient density of 100 cm^-3 and magnetic field of 0.1 mG characterize the emission region.
Adopted in Section 4 from Bally and Reipurth (2023) and Carrasco-Gonzalez et al. (2010); the derived energies and cutoff estimates depend on them.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the capability of the HH 80-81 protostellar jet to accelerate relativistic particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6YQ7ZVYP

@misc{pith2026250201261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the capability of the HH 80-81 protostellar jet to accelerate relativistic particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6YQ7ZVYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01261}
}

abstract

Context. Protostellar jets driven by massive protostars are collimated outflows producing high-speed shocks through dense interstellar medium. Fast shocks can accelerate particles up to relativistic energies via diffusive shock acceleration, producing non-thermal emission that can originate ${\gamma}$-ray photons. HH 80-81 is one of the most powerful collimated protostellar jets in our galaxy, with non-thermal emission detected in radio, X-ray, and ${\gamma}$-ray bands. Characterize the ${\gamma}$-ray emission originated by the accelerated particles of the region is crucial for demonstrating the capability of protostars to accelerate cosmic rays. Aims. Our goal is to determine the particle distribution that is producing the ${\gamma}$-ray spectrum of HH 80-81 in order to ascertain the leptonic/hadronic origin of the ${\gamma}$-ray emission. We aim at associating the high-energy emission in the region with the HH 80-81 system, characterize its spectrum, and elaborate emission models based on what we expect from the diffusive shock acceleration. Methods. We use the 15 yr database provided by the Fermi-LAT satellite to study the high-energy emission of the jet, spanning from 300 MeV to 100 GeV. In addition, we perform a source association based on positional arguments. Then, we employ the naima and Gamera softwares to analyze the possible mechanisms that are producing ${\gamma}$-rays considering the ambient conditions. We perform a radiative fitting and study the nature of the particles behind the ${\gamma}$-ray emission. Results. By analyzing all the candidates to produce the ${\gamma}$-ray emission that we detect, we conclude that HH 80-81 is the most probable candidate to explain the ${\gamma}$-ray emission in the region. The detected spectrum can be explained by both hadronic and leptonic particle components.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01261 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** 4FGL DR4 source map for our ROI. Contours illustrate the Galactic plane emission at the 97th, 99th, 99.7th, and 99.9th percentile based on gll_iem_v07 template. Magenta circle indicates the region where the normalization parameter were set to free for computing the fitted model of the ROI. In addition, Galactic diffuse emission and isotropic emission were also set to free. nisms to produce γ rays. For protons, the m… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** TS maps for a 5◦ × 5 ◦ region centered in IRAS 18162-2048. Contour maps show the detection significance while color maps indicate the TS value of each spatial bin. Green cross indicates the position of the protostar driving the HH 80-81 system. Panels (a), (b), and (c) show the significance map for HH 80-81 above 300 MeV, 500 MeV, and 700 MeV respectively. Panel (d) shows the residual TS map above 300 MeV as a proof… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** shows the spectrum obtained for our detection. Comparing with previous results, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Variability of the γ-ray energy flux of the source of interest over 15 years of observations. Dark blue points indicate the γ-ray flux during periods where the source detection exceeds the 2σ threshold. For nondetected time intervals, upper limits are shown with arrow…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Best location of the γ-ray detection that maximize the likelihood of our model. White contours represent the uncertainty of the modeled position, while the color map shows the TS of the excess related to HH 80-81. The cyan mark indicates the position of 4FGL J1818.5-20…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Relevant timescales for the HH 80-81 system. Solid lines show the cooling timescales for different emission models. The black dashed line represents the estimated age of the jet, and the dash-dotted green line indicates the minimum time required to accelerate particles…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: SED fitting for leptonic and hadronic models of γ-ray production. Grey points represent the Fermi-LAT emission from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparison between γ-ray emission and molecular clouds in the region of HH 80-81. The color map in the background shows a highresolution IR map from the band A (8 µm) of the MSX experiment (Egan et al. 2003), which is used to locate HH 80-81 (magenta square). Green so…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

[1]

2020, ApJ, 888, 41

Añez-López, N., Osorio, M., Busquet, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 41

2020
[2]

2022, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 260, 53

Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 260, 53

2022
[3]

2020, ApJ, 892, 105

Ajello, M., Angioni, R., Axelsson, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 105

2020
[4]

F., & Carrasco-González, C

Anglada, G., Rodríguez, L. F., & Carrasco-González, C. 2018, A&A Rev., 26, 3

2018
[5]

T., Padovani, M., & Marcowith, A

Araudo, A. T., Padovani, M., & Marcowith, A. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2405

work page 2021
[6]

T., Romero, G

Araudo, A. T., Romero, G. E., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Paredes, J. M. 2007, A&A, 476, 1289

work page 2007
[7]

Non-thermal emission from massive YSOs. Exploring the spectrum at high energies

Araudo, A. T., Romero, G. E., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Paredes, J. M. 2008, arXiv preprint arXiv: . . . [arXiv:arXiv:0806.2306v1]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[8]

2022, MNRAS, 510, 2277

Araya, M., Gutiérrez, L., & Kerby, S. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2277

2022

Show all 81 references

[9]

J., Stern, D., Noirot, G., et al

Assef, R. J., Stern, D., Noirot, G., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 23

2018
[10]

2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.3514

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

2013 arXiv
[11]

2023, A&A, 671, A13

Backs, F., Poorta, J., Rab, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A13

2023
[12]

H., Lott, B., & collaboration, T

Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & collaboration, T. F.-L. 2024, Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 4 (4FGL-DR4)

2024
[13]

2016, ARA&A, 54, 491

Bally, J. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 491

2016
[14]

& Reipurth, B

Bally, J. & Reipurth, B. 2023, ApJ, 958, 99

2023
[15]

G., Ellison, D

Baring, M. G., Ellison, D. C., Reynolds, S. P., Grenier, I. A., & Goret, P. 1999, ApJ, 513, 311

1999
[16]

S., Burns, R

Bayandina, O. S., Burns, R. A., Caratti o Garatti, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A86

2024
[17]

Bell, A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147 Beltrán, M. T. & de Wit, W. J. 2016, A&A Rev., 24, 6

1978
[18]

Blandford, R. D. & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJ, 221, L29

1978
[19]

D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207

2013
[20]

E., Araudo, A

Bosch-Ramon, V ., Romero, G. E., Araudo, A. T., & Paredes, J. M. 2010, A&A, 511, A8

2010
[21]

M., Estalella, R., et al

Busquet, G., Girart, J. M., Estalella, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, L8 Cantó, J., Raga, A. C., & D’Alessio, P. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 656 Caratti o Garatti, A., Eislöffel, J., Froebrich, D., et al. 2009, A&A, 502, 579 Caratti o Garatti, A., Stecklum, B., Garcia Lopez, R., et al. 2017...

2019
[22]

2018, A&A, 612, A103

Cesaroni, R., Moscadelli, L., Neri, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A103

2018
[23]

S., Gordon, D., et al

Charlot, P., Jacobs, C. S., Gordon, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A159

2020
[24]

2021, ApJ, 922, 90

Chen, Z., Sun, W., Chini, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 90

2021
[25]

C., Stone, E

Cummings, A. C., Stone, E. C., Heikkila, B. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 18

2016
[26]

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

Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, ApJ, 547, 792 de Oña Wilhelmi, E., López-Coto, R., & Su, Y . 2023, MNRAS, 523, 105

2001
[27]

T., Lower, M

Ding, H., Deller, A. T., Lower, M. E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3736

2020
[28]

A., Liimets, T., Zinnecker, H., et al

Djupvik, A. A., Liimets, T., Zinnecker, H., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A75

2016
[29]

R., & Tully, R

Ebeling, H., Mullis, C. R., & Tully, R. B. 2002, ApJ, 580, 774

2002
[30]

P., Price, S

Egan, M. P., Price, S. D., & Kraemer, K. E. 2003, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 203, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 57.08

2003
[31]

2023, A&A, 676, A107

Fedriani, R., Caratti o Garatti, A., Cesaroni, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A107

2023
[32]

2018, A&A, 616, A126

Fedriani, R., Caratti o Garatti, A., Coffey, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A126

2018
[33]

Fedriani, R., Caratti o Garatti, A., Purser, S. J. D., et al. 2019, Nature Communi- cations, 10, 3630 Fermi Science Support Development Team. 2019, Fermitools: Fermi Science

2019
[34]

M., et al

Tools, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.011 Fernández-López, M., Curiel, S., Girart, J. M., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 72 Fernández-López, M., Girart, J. M., López-Vázquez, J. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 82

1905
[35]

& Safi-Harb, S

Ferrand, G. & Safi-Harb, S. 2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313

2012
[36]

Finkbeiner, D. P. 2003, ApJS, 146, 407

2003
[37]

P., Cabrit, S., et al

Frank, A., Ray, T. P., Cabrit, S., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 451–474

2014
[38]

J., Oudmaijer, R

Frost, A. J., Oudmaijer, R. D., de Wit, W. J., & Lumsden, S. L. 2019, A&A, 625, A44

2019
[39]

Green, D. A. 2019, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 40, 36

2019
[40]

M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J

Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93

2019
[41]

R., Wright, A

Griffith, M. R., Wright, A. E., Burke, B. F., & Ekers, R. D. 1994, ApJS, 90, 179 Güver, T. & Özel, F. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2050

1994
[42]

L., Glushkov, Y

Gyulbudaghian, A. L., Glushkov, Y . I., & Denisyuk, E. K. 1978, ApJ, 224, L137 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A1

1978
[43]

2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, V ol

Hahn, J. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, V ol. 34, 34th Interna- tional Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 917

2015
[44]

2022, GAMERA: Source modeling in gamma astronomy, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2203.007

Hahn, J., Romoli, C., & Breuhaus, M. 2022, GAMERA: Source modeling in gamma astronomy, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2203.007

2022
[45]

Heathcote, S., Reipurth, B., & Raga, A. C. 1998, AJ, 116, 1940

1998
[46]

Herbig, G. H. 1951, ApJ, 113, 697 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116

1951
[47]

W., & Omukai, K

Hosokawa, T., Yorke, H. W., & Omukai, K. 2010, ApJ, 721, 478

2010
[48]

R., Brogan, C

Hunter, T. R., Brogan, C. L., MacLeod, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, L29

2017
[49]

M., & Vila, G

Kafexhiu, E., Aharonian, F., Taylor, A. M., & Vila, G. S. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 123014

2014
[50]

Kahn, F. D. 1974, A&A, 37, 149

1974
[51]

M., Tremonti, C., et al

Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055 Kölligan, A. & Kuiper, R. 2018, A&A, 620, A182

2003
[52]

Krumholz, M. R. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1511.03457

2015 arXiv
[53]

2010, ApJ, 722, 1556

Kuiper, R., Klahr, H., Beuther, H., & Henning, T. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1556

2010
[54]

J., Immer, K., Reid, M

Li, J. J., Immer, K., Reid, M. J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 42 López, R., Estalella, R., Beltrán, M. T., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A106 López-Santiago, J., Bonito, R., Orellana, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 53

2022
[55]

N., Hobbs, G

Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993 Article number, page 10 of 11 J. Méndez-Gallego et al.: Exploring the capability of HH 80-81 protostellar jet to accelerate relativistic particles

2005
[56]

F., & Reipurth, B

Marti, J., Rodriguez, L. F., & Reipurth, B. 1993, ApJ, 416, 208

1993
[57]

F., & Reipurth, B

Marti, J., Rodriguez, L. F., & Reipurth, B. 1995, ApJ, 449, 184 Martí, J., Rodríguez, L. F., & Reipurth, B. 1998, ApJ, 502, 337 Masqué, J. M., Girart, J. M., Estalella, R., Rodríguez, L. F., & Beltrán, M. T. 2012, ApJ, 758, L10 Masqué, J. M., Rodríguez, L. F., Araudo, A., et a...

1995
[58]

2023, A&A, 672, A113

Massi, F., Caratti o Garatti, A., Cesaroni, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A113

2023
[59]

2016, A&A, 585, A71

Moscadelli, L., Sánchez-Monge, Á., Goddi, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A71

2016
[60]

M., & Romero, G

Munar-Adrover, P., Paredes, J. M., & Romero, G. E. 2011, A&A, 530, A72

2011
[61]

O., Lumsden, S

Obonyo, W. O., Lumsden, S. L., Hoare, M. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3664

2019
[62]

E., Petriella, A., & Paron, S

Ortega, M. E., Petriella, A., & Paron, S. 2024, A comprehensive analysis toward the Fermi-LAT source 4FGL J1846.9-0227: Jets of a proto-planetary nebula producing gamma-rays?

2024
[63]

M., Phillips, C., & Horiuchi, S

Petrov, L., de Witt, A., Sadler, E. M., Phillips, C., & Horiuchi, S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 88 Planck Collaboration, Adam, R., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A10

2019
[64]

L., Arce, H

Plunkett, A. L., Arce, H. G., Corder, S. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 22

2013
[65]

H., Tsuboi, Y ., & Maeda, Y

Pravdo, S. H., Tsuboi, Y ., & Maeda, Y . 2004, ApJ, 605, 259

2004
[66]

H., Tsuboi, Y ., Suzuki, Y ., Thompson, T

Pravdo, S. H., Tsuboi, Y ., Suzuki, Y ., Thompson, T. J., & Rebull, L. 2009, ApJ, 690, 850

2009
[67]

Purser, S. J. D., Lumsden, S. L., Hoare, M. G., & Kurtz, S. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 338

2021
[68]

2019, ApJ, 871, 141

Qiu, K., Wyrowski, F., Menten, K., Zhang, Q., & Güsten, R. 2019, ApJ, 871, 141

2019
[69]

P., McCaughrean, M

Ray, T. P., McCaughrean, M. J., Caratti o Garatti, A., et al. 2023, Nature, 622, 48 Rodríguez-Kamenetzky, A., Carrasco-González, C., Araudo, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 16 Rodríguez-Kamenetzky, A., Carrasco-González, C., González-Martín, O., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4687

2023
[70]

C., Günther, H

Schneider, P. C., Günther, H. M., & Ustamujic, S. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 57

2022
[71]

J., Odegard, N., Arendt, R

Sodroski, T. J., Odegard, N., Arendt, R. G., et al. 1997, ApJ, 480, 173

1997
[72]

2021, A&A, 646, A161

Stecklum, B., Wolf, V ., Linz, H., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A161

2021
[73]

W., Moskalenko, I

Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V ., & Ptuskin, V . S. 2007, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 57, 285

2007
[74]

C., Beltrán, M

Tan, J. C., Beltrán, M. T., Caselli, P., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 149–172

2014
[75]

S., Mandal, S., Tej, A., & Ghosh, S

Vig, S., Veena, V . S., Mandal, S., Tej, A., & Ghosh, S. K. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3808

2018
[76]

2024, A&A, 688, A8

Wolf, V ., Stecklum, B., Caratti o Garatti, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A8

2024
[77]

Wolfire, M. G. & Cassinelli, J. P. 1987, ApJ, 319, 850

1987
[78]

2017, Fermipy: An open-source Python package for analysis of Fermi-LAT Data

Wood, M., Caputo, R., Charles, E., et al. 2017, Fermipy: An open-source Python package for analysis of Fermi-LAT Data

2017
[79]

H., Zhou, J

Yan, D. H., Zhou, J. N., & Zhang, P. F. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 22 [arXiv:1908.10994]

2022 arXiv
[80]

2015, Proc

Zabalza, V . 2015, Proc. of International Cosmic Ray Conference 2015, 922

2015
[81]

S., Schlafly, E

Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A51 Article number, page 11 of 11

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2020, ApJ, 888, 41

Añez-López, N., Osorio, M., Busquet, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 41

2020

[2] [2]

2022, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 260, 53

Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 260, 53

2022

[3] [3]

2020, ApJ, 892, 105

Ajello, M., Angioni, R., Axelsson, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 105

2020

[4] [4]

F., & Carrasco-González, C

Anglada, G., Rodríguez, L. F., & Carrasco-González, C. 2018, A&A Rev., 26, 3

2018

[5] [5]

T., Padovani, M., & Marcowith, A

Araudo, A. T., Padovani, M., & Marcowith, A. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2405

work page 2021

[6] [6]

T., Romero, G

Araudo, A. T., Romero, G. E., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Paredes, J. M. 2007, A&A, 476, 1289

work page 2007

[7] [7]

Non-thermal emission from massive YSOs. Exploring the spectrum at high energies

Araudo, A. T., Romero, G. E., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Paredes, J. M. 2008, arXiv preprint arXiv: . . . [arXiv:arXiv:0806.2306v1]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008

[8] [8]

2022, MNRAS, 510, 2277

Araya, M., Gutiérrez, L., & Kerby, S. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2277

2022