Probing the sensitivity of CTAO-N LSTs observations at large zenith angles to the multi-TeV gamma-ray emission from the inner 10 parsecs of the Galactic Center

Emmanuel Moulin; Shotaro Abe; Tomohiro Inada

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Probing the sensitivity of CTAO-N LSTs observations at large zenith angles to the multi-TeV gamma-ray emission from the inner 10 parsecs of the Galactic Center

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The CTAO-North four-LST array can discriminate dark-matter, millisecond-pulsar, and hadronic explanations of the Galactic Center's multi-TeV source by measuring the cutoff sharpness parameter β.

desk verdict A solid, timely sensitivity forecast for CTAO-North's four-LST observations of the Galactic Center; headline claims hold for the assumed SEPL templates, but intermediate-beta and source-contamination cases are not tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04074 v1 pith:TVBZR5CS submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.HE

Shotaro Abe , Tomohiro Inada , Emmanuel Moulin This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords gammarayexperimentsdarkmatterCTAO-NorthlargezenithangleobservationsGalacticCenterHESSJ1745-290super-exponentialcutoffmillisecondpulsars

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

The paper argues that the shape of the energy cutoff in the gamma-ray spectrum of HESS J1745-290 carries enough information to identify the process producing the emission, and that the incoming four-LST array at CTAO-North can extract that shape within a few years. A super-exponential power law with sharpness parameter β is fitted to current H.E.S.S., MAGIC, and VERITAS data; the data prefer β = 1.53 ± 0.28, too broad to choose between β = 2 (dark-matter spike), β = 1 (millisecond pulsars), and β ≈ 0.6 (hadronic). Simulating large-zenith-angle observations with realistic instrument response, the paper finds that 120 hours can give a first 3σ hint and roughly 500 hours, possibly across several years, can reject the wrong scenarios at more than 5σ. A successful measurement would directly discriminate dark-matter annihilation from astrophysical emission at the center of the Milky Way.

What carries the argument

The central object is the super-exponential cutoff power law $\Phi(E) = \Phi_0 (E/1\,\mathrm{TeV})^{-\Gamma} \exp[-(E/E_c)^\beta]$, whose shape parameter $\beta$ is the discriminator: $\beta = 2$ for a dark-matter spike around Sgr A*, $\beta = 1$ for inverse-Compton emission from millisecond pulsars, and $\beta \approx 0.6$ for proton-proton interactions. The observational mechanism is the large-zenith-angle technique: from CTAO-North the Galactic Center culminates near 58°, and at 60° zenith the four-LST array reaches an effective area of about $9.0\times10^5$ m² at 10 TeV with energies up to about 100 TeV and an energy threshold of 400 GeV. The analysis pipeline forward-folds response-convolved models into count cubes and uses Cash statistics, with systematic uncertainties simulated by perturbing the effective area, energy scale, energy resolution, and background amplitude.

What would settle it

If 500 hours of actual four-LST data recover β with a 68% interval that overlaps the paper's current best fit of 1.53 ± 0.28 rather than separating the values 0.6, 1, and 2, the discrimination claim fails; equivalently, a detection of extended emission from Sgr A East within the point-source region would break the single-source assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the sharpness of the multi-TeV spectral cutoff can be measured well enough by four LSTs at CTAO-North to separate the three viable emission models of the Galactic Center source. With β fixed to 0.6, 1, or 2, and using the official 60° zenith instrument response functions, the paper simulates about 800 realizations per setup and computes likelihood-ratio test statistics between different assumed true models. It finds that after 500 hours a true β = 2 (DM spike) disfavors β = 0.6 and β = 1 at high significance, and a true β = 0.6 rejects β = 2 at about 9.7σ; after 120 hours, β = 2 can already be separated from β = 1 at about 3σ. Adding realistic response systematics widens the β containment bands by 20 to 40 percent but does not erase the discrimination. The paper also notes that the current combined fit gives β = 1.53 ± 0.28, an intermediate value that no pure scenario in the study reproduces.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes the true spectrum is one pure super-exponential power law whose sharpness β matches exactly one emission scenario, and that no other gamma-ray source contaminates the field of view.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the real spectrum after 500 hours has β near 2, the dark-matter spike interpretation would be strongly favored over pulsar and hadronic models.
If β is recovered near 1, the central stellar cluster's millisecond pulsars become the leading explanation for the multi-TeV emission.
If β is recovered near 0.6, the emission would support cosmic-ray proton interactions in the inner 10 parsecs of the Galactic Center.
A first-year 120-hour campaign can already provide about a 3σ hint, which motivates scheduling large-zenith-angle Galactic Center observations early in the four-LST array's operation.
Because systematic uncertainties broaden but do not erase the separation, the discrimination result appears robust at the level of the current instrument-response knowledge.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's own best fit of β = 1.53 ± 0.28 suggests that the real data may land between the three pure scenarios; an obvious extension is testing two-component models, such as a dark-matter contribution plus diffuse emission, with the same simulated likelihood machinery.
The same large-zenith-angle four-LST setup could be applied to other northern very-high-energy sources with cutoff features, where β is also theoretically constrained and could separate emission mechanisms.
A cross-check with CTAO-South, which views the Galactic Center at much lower zenith angles, would tighten systematic control and could test whether the large-zenith-angle energy-scale systematics bias the recovered β.
The result implies that CTAO-North can play a meaningful interim role in dark-matter searches at the Galactic Center before the more powerful Southern array is fully deployed, which may change near-term observation scheduling.

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

Worth a read. This is the first quantitative forecast I know of for the four-LST CTAO-North sub-array observing HESS J1745-290 at large zenith angles, using public prod5 IRFs and a proper forward-folding simulation with injected systematics. The methodology is standard and transparent: mock count cubes, Poisson/Cash statistics, ~800 realizations per setup, and explicit treatment of energy-scale, effective-area, and resolution systematics. The main result — that ~500 h can reject beta=2 (DM-spike-like) against beta=0.6 or 1 at >5 sigma, and that a 3-sigma hint can come in 120 h — is a useful planning input for the near-term LST program.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, the mock true spectra are the pure SEPL templates with beta=0.6, 1, and 2, not the fuller physical models of Sec. 2 (the DM+CMZ multi-component fit, or the specific proton/MSP spectral shapes). The paper does argue that each scenario is reasonably approximated by those beta values, and that is defensible for a sensitivity study; the stress-test claim that this is merely a self-consistency check goes too far. It is a standard benchmark approach. But the authors' own combined fit to current data gives beta=1.53±0.28, an intermediate value they do not simulate. If the true spectrum sits between the benchmarks, the discrimination powers they quote will not transfer directly. They should add an intermediate-beta case, or at least show the beta containment as a function of true beta, to make the forecast robust.

Second, the FoV is assumed empty apart from the central point source and residual hadronic background. The GC region contains Sgr A East, G359.95-0.04, and CMZ diffuse emission. The paper states the assumption explicitly and uses background-subtraction methods, but does not quantify how such contaminants would bias the beta measurement. That is worth a caveat and maybe a simple check with a second source included.

Third, minor: the text has a couple of typos (e.g., 'CT AO-N' in the title, 'senarios'), but nothing substantive.

Overall: a solid, standard sensitivity study with a clear and important target. It deserves a serious referee. Recommend that the authors add an intermediate-beta simulation and a contamination caveat before publication. I would send it to review, not desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper fits super-exponential power-law (SEPL, Eq. 1.1) models to archival H.E.S.S., MAGIC, and VERITAS spectra of HESS J1745-290, reporting a preferred cutoff sharpness beta = 1.53 +/- 0.28 (statistical only). It then simulates mock CTAO-North four-LST observations at large zenith angle (60 degrees) using public prod5 IRFs and gammapy, generating ~800 Poisson realizations for true SEPL templates with beta = 0.6, 1.0, and 2.0, with optional injected response systematics. Using Cash-statistic fits and a likelihood-ratio TS (Eq. 4.1), it finds that ~500 hours can reject beta = 2 when the true beta is 0.6 or 1.0 at more than 5 sigma (median), and that ~120 hours can give a roughly 3-sigma discrimination between beta = 2 and beta = 1. The paper concludes that CTAO-N LSTs can provide timely discrimination among DM-spike, hadronic, and MSP emission scenarios for the Galactic Center source.

Significance. The study is timely and methodologically solid in its technical core: it uses publicly available CTAO instrument response functions, a standard forward-folding framework (gammapy), many Monte Carlo realizations, and an explicit injection of response systematic uncertainties. The forecast that the sharpness of the multi-TeV cutoff can be measured well enough to reject beta = 2 at high significance would be a useful, falsifiable prediction for the upcoming four-LST array. However, the transfer of these sensitivities to the three physical scenarios is not yet established, because the simulated truths are pure SEPL templates rather than the multi-component models of Section 2, and the currently preferred beta = 1.53 lies outside the simulated grid. With additional simulations based on the physical templates and an intermediate-beta case, the paper could deliver on its main claim.

major comments (3)

[§3.2 and §4] The mock data are generated from pure SEPL templates with beta = 0.6, 1.0, and 2.0, not from the physical models introduced in Section 2. The DM model of Section 2.2 is a multi-component (DM bbar/tau+tau plus CMZ-like diffuse) fit, the proton model of Section 2.3 is a pp-interaction spectrum, and the MSP model of Section 2.4 is an inverse-Compton spectrum; none is a pure SEPL. The likelihood-ratio test in Eq. (4.1) therefore measures how well a SEPL fit separates three artificial SEPL spectra, not how well it separates the physical emission scenarios claimed in the abstract. This is compounded by the fact that the joint fit in Section 2.1 gives beta = 1.53 +/- 0.28, an intermediate value not represented among the simulated truths; if the real spectrum is a blend (e.g., DM plus hadronic emission), the reconstructed beta could lie near 1.5 and the reported rejection powers would not transfer. Please regenerate the mock data from the physical templates (or at least add an intermediate-beta case such as beta = 1.5) and re-evaluate the TS distributions.
[§3.2 (FoV assumptions)] The statement 'no additional gamma-ray source is presumed within the FoV' is not realistic for the Galactic Center field. Sgr A East, the pulsar-wind nebula candidate G359.95-0.04, and CMZ diffuse gamma-ray emission are all known sources in the region and are discussed in Sections 1 and 2. They are not removed by the cited background-estimation methods (RingBackground or Reflected-Region-Background), which only estimate the instrumental residual background. The forecast therefore applies to a source-free field of view; including at least a CMZ diffuse component and a check for Sgr A East contamination could change the recovered beta and the discrimination significances. I ask the authors to add such components to at least one mock setup and report the effect on the TS values.
[§4, Figure 4] The significance claims are based on the median TS from roughly 800 realizations, as stated in the Figure 4 caption ('Lines within the bands show the TS median value'), rather than on the fraction of realizations exceeding the Wilks-theorem thresholds of TS = 9 and 25. A median TS of 9 means only about half of the realizations would yield a 3-sigma rejection, so the quoted 'rejected at 4.7 sigma' and 'preliminary 3-sigma hint' should be reported as median expectations, and the paper should give the distribution of TS values (e.g., the percentage of realizations above TS = 9 and 25). This is directly relevant to the abstract's claim of a first-year 3-sigma hint.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and title] There are several typos: 'CT AO-N', 'LST s', 'T e V', 'senarios', and 'can well described' should be corrected.
[§3.2] The sentence 'any parameter is unfrozen in neither the spatial components nor the background model' is grammatically ambiguous; please clarify which parameters are kept free in the fit.
[§2.1 / Figure 1] When reporting the SEPL fits at fixed beta, the cutoff energies are given as 'Ec = 7.8+1.5−1.1 TeV, 15.7+1.9−1.5 TeV, and 19.2+1.8−1.5 TeV' with inconsistent formatting; please standardize.
[References] Refs. [35] and [38] appear to be the same GRAVITY mass-distribution paper with different journal formatting; please deduplicate or differentiate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forecast is a standard simulation-based likelihood-ratio sensitivity study; the SEPL templates used for mock data are model assumptions, not fitted outputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is a forward sensitivity forecast. It fits a super-exponential cutoff power law (SEPL, Eq. 1.1) to archival H.E.S.S./MAGIC/VERITAS spectra, obtaining beta = 1.53 ± 0.28, and then simulates four-LST observations from three SEPL templates with beta = 0.6, 1.0, and 2.0, associating them with hadronic, MSP, and DM-spike scenarios via external model calculations (e.g., [47] for pp interactions, [18,56] for MSP inverse Compton, and the DM literature for super-exponential cutoffs). The mock data are generated from these templates and fitted with the same SEPL family. This is the defining setup of a sensitivity study, not circularity: the likelihood-ratio test (Eq. 4.1) compares fixed-beta hypotheses against the best-fit beta on simulated data, and the resulting TS distributions are genuine statistical predictions contingent on the assumed true spectra. The main weaknesses are robustness/validity concerns, not circularity: the physical scenarios are approximated by pure SEPL templates, the DM-spike case is treated as beta = 2 rather than the multi-component DM+CMZ model of Fig. 2, the current best-fit beta = 1.53 lies outside the simulated grid, and no additional gamma-ray sources are included in the FoV. These make the forecast conditional, but they do not make any claimed result equal to its input by construction. One minor self-citation ([27], which includes co-author E. Moulin) appears in a methodological context ('previous findings') but is not load-bearing: the sensitivity calculation relies on the simulated IRFs and the likelihood-ratio procedure, not on the content of [27].

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed mapping of physical scenarios to beta values, the public IRFs, and the background/systematics model. No new particles or forces are introduced. The DM spike is an existing hypothesis from the literature, not an entity invented by this paper.

free parameters (4)

True beta values for simulated scenarios = 0.6, 1.0, 2.0
Chosen by hand as surrogates for proton, MSP, and DM-spike emission scenarios. These are the true values used to generate mock data.
Systematic uncertainty widths = 15% for effective area, energy scale, energy resolution; 1% for background
Assumed magnitudes for LZA observations, based on past MAGIC and H.E.S.S. experience. The sensitivity result depends on these choices.
Annual observation time cap = 100 hours/year
Assumed maximum GC observing time per year at CTAO-N given RA-band prioritization. Used to define first-year (120 h) and multi-year (500 h) scenarios.
Energy threshold = 0.25 TeV and 0.40 TeV
Two thresholds considered; the more conservative 0.40 TeV is used as the baseline. Discrimination power depends on this choice.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The gamma-ray spectrum of HESS J1745-290 is described by a single super-exponential power-law function with shape parameter beta (Eq. 1.1).
This parametrization is assumed throughout; the sensitivity is defined as the ability to measure beta.
domain assumption Each physical emission scenario maps to a distinct beta value (beta=2 for DM spike, beta=1 for MSPs, beta=0.6 for hadronic pp), and these are the only scenarios considered.
Used to translate beta discrimination into scenario discrimination. The paper itself notes the combined fit gives beta=1.53±0.28, which is not exactly any of these values.
domain assumption The prod5-v0.1 IRFs for the four-LST sub-array at 60-degree zenith angle accurately represent future telescope performance.
All simulated observations use these public response functions; if actual telescope performance differs, the sensitivity changes.
domain assumption Background can be modeled as a smooth residual component and does not include other gamma-ray sources in the FoV.
Stated in §3.2: 'no additional gamma-ray source is presumed within the FoV.' The real GC field contains other sources such as Sgr A East and G359.95-0.04.
domain assumption The injected systematic uncertainties (15% shifts in effective area and energy scale, 15% energy resolution broadening, 1% background amplitude) follow a normal distribution and capture the true LZA systematic errors.
These magnitudes are based on previous instruments but are not measured for the LSTs.
standard math Wilks' theorem gives TS thresholds of 9 and 25 for 3-sigma and 5-sigma respectively.
Used to translate TS into significance; the models are nested fixed-beta vs free-beta fits, so the theorem applies asymptotically.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the sensitivity of CTAO-N LSTs observations at large zenith angles to the multi-TeV gamma-ray emission from the inner 10 parsecs of the Galactic Center." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TVBZR5CS

@misc{pith2026250604074,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the sensitivity of CTAO-N LSTs observations at large zenith angles to the multi-TeV gamma-ray emission from the inner 10 parsecs of the Galactic Center},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TVBZR5CS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04074}
}

abstract

Observations of the Galactic Center using Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (IACTs), such as H.E.S.S., MAGIC, and VERITAS, have revealed a very-high-energy (VHE, $\gtrsim 100$ GeV) gamma-ray source, HESS J1745$-$290, aligned with the dynamical center of the Milky Way. This source shows point-like emission ($\lesssim 0.1^\circ$) and a strong suppression in its energy-differential spectrum in the ten TeV energy regime, modeled well by a power-law with an exponential cutoff. The origin of this emission is debated, with candidate emission scenarios including dark matter annihilations, millisecond pulsars in the central stellar clusters, and hadronic interactions in the vicinity of Sagittarius A*. Deriving the sensitivity to these spectral models is key to discriminating the physical processes at work. We show that combining H.E.S.S., MAGIC, and VERITAS archival data can well described the observed emission by a power-law with an exponential energy cutoff within the present uncertainties. Given the near advent of the array of the Large-Sized Telescopes (LSTs) at CTAO-N, we timely simulate realistic upcoming observations of the central emission by the CTAO-N four-LST array, to derive the sensitivity to resolve the sharpness of the spectral energy cutoff. We find that 500 hours of four-LST observations taken at large zenith angles, possibly accumulated over several years, can significantly discriminate the dark-matter emission scenario from the leptonic and hadronic ones. Also, a preliminary 3$\sigma$ hint for such discrimination could emerge within the first year. We demonstrate, for the first time, that CTAO-N is able to provide new insights on differentiating among the above-mentioned emission scenarios in the next several years.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[8]

F. K. Baganoff et al.,Rapid X-ray flaring from the direction of the supermassive black hole at the Galactic Centre, Nature413(2001) 45 [astro-ph/0109367]

arXiv 2001
[9]

X-ray flares reveal mass and angular momentum of the Galactic Center black hole

B. Aschenbach, N. Grosso, D. Porquet and P. Predehl,X-ray flares reveal mass and angular momentum of the Galactic Center black hole,Astron. Astrophys.417(2004) 71 [astro-ph/0401589]. [10]H.E.S.S.collaboration,Simultaneous H.E.S.S. and Chandra observations of Sagittarius A* during an X-ray flare,Astron. Astrophys.492(2008) L25 [0812.3762]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[11]

High energy gamma rays from the massive black hole in the Galactic Center

F. Aharonian and A. Neronov,High energy gamma rays from the massive black hole in the Galactic center,Astrophys. J.619(2005) 306 [astro-ph/0408303]

work page Pith review arXiv 2005
[12]

S. Liu, F. Melia, V. Petrosian and M. Fatuzzo,Stochastic acceleration in the galactic center hess source,The Astrophysical Journal647(2006) 1099

work page 2006
[13]

Y.-P. Wang, Y. Lu and L. Chen,Injected spectrum for tevγ-ray emission from the galactic center,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics9(2009) 761

work page 2009
[14]

TeV Emission from the Galactic Center Black-Hole Plerion

A. Atoyan and C. D. Dermer,TeV emission from the Galactic Center black-hole plerion, Astrophys. J. Lett.617(2004) L123 [astro-ph/0410243]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[15]

J. A. Hinton and F. A. Aharonian,Inverse compton scenarios for the tev gamma-ray emission of the galactic center,The Astrophysical Journal657(2007) 302

work page 2007
[16]

A. V. Belikov, G. Zaharijas and J. Silk,Study of the gamma-ray spectrum from the galactic center in view of multi-tev dark matter candidates,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 083516

work page 2012

Show all 50 references

[17]

J. A. R. Cembranos, V. Gammaldi and A. L. Maroto,Possible dark matter origin of the gamma ray emission from the galactic center observed by HESS,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 103506 [1204.0655]

2012 arXiv
[18]

Bednarek and T

W. Bednarek and T. Sobczak,Gamma-rays from millisecond pulsar population within the central stellar cluster in the Galactic Center,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.435(2013) L14 [1306.4760]

2013 arXiv
[19]

A. V. Belikov and J. Silk,Superexponential cutoff as a probe of annihilating dark matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) 071302

2013
[20]

– 13 – [21]https://www.cta-observatory.org

CTA LST Project,First Science Results from CTA LST-1 Telescope and status of LST2-4, PoSICRC2023(2023) 731. – 13 – [21]https://www.cta-observatory.org

2023
[22]

[23]MAGICcollaboration,MAGIC observations of the diffuseγ-ray emission in the vicinity of the Galactic center,Astron

CTA LST Project,Galactic Center Studies with CTA-LST-1,PoSICRC2023(2023) 574. [23]MAGICcollaboration,MAGIC observations of the diffuseγ-ray emission in the vicinity of the Galactic center,Astron. Astrophys.642(2020) A190 [2006.00623]. [24]VERITAScollaboration,VERITAS Observati...

2023
[26]

Belikov and J

A. Belikov and J. Silk,Diffuse Gamma Ray Background from Annihilating Dark Matter in Density Spikes around Supermassive Black Holes,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 043520 [1312.0007]

2014 arXiv
[27]

A. V. Belikov, E. Moulin and J. Silk,Study of the very high energy gamma-ray spectrum from the Galactic Center and future prospects,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 103005 [1610.10003]

2016 arXiv
[28]

Steigman, B

G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta and J. F. Beacom,Precise relic WIMP abundance and its impact on searches for dark matter annihilation, Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 023506 [1204.3622]

2012 arXiv
[29]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White,A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering,Astrophys. J.490(1997) 493 [astro-ph/9611107]

1997 arXiv
[30]

Gondolo and J

P. Gondolo and J. Silk,Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center,Phys. Rev. Lett.83 (1999) 1719

1999
[31]

O. Y. Gnedin and J. R. Primack,Dark matter profile in the galactic center,Phys. Rev. Lett.93 (2004) 061302

2004
[32]

Vasiliev and M

E. Vasiliev and M. Zelnikov,Dark matter dynamics in the galactic center,Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 083506

2008
[33]

Habibi, S

M. Habibi, S. Gillessen, O. Pfuhl, F. Eisenhauer, P. M. Plewa, S. von Fellenberg et al., Spectroscopic Detection of a Cusp of Late-type Stars around the Central Black Hole in the Milky Way,Astrophys. J.872(2019) L15 [1902.07219]

2019 arXiv
[34]

Heißel, T

G. Heißel, T. Paumard, G. Perrin and F. Vincent,The dark mass signature in the orbit of S2, Astron. Astrophys.660(2022) A13 [2112.07778]

2022 arXiv
[35]

Abuter et al.,Mass distribution in the Galactic Center based on interferometric astrometry of multiple stellar orbits,Astroparticle Phys.657(2022) L12 [2112.07478]

GRAVITY Collaboration, R. Abuter et al.,Mass distribution in the Galactic Center based on interferometric astrometry of multiple stellar orbits,Astroparticle Phys.657(2022) L12 [2112.07478]

2022 arXiv
[36]

Gallego-Cano, R

E. Gallego-Cano, R. Schödel, F. Nogueras-Lara, H. Dong, B. Shahzamanian, T. K. Fritz et al., New constraints on the structure of the nuclear stellar cluster of the Milky Way from star counts and MIR imaging,Astron. Astrophys.634(2020) A71 [2001.08182]

2020 arXiv
[37]

S. L. Shapiro and D. C. Heggie,Effect of stars on the dark matter spike around a black hole: A tale of two treatments,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 043018 [2209.08105]. [38]GRA VITYcollaboration,Mass distribution in the Galactic Center based on interferometric astrometry of multiple s...

2022 arXiv
[39]

Gültekin et al.,The M-σand M-L Relations in Galactic Bulges, and Determinations of Their Intrinsic Scatter,Astrophys

K. Gültekin et al.,The M-σand M-L Relations in Galactic Bulges, and Determinations of Their Intrinsic Scatter,Astrophys. J.698(2009) 198 [0903.4897]

2009 arXiv
[40]

Merritt,Evolution of the dark matter distribution at the galactic center,Phys

D. Merritt,Evolution of the dark matter distribution at the galactic center,Phys. Rev. Lett.92 (2004) 201304 [astro-ph/0311594]

2004 arXiv
[41]

Balaji, D

S. Balaji, D. Sachdeva, F. Sala and J. Silk,Dark matter spikes around sgr a* inγ-rays,JCAP 08(2023) 063 [2303.12107]. – 14 –

2023 arXiv
[42]

Zuriaga-Puig, V

J. Zuriaga-Puig, V. Gammaldi, D. Gaggero, T. Lacroix and M. A. Sánchez-Conde,Multi-TeV dark matter density in the inner Milky Way halo: spectral and dynamical constraints,JCAP11 (2023) 063 [2307.06823]

2023 arXiv
[43]

P. J. McMillan,The mass distribution and gravitational potential of the Milky Way,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society465(2016) 76 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/465/1/76/8593676/stw2759.pdf]

2016
[44]

N. W. Evans, C. A. J. O’Hare and C. McCabe,Refinement of the standard halo model for dark matter searches in light of the Gaia Sausage,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 023012 [1810.11468]

2019 arXiv
[45]

Aharonian and A

F. Aharonian and A. Neronov,Tev gamma rays from the galactic center. direct and indirect linkes to the massive black hole in sgr a*, inWorkshop on From X-ray Binaries to Quasars: Black Hole Accretion on all Mass Scales, 3, 2005,astro-ph/0503354

2005 arXiv
[46]

Chernyakova, D

M. Chernyakova, D. Malyshev, F. A. Aharonian, R. M. Crocker and D. I. Jones,The high-energy, arcminute-scale galactic center gamma-ray source,The Astrophysical Journal726 (2010) 60

2010
[47]

Kafexhiu, F

E. Kafexhiu, F. Aharonian, A. M. Taylor and G. S. Vila,Parametrization of gamma-ray production cross sections for p p interactions in a broad proton energy range from the kinematic threshold to PeV energies, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 123014 [1406.7369]

2014 arXiv
[48]

Capuzzo-Dolcetta, M

R. Capuzzo-Dolcetta, M. Arca-Sedda and M. Spera,The Dense Stellar Systems Around Galactic Massive Black Holes,arXiv e-prints(2013) arXiv:1302.2509 [1302.2509]

2013 arXiv
[49]

Antonini, R

F. Antonini, R. Capuzzo-Dolcetta, A. Mastrobuono-Battisti and D. Merritt,Dissipationless Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way Nuclear Star Cluster,Astrophys. J.750(2012) 111 [1110.5937]

2012 arXiv
[50]

Antonini, E

F. Antonini, E. Barausse and J. Silk,The Coevolution of Nuclear Star Clusters, Massive Black Holes, and their Host Galaxies,Astrophys. J.812(2015) 72 [1506.02050]

2015 arXiv
[51]

Neumayer, A

N. Neumayer, A. Seth and T. Böker,Nuclear star clusters,Astron Astrophys Rev28(2020) 4 [2001.03626]

2020 arXiv
[52]

S. M. Ransom,Pulsars in Globular Clusters, inDynamical Evolution of Dense Stellar Systems, E. Vesperini, M. Giersz and A. Sills, eds., vol. 246, pp. 291–300, May, 2008, DOI

2008
[53]

M. A. Alpar, A. F. Cheng, M. A. Ruderman and J. Shaham,A new class of radio pulsars, Nature300(1982) 728

1982
[54]

A. A. Abdo et al.,A population of gamma-ray emitting globular clusters seen with the Fermi Large Area Telescope,Astron. Astrophys.524(2010) A75 [1003.3588]

2010 arXiv
[55]

C. S. Ye, K. Kremer, S. Chatterjee, C. L. Rodriguez and F. A. Rasio,Millisecond Pulsars and Black Holes in Globular Clusters,Astrophys. J.877(2019) 122 [1902.05963]

2019 arXiv
[56]

Khangulyan, F

D. Khangulyan, F. A. Aharonian and S. R. Kelner,Simple Analytical Approximations for Treatment of Inverse Compton Scattering of Relativistic Electrons in the Blackbody Radiation Field,Astrophys. J.783(2014) 100 [1310.7971]

2014 arXiv
[57]

WSP, 11, 2018, 10.1142/10986, [1709.07997]

CTA Consortium,Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array. WSP, 11, 2018, 10.1142/10986, [1709.07997]

2018 arXiv
[58]

10.5281/zenodo.5499840

Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory and Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium,CTAO Instrument Response Functions - prod5 version v0.1, Sept., 2021. 10.5281/zenodo.5499840

2021 doi
[59]

Berge, S

D. Berge, S. Funk and J. Hinton,Background Modelling in Very-High-Energy gamma-ray Astronomy,Astron. Astrophys.466(2007) 1219 [astro-ph/0610959]

2007 arXiv
[60]

Holler, J

M. Holler, J. P. Lenain, M. de Naurois, R. Rauth and D. A. Sanchez,A Run-Wise Simulation and Analysis Framework for Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope Arrays,Astropart. Phys.123(2020) 102491 [2007.01697]. – 15 –

2020 arXiv
[61]

Cash,Parameter estimation in astronomy through application of the likelihood ratio., Astrophys

W. Cash,Parameter estimation in astronomy through application of the likelihood ratio., Astrophys. J.228(1979) 939. [62]MAGICcollaboration,Observations of Sagittarius A* during the pericenter passage of the G2 object with MAGIC,Astron. Astrophys.601(2017) A33 [1611.07095]. [63...

1979 arXiv
[64]

Fruck, The Galactic Center resolved with MAGIC and a new technique for Atmospheric Calibration, Ph.D

C. Fruck, The Galactic Center resolved with MAGIC and a new technique for Atmospheric Calibration, Ph.D. thesis, Munich University of Technology, Germany, Jan., 2015

2015
[65]

S. S. Wilks,The Large-Sample Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses,The Annals of Mathematical Statistics9(1938) 60 . – 16 –

1938

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

F. K. Baganoff et al.,Rapid X-ray flaring from the direction of the supermassive black hole at the Galactic Centre, Nature413(2001) 45 [astro-ph/0109367]

arXiv 2001

[2] [9]

X-ray flares reveal mass and angular momentum of the Galactic Center black hole

B. Aschenbach, N. Grosso, D. Porquet and P. Predehl,X-ray flares reveal mass and angular momentum of the Galactic Center black hole,Astron. Astrophys.417(2004) 71 [astro-ph/0401589]. [10]H.E.S.S.collaboration,Simultaneous H.E.S.S. and Chandra observations of Sagittarius A* during an X-ray flare,Astron. Astrophys.492(2008) L25 [0812.3762]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004

[3] [11]

High energy gamma rays from the massive black hole in the Galactic Center

F. Aharonian and A. Neronov,High energy gamma rays from the massive black hole in the Galactic center,Astrophys. J.619(2005) 306 [astro-ph/0408303]

work page Pith review arXiv 2005

[4] [12]

S. Liu, F. Melia, V. Petrosian and M. Fatuzzo,Stochastic acceleration in the galactic center hess source,The Astrophysical Journal647(2006) 1099

work page 2006

[5] [13]

Y.-P. Wang, Y. Lu and L. Chen,Injected spectrum for tevγ-ray emission from the galactic center,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics9(2009) 761

work page 2009

[6] [14]

TeV Emission from the Galactic Center Black-Hole Plerion

A. Atoyan and C. D. Dermer,TeV emission from the Galactic Center black-hole plerion, Astrophys. J. Lett.617(2004) L123 [astro-ph/0410243]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004

[7] [15]

J. A. Hinton and F. A. Aharonian,Inverse compton scenarios for the tev gamma-ray emission of the galactic center,The Astrophysical Journal657(2007) 302

work page 2007

[8] [16]

A. V. Belikov, G. Zaharijas and J. Silk,Study of the gamma-ray spectrum from the galactic center in view of multi-tev dark matter candidates,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 083516

work page 2012