Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Simulating the LOcal Web (SLOW) -- VI: Gamma-ray Emission in the Local Universe

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new simulation finds that shock-accelerated protons in local galaxy clusters produce gamma-rays far below what Fermi-LAT can detect.

desk verdict First on-the-fly spectral CR-proton cosmological simulation: qualitative conclusion likely right, but the 'lower limit' and Coma sensitivity claims are not supported by the paper's own parameter study. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.15634 v2 pith:QYNLJJ22 submitted 2025-10-17 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Ludwig M. Böss , Ildar Khabibullin , Daniel Karner , Klaus Dolag , Ulrich P. Steinwandel , Elena Hernandez-Martinez , Jenny G. Sorce This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.CO
keywords cosmicraysgamma-rayemissiongalaxyclusterscosmologicalsimulationsmagnetohydrodynamicswebpiondecayFermi-LAT
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 presents the first cosmological magnetohydrodynamic simulation that follows cosmic-ray proton spectra on the fly and uses it to predict diffuse gamma-ray emission from the local universe's galaxy clusters and cosmic web. The central finding is that protons accelerated at structure-formation shocks produce a steady glow via pion-decay, but the predicted flux lies a few orders of magnitude below current Fermi-LAT upper limits. For the Coma cluster, the model says detection would require a sensitivity below 10^-11 gamma s^-1 cm^-2, which the authors interpret as a lower limit for diffuse emission from shock-accelerated protons. If correct, cluster cosmic-ray pressures are only about 10^-4 to 10^-3 of thermal pressure, far below the roughly 1% bound, meaning non-thermal pressure support is negligible.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a spectral cosmic-ray model coupled to the magnetohydrodynamic simulation: a Fokker-Planck solver that represents the proton distribution as piecewise power laws in momentum, injects them at shocks according to diffusive shock acceleration with an obliquity-dependent efficiency, follows adiabatic compression/expansion and advection with the gas, and closes the low-momentum boundary. Gamma-ray emission is computed directly from these spectra using a parametrized pion-decay cross section, so the prediction does not rely on post-processing assumptions beyond the CR transport model itself.

What would settle it

Re-run the same constrained local-volume simulation at 8x resolution (as the authors plan for zoom-ins) and compare the predicted Coma gamma-ray flux; if it rises by more than a factor of ~100, the stated lower limit is not robust. Alternatively, a gamma-ray telescope reaching a sensitivity of 10^-12 gamma s^-1 cm^-2 that detects diffuse emission from Coma would directly falsify the paper's prediction that this emission lies below 10^-11.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a constrained simulation of a 500 h^-1 Mpc volume that reproduces the local large-scale structure, the authors evolve cosmic-ray protons with an on-the-fly Fokker-Planck solver, injecting them at diffusive shocks with a Mach-number- and obliquity-dependent efficiency and then advecting them with the gas. They find proton acceleration at essentially all structure-formation and accretion shocks around clusters and filaments, producing diffuse gamma-ray halos that extend to and beyond the virial radius. The cluster-averaged cosmic-ray-to-thermal pressure ratio comes out 2-3 orders of magnitude below the Fermi-LAT bound, and the corresponding gamma-ray flux and luminosity are 3-5 orders be

Load-bearing premise

The prediction depends on the simulation's shock finder capturing the shocks that accelerate cosmic rays, and the authors estimate it misses a factor of 1-2 orders of magnitude of dissipated energy at low Mach numbers and suppresses proton acceleration by another factor of 5-10 due to numerically biased shock obliquities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the prediction holds, cosmic-ray protons contribute negligibly to cluster pressure, so hydrostatic mass estimates need no significant correction for non-thermal support at this level.
  • Detecting diffuse gamma-ray emission from even the brightest cluster, Coma, will require a next-generation telescope with sensitivity below 10^-11 gamma s^-1 cm^-2; current instruments cannot reach it.
  • Emission from cosmic-web filaments and cluster outskirts is 4-5 orders of magnitude below cluster centers, making any near-term detection in those regions essentially impossible.
  • The simulated gamma-ray spectra are universal above 1 GeV with slope about -1, flatter than earlier analytic expectations, giving a concrete spectral prediction to test if emission is ever observed.
  • The result provides a lower-limit background for diffuse cluster emission, useful for searches for dark-matter annihilation signals in clusters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the shock finder's resolution gap is closed by higher-resolution zoom-ins (as the authors propose), the missing low-Mach-number shocks could raise the predicted flux by 1-2 orders of magnitude, potentially narrowing but not eliminating the gap to Fermi-LAT limits.
  • Recent 3D particle-in-cell results indicating proton acceleration at quasi-perpendicular shocks could add another factor of 5-10 to the emission, still likely leaving it below current bounds but changing the 'lower limit' status.
  • The closed low-momentum boundary and advection-only transport mean any additional source of low-energy protons—such as turbulent re-acceleration or a supra-thermal injection—would raise emission; a direct test would be running the same volume with an open boundary or streaming transport and comparing Coma's predicted flux.
  • If a future telescope detects cluster diffuse emission at the level predicted here, it would indicate that shock acceleration in clusters is more efficient than the conservative model assumes, or that non-shock CR sources contribute.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents predictions for diffuse gamma-ray emission from the local cosmic web and galaxy clusters, based on the first cosmological MHD simulation with an on-the-fly spectral cosmic-ray (CR) proton model. The simulation uses constrained initial conditions matching the local universe and follows CR injection at shocks (Ryu et al. 2019; Pais et al. 2018), adiabatic energy changes, and advection, with gamma rays computed from pion decay. The authors find CR protons accelerated at structure-formation shocks, producing diffuse gamma-ray fluxes a few orders of magnitude below current Fermi-LAT upper limits, and they state that a sensitivity of F_gamma < 10^-11 gamma s^-1 cm^-2 would be required to detect diffuse emission in Coma. The paper concludes that this provides a lower limit for diffuse emission from CR protons accelerated at structure-formation shocks.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions hold, this work would establish that shock-accelerated CR protons in the local universe radiate far below the current observable floor, and that the cluster-averaged CR-to-thermal pressure ratio is ~1e-4 to 1e-3, well below the ~1% Fermi-LAT bound. The paper's strengths include the first on-the-fly spectral CR treatment in a large cosmological MHD simulation, a gamma-ray emissivity calculation independently benchmarked against the minot package in App. B (agreement at the tens-of-percent level), and a direct comparison to external Fermi-LAT upper limits without fitting to the target observable. However, as discussed below, the central 'lower limit' claim and the specific Coma sensitivity threshold are not supported by the paper's own systematic-uncertainty analysis, so the significance of the exact numbers is lower than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6.2.1, Fig. 7, Abstract] The abstract's central claim that the results provide 'a lower limit for diffuse emission from CR protons accelerated at structure formation shocks' is contradicted by the paper's own parameter study. For weak shocks (q≈4.5–5) that dominate the cluster-center CR population (Fig. 3), the gamma-ray emissivity at fixed CR energy density varies by 2–3 orders of magnitude as p_inj is varied over the physically expected range (~0.01–1). The authors state that their fixed p_inj=0.1 'leads to an increased emission compared to typical values of p_inj when computed directly from Eq. 15.' Thus the simulated fluxes are likely overestimates, not lower limits, of pure DSA emission. The opposite bias from shock-finder resolution (Sec. 6.1) leaves the net direction uncertain. The 'lower limit' language should be revised or replaced with a statement about model-dependent prediction.
  2. [Sec. 6.1, Eq. (14); Sec. 4, Fig. 2] The predicted Coma detection floor, F_gamma < 10^-11 gamma s^-1 cm^-2, is presented as a quantitative result, but the paper's own estimates of systematic uncertainties are large and of opposite sign. The shock finder misses roughly 1–2 orders of magnitude of dissipated energy at low Mach number (Sec. 6.1), and the obliquity bias suppresses proton acceleration by a factor 5–10. Conversely, the fixed injection momentum p_inj=0.1 overproduces emission for weak shocks by up to 2–3 orders of magnitude (Sec. 6.2.1). Without propagating these biases into a conservative range, the specific sensitivity number is not reliable. The authors should either derive a lower limit using the lower envelope of their parameter study or explicitly label the Coma sensitivity as an order-of-magnitude estimate with large systematic uncertainty.
  3. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 2.3] The pressure ratio X_cr is reported as a lower limit in Sec. 4 (due to the ultra-relativistic approximation), while the gamma-ray emission is claimed as a lower limit in the abstract. This is internally inconsistent: the same numerical treatment that underestimates CR pressure also affects the low-momentum part of the spectrum, but the gamma-ray emissivity for steep weak-shock spectra is dominated by the choice of injection momentum, which the authors find overestimates emission relative to Eq. (15). The direction of the bias should be stated explicitly for each observable, and the 'lower limit' attribution for the gamma-ray flux should be corrected.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (7)] The flux formula seems to use Ω both as a solid angle and as a volume; please clarify the notation and define the integration domain.
  2. [Abstract] Typo: 'scattering offthe gas' should be 'scattering off the gas'.
  3. [Fig. 2] The y-axis label 'F [0.5−200] GeV [ cm−2 s−1]' should include 'γ' before 'cm^-2' to indicate photon units.
  4. [App. A, Eq. (A.5)] The piecewise definition of A_max(E_p) uses a threshold 'E_th^p' that is not explicitly defined; please define the threshold kinetic energy.
  5. [References] The reference for Stecker (1971) appears incomplete/odd: '1, Vol. 249, Cosmic gamma rays'. Please format it correctly.
  6. [Sec. 2.3] The statement that the closed lower boundary 'mimics low-momentum cooling on adiabatic compression' is unclear; please explain how a closed boundary represents cooling.
  7. [Fig. 7] The caption does not describe what the dashed lines represent; please add a sentence explaining the contours.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gamma-ray predictions are model outputs benchmarked against external data, not fitted targets or self-citation-forced results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained as a numerical experiment: constrained local-universe initial conditions (Sorce et al. 2018; Dolag et al. 2023) are evolved with OpenGadget3, CR protons are followed with the Crescendo Fokker-Planck solver, injection is prescribed by the external DSA parametrizations of Ryu et al. (2019) and Pais et al. (2018), and the gamma-ray emissivity is computed from the Kafexhiu et al. (2014) pion-decay parametrization (Sec. 2.4). The resulting fluxes and luminosities are then compared with Fermi-LAT upper limits (Ackermann et al. 2014) and with dedicated cluster observations in Secs. 4 and 5.2. No parameter in this chain is fitted to the Fermi-LAT limits or to the Coma gamma-ray data; the acceleration efficiency, injection slope, obliquity dependence, and pion-production cross-section all come from prior external literature or from the simulation dynamics. The gamma-ray calculation is additionally cross-checked against the independent minot package in App. B (Fig. B.1). Self-citations such as Crescendo (Boss et al. 2023b) and Paper I (Boss et al. 2024) are method and setup references rather than load-bearing justifications, and the paper explicitly identifies its own sensitivity/robustness caveats in Secs. 6.1 and 6.2.1. Those caveats, including the fixed p_inj=0.1 possibly increasing emission relative to Eq. 15, bear on whether the quoted numbers are robust lower limits, but they do not make the prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction. The central claim is therefore not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; CR protons and electrons are standard astrophysical populations modeled with established DSA physics. The ledger is dominated by model choices (p_inj, efficiency parametrization, discretization) and domain assumptions (advection-only transport, shock-finder completeness, constrained-IC fidelity), all of which the paper itself discusses in Sec. 6. The single most influential free parameter is p_inj because Fig. 7 shows gamma-ray emissivity varies by 2-3 orders of magnitude at weak shocks across the plausible injection-momentum range.

free parameters (5)
  • CR injection momentum p_inj = 0.1 m_p c
    Fixed by hand as a compromise between typical accretion-shock injection (p_inj ~ 0.01) and merger-shock injection (p_inj ~ 1) (Sec. 2.3). Fig. 7 shows that for weak shocks (M_s ~ 2-3, q = 4.5-5) the gamma-ray emissivity drops by 2-3 orders of magnitude when p_inj is reduced, so this hand choice directly sets the predicted flux. The paper notes the fixed value over-produces relative to on-the-fly i
  • Momentum-space discretization and closed lower boundary = 6 bins per decade, p_hat in [0.1, 10^5]
    Numerical scheme choice (Sec. 2.3). The closed lower boundary flattens the lowest bin (Fig. 3); the paper argues this does not affect the pi0-decay channel because the production threshold (1.22 GeV) lies above the flattened bin.
  • Electron-to-proton energy ratio K_ep = 0.01
    Fixed at injection (Sec. 2.3). Not directly involved in the proton gamma-ray channel but sets the electron cooling/radio side of the same simulation used in Paper I.
  • Acceleration efficiency model (Ryu et al. 2019 with Pais et al. 2018 obliquity dependence) = eta(M_s, X_cr, theta_B) from literature
    Adopted parametrization rather than fit here. Sec. 6.2.3 states that switching to Ensslin et al. (2007)-style efficiencies would raise weak-shock CR injection by roughly an order of magnitude and strong-shock injection by a factor of 20, so the choice of efficiency model is effectively a free parameter at the level of the predictions.
  • Reference CR pressure ratio X_cr = 0.05 = 0.05
    The value in the Ryu et al. (2019) model at which re-acceleration is interpolated (Sec. 6.2.3). The simulation rarely reaches this value, so the model is dominated by initial acceleration from the thermal pool, which is inefficient at low Mach number.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Diffusive shock acceleration parametrization of Ryu et al. (2019) is valid in the ICM/IGM regime and only operates for M_s > 2.25
    Invoked in Sec. 2.3 to set CR injection; Sec. 6.2.3 notes the M_s > 2.25 floor narrows the shock population available for CR production.
  • domain assumption Shock obliquity-dependent acceleration efficiency (Caprioli & Spitkovsky 2014; Pais et al. 2018) suppresses protons at quasi-perpendicular shocks
    Sec. 2.3 and Fig. 6: the paper finds this suppresses available CR energy by a factor 5-10, and recent 3D work (Orusa et al. 2025) questions the suppression, so the result is sensitive to this premise.
  • domain assumption CR proton transport is dominated by advection; diffusion is negligible
    Sec. 2.3: 'CR diffusion is not included as its cost is computationally prohibitive', justified by Reichherzer et al. (2025) showing efficient ICM confinement. If diffusion or streaming operate, spectra flatten and central fluxes redistribute (Sec. 6.3).
  • domain assumption pi0-decay dominates the 0.1-100 GeV band and the Kafexhiu et al. (2014) cross-section parametrization is accurate
    Sec. 2.4.1; benchmarked against minot (App. B) with residuals at the tens-of-percent level. Bremsstrahlung and inverse-Compton are asserted sub-dominant by roughly an order of magnitude via Yang et al. (2018).
  • domain assumption Constrained initial conditions from CosmicFlows-2 (Wiener filter reconstruction) faithfully represent the local universe
    Sec. 2.1; the Coma/Virgo/Perseus 'replicas' and the distance-dependent fluxes/cross-identifications with observed clusters (Hernandez-Martinez et al. 2024) rely on the field resemblance.
  • domain assumption Proton energy losses (Coulomb, hadronic) are negligible over the cluster evolution; only adiabatic changes are applied on the fly
    Sec. 3.1 asserts cluster-centre Coulomb cooling times are of order the Hubble time (Blasi et al. 2007); hadronic losses are applied only in the post-processing emissivity, which is consistent for the gamma-ray calculation.
  • domain assumption Planck 2014 cosmology and the 500 h^-1 Mpc box with 3072^3 particles adequately resolve cluster-scale shocks
    Sec. 2.1-2.2; the resolution limitation is the crux of Sec. 6.1 and the paper's own stated reason its results under-predict CR injection at low Mach number.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating the LOcal Web (SLOW) -- VI: Gamma-ray Emission in the Local Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYNLJJ22

@misc{pith2026251015634,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating the LOcal Web (SLOW) -- VI: Gamma-ray Emission in the Local Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYNLJJ22}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.15634}
}
abstract

Context: Diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission from cosmic-ray (CR) protons scattering off the gas in the intracluster and intergalactic medium remains out of reach for current observations. Detecting this emission would provide constraints on the nonthermal pressure support by CR protons in these environments. Aims: We provide estimates for diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission in the \textit{Fermi}-LAT band from galaxy clusters and the cosmic web in the local Universe. Methods: In this work, we show results from the first cosmological magnetohydrodynamic simulation with an on-the-fly spectral CR model. We modeled CR injection at shocks, accounted for adiabatic energy changes and advection of CR protons, and obtained their $\gamma$-ray emissivity directly from the simulated CR energy density and spectra. To do this, we used constrained initial conditions that evolved in a field closely resembling that of the local Universe, allowing a direct comparison to \textit{Fermi}-LAT data on massive clusters. Results: We find CR proton acceleration at all structure formation and accretion shocks in galaxy clusters and cosmic web filaments. These protons provide the basis for diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission in these regimes. The absolute value of the diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission in our simulation lies a few orders of magnitude below the current upper limits found by \textit{Fermi}-LAT. Under the assumption of our model, a sensitivity of $F_\gamma < 10^{-11} \: \gamma~ \text{s}^{-1}~\text{cm}^{-2}$ would be required for a detection of diffuse emission in Coma. This provides a lower limit for diffuse emission from CR protons accelerated at structure formation shocks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.15634 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Full-sky projection in galactic co￾ordinates of simulation box. Top: CR proton pressure component as the mean value along the line of sight be￾tween r = 10 − 300 Mpc. This shows predominantly the total injected proton component with adiabatic compression as it settles into the higher-density re￾gions of clusters and filaments. Circles indicate the projected rvir of each of the labeled cluster matches. Bottom: Integr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results for clusters and groups in the simulation box with a virial mass Mvir > 5×1013M⊙. Top panel: CR proton to thermal pressure ratio obtained in the momentum range ˆp ∈ [0.1, 105 ]. Middle panel: γ-ray flux obtained at the position of our point of view in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mean distribution function in energy space, within our Coma cluster replica. We bin the spectra in 20 radial bins indicated by the different colors. The vertical dashed line indicates the threshold energy beyond which protons can be scattered into π 0 -ons. We find that the reason for this discrepancy is two-fold: One reason is the numerical behavior of our shock finder. As dis￾cussed in Paper I, our shock finder is… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We show the integrated γ-ray intensity for three prominent clusters. Each image has a width of 3rvir of the respective cluster. The top panels show the simulation output. The bottom panels show the same images as above but smoothed with a Gaussian beam with the single …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Integrated γ-ray spectra for our three selected clusters: Coma, Virgo and Perseus. Solid lines show our results, while arrows indicate the upper limits from observations, where available. Different dashed lines show the results from applying the model by Pfrommer & Enß…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: γ-ray emissivity as a function of spectral slope q and injec￾tion momentum ˆpinj for a fixed total energy density in CR protons. The dashed lines show contours spaced by half an order of magnitude. Ryu et al. (2003); Schaal & Springel (2015); Banfi et al. (2020), we fi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. CRESCENDO II: Spectral cosmic rays with improved energy losses and realistic supernova seeding

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    CRESCENDO's spectral cosmic-ray solver now includes improved energy-loss processes, non-ultra-relativistic energy/pressure integrals, and supernova-remnant template injection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2024, , 2024, 004

    Abe , K., Abe , S., Acero , F., et al. 2024, , 2024, 004

    2024

  4. [4]

    A., Agudo , I., Aniello , T., et al

    Acciari , V. A., Agudo , I., Aniello , T., et al. 2023, , 670, A145

    2023

  5. [5]

    2014, , 787, 18

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Albert , A., et al. 2014, , 787, 18

    2014

  6. [6]

    2016, , 819, 149

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Albert , A., et al. 2016, , 819, 149

    2016

  7. [7]

    2015, , 812, 159

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Albert , A., et al. 2015, , 812, 159

    2015

  8. [8]

    2021, , 648, A60

    Adam , R., Goksu , H., Brown , S., Rudnick , L., & Ferrari , C. 2021, , 648, A60

    2021

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    2020, , 644, A70

    Adam , R., Goksu , H., Leing \"a rtner-Goth , A., et al. 2020, , 644, A70

    2020

  2. [10]

    A., Antonelli , L

    Aleksi \'c , J., Alvarez , E. A., Antonelli , L. A., et al. 2012, , 541, A99

    2012

  3. [11]

    A., Antoranz , P., et al

    Aleksi \'c , J., Antonelli , L. A., Antoranz , P., et al. 2010, , 710, 634

    2010

  4. [12]

    & Saveliev , A

    Alves Batista , R. & Saveliev , A. 2020, , 902, L11

    2020

  5. [13]

    & Saveliev , A

    Alves Batista , R. & Saveliev , A. 2021, Universe, 7, 223

    2021

  6. [14]

    2016, , 94, 083005

    Alves Batista , R., Saveliev , A., Sigl , G., & Vachaspati , T. 2016, , 94, 083005

    2016

  7. [15]

    M., Petkova , M., & Lesch , H

    Arth , A., Dolag , K., Beck , A. M., Petkova , M., & Lesch , H. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.6533

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    B., Abdo , A

    Atwood , W. B., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2009, , 697, 1071

    2009

  9. [17]

    2022, , 516, 562

    Baghmanyan , V., Zargaryan , D., Aharonian , F., et al. 2022, , 516, 562

    2022

  10. [18]

    2020, , 496, 3648

    Banfi , S., Vazza , F., & Wittor , D. 2020, , 496, 3648

    2020

  11. [19]

    M., Murante , G., Arth , A., et al

    Beck , A. M., Murante , G., Arth , A., et al. 2016, , 455, 2110

    2016

  12. [20]

    2007, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 22, 681

    Blasi , P., Gabici , S., & Brunetti , G. 2007, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 22, 681

    2007

  13. [21]

    & Werner , N

    B \"o hringer , H. & Werner , N. 2010, , 18, 127

    2010

  14. [22]

    2011, , 418, 2234

    Bonafede , A., Dolag , K., Stasyszyn , F., Murante , G., & Borgani , S. 2011, , 418, 2234

    2011

  15. [23]

    M., Dolag , K., Steinwandel , U

    B \"o ss , L. M., Dolag , K., Steinwandel , U. P., et al. 2024, , 692, A232

    2024

  16. [24]

    M., Steinwandel , U

    B \"o ss , L. M., Steinwandel , U. P., & Dolag , K. 2023 a , , 957, L16

    2023

  17. [25]

    M., Steinwandel , U

    B \"o ss , L. M., Steinwandel , U. P., Dolag , K., & Lesch , H. 2023 b , , 519, 548

    2023

  18. [26]

    u ggen , M., Bykov , A., Ryu , D., & R \

    Br \"u ggen , M., Bykov , A., Ryu , D., & R \"o ttgering , H. 2012, , 166, 187

    2012

  19. [27]

    & Jones , T

    Brunetti , G. & Jones , T. W. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430007

    2014

  20. [28]

    & Lazarian , A

    Brunetti , G. & Lazarian , A. 2007, , 378, 245

    2007

  21. [29]

    M., Vazza , F., Kropotina , J

    Bykov , A. M., Vazza , F., Kropotina , J. A., Levenfish , K. P., & Paerels , F. B. S. 2019, , 215, 14

    2019

  22. [30]

    C., & Blasi , P

    Caprioli , D., Haggerty , C. C., & Blasi , P. 2020, , 905, 2

    2020

  23. [31]

    & Spitkovsky , A

    Caprioli , D. & Spitkovsky , A. 2014, , 783, 91

    2014

  24. [32]

    D., Ferrer , F., Tashiro , H., & Vachaspati , T

    Chen , W., Chowdhury , B. D., Ferrer , F., Tashiro , H., & Vachaspati , T. 2015, , 450, 3371

    2015

  25. [33]

    & Dehnen , W

    Cullen , L. & Dehnen , W. 2010, , 408, 669

    2010

  26. [34]

    & Aly , H

    Dehnen , W. & Aly , H. 2012, , 425, 1068

    2012

  27. [35]

    J., Hoeft , M., et al

    Di Gennaro , G., van Weeren , R. J., Hoeft , M., et al. 2018, , 865, 24

    2018

  28. [36]

    2005 a , , 2005, 009

    Dolag , K., Grasso , D., Springel , V., & Tkachev , I. 2005 a , , 2005, 009

    2005

  29. [37]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1078

    Dolag, K., Kachelrie , M., Ostapchenko, S., & Tom \` a s, R. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1078

    2009

  30. [38]

    G., Pilipenko , S., et al

    Dolag , K., Sorce , J. G., Pilipenko , S., et al. 2023, , 677, A169

    2023

  31. [39]

    2005 b , , 364, 753

    Dolag , K., Vazza , F., Brunetti , G., & Tormen , G. 2005 b , , 364, 753

    2005

  32. [40]

    2013 a , , 430, 902

    Doumler , T., Courtois , H., Gottl \"o ber , S., & Hoffman , Y. 2013 a , , 430, 902

    2013

  33. [41]

    2013 b , , 430, 912

    Doumler , T., Gottl \"o ber , S., Hoffman , Y., & Courtois , H. 2013 b , , 430, 912

    2013

  34. [42]

    2013 c , , 430, 888

    Doumler , T., Hoffman , Y., Courtois , H., & Gottl \"o ber , S. 2013 c , , 430, 888

    2013

  35. [43]

    2011, , 527, A99

    En lin , T., Pfrommer , C., Miniati , F., & Subramanian , K. 2011, , 527, A99

    2011

  36. [44]

    A., Pfrommer , C., Springel , V., & Jubelgas , M

    En lin , T. A., Pfrommer , C., Springel , V., & Jubelgas , M. 2007, , 473, 41

    2007

  37. [45]

    2020, , 491, 993

    Girichidis , P., Pfrommer , C., Hanasz , M., & Naab , T. 2020, , 491, 993

    2020

  38. [46]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski , K. M., Hivon , E., Banday , A. J., et al. 2005, , 622, 759

    2005

  39. [47]

    P., Valentini , M., & Dolag , K

    Groth , F., Steinwandel , U. P., Valentini , M., & Dolag , K. 2023, , 526, 616

    2023

  40. [48]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration , Aharonian , F., Ait Benkhali , F., et al. 2023, , 675, A138

    2023

  41. [49]

    2020, , 892, 86

    Ha , J.-H., Ryu , D., & Kang , H. 2020, , 892, 86

    2020

  42. [50]

    2023, , 943, 119

    Ha , J.-H., Ryu , D., & Kang , H. 2023, , 943, 119

    2023

  43. [51]

    Ha , J.-H., Ryu , D., Kang , H., & van Marle , A. J. 2018, , 864, 105

    2018

  44. [52]

    W., & Girichidis , P

    Hanasz , M., Strong , A. W., & Girichidis , P. 2021, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 7, 2

    2021

  45. [53]

    2024, , 687, A253

    Hern \'a ndez-Mart \' nez , E., Dolag , K., Seidel , B., et al. 2024, , 687, A253

    2024

  46. [54]

    & Ribak , E

    Hoffman , Y. & Ribak , E. 1991, , 380, L5

    1991

  47. [55]

    F., Butsky , I

    Hopkins , P. F., Butsky , I. S., Panopoulou , G. V., et al. 2022, , 516, 3470

    2022

  48. [56]

    2004, , 351, 423

    Jubelgas , M., Springel , V., & Dolag , K. 2004, , 351, 423

    2004

  49. [57]

    M., & Vila, G

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

    2014

  50. [58]

    & Jones , T

    Kang , H. & Jones , T. W. 2007, Astroparticle Physics, 28, 232

    2007

  51. [59]

    & Ryu , D

    Kang , H. & Ryu , D. 2013, , 764, 95

    2013

  52. [60]

    G., Aghanim , N., Hern \'a ndez-Mart \' nez , E., & Dolag , K

    Lebeau , T., Sorce , J. G., Aghanim , N., Hern \'a ndez-Mart \' nez , E., & Dolag , K. 2024, , 682, A157

    2024

  53. [61]

    2001, Computer Physics Communications, 141, 17

    Miniati, F. 2001, Computer Physics Communications, 141, 17

    2001

  54. [62]

    & Semikoz , D

    Neronov , A. & Semikoz , D. V. 2007, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters, 85, 473

    2007

  55. [63]

    & Semikoz , D

    Neronov , A. & Semikoz , D. V. 2009, , 80, 123012

    2009

  56. [64]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.13436

    Orusa , L., Caprioli , D., Sironi , L., & Spitkovsky , A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.13436

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    2018, , 478, 5278

    Pais , M., Pfrommer , C., Ehlert , K., & Pakmor , R. 2018, , 478, 5278

    2018

  58. [66]

    & En lin , T

    Pfrommer , C. & En lin , T. A. 2004, , 413, 17

    2004

  59. [67]

    & Pfrommer , C

    Pinzke , A. & Pfrommer , C. 2010, , 409, 449

    2010

  60. [68]

    2011, , 84, 123509

    Pinzke , A., Pfrommer , C., & Bergstr \"o m , L. 2011, , 84, 123509

    2011

  61. [69]

    1995, , 374, 430

    Plaga , R. 1995, , 374, 430

    1995

  62. [70]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2014, , 571, A16

    2014

  63. [71]

    Prokhorov , D. A. & Churazov , E. M. 2014, , 567, A93

    2014

  64. [72]

    Reichherzer , P., Bott , A. F. A., Ewart , R. J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 438

    2025

  65. [73]

    2019, , 883, 60

    Ryu , D., Kang , H., & Ha , J.-H. 2019, , 883, 60

    2019

  66. [74]

    Ryu , D., Kang , H., Hallman , E., & Jones , T. W. 2003, , 593, 599

    2003

  67. [75]

    & Springel , V

    Schaal , K. & Springel , V. 2015, , 446, 3992

    2015

  68. [76]

    W., Xu , H., Hallman , E

    Skillman , S. W., Xu , H., Hallman , E. J., et al. 2013, , 765, 21

    2013

  69. [77]

    Sorce , J. G. 2015, , 450, 2644

    2015

  70. [78]

    Sorce , J. G. 2018, , 478, 5199

    2018

  71. [79]

    G., Courtois , H

    Sorce , J. G., Courtois , H. M., Gottl \"o ber , S., Hoffman , Y., & Tully , R. B. 2014, , 437, 3586

    2014

  72. [80]

    G., Hoffman , Y., & Gottl \"o ber , S

    Sorce , J. G., Hoffman , Y., & Gottl \"o ber , S. 2017, , 468, 1812

    2017

  73. [81]

    Sorce , J. G. & Tempel , E. 2017, , 469, 2859

    2017

  74. [82]

    Sorce , J. G. & Tempel , E. 2018, , 476, 4362

    2018

  75. [83]

    2005, , 364, 1105

    Springel , V. 2005, , 364, 1105

    2005

  76. [84]

    Stecker , F. W. 1971, 1, Vol. 249, Cosmic gamma rays

    1971

  77. [85]

    2016, , 455, 2402

    Stroe , A., Shimwell , T., Rumsey , C., et al. 2016, , 455, 2402

    2016

  78. [86]

    J., Intema , H

    Stroe , A., van Weeren , R. J., Intema , H. T., et al. 2013, , 555, A110

    2013

  79. [87]

    S., Price , D

    Tricco , T. S., Price , D. J., & Bate , M. R. 2016, Journal of Computational Physics, 322, 326

    2016

  80. [88]

    B., Courtois , H

    Tully , R. B., Courtois , H. M., Dolphin , A. E., et al. 2013, , 146, 86

    2013

  81. [89]

    J., de Gasperin, F., Akamatsu, H., et al

    van Weeren, R. J., de Gasperin, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2019, Space Science Reviews, 215

    2019

  82. [90]

    2016, , 459, 70

    Vazza , F., Br \"u ggen , M., Wittor , D., et al. 2016, , 459, 70

    2016

  83. [91]

    2011, , 418, 960

    Vazza , F., Dolag , K., Ryu , D., et al. 2011, , 418, 960

    2011

  84. [92]

    2023, , 525, 4437

    Werhahn , M., Girichidis , P., Pfrommer , C., & Whittingham , J. 2023, , 525, 4437

    2023

  85. [93]

    2021, , 505, 3295

    Werhahn , M., Pfrommer , C., Girichidis , P., & Winner , G. 2021, , 505, 3295

    2021

  86. [94]

    P., & Guo , F

    Wiener , J., Oh , S. P., & Guo , F. 2013, , 434, 2209

    2013

  87. [95]

    G., & Oh , S

    Wiener , J., Zweibel , E. G., & Oh , S. P. 2018, , 473, 3095

    2018

  88. [96]

    2021, New Astronomy, 85, 101550

    Wittor, D. 2021, New Astronomy, 85, 101550

    2021

  89. [97]

    2017, , 464, 4448

    Wittor , D., Vazza , F., & Br \"u ggen , M. 2017, , 464, 4448

    2017

  90. [98]

    2018, , 98, 063006

    Xi , S.-Q., Wang , X.-Y., Liang , Y.-F., et al. 2018, , 98, 063006

    2018

  91. [99]

    2018, , 615, A108

    Yang , R.-z., Kafexhiu , E., & Aharonian , F. 2018, , 615, A108

    2018

  92. [100]

    B., & Lahav , O

    Zaroubi , S., Hoffman , Y., Fisher , K. B., & Lahav , O. 1995, , 449, 446

    1995

  93. [101]

    1998, , 500, L87

    Zaroubi , S., Squires , G., Hoffman , Y., & Silk , J. 1998, , 500, L87

    1998

  94. [102]

    R., & Zhuravleva , I

    Zhang , C., Churazov , E., Dolag , K., Forman , W. R., & Zhuravleva , I. 2020 a , , 498, L130

    2020

  95. [103]

    R., & Zhuravleva , I

    Zhang , C., Churazov , E., Dolag , K., Forman , W. R., & Zhuravleva , I. 2020 b , , 494, 4539

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.