Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

A single standard supernova remnant cannot explain G106.3+2.7's full gamma-ray spectrum from GeV to hundreds of TeV; the highest energies point to the pulsar.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 16:11 UTC pith:EHOTWQLN

load-bearing objection Solid source-specific application of standard DSA that cleanly shows ordinary single-SNR models struggle with the full GeV–100 TeV spectrum of G106.3+2.7, though the “points to the pulsar” claim overreaches the pure-hadronic grid. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.28701 v1 pith:EHOTWQLN submitted 2026-03-30 astro-ph.HE

Can a single supernova remnant account for the gamma-ray emission of G106.3+2.7?

P. Cristofari , G. Emery , T. Lubrano di Vavaria , H. Costantini , F. Cassol , M.-S. Carrasco , B. Le Nagat Neher This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supernova remnantsPeVatrondiffusive shock accelerationgamma-ray emissionG106.3+2.7clumpy mediumpulsar associationvery-high-energy gamma rays
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

G106.3+2.7 has been discussed as a possible supernova-remnant PeVatron because its gamma rays reach hundreds of TeV with little spectral cutoff. This paper tests whether one active SNR shock, expanding into a clumpy or cloudy medium, can power both the head and the tail emission. Simple analytical models of shock dynamics and particle acceleration show that the TeV spectra of the head and the harder tail can be matched by a young remnant, with spectral hardening arising naturally from clumps or from particles that escape into denser gas. When the same models are asked to fit the entire broadband spectrum from GeV to greater than or equal to 100 TeV, however, only extreme explosion energies and acceleration efficiencies work, and even those remain awkward. The authors therefore conclude that the highest-energy particles are more naturally associated with the nearby pulsar than with ordinary DSA at the SNR shock.

Core claim

The observed TeV emission from the head and tail of G106.3+2.7 can be produced by a single active SNR shock that expands into clumps or whose particles illuminate a dense cloud, but the full GeV-to-hundreds-of-TeV spectrum cannot be reconciled with a standard thermonuclear or core-collapse remnant and instead points toward an association with the pulsar.

What carries the argument

A time-dependent analytical model of DSA at an SNR shock whose maximum particle momentum is set by saturation of non-resonant Bell streaming instabilities (Eq. 1), combined with thin-shell dynamics in a structured circumstellar medium and with simple treatments of trapped particles, clumps, and escaped particles that illuminate a nearby cloud.

Load-bearing premise

The maximum energy particles can reach is fixed by the growth and saturation of non-resonant streaming instabilities, which keeps ordinary remnants below about 100 TeV after roughly one thousand years and forces any PeV solution to invoke extreme parameters or a non-SNR origin.

What would settle it

Higher-angular-resolution maps of the source above 10–100 TeV that spatially separate the highest-energy emission from both the radio head and the CO-associated tail, or that place a clear centroid on the pulsar, would decide whether the PeV particles belong to the remnant or to the pulsar.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether a single SNR shock can power the gamma-ray emission of G106.3+2.7, focusing on the head and tail TeV components and the broadband GeV–≳100 TeV spectrum. Using thin-shell shock dynamics, a particle continuity equation with energy-dependent escape, and standard hadronic emissivities, the authors show that MAGIC head/tail spectra can be reproduced by an active SNR, with spectral hardening in the tail from clumps or escaped CRs illuminating denser gas. A 7-parameter pure-hadronic CCSN grid fit to Fermi-LAT, VERITAS and LHAASO data selects only young, high-energy (E_SN ≳ 7×10^51 erg), high-efficiency (ξ ≳ 0.22) solutions. They conclude that a standard SNR (Type Ia or II) cannot account for the full broadband spectrum and that the ≳100 TeV emission instead points to the pulsar (or a hybrid SNR–pulsar picture).

Significance. G106.3+2.7 is a leading candidate SNR PeVatron; a careful, physically motivated assessment of whether DSA at a single remnant can explain the hard multi-TeV spectrum is timely and useful. Strengths include transparent use of standard DSA/Bell p_max machinery (Eq. 1), explicit clump and cloud scenarios tied to CO data, and a documented grid search (Table 1) that makes the need for extreme parameters quantitative rather than qualitative. The paper correctly flags hybrid SNR–PWN interpretations as well-motivated. If the tempered conclusion holds—that ordinary SNRs struggle as sole PeV sources here—it strengthens the case for composite systems and for high-resolution ≳10–100 TeV morphology (e.g. CTAO) as the decisive test.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract, §3.3 and Conclusions claim that “in all scenarios” the GeV–≳100 TeV spectrum is difficult to reconcile with a standard SNR and “points toward an association with the pulsar.” The quantitative support is the pure-hadronic CCSN grid of §3.3 (Table 1; likelihood Eq. 4). That grid never includes a leptonic (IC) component, never mixes SNR + PWN contributions, and never allows ordinary Type Ia/II parameters once a separate high-energy component is admitted. The paper itself notes (§3.2) that a pure-leptonic SNR scenario can fit MAGIC head/tail spectra and that hybrid pictures are “physically well-motivated,” yet these are not folded into the likelihood. The wording should be restricted to what was actually optimized (pure-hadronic single-SNR models), or the grid should be extended to hybrid cases before claiming “all scenarios.”
  2. §2, Eq. (1) and Fig. 3: the conclusion that ordinary SNRs fall below ~100 TeV after ~1 kyr rests on p_max set by saturation of non-resonant (Bell) streaming instabilities. This is a standard and defensible choice, but it is load-bearing: alternative amplification channels, longer confinement, or re-acceleration could raise p_max without extreme E_SN/ξ. The manuscript should state more clearly that the rejection of standard SNRs is conditional on this p_max prescription (and on pure-hadronic single-source emission), and briefly discuss how the preferred ranges in Table 1 would shift if p_max were allowed to be higher by a factor of a few.
  3. §3.1–3.2 and Fig. 1: the source is elongated (head–tail), yet the dynamical model is spherical and the angular-size–age–distance mapping (Fig. 2) uses a single diameter. The text asserts that elongation does not disfavor spectral solutions, but the head and tail are treated as different target environments of the same shock without a joint morphological constraint (e.g. whether one shock radius can simultaneously illuminate both the head and the CO-associated tail at the preferred distances ~3–6 kpc of Table 1 versus the ~0.8 kpc CO distance). A short quantitative consistency check—or an explicit statement that morphology is left unconstrained—would strengthen the single-SNR claim for the TeV components.
minor comments (5)
  1. §3.3: VERITAS is preferred over MAGIC for the broadband fit “as they appear slightly more consistent with the Fermi-LAT data,” but no quantitative comparison or systematic treatment of different extraction regions is given. A sentence on how swapping MAGIC for VERITAS changes the preferred ranges would help.
  2. Table 1: “most recurring” and “preferred range” are useful but the total number of models retained at 90% CL and the grid volume are not stated; adding N_accepted / N_total would make the sampling transparent.
  3. Fig. 4 caption and §2.2: clump filling factor 0.01, L_c = 0.1 pc, L_tr ~ 0.05 pc are fixed; a brief note that the TeV normalization can trade off against filling factor / n_c (as already said for shell thickness) would avoid the impression that these are unique.
  4. Typographical / presentation: “stands appart” (Introduction); “T eV” with space in a subsection title; duplicate Xin et al. 2019 entries in the reference list; “G106.3+27” once instead of G106.3+2.7.
  5. §2.1: shell thickness Δr = 0.05 r_sh is fixed with the remark that volume–density–ξ trade-offs absorb the choice; stating the adopted n_0 (or range) used for the head/tail normalizations in Fig. 4 would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: model spectra are generated from independent DSA/Bell dynamics then fitted; extreme-parameter preference is ordinary inference, not a tautology.

full rationale

The paper's chain is self-contained and non-circular. Particle spectra follow from the standard DSA injection Q(p,t) plus the Bell-instability p_max formula (Eq. 1), which is taken from the external literature (Bell et al. 2013; Schure & Bell) and is not defined from the G106.3+2.7 data. Clump and cloud scenarios (Secs. 2.2–2.3) introduce free but observationally bounded parameters (filling factor, n_c, cloud mass/distance) that are varied to illustrate spectral hardening; they are not fitted to force the TeV head/tail match. The broadband exercise (Sec. 3.3) is an explicit 7-parameter grid search whose likelihood is evaluated against Fermi/VERITAS/LHAASO points; the resulting preference for young, high-E_SN, high-ξ solutions is ordinary parameter inference, not a prediction that reduces by construction to the inputs. Self-citations (Cristofari et al.) supply background methods and are not used as uniqueness theorems that forbid alternatives. The paper itself notes that pure-leptonic and hybrid SNR–pulsar pictures remain viable, so the strongest claim is an interpretive extrapolation rather than a circular derivation. No equation equals its own input, and no fitted quantity is re-labeled a first-principles prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard DSA and Bell-amplification machinery plus a handful of free parameters that are scanned against the observed spectrum. No new physical entities are invented; the ‘Type II*’ extreme progenitor is simply a corner of the existing parameter space. The ledger therefore consists mainly of fitted dynamical and acceleration parameters and of domain assumptions taken from the SNR literature.

free parameters (7)
  • acceleration efficiency ξ = ≳0.22 (best-fit 0.25)
    Fraction of ram pressure converted into CRs; scanned 0.01–0.31, preferred ≳0.22 to match broadband flux.
  • explosion energy E_SN = ≳7×10^51 erg (best-fit 9.5)
    Total kinetic energy of the supernova; scanned 0.5–10 ×10^51 erg, preferred ≳7×10^51 erg.
  • spectral index α = best-fit 4.4
    Power-law index of accelerated particles at the shock; scanned 3.5–4.5.
  • SNR age = 0.6–1.3 kyr
    Time since explosion; scanned ~0.6–10 kyr, preferred ≲1.3 kyr.
  • distance = 2.9–6 kpc
    Heliocentric distance; scanned 0.8–10.8 kpc, preferred 3–6 kpc for broadband fit.
  • mass-loss rate Ṁ and ejecta mass M_ej = Ṁ spans full range; M_ej prefers 1–7 M_⊙
    Progenitor wind and ejecta parameters that set the CSM density profile; largely degenerate.
  • clump filling factor / cloud mass & distance = filling factor 0.01; cloud n~10^2 cm^-3, R=5 pc, d=10 pc (illustrative)
    Target density for hadronic gamma rays in the tail; set by hand within observational bounds.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Maximum momentum set by saturation of non-resonant Bell instabilities (Eq. 1)
    Taken from Bell et al. (2013) and used throughout Sec. 2–3 to argue that ordinary SNRs fall below ~100 TeV after ~1 kyr.
  • domain assumption Test-particle DSA with power-law injection Q(p) ∝ p^-α and thin-shell adiabatic losses
    Standard framework of Sec. 2; α left free but assumed constant in time.
  • domain assumption Spherical thin-shell hydrodynamics in a structured CSM (RSG wind + bubble)
    Used to map age–distance–angular-size (Fig. 2) despite the observed elongated morphology.
  • ad hoc to paper Hadronic gamma rays dominate; leptonic contribution can be neglected for the broadband fit
    Explicitly adopted in Sec. 3.3 grid search; leptonic scenarios are only mentioned qualitatively in Sec. 3.2.
  • domain assumption Clumps survive for a crushing time τ_cc and are penetrated in Bohm diffusion
    Taken from Gabici & Aharonian (2014) and Inoue et al.; used to harden the tail spectrum.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 19733 in / 3410 out tokens · 30199 ms · 2026-07-13T16:11:38.913021+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can a single supernova remnant account for the gamma-ray emission of G106.3+2.7?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EHOTWQLN

@misc{pith2026260328701,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can a single supernova remnant account for the gamma-ray emission of G106.3+2.7?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EHOTWQLN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.28701}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

SNR G106.3+2.7 is a complex TeV emitting source whose emission is still poorly understood. It has especially been at the center of numerous discussions on its potential for being a supernova remnant (SNR) PeVatron, since its gamma-ray spectra seems not to exhibit any significant suppression in the multi--TeV range, up to $\sim 600$ TeV, thereby indicating the presence of $\sim$ PeV particles. We study the hypothesis in which a SNR evolving in a clumpy or cloudy environment is powering the TeV gamma-ray emission, detected mainly from two regions, the "head" and the "tail". We discuss the implications of such an hypothesis. We rely on a simple physically motivated analytical modeling of the shock dynamics and of the content of accelerated particles and confront it to available gamma-ray observations. We find that the current observed TeV gamma-ray emission in the head and tail regions can be accounted for by an active single SNR, with a natural hardening of the spectrum due to the expansion in a clumpy medium or escaping to a dense region in the tail. However, in all scenarios, the broadband gamma-ray emission from the GeV range to the $\gtrsim 100$ TeV range is difficult to reconcile with a standard SNR - whether originating from a thermonuclear or a core-collapse supernova - and instead points toward an association with the pulsar.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1331

    2009

  2. [2]

    A., Aliu, E., Arlen, T., et al

    Acciari, V . A., Aliu, E., Arlen, T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, L6

    2009

  3. [3]

    2023, Astroparticle Physics, 150, 102850

    Acero, F., Acharyya, A., Adam, R., et al. 2023, Astroparticle Physics, 150, 102850

    2023

  4. [4]

    2012, A&A, 547, A114

    Aharonian, F., Khangulyan, D., & Malyshev, D. 2012, A&A, 547, A114

    2012

  5. [5]

    2020, ApJ, 896, L29 Aleksi´c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, L29 Aleksi´c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 76

    2020

  6. [6]

    & Blasi, P

    Amato, E. & Blasi, P. 2005, MNRAS, 364, L76

    2005

  7. [7]

    I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G

    Axford, W. I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G. 1977, in International Cosmic Ray Con- ference, V ol. 11, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 132

    1977

  8. [8]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 443

    1978

  9. [9]

    Bell, A. R. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550

    2004

  10. [10]

    R., Schure, K

    Bell, A. R., Schure, K. M., Reville, B., & Giacinti, G. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 415

    2013

  11. [11]

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. & Silich, S. A. 1995, Reviews of Modern Physics, 67, 661

    1995

  12. [12]

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

    1978

  13. [13]

    2013, A&A Rev., 21, 70

    Blasi, P. 2013, A&A Rev., 21, 70

    2013

  14. [14]

    2019, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie, 42, 549

    Blasi, P. 2019, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie, 42, 549

    2019

  15. [15]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.17030

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.17030

    arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    X., et al

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., Bai, Y . X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.26112

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    A., An, Q., et al

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F. A., An, Q., et al. 2021, Nature, 594, 33

    2021

  18. [18]

    2009, MNRAS, 396, 2065

    Caprioli, D., Blasi, P., & Amato, E. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 2065

    2009

  19. [19]

    2025, PoS, ICRC2025, 596

    Carrasco, M.-S., Arcaro, C., de Bony, M., et al. 2025, PoS, ICRC2025, 596

    2025

  20. [20]

    2024, in SF2A-2024: Proceed- ings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astro- physics, ed

    Carrasco, M.-S., Cassol, F., Costantini, H., et al. 2024, in SF2A-2024: Proceed- ings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astro- physics, ed. M. Béthermin, K. Baillié, N. Lagarde, J. Malzac, R. M. Ouazzani, J. Richard, O. Venot, & A. Siebert, 223–227

    2024

  21. [21]

    1975, ApJ, 200, L107

    Castor, J., McCray, R., & Weaver, R. 1975, ApJ, 200, L107

    1975

  22. [22]

    Celli, S., Morlino, G., Gabici, S., & Aharonian, F. A. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4317

    2019

  23. [23]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1999, ApJ, 511, 798

    1999

  24. [24]

    2021, Universe, 7, 324

    Cristofari, P. 2021, Universe, 7, 324

    2021

  25. [25]

    2025, A&A, 704, A213

    Cristofari, P. 2025, A&A, 704, A213

    2025

  26. [26]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.04294

    Cristofari, P., Blasi, P., & Amato, E. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.04294

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    2021, A&A, 650, A62

    Cristofari, P., Blasi, P., & Caprioli, D. 2021, A&A, 650, A62

    2021

  28. [28]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 28 de Oña Wilhelmi, E., López-Coto, R., Amato, E., & Aharonian, F

    Cristofari, P., Blasi, P., & Caprioli, D. 2022, ApJ, 930, 28 de Oña Wilhelmi, E., López-Coto, R., Amato, E., & Aharonian, F. 2022, ApJ, 930, L2 De Sarkar, A., Zhang, W., Martín, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A23

    2022

  29. [29]

    Denoyer, L. K. 1979, ApJ, 232, L165

    1979

  30. [30]

    Drury, L. O. C. 2012, Astroparticle Physics, 39, 52

    2012

  31. [31]

    2022, Phys

    Fang, K., Kerr, M., Blandford, R., Fleischhack, H., & Charles, E. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 129, 071101

    2022

  32. [32]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 82

    Fukui, Y ., Sano, H., Sato, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 82

    2012

  33. [33]

    & Aharonian, F

    Gabici, S. & Aharonian, F. A. 2014, MNRAS, 445, L70

    2014

  34. [34]

    A., & Blasi, P

    Gabici, S., Aharonian, F. A., & Blasi, P. 2007, Ap&SS, 309, 365

    2007

  35. [35]

    A., & Casanova, S

    Gabici, S., Aharonian, F. A., & Casanova, S. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1629

    2009

  36. [36]

    2019, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 28, 1930022

    Gabici, S., Evoli, C., Gaggero, D., et al. 2019, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 28, 1930022

    2019

  37. [37]

    2021, The Innovation, 2, 100118 H

    Ge, C., Liu, R.-Y ., Niu, S., Chen, Y ., & Wang, X.-Y . 2021, The Innovation, 2, 100118 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A3

    2021

  38. [38]

    Haggerty, C. C. & Caprioli, D. 2020, ApJ, 905, 1

    2020

  39. [39]

    P., Camilo, F., Gotthelf, E

    Halpern, J. P., Camilo, F., Gotthelf, E. V ., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, L125

    2001

  40. [40]

    2012, ApJ, 744, 71

    Inoue, T., Yamazaki, R., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Fukui, Y . 2012, ApJ, 744, 71

    2012

  41. [41]

    Kelner, S. R. & Aharonian, F. A. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 034013

    2008

  42. [42]

    R., Aharonian, F

    Kelner, S. R., Aharonian, F. A., & Bugayov, V . V . 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 034018

    2006

  43. [43]

    A., & Kelner, S

    Khangulyan, D., Aharonian, F. A., & Kelner, S. R. 2014, ApJ, 783, 100

    2014

  44. [44]

    I., McKee, C

    Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., & Colella, P. 1994, ApJ, 420, 213

    1994

  45. [45]

    2001, ApJ, 560, 236

    Kothes, R., Uyaniker, B., & Pineault, S. 2001, ApJ, 560, 236

    2001

  46. [46]

    Krymskii, G. F. 1977, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 234, 1306

    1977

  47. [47]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 124 Article number, page 7 of 8 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Liu, Q.-C., Zhou, P., & Chen, Y . 2022, ApJ, 926, 124 Article number, page 7 of 8 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda_V3 Mac Low, M.-M. & McCray, R. 1988, ApJ, 324, 776 MAGIC Collaboration, Abe, H., Abe, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A12

    2022

  48. [48]

    Malkov, M. A. & Drury, L. O. 2001, Reports on Progress in Physics, 64, 429

    2001

  49. [49]

    2024, A&A, 690, A116

    Martin, P., de Guillebon, L., Collard, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A116

    2024

  50. [50]

    McKenzie, J. F. & V oelk, H. J. 1982, A&A, 116, 191

    1982

  51. [51]

    D., Finzell, T., Vurm, I., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Finzell, T., Vurm, I., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2739

    2015

  52. [52]

    Ostriker, J. P. & McKee, C. F. 1988, Reviews of Modern Physics, 60, 1

    1988

  53. [53]

    & Joncas, G

    Pineault, S. & Joncas, G. 2000, AJ, 120, 3218

    2000

  54. [54]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.04512

    Pope, I., Mori, K., Abdelmaguid, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.04512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Ptuskin, V . S. & Zirakashvili, V . N. 2005, A&A, 429, 755

    2005

  56. [56]

    2020, ApJ, 904, L24

    Sano, H., Inoue, T., Tokuda, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, L24

    2020

  57. [57]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 40

    Sano, H., Matsumura, H., Nagaya, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 40

    2019

  58. [58]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 59

    Sano, H., Tanaka, T., Torii, K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 59

    2013

  59. [59]

    2022, A&A, 666, A165

    Schneider, N., Ossenkopf-Okada, V ., Clarke, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A165

    2022

  60. [60]

    Schure, K. M. & Bell, A. R. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1174

    2013

  61. [61]

    Schure, K. M. & Bell, A. R. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2802 Tibet ASγCollaboration, Amenomori, M., Bao, Y . W., et al. 2021, Nature As- tronomy, 5, 460

    2014

  62. [62]

    1977, ApJ, 218, 377

    Weaver, R., McCray, R., Castor, J., Shapiro, P., & Moore, R. 1977, ApJ, 218, 377

    1977

  63. [63]

    2002, Astroparticle Physics, 17, 221

    Weekes, T., Badran, H., Biller, S., et al. 2002, Astroparticle Physics, 17, 221

    2002

  64. [64]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 162

    Xin, Y ., Zeng, H., Liu, S., Fan, Y ., & Wei, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 162

    2019

  65. [65]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 162

    Xin, Y ., Zeng, H., Liu, S., Fan, Y ., & Wei, D. 2019, ApJ, 885, 162

    2019

  66. [66]

    2022, A&A, 658, A60

    Yang, C., Zeng, H., Bao, B., & Zhang, L. 2022, A&A, 658, A60

    2022

  67. [67]

    Zirakashvili, V . N. & Aharonian, F. A. 2010, ApJ, 708, 965

    2010

  68. [68]

    Zirakashvili, V . N. & Ptuskin, V . S. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Con- ference Series, V ol. 1085, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. F. A. Aharonian, W. Hofmann, & F. Rieger (AIP), 336–339 Article number, page 8 of 8

    2008