pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.26220 · v1 · pith:QCFQHSYNnew · submitted 2026-05-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · hep-ph

Strong Constraints on Millisecond Pulsar Injection Spectra from Fermi-LAT Observations of the Galactic Center

Jordan Koechler , Pedro De la Torre Luque , Mattia Di Mauro This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 20:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE hep-ph
keywords millisecond pulsarsgalactic center excessFermi-LATinverse Comptonelectron injectiongamma-ray constraintsinterstellar emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fermi-LAT observations of the Galactic Center excess set strong upper limits on the electron-to-gamma-ray efficiency ratio for millisecond pulsars.

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

The paper models both the prompt gamma rays emitted directly by millisecond pulsars and the inverse-Compton gamma rays produced when the pulsars' injected electrons and positrons scatter off interstellar radiation in the Galactic bulge. Using updated Fermi-LAT spectra of the Galactic Center excess that incorporate refined interstellar emission models, it derives tight upper bounds on the ratio of energy channeled into electrons versus gamma rays. These bounds hold across a wide range of assumed electron injection spectra. A sympathetic reader would care because millisecond pulsars remain a leading candidate explanation for the excess, and these limits test whether that explanation remains viable without violating the observed gamma-ray data.

Core claim

Current Fermi-LAT data on the Galactic Center excess place strong upper limits on the efficiency ratio η_e/η_γ across broad e± injection scenarios from millisecond pulsars, and these limits are tighter than those obtained from MAGIC observations of globular clusters while remaining competitive with projected CTAO sensitivities toward the Galactic bulge.

What carries the argument

The efficiency ratio η_e/η_γ, which quantifies the relative energy injected by millisecond pulsars into electrons and positrons versus prompt gamma rays; joint modeling of prompt emission plus inverse-Compton scattering on the interstellar radiation field is used to translate observed excess spectra into bounds on this ratio.

If this is right

  • The allowed values of η_e/η_γ are more restricted than those permitted by MAGIC globular-cluster data.
  • The constraints remain competitive with the sensitivity expected from CTAO observations of the Galactic bulge.
  • The joint prompt-plus-inverse-Compton modeling tightens the bounds relative to prompt emission alone.
  • The limits apply across a broad family of electron injection spectra.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the limits prove robust, millisecond pulsar models of the excess would require lower electron injection efficiencies than many current scenarios assume.
  • Improved interstellar emission modeling could either strengthen or relax the bounds depending on whether it increases or decreases the inferred excess flux.
  • Future CTAO data could either confirm the current upper limits or reveal a detection that forces a revision of the millisecond pulsar population assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The derived limits assume that state-of-the-art interstellar emission models are accurate and that the spatial distribution and total number of millisecond pulsars in the Galactic bulge are correctly estimated.

What would settle it

A future measurement of the Galactic Center excess spectrum that shows significantly less inverse-Compton emission than predicted for any value of η_e/η_γ within the current upper bounds would falsify the claimed constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26220 by Jordan Koechler, Mattia Di Mauro, Pedro De la Torre Luque.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Millisecond pulsars (MSPs) are a leading explanation of the Galactic Center excess (GCE) observed in Fermi-LAT data. We constrain this scenario by jointly modeling prompt and inverse-Compton $\gamma$ rays from MSP-injected $e^\pm$ on the Galactic bulge, using recent Fermi-LAT GCE spectra from state-of-the-art interstellar emission models and data analysis. Current data place strong upper limits on the efficiency ratio $\eta_e/\eta_\gamma$ across broad $e^\pm$ injection scenarios, surpassing those from globular-cluster observations with MAGIC and competitive with projected CTAO sensitivities toward the Galactic bulge.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that joint modeling of prompt and inverse-Compton gamma rays from MSP-injected e± in the Galactic bulge, using recent Fermi-LAT GCE spectra derived from state-of-the-art interstellar emission models, yields strong upper limits on the efficiency ratio η_e/η_γ across a range of e± injection spectra; these limits exceed those from MAGIC globular-cluster observations and are competitive with projected CTAO sensitivities.

Significance. If the central limits are robust, the result would tighten viable MSP parameter space for the GCE explanation and furnish a data-driven benchmark that improves on existing constraints from other wavebands.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline upper limits on η_e/η_γ are obtained by subtracting a single state-of-the-art IEM from the GCE spectrum and attributing residuals to MSP prompt + IC emission. No quantitative assessment is provided of how the allowed η_e/η_γ interval changes under alternative IEMs (different cosmic-ray source distributions, gas maps, or propagation parameters), yet the skeptic note and abstract itself identify IEM fidelity as the dominant systematic; this directly rescales the reported bounds and must be shown explicitly.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the normalization of the predicted IC component (and therefore the derived η_e/η_γ limit) also depends on the assumed spatial density and total number of MSPs in the bulge. The manuscript provides no sensitivity study to variations in these population parameters; because they are load-bearing for the central claim, such tests are required before the limits can be regarded as data-driven rather than assumption-driven.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments, which highlight important aspects of robustness for our claimed limits. We address each major comment below and agree that additional quantitative tests will strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline upper limits on η_e/η_γ are obtained by subtracting a single state-of-the-art IEM from the GCE spectrum and attributing residuals to MSP prompt + IC emission. No quantitative assessment is provided of how the allowed η_e/η_γ interval changes under alternative IEMs (different cosmic-ray source distributions, gas maps, or propagation parameters), yet the skeptic note and abstract itself identify IEM fidelity as the dominant systematic; this directly rescales the reported bounds and must be shown explicitly.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the primary results rely on one state-of-the-art IEM and that the skeptic note flags IEM uncertainties as dominant. While the manuscript emphasizes the use of recent, high-fidelity models, we agree a quantitative sensitivity study is warranted. In revision we will add explicit tests varying cosmic-ray source distributions, gas maps, and propagation parameters, reporting the resulting range in allowed η_e/η_γ to demonstrate how the bounds rescale. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the normalization of the predicted IC component (and therefore the derived η_e/η_γ limit) also depends on the assumed spatial density and total number of MSPs in the bulge. The manuscript provides no sensitivity study to variations in these population parameters; because they are load-bearing for the central claim, such tests are required before the limits can be regarded as data-driven rather than assumption-driven.

    Authors: The manuscript adopts standard bulge MSP population parameters drawn from the literature. We recognize that the IC normalization (and thus η_e/η_γ) is sensitive to these choices. In the revised version we will include a dedicated sensitivity analysis exploring plausible variations in spatial density and total number, quantifying their impact on the reported upper limits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; constraints are data-driven upper limits

full rationale

The paper derives upper limits on the efficiency ratio η_e/η_γ by subtracting state-of-the-art interstellar emission models from Fermi-LAT GCE spectra and attributing residuals to MSP prompt plus inverse-Compton emission. No step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or self-citation chain; the limits are obtained from external IEMs and MSP population assumptions that are independent of the target ratio. The derivation remains falsifiable against the input data and does not rename or smuggle in its own outputs as predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about MSP populations and background emission models plus free parameters in the e± injection spectrum; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • η_e/η_γ
    Efficiency ratio whose upper limit is the main result; varied across injection scenarios.
  • e± injection spectral index
    Power-law slope of the injected electron-positron spectrum, scanned over broad ranges.
  • e± cutoff energy
    Exponential cutoff scale in the injection spectrum, also varied.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption State-of-the-art interstellar emission models accurately subtract the Galactic diffuse background
    Invoked when using recent Fermi-LAT GCE spectra (abstract).
  • domain assumption MSP spatial distribution and total number in the bulge follow standard population-synthesis assumptions
    Required to normalize the injected e± flux to the observed excess.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5641 in / 1413 out tokens · 32586 ms · 2026-06-29T20:17:38.317879+00:00 · methodology

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

88 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · 23 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    prograde/retrograde

    giveL γ,tot ∝L meas GCE/D. ExpressingL γ,tot in terms of Lmeas GCE therefore removes the explicit dependence onDin the predicted flux. This, in turn, allows us to avoid speci- fying a particular spatial model for the GB densityρ bulge in the theoretical prediction. That dependence is, how- ever, encoded in the extraction pipeline of theFermi- LAT data, an...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 2022

  2. [2]

    Implications of High-Resolution Simulations on Indirect Dark Matter Searches

    L. Pieri, J. Lavalle, G. Bertone, and E. Branchini, Phys. Rev.D83, 023518 (2011), arXiv:0908.0195 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Possible Evidence For Dark Matter Annihilation In The Inner Milky Way From The Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope

    L. Goodenough and D. Hooper, (2009), arXiv:0910.2998 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Dark Matter Annihilation in The Galactic Center As Seen by the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope

    D. Hooper and L. Goodenough, Phys. Lett.B697, 412 (2011), arXiv:1010.2752 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    A comment on the emission from the Galactic Center as seen by the Fermi telescope

    A. Boyarsky, D. Malyshev, and O. Ruchayskiy, Phys. Lett.B705, 165 (2011), arXiv:1012.5839 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    On The Origin Of The Gamma Rays From The Galactic Center

    D. Hooper and T. Linden, Phys. Rev.D84, 123005 (2011), arXiv:1110.0006 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    K. N. Abazajian and M. Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev.D86, 083511 (2012), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D87,129902(2013)], arXiv:1207.6047 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Dark Matter and Pulsar Model Constraints from Galactic Center Fermi-LAT Gamma Ray Observations

    C. Gordon and O. Macias, Phys. Rev.D88, 083521 (2013), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D89,no.4,049901(2014)], arXiv:1306.5725 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    K. N. Abazajian, N. Canac, S. Horiuchi, and M. Kapling- hat, Phys. Rev.D90, 023526 (2014), arXiv:1402.4090 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    The Characterization of the Gamma-Ray Signal from the Central Milky Way: A Compelling Case for Annihilating Dark Matter

    T. Daylan, D. P. Finkbeiner, D. Hooper, T. Linden, S. K. N. Portillo, N. L. Rodd, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Dark Univ.12, 1 (2016), arXiv:1402.6703 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    A Tale of Tails: Dark Matter Interpretations of the Fermi GeV Excess in Light of Background Model Systematics

    F. Calore, I. Cholis, C. McCabe, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. D91, 063003 (2015), arXiv:1411.4647 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Background model systematics for the Fermi GeV excess

    F. Calore, I. Cholis, and C. Weniger, JCAP1503, 038 (2015), arXiv:1409.0042 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    Fermi-LAT Observations of High-Energy Gamma-Ray Emission Toward the Galactic Center

    M. Ajelloet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys. J.819, 44 (2016), arXiv:1511.02938 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    The High-Energy Tail of the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess

    T. Linden, N. L. Rodd, B. R. Safdi, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D94, 103013 (2016), arXiv:1604.01026 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    The Fermi Galactic Center GeV Excess and Implications for Dark Matter

    M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys. J.840, 43 (2017), arXiv:1704.03910 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Di Mauro, X

    M. Di Mauro, X. Hou, C. Eckner, G. Zaharijas, and E. Charles, Phys. Rev. D99, 123027 (2019), arXiv:1904.10977 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Di Mauro, Phys

    M. Di Mauro, Phys. Rev. D103, 063029 (2021), arXiv:2101.04694 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Cholis, Y.-M

    I. Cholis, Y.-M. Zhong, S. D. McDermott, and J. P. Surdutovich, Phys. Rev. D105, 103023 (2022), arXiv:2112.09706 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Di Mauro and M

    M. Di Mauro and M. W. Winkler, Phys. Rev. D103, 123005 (2021), arXiv:2101.11027 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Di Mauro, C

    M. Di Mauro, C. Arina, N. Fornengo, J. Heisig, and D. Massaro, Phys. Rev. D108, 095008 (2023), arXiv:2305.11937 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    A Comprehensive Study of WIMP Models Explaining the Fermi-LAT Galactic Center Excess

    C. Kong and M. Di Mauro, Phys. Rev. D113, 043031 6 (2026), arXiv:2511.21808 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Koechler and M

    J. Koechler and M. Di Mauro, Phys. Rev. D112, 115016 (2025), arXiv:2508.02775 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    V. A. Acciariet al.(MAGIC, MAGIC Finnish Consor- tium: Tuorla Observatory, Finnish Centre of Astron- omy with ESO), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.484, 2876 (2019), arXiv:1901.04367 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Bartels, S

    R. Bartels, S. Krishnamurthy, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 051102 (2016), arXiv:1506.05104 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    S. K. Lee, M. Lisanti, B. R. Safdi, T. R. Slatyer, and W. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 051103 (2016), arXiv:1506.05124 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Macias, C

    O. Macias, C. Gordon, R. M. Crocker, B. Coleman, D. Paterson, S. Horiuchi, and M. Pohl, Nat. Astron. 2, 387 (2018), arXiv:1611.06644 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    The Fermi-LAT GeV Excess Traces Stellar Mass in the Galactic Bulge

    R. Bartels, E. Storm, C. Weniger, and F. Calore, Nat. Astron.2, 819 (2018), arXiv:1711.04778 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Manconi, F

    S. Manconi, F. Calore, and F. Donato, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123042 (2024), arXiv:2402.04733 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Macias, H

    O. Macias, H. van Leijen, D. Song, S. Ando, S. Horiuchi, and R. M. Crocker, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.506, 1741 (2021), arXiv:2102.05648 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Keith, D

    C. Keith, D. Hooper, and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D107, 103001 (2023), arXiv:2212.08080 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    R. K. Leane and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 241101 (2019), arXiv:1904.08430 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    L. J. Chang, S. Mishra-Sharma, M. Lisanti, M. Buschmann, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. D101, 023014 (2020), arXiv:1908.10874 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Zhong, S

    Y.-M. Zhong, S. D. McDermott, I. Cholis, and P. J. Fox, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 231103 (2020), arXiv:1911.12369 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Calore, F

    F. Calore, F. Donato, and S. Manconi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 161102 (2021), arXiv:2102.12497 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    F. List, Y. Park, N. L. Rodd, E. Schoen, and F. Wolf, (2025), arXiv:2507.17804 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Di Mauro, (2026), arXiv:2605.22913 [astro-ph.HE]

    M. Di Mauro, (2026), arXiv:2605.22913 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    M. Pohl, O. Macias, P. Coleman, and C. Gordon, As- trophys. J.929, 136 (2022), arXiv:2203.11626 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Abramowskiet al.(H.E.S.S.), Astron

    A. Abramowskiet al.(H.E.S.S.), Astron. Astrophys.531, L18 (2011), arXiv:1106.4069 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  39. [39]

    Abramowskiet al.(H.E.S.S.), Astron

    A. Abramowskiet al.(H.E.S.S.), Astron. Astrophys.551, A26 (2013), arXiv:1301.1678 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Anderhubet al.(MAGIC), Astrophys

    H. Anderhubet al.(MAGIC), Astrophys. J.702, 266 (2009), arXiv:0905.2427 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    McCutcheon (VERITAS), (2009), arXiv:0907.4974 [astro-ph.HE]

    M. McCutcheon (VERITAS), (2009), arXiv:0907.4974 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2009

  42. [42]

    Ndiyavala-Davids, C

    H. Ndiyavala-Davids, C. Venter, A. Kopp, and M. Backes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.500, 4827 (2020), arXiv:2011.07486 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    D. A. Smithet al.(Fermi-LAT), Astrophys. J.958, 191 (2023), arXiv:2307.11132 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Pierbattista, A

    M. Pierbattista, A. K. Harding, I. A. Grenier, T. J. John- son, P. A. Caraveo, M. Kerr, and P. L. Gonthier, As- tron. Astrophys.575, A3 (2015), arXiv:1403.3849 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    Albertet al.(HAWC), The Astrophysical Journal 974, 246 (2024)

    A. Albertet al.(HAWC), The Astrophysical Journal 974, 246 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    Olmi and N

    B. Olmi and N. Bucciantini, (2023), 10.1017/pasa.2023.5, arXiv:2301.12903 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2023.5 2023

  47. [48]

    Wang, Chin

    W. Wang, Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl.6, 02268 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0510461

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  48. [49]

    Venter, A

    C. Venter, A. Kopp, A. K. Harding, P. L. Gonthier, and I. B¨ usching, Adv. Space Res.55, 1529 (2015), arXiv:1410.6462 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [50]

    Petrovi´ c, P

    J. Petrovi´ c, P. D. Serpico, and G. Zaharijas, JCAP02, 023 (2015), arXiv:1411.2980 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [51]

    Cirelli and P

    M. Cirelli and P. Panci, Nucl. Phys. B821, 399 (2009), arXiv:0904.3830 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  51. [52]

    Di Mauro and F

    M. Di Mauro and F. Donato, Phys. Rev. D91, 123001 (2015), arXiv:1501.05316 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  52. [53]

    Blanchet and J

    S. Blanchet and J. Lavalle, JCAP11, 021 (2012), arXiv:1207.2476 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [54]

    Di Mauro, F

    M. Di Mauro, F. Donato, M. Korsmeier, S. Man- coni, and L. Orusa, Phys. Rev. D108, 063024 (2023), arXiv:2304.01261 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  54. [55]

    Evoli, D

    C. Evoli, D. Gaggero, A. Vittino, G. Di Bernardo, M. Di Mauro, A. Ligorini, P. Ullio, and D. Grasso, JCAP 02, 015 (2017), arXiv:1607.07886 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [56]

    A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko, and O. Reimer, As- trophys. J.537, 763 (2000), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 541, 1109 (2000)], arXiv:astro-ph/9811296

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  56. [57]

    J. Buch, M. Cirelli, G. Giesen, and M. Taoso, JCAP09, 037 (2015), arXiv:1505.01049 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [58]

    T. A. Porter, G. Johannesson, and I. V. Moskalenko, Astrophys. J.846, 67 (2017), arXiv:1708.00816 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [59]

    H. T. Freudenreich, Astrophys. J.492, 495 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9707340

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  59. [60]

    T. P. Robitaille, E. Churchwell, R. A. Benjamin, B. A. Whitney, K. Wood, B. L. Babler, and M. R. Meade, Astron. Astrophys.545, A39 (2012), arXiv:1208.4606 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  60. [61]

    Likelihoods for the cta sensitivity to a dark matter signal from the galactic centre (a. acharyya et al., [arxiv:2007.16129]),

    T. Bringmann, C. Eckner, A. Sokolenko, L. Yang, and G. Zaharijas, “Likelihoods for the cta sensitivity to a dark matter signal from the galactic centre (a. acharyya et al., [arxiv:2007.16129]),” (2020)

    arXiv 2007

  61. [62]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  62. [63]

    Ballet, P

    J. Ballet, P. Bruel, T. H. Burnett, and B. Lott (Fermi- LAT), (2023), arXiv:2307.12546 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [64]

    Orusa, S

    L. Orusa, S. Manconi, F. Donato, and M. Di Mauro, JCAP02, 029 (2025), arXiv:2410.10951 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  64. [65]

    I. A. Grenier and A. K. Harding, Comptes Rendus Physique16, 641 (2015)

    2015

  65. [66]

    Amato, Proceedings of ScienceHEPROVII, 011 (2020), arXiv:2001.04442 [astro-ph.HE]

    E. Amato, Proceedings of ScienceHEPROVII, 011 (2020), arXiv:2001.04442 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  66. [67]

    D. F. Torres, J. Mart´ ın, E. de O˜ na Wilhelmi, and A. Cil- lis, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 436, 3112 (2014), arXiv:1402.5485 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  67. [68]

    R. W. Romani, M. Kerr, H. A. Craig, S. Johnston, I. Cog- nard, and D. A. Smith, Astrophys. J.738, 114 (2011), arXiv:1106.5762 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  68. [69]

    B. B. P. Perera, M. A. McLaughlin, J. M. Cordes, M. Kerr, T. H. Burnett, and A. K. Harding, Astrophys. J.776, 61 (2013), arXiv:1309.1982 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  69. [70]

    Di Mauro, S

    M. Di Mauro, S. Manconi, and F. Donato, Phys. Rev. D 100, 123015 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 104, 089903 (2021)], arXiv:1903.05647 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  70. [71]

    Amato and B

    E. Amato and B. Olmi, Universe7, 448 (2021), arXiv:2111.07712 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  71. [72]

    D. Song, O. Macias, and S. Horiuchi, Phys. Rev. D99, 7 123020 (2019), arXiv:1901.07025 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  72. [73]

    Galactic Center gamma-ray "excess" from an active past of the Galactic Centre?

    J. Petrovi´ c, P. D. Serpico, and G. Zaharijaˇ s, JCAP1410, 052 (2014), arXiv:1405.7928 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  73. [74]

    W. E. Harris, AJ112, 1487 (1996)

    1996

  74. [75]

    High Energy Gamma-rays from Globular Clusters

    W. Bednarek and J. Sitarek, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 377, 920 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701522

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  75. [76]

    R. W. Michie, MNRAS125, 127 (1963)

    1963

  76. [77]

    R. W. Michie and P. H. Bodenheimer, MNRAS126, 269 (1963)

    1963

  77. [78]

    R. W. Michie, MNRAS126, 331 (1963)

    1963

  78. [79]

    R. W. Michie, MNRAS126, 499 (1963)

    1963

  79. [80]

    A. G. Kuranov and K. A. Postnov, Astron. Lett.32, 393 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605115

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  80. [81]

    A. A. Abdoet al., Science325, 845 (2009)

    2009

Showing first 80 references.