Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 42 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Microquasar Cygnus X-3 powers the Cygnus Bubble's PeV glow

2026-07-09 20:04 UTC pith:UD443BPZ

load-bearing objection Cygnus X-3 as the source of the Cygnus Bubble's UHE emission — a serious, testable hypothesis with one load-bearing assumption the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07100 v1 pith:UD443BPZ submitted 2026-07-08 astro-ph.HE

Microquasar Cygnus X-3 as the PeVatron powering the Cygnus Bubble

Zhaodong Shi , Guangwei Wang , Ruizhi Yang , Felix Aharonian This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords Cygnus X-3Cygnus Bubblemicroquasar haloPeVatroncosmic-ray diffusionultra-high-energy gamma raysLHAASOinterstellar medium
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.

The Cygnus Bubble, a roughly 6-degree-wide ultra-high-energy gamma-ray structure seen by the LHAASO observatory, is widely attributed to the nearby Cygnus OB2 star cluster at 1.4 kpc. This paper argues instead that the Bubble's emission above 400 TeV comes from a cosmic-ray halo around the microquasar Cygnus X-3, located much farther away at 9.7 kpc. The argument rests on two pillars. First, the radial profile of gamma-ray intensity above 400 TeV, extracted from LHAASO data, matches the pattern expected from continuous injection by a point-like source whose protons diffuse through the surrounding gas. Second, the energy budget is feasible: only 0.7 to 3.2 percent of Cygnus X-3's estimated kinetic luminosity (5 times 10^39 erg/s) needs to go into proton acceleration up to about 10 PeV. The model requires a diffusion coefficient about one to two orders of magnitude below the Galactic average at PeV energies, which the authors attribute to turbulence injected by the microquasar's relativistic jets over a roughly 1 kpc region. If correct, the Cygnus Bubble joins a newly recognized class of microquasar gamma-ray halos, and Cygnus X-3 becomes a rare case where both the compact accelerator and its extended cosmic-ray halo are simultaneously visible.

Core claim

The radial gamma-ray intensity profile of the Cygnus Bubble above 400 TeV is consistent with diffuse proton propagation from a single point-like injector, and the required proton acceleration power (0.7 to 3.2 percent of Cygnus X-3's kinetic luminosity) is physically affordable, making Cygnus X-3 a viable parent source for the Bubble's UHE emission despite being seven times farther away than the conventionally assumed Cygnus OB2 association.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is diffusive propagation of PeV protons escaping a compact binary into the interstellar medium. The diffusion coefficient D_0 at 1 PeV is set to 3 times 10^29 cm^2/s, roughly 1 to 2 orders of magnitude below the standard Galactic value, which confines protons long enough to produce a detectable halo. The gamma-ray surface brightness is then computed by convolving the resulting proton density with a gas distribution (homogeneous or vertically stratified with a 300 pc scale height) and standard inelastic proton-proton cross sections. The key observational test is the radial intensity profile above 400 TeV: a point-like continuous injector produces a characteristic 1/r fal

Load-bearing premise

The model requires the cosmic-ray diffusion coefficient near Cygnus X-3 to be suppressed by one to two orders of magnitude below the Galactic average over a region of roughly 1 kpc, attributed to turbulence from the microquasar's jets. If the actual diffusion coefficient is closer to the standard Galactic value, the protons would spread too thinly to produce the observed gamma-ray surface brightness, and the association would fail.

What would settle it

Measurements showing that the diffusion coefficient near Cygnus X-3 at PeV energies is close to the standard Galactic value (around 3 times 10^31 cm^2/s for Iroshnikov-Kraichnan turbulence), or that the radial gamma-ray profile above 400 TeV deviates significantly from the 1/r-then-exponential cutoff pattern predicted for a single point-like continuous injector, would falsify the association.

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

If this is right

  • If Cygnus X-3 is confirmed as the Bubble's source, microquasars become established as a distinct class of Galactic PeVatrons capable of both accelerating particles to PeV energies inside the binary and forming hundred-parsec gamma-ray halos in the surrounding medium.
  • The required suppressed diffusion coefficient over a kpc scale, if real, implies that relativistic jets from microquasars can substantially alter the turbulence properties of the interstellar medium far beyond the binary itself, affecting cosmic-ray transport models in the Galactic disk.
  • Future instruments with sub-0.05 degree angular resolution could resolve a compact core at Cygnus X-3's coordinates and map energy-dependent morphology, providing a direct test of the point-injector hypothesis.
  • The energy-dependent morphology prediction, shrinking emission size at higher energies, is a classic and testable signature of a discrete injector that distinguishes this model from a distributed source like a star cluster.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The model implies a 'dual-source' picture for Cygnus X-3: orbitally modulated PeV photons from the compact inner binary, plus extended multi-TeV emission from jet termination regions, which could be tested by looking for spatially offset TeV emission components.
  • If the suppressed diffusion coefficient is caused by jet-injected turbulence, one might expect a correlation between the diffusion suppression and the jet axis orientation, producing anisotropic gamma-ray morphology rather than the spherical symmetry assumed in the baseline model.
  • The distinction between Cygnus OB2 foreground and Cygnus X-3 background contributions could be further disentangled by searching for a spectral break or morphological transition around 400 TeV, where the dominant source is predicted to switch.

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

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes that the Cygnus Bubble — the extended ultra-high-energy (UHE) gamma-ray source detected by LHAASO with an angular radius of ~6° — is not (or not primarily at energies above 400 TeV) associated with the Cygnus OB2 star-forming region at 1.4 kpc, but rather with the microquasar Cygnus X-3 at 9.7 kpc. The argument rests on three pillars: (i) the recent LHAASO detection of variable, orbitally modulated UHE gamma-rays from Cygnus X-3 itself, establishing it as a hadronic super-PeVatron; (ii) a diffusion model (Eqs. 3–11) for cosmic-ray protons escaping the binary into the ISM, producing an extended gamma-ray halo via pp interactions; and (iii) fits to the LHAASO flux and radial intensity profile above 400 TeV that yield a required CR acceleration efficiency of 0.7–3.2% of the kinetic luminosity, which is physically plausible. The radial profile is identified as a non-trivial prediction of the model, since only the total flux is used to set W_CR while the profile shape depends on D_0 and the injection history.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question: the origin of the Cygnus Bubble's UHE emission. If the association with Cygnus X-3 holds, it would establish a new class of microquasar UHE halos and provide a rare case where both the accelerator and its surrounding CR halo are simultaneously detected. The model is falsifiable: it predicts a point-like core at the Cygnus X-3 position and energy-dependent morphology (shrinking size at higher energies), testable by future IACT observations. The energy budget argument is transparent and the parameter space is reasonably constrained (three effective free parameters: D_0, n_H, W_CR). The derivation of the radial profile as a model prediction rather than a fit is a genuine strength.

major comments (1)
  1. Section 3, Eq. (18) and surrounding discussion: The suppression of D_0 = 3×10^29 cm^2/s at 1 PeV — which is 1–2 orders of magnitude below the standard Galactic value — is the single most load-bearing assumption in the paper. The paper's own analysis shows that achieving this requires either eta ~ 1/10 with l_c ~ 1 pc (but Eq. 18 breaks down for p > 1 PeV/c in this regime) or eta ~ 1/3 with l_c ~ 10 pc (i.e., deltaB/B ~ 0.58, near-equipartition turbulence) sustained over a ~1 kpc region for 100–400 kyr. The paper attributes this to jet-injected turbulence but provides no energy budget calculation showing that Cygnus X-3's jets (L_kin = 5×10^39 erg/s) can actually maintain this turbulence level over 1 kpc and over the required timescale. This is not a peripheral caveat: if D_0 is closer to the Galactic average, the diffusion radius r_d = sqrt(4Dt) grows by a factor of 3–10, the surface亮度s,
minor comments (7)
  1. Section 1, Eq. (2): The scaling argument F_gamma proportional to d^{-(alpha1+alpha2)+1} is used to motivate why a distant source can be energetically competitive, but it is not referenced again in the quantitative analysis (Section 2–3), which uses the full diffusion model. A brief statement clarifying that Eq. (2) is only illustrative and that all quantitative results use the full model in Section 2 would be useful.
  2. Section 2.1, Eq. (12): The exponential vertical gas profile with z_c = 300 pc is adopted from Kalberla & Dedes (2008) for the outer Galaxy. Given that Cygnus X-3 is in the Outer spiral arm, this is reasonable, but the sensitivity of the results to this choice (e.g., z_c = 200 or 400 pc) is not discussed. A brief mention of how the best-fit W_CR changes with z_c would strengthen the robustness of the results.
  3. Section 3, Fig. 4 and surrounding text: The wideband fit (1 TeV – 2 PeV) requires s = 2.45 and W_CR(>1 TeV) = 5.6×10^38 erg/s (~11% of L_kin). The text notes that extrapolating to 1 GeV would exceed L_kin, and suggests a harder spectrum below 1 TeV. This is a reasonable caveat, but the break energy and spectral shape below 1 TeV are unspecified. A brief discussion of what physical scenario could produce such a spectral break would help the reader assess the plausibility.
  4. Table 1 and Table 2: The acceleration efficiency is quoted as 0.7–1.6% (homogeneous) and 1.6–3.2% (nonhomogeneous) relative to L_kin = 5×10^39 erg/s. It would be helpful to also state the total energy injected in CRs over the injection duration (E_CR = W_CR × t_age) for at least one representative parameter set, to give the reader a sense of the cumulative energy budget.
  5. Section 3, paragraph on cavity evacuation: The claim that the cavity has 'no significant impact' on the gamma-ray flux is supported by the argument that F_gamma(<50 pc)/F_gamma(<200 pc) = 1/16. However, this ratio is derived assuming homogeneous gas and a 1/r CR profile. For the nonhomogeneous gas distribution (Eq. 12), the ratio may differ. A brief confirmation that the conclusion holds for the nonhomogeneous case would be useful.
  6. Figure 1, left panel: The diffuse Galactic gamma-ray flux (blue dashdotdotted line) appears to dominate below ~10 TeV. The text states that the lower-energy emission can be treated as foreground from Cygnus OB2, but the figure shows the model + diffuse flux summed. It would help to also show the model contribution alone (without diffuse) so the reader can assess at which energy the Cygnus X-3 halo component begins to dominate. This is also relevant to the testability claim in the conclusion.
  7. The reference to 'Y. Hu 2026' (Galaxies, 14, 33) appears to be a very recent or forthcoming publication. The authors should verify that this reference is complete and accessible at the time of publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the radial profile prediction is derived from the diffusion model and compared against independent LHAASO data, with only minor self-citation of standard propagation formalism.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that the Cygnus Bubble's UHE gamma-ray emission above 400 TeV originates from a microquasar halo around Cygnus X-3 — is not circular. The derivation chain proceeds as follows: (1) CRs are injected with a power-law spectrum (s=2.0, E_0=10 PeV) and propagate diffusively (Eq. 3-11); (2) the gamma-ray flux and radial intensity profile are computed from the CR distribution and gas density via pp interactions (Eq. 13-15); (3) the only parameter fitted to the observed gamma-ray flux is the CR injection kinetic power W_CR (Tables 1, 2); (4) the radial intensity profile above 400 TeV (right panels of Figs. 1, 3) is then a prediction of the model given D_0 and t_age, compared against LHAASO data extracted independently from Figure 1 of LHAASO Collaboration (2024). The shape of the radial profile is not fitted; it emerges from the diffusion physics. The paper does cite Aharonian & Atoyan (1996) for the transport solution (Eq. 7), but this is a standard, externally verified result in cosmic-ray physics, not a self-citation by the current authors. The concern that D_0 = 3×10^29 cm^2/s is chosen to match the observed surface brightness is a validity/physical-plausibility concern (correctly flagged by the skeptic), not a circularity issue: D_0 is a physical parameter with an independent theoretical basis (Eq. 18, quasi-linear theory), and the paper does not define D_0 in terms of the observed flux. The model could fail if D_0 cannot be physically sustained, but that is a falsifiable external constraint, not a tautological reduction. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model uses 6 free parameters, of which D_0 and W_CR are the most consequential. D_0 is fitted to the data but is also the most physically uncertain assumption. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The axioms are standard domain assumptions from high-energy astrophysics, not ad hoc constructions.

free parameters (6)
  • D_0 = 3e29 cm^2/s at 1 PeV
    Diffusion coefficient normalization, chosen to match observed surface brightness; 1–2 orders of magnitude below Galactic average
  • W_CR (dot W_CR) = 4.4–16.0 × 10^37 erg/s depending on t_age and gas model
    CR injection kinetic power, fitted to match the observed gamma-ray flux above 400 TeV
  • t_age = 100–400 kyr (also 1 Myr for wideband)
    Elapsed time since injection started; treated as free parameter, chosen as 100/200/300/400 kyr
  • s (spectral index) = 2.0 (above 400 TeV), 2.45 (wideband)
    CR injection spectral index; s=2.0 assumed for UHE analysis, s=2.45 fitted for wideband 1 TeV–2 PeV
  • E_0 (cutoff energy) = 10 PeV
    Exponential cutoff energy of injection spectrum; fixed by hand based on LHAASO detection of photons up to several PeV
  • n_H / n_0 = 1.0 cm^-3
    Ambient gas density (homogeneous) or mid-plane density (nonhomogeneous); assumed fiducial value
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Diffusive shock acceleration in strong shocks produces a power-law spectrum with index s ≈ 2.0
    Invoked in Sec. 3 to fix the injection spectral index; standard result from diffusive shock acceleration theory (Malkov & Drury 2001)
  • domain assumption The kinetic luminosity of Cygnus X-3 is L_kin = 5×10^39 erg/s
    Used in Sec. 3 to compute acceleration efficiency; taken from Veledina et al. 2024 and Wang et al. 2025
  • domain assumption The distance to Cygnus X-3 is 9.67 kpc
    Used throughout to convert angular to physical scales; taken from Reid & Miller-Jones 2023
  • domain assumption Cosmic-ray diffusion near powerful accelerators is suppressed relative to the Galactic average
    Invoked in Sec. 1 and Sec. 3 to justify D_0 = 3×10^29 cm^2/s; supported by theoretical work (Malkov et al. 2013, Schroer et al. 2022) but not independently measured for this source
  • domain assumption The gas distribution near Cygnus X-3 follows the large-scale Galactic H I profile with scale height z_c = 300 pc
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1 (Eq. 12) due to lack of high-resolution local ISM data; based on Kalberla & Dedes 2008

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 19119 in / 3087 out tokens · 304940 ms · 2026-07-09T20:04:59.763513+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The recent discovery by the LHAASO collaboration of a variable ultra-high-energy (UHE; $E_\gamma \ge$ 100 TeV) $\gamma$-ray source associated with the microquasar Cygnus X-3, with a spectrum extending to several PeV, provides compelling evidence for a hadronic super-PeVatron operating within the binary system. Inside the binary, the accelerated protons lose only a small fraction of their energy; upon escaping into the interstellar medium, they propagate diffusively to form a vast gamma-ray ``halo" structure extended to hundreds of parsecs. We argue that this halo has already been detected and corresponds to the Cygnus Bubble, an extended UHE $\gamma$-ray source reported by the LHAASO collaboration -- which possesses an angular extension of $\approx 6^{\circ}$ and an energy spectrum reaching 1 PeV. While the Cygnus Bubble is generally attributed to the star-forming region Cygnus X (specifically the Cygnus OB2 association at 1.4 kpc), we demonstrate that an association with Cygnus X-3 is physically more natural at energies above 400 TeV. This is supported by the cosmic-ray radial distribution, derived from the $\gamma$-ray and gas distributions, which points to continuous injection from a point-like source. The energetic requirements of the central accelerator are reasonably affordable and feasible. This reassignment identifies the Cygnus Bubble as a member of the recently discovered population of microquasar UHE $\gamma$-ray halos.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07100 by Felix Aharonian, Guangwei Wang, Ruizhi Yang, Zhaodong Shi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: the γ-ray flux from within a 6◦ -radius emission region for Iroshnikov-Kraichnan (δ = 1/2; black lines) and Kolmogorov (δ = 1/3; grey lines) turbulence phenomenology, when tage = 100 (solid lines), 200 (dashed lines), 300 (dotdashed lines), and 400 (dotted lines) kyr, which is the elapsed time since the injection starts. The blue dashdotdotted line shows the diffuse Galactic γ-ray flux, which i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The γ-ray flux from within a 6◦ -radius emission region for Iroshnikov-Kraichnan turbulence (δ = 1/2), assuming that tage = 1 Myr. The black line shows the summation of our model and diffuse Galactic γ-ray fluxes, while the latter is shown by the blue dashdotdotted line. The red flux points for a 6◦ -radius bubble is taken from LHAASO Collaboration (2024). The diffusion coefficient normalization D0 = 3 × 1… view at source ↗

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

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 82, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0565-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0565-5 2018

  2. [2]

    2026, A&A, 706, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557532

    Acharyya, A., Aharonian, F., Ashkar, H., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557532

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557532 2026

  3. [3]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 561, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0724-0

    Aharonian, F., Yang, R., & de O˜ na Wilhelmi, E. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 561, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0724-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0724-0 2019

  4. [4]

    A., & Atoyan, A

    Aharonian, F. A., & Atoyan, A. M. 1996, A&A, 309, 917

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    2021, PhRvL, 126, 201102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.201102

    Alemanno, F., An, Q., Azzarello, P., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 201102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.201102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.201102 2021

  6. [6]

    C., et al

    Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, J. C., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 557, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07995-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07995-9 2024

  7. [7]

    2019, Science Advances, 5, eaax3793, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax3793

    An, Q., Asfandiyarov, R., Azzarello, P., et al. 2019, Science Advances, 5, eaax3793, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax3793

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax3793 2019

  8. [8]

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

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 2013

  9. [9]

    A., & Paredes, J

    Bosch-Ramon, V., Aharonian, F. A., & Paredes, J. M. 2005, A&A, 432, 609, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041794

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041794 2005

  10. [10]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29 2024

  11. [11]

    X., et al

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., Bai, Y. X., et al. 2025, Science Bulletin, 70, 4173, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2025.10.048

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scib.2025.10.048 2025

  12. [12]

    X., et al

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., Bai, Y. X., et al. 2026, PhRvL, 136, 121001, doi: 10.1103/d838-49gt Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium, Acharya, B. S., Agudo, I., et al. 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array, doi: 10.1142/10986

    work page doi:10.1103/d838-49gt 2026

  13. [13]

    M., Ungerechts, H., Cohen, R

    Dame, T. M., Ungerechts, H., Cohen, R. S., et al. 1987, ApJ, 322, 706, doi: 10.1086/165766 D’Angelo, M., Blasi, P., & Amato, E. 2016, PhRvD, 94, 083003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083003

    work page doi:10.1086/165766 1987

  14. [14]

    Giacinti, G., KachelrieSS, M., & Semikoz, D. V. 2018, JCAP, 2018, 051, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/051 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/051 2018

  15. [15]

    2024, Science, 383, 402, doi: 10.1126/science.adi2048 H¨ arer, L., Vieu, T., Schulze, F., Larkin, C

    Benkhali, F., et al. 2024, Science, 383, 402, doi: 10.1126/science.adi2048 H¨ arer, L., Vieu, T., Schulze, F., Larkin, C. J. K., & Reville, B. 2025, A&A, 703, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555531

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adi2048 2024

  16. [16]

    McClure-Griffiths, N. M. 2008, ApJ, 680, 362, doi: 10.1086/587165 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    work page doi:10.1086/587165 2008

  17. [17]

    Fletcher, A., & Gent, F. A. 2017, ApJ, 850, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93e7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa93e7 2017

  18. [18]

    2026, Galaxies, 14, 33, doi: 10.3390/galaxies14020033

    Hu, Y. 2026, Galaxies, 14, 33, doi: 10.3390/galaxies14020033

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies14020033 2026

  19. [19]

    Ostapchenko, S. S. 2014, ApJ, 789, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/136

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/136 2014

  20. [20]

    Vila, G. S. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 123014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.123014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.123014 2014

  21. [21]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., & Dedes, L. 2008, A&A, 487, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079240

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20079240 2008

  22. [22]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., & Kerp, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101823

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101823 2009

  23. [23]

    2021, PhRvD, 104, 123027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123027 LHAASO Collaboration

    Koldobskiy, S., Kachelrieß, M., Lskavyan, A., et al. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 123027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123027 LHAASO Collaboration. 2024, Science Bulletin, 69, 449, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2023.12.040 LHAASO Collaboration, Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., et al. 2025, National Science Review, 12, nwaf496, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaf496

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.123027 2021

  24. [24]

    A., & Moskalenko, I

    Aharonian, F. A., & Moskalenko, I. V. 2013, ApJ, 768, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/73

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/1/73 2013

  25. [25]

    A., & Drury, L

    Malkov, M. A., & Drury, L. O. 2001, Reports on Progress in Physics, 64, 429, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/64/4/201

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/64/4/201 2001

  26. [26]

    Bucciantini, N., & Beltr´ an, M. T. 2024, A&A, 686, A242, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348817

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348817 2024

  27. [27]

    2009, Astroparticle Physics, 31, 341, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.03.004

    Mori, M. 2009, Astroparticle Physics, 31, 341, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.03.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.03.004 2009

  28. [28]

    Nava, L., Gabici, S., Marcowith, A., Morlino, G., & Ptuskin, V. S. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3552, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1592

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1592 2016

  29. [29]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 2684, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz137 15

    Nava, L., Recchia, S., Gabici, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2684, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz137 15

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz137 2019

  30. [30]

    2025, A&A, 698, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452987

    Gabici, S. 2025, A&A, 698, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452987

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452987 2025

  31. [31]

    Pezzi, O., Blasi, P., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2022, ApJ, 928, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5332

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5332 2022

  32. [32]

    J., & Miller-Jones, J

    Reid, M. J., & Miller-Jones, J. C. A. 2023, ApJ, 959, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe0c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfe0c 2023

  33. [33]

    1989, ApJ, 336, 243, doi: 10.1086/167009

    Schlickeiser, R. 1989, ApJ, 336, 243, doi: 10.1086/167009

    work page doi:10.1086/167009 1989

  34. [34]

    C., & Blasi, P

    Schroer, B., Pezzi, O., Caprioli, D., Haggerty, C. C., & Blasi, P. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac466

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac466 2022

  35. [35]

    W., Moskalenko, I

    Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V., & Ptuskin, V. S. 2007, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 57, 285, doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123011

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123011 2007

  36. [36]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa603a

    Subedi, P., Sonsrettee, W., Blasi, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa603a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa603a 2017

  37. [37]

    Syrovatskii, S. I. 1959, Soviet Ast., 3, 22 The LHAASO Collaboration, Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.16638, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.16638 van Kerkwijk, M. H., Geballe, T. R., King, D. L., van der Klis, M., & van Paradijs, J. 1996, A&A, 314, 521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9604100 van Kerkwijk, M. H., Charles, P. A., Geb...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.16638 1959

  38. [38]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1031, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9

    Veledina, A., Muleri, F., Poutanen, J., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1031, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9 2024

  39. [39]

    2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 35, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.05.005

    Vercellone, S., Bigongiari, C., Burtovoi, A., et al. 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 35, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.05.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.05.005 2022

  40. [40]

    Wang, J., Reville, B., & Aharonian, F. A. 2025, ApJL, 989, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf3a4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf3a4 2025

  41. [41]

    L., Rohlfs, K., & H¨ uttemeister, S

    Wilson, T. L., Rohlfs, K., & H¨ uttemeister, S. 2013, Tools of Radio Astronomy, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39950-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39950-3 2013

  42. [42]

    2026, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 1086, 171373, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2026.171373

    Zhang, S. 2026, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 1086, 171373, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2026.171373

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2026.171373 2026