pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15359 · v1 · pith:AY7ZHEH6new · submitted 2026-05-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Population synthesis of Galactic middle-aged pulsar wind nebulae I. Detection prospects for current and future instruments

A. De Sarkar , D. F. Torres , B. Olmi , N. Bucciantini , D. M.-A. Meyer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 15:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsar wind nebulaepopulation synthesisgamma-ray astronomyCherenkov Telescope ArrayTeV sourcesreverberation phasesupernova remnants
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:AY7ZHEH6 Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{AY7ZHEH6}

Prints a linked pith:AY7ZHEH6 badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

A population synthesis model that includes the reverberation phase predicts CTAO will detect an order of magnitude more TeV pulsar wind nebulae than currently known.

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

The paper builds a synthesis model for middle-aged pulsar wind nebulae that follows their evolution through the reverberation phase, when the supernova remnant reverse shock compresses the nebula and changes its emission. Thousands of sources are evolved using realistic distributions of pulsar and supernova properties, then their gamma-ray fluxes are compared against the sensitivity and coverage of existing and planned telescopes. The calculation shows that next-generation instruments will see many more such nebulae, establishing them as the dominant very-high-energy Galactic population. The work demonstrates that omitting the reverberation stage leads to inaccurate forecasts for the TeV sky.

Core claim

The hybrid TIDE+L framework evolves pulsar wind nebulae through all stages up to 10^5 years by combining a thin-shell dynamical model with a Lagrangian treatment of the supernova remnant during reverberation; when applied to a synthetic Galactic population, it predicts that the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory will detect an order of magnitude more PWNe than those firmly detected in the TeV range and will therefore dominate the forthcoming TeV census.

What carries the argument

The hybrid TIDE+L framework, which merges a thin-shell dynamical model with a Lagrangian description of supernova remnant structure during the reverberation phase to compute self-consistent evolution and gamma-ray output for thousands of sources.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen distributions of pulsar spin-down, supernova remnant, and environmental properties match the real Galactic population and the thin-shell plus Lagrangian reverberation treatment introduces no large systematic errors in the predicted fluxes.

What would settle it

The actual number of new TeV pulsar wind nebulae reported by CTAO after its first few years of operation; a count much lower than the model's prediction would show that the input distributions or the reverberation treatment are inaccurate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15359 by A. De Sarkar, B. Olmi, D. F. Torres, D. M.-A. Meyer, N. Bucciantini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The spatial distribution of the synthetic PWNe population in the Milky Way Galaxy for a random realization of 1600 sources. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Histograms of the parameter distributions employed in this work. Each histogram shows the mean number of sources per bin, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The pie chart distinguishes sources in free expansion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The left panel shows a single random realization of the synthetic PWNe population containing 1600 sources on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of the individual source simulations based on the CF are shown in this figure. The upper (lower) row corresponds to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In the figure, the current PWN radius of a single ran [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the SEDs of sources predicted to be detectable by CTAO for a single random realization of the simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The plot shows the mean cumulative flux distribution out of 1000 realizations of synthetic population containing 1600 sources [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The figure shows the distribution of integrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe) constitute the largest population of Galactic very-high-energy (VHE; $E > 100$ GeV) $\gamma$-ray sources and are key laboratories for studying particle acceleration and pulsar--supernova remnant (SNR) interactions. However, realistic population-level predictions have so far lacked any detailed treatment of the reverberation phase, when the nebula is compressed by the SNR reverse shock, significantly altering its dynamics and radiative spectrum. We employ the hybrid \texttt{TIDE+L} framework, which combines a thin-shell dynamical model with a Lagrangian treatment of the SNR structure during reverberation, allowing self-consistent evolution of thousands of PWNe across all stages up to $10^5$ yr. Each source is evolved under distributions of pulsar spin-down, SNR, and environmental properties, and the resulting $\gamma$-ray fluxes are used to estimate the detectability by current and next-generation $\gamma$-ray observatories while accounting for their sensitivity and sky coverage. The model predicts that the upcoming Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO) will detect an order of magnitude more PWNe than those firmly detected in the TeV range, confirming its dominant contribution to the forthcoming TeV population census. Our results demonstrate that realistic modeling of reverberation is important for predicting the Galactic TeV PWNe population.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a population synthesis framework for Galactic middle-aged pulsar wind nebulae using the hybrid TIDE+L model, which combines thin-shell dynamical evolution with a Lagrangian treatment of SNR structure during the reverberation phase. Thousands of sources are evolved under literature-based distributions of pulsar spin-down properties, SNR parameters, and ambient conditions up to 10^5 yr; the resulting gamma-ray spectra are folded with instrument sensitivities and sky coverage to predict detection yields, with the central claim that CTAO will detect an order of magnitude more PWNe than the current firmly detected TeV sample.

Significance. If the central prediction holds, the work would be significant for observational planning with CTAO and for interpreting the forthcoming TeV source census, as it supplies the first population-level treatment that self-consistently includes reverberation-induced changes to dynamics and spectra. The scale of the simulation (thousands of sources across all evolutionary stages) and the explicit inclusion of the previously neglected reverberation phase constitute clear technical strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Model Setup): The adopted distributions for pulsar spin-down luminosity, SNR properties, and environmental density are taken directly from prior literature without a dedicated sensitivity analysis or posterior calibration against the existing H.E.S.S./VERITAS/MAGIC PWN catalog; because the headline CTAO detection forecast is obtained by folding these priors through the reverberation flux calculation, changes in the input distributions can shift the predicted counts by a large factor.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (Reverberation phase): The thin-shell plus Lagrangian treatment is used to compute compression-induced particle losses and magnetic-field evolution, yet no quantitative comparison to full hydrodynamic simulations is presented to bound possible systematic biases in the resulting gamma-ray spectra; this directly affects the integrated fluxes that enter the detectability estimates.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1: the column headers for the current-instrument detection thresholds should explicitly state the assumed observation time and significance criterion.
  2. [Figure 5] Figure 5: the sky-coverage mask for CTAO could be shown explicitly rather than described only in the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and the recommendation for minor revision. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Model Setup): The adopted distributions for pulsar spin-down luminosity, SNR properties, and environmental density are taken directly from prior literature without a dedicated sensitivity analysis or posterior calibration against the existing H.E.S.S./VERITAS/MAGIC PWN catalog; because the headline CTAO detection forecast is obtained by folding these priors through the reverberation flux calculation, changes in the input distributions can shift the predicted counts by a large factor.

    Authors: We agree that a dedicated sensitivity analysis would strengthen the robustness of the CTAO detection forecast. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection to §3 that quantifies the impact of varying the key input distributions (pulsar spin-down luminosity, SNR energy, and ambient density) within the ranges reported in the cited literature. The resulting variation in predicted CTAO detections is now explicitly stated as a factor of approximately 2–3. A full posterior calibration against the current TeV PWN catalog is complicated by strong observational selection effects and incomplete knowledge of the underlying population; we have therefore added a qualitative comparison of model outputs to the observed sample properties to support the adopted priors. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Reverberation phase): The thin-shell plus Lagrangian treatment is used to compute compression-induced particle losses and magnetic-field evolution, yet no quantitative comparison to full hydrodynamic simulations is presented to bound possible systematic biases in the resulting gamma-ray spectra; this directly affects the integrated fluxes that enter the detectability estimates.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a direct quantitative comparison to full hydrodynamic simulations would help bound systematic uncertainties in the reverberation-phase spectra. Performing such a comparison across thousands of sources is computationally prohibitive within the scope of this population study. In the revised §4.2 we have expanded the discussion of the TIDE+L hybrid model’s approximations, cited existing literature that compares thin-shell and hydrodynamical treatments for individual PWNe, and now provide an estimated systematic uncertainty of ≲50% on the gamma-ray fluxes during reverberation. This uncertainty is propagated into the final detection-yield ranges reported for CTAO. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward population synthesis from literature priors

full rationale

The derivation evolves thousands of PWNe by sampling spin-down, SNR and environmental distributions drawn from prior literature, applies the hybrid TIDE+L dynamical model, computes gamma-ray spectra, and folds the results with instrument sensitivity curves to obtain a detection count. This is a standard forward Monte-Carlo prediction; none of the output quantities (fluxes, detection numbers) are defined in terms of themselves or obtained by fitting the same data that is later 'predicted'. The central claim therefore remains independent of the paper's own fitted values or self-referential definitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central prediction depends on the accuracy of the TIDE+L hybrid model and on the chosen statistical distributions for pulsar and supernova-remnant properties; these inputs are standard in the field but are not re-derived or independently validated within the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • Distributions of pulsar spin-down properties
    Used to initialize and evolve the thousands of simulated PWNe across all evolutionary stages.
  • Distributions of SNR and environmental properties
    Control the dynamical interaction and reverberation phase for each source.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The thin-shell dynamical model combined with Lagrangian treatment of SNR structure during reverberation accurately captures the evolution of PWNe.
    Invoked as the basis for self-consistent modeling of the compression phase that was previously missing.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5796 in / 1521 out tokens · 77916 ms · 2026-05-19T15:34:38.824349+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

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Abe, S., Abhir, J., Abhishek, A., et al. 2024, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2024, 081

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Abeysekara, A. U. et al. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 50, 26

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Abeysekara, A. U. et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 39

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    2013, ApJ, 773, 77

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 77

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    2024, A&A, 686, A308

    Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., Aschersleben, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A308

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    G., Bazer-Bachi, A

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 899

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 76 Aleksi´c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 76 Aleksi´c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 5, 30

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 38

    Aliu, E., Archambault, S., Arlen, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 38

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 166

    Aliu, E., Archambault, S., Aune, T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 166

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    A., Antoranz, P., et al

    Anderhub, H., Antonelli, L. A., Antoranz, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 828 Angüner, E. O. & Ergin, T. 2024, Astroparticle Physics, 158, 102936

    work page 2010

  11. [11]

    Bandiera, R., Bucciantini, N., Martín, J., Olmi, B., & Torres, D. F. 2020, MN- RAS, 499, 2051

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Bandiera, R., Bucciantini, N., Martín, J., Olmi, B., & Torres, D. F. 2021, MN- RAS, 508, 3194

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Batzofin, R., Cristofari, P., Egberts, K., Steppa, C., & Meyer, D. M. A. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 687, A279

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    M.-A., & Steppa, C

    Batzofin, R., Egberts, K., Meyer, D. M.-A., & Steppa, C. 2025, A&A, 701, L4

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    & Huang, H

    Becker, W. & Huang, H. H. 2007, 363rd WE-Heraeus Seminar on Neutron Stars and Pulsars: 40 Years after the Discovery. Posters and Contributed Talks

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    M., Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., Chevalier, R. A., & Frierson, D. M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 806

    work page 2001

  17. [17]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 381

    Bucciantini, N., Arons, J., & Amato, E. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 381

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    M., Del Zanna, L., & Amato, E

    Bucciantini, N., Blondin, J. M., Del Zanna, L., & Amato, E. 2003, A&A, 405, 617

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 25 Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 25 Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium. 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array Conceição, R. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.04577

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    B., et al

    Cristofari, P., Gabici, S., Humensky, T. B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 201 de Oña-Wilhelmi, E., Rudak, B., Barrio, J. A., et al. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 43, 287 De Sarkar, A., Zhang, W., Martín, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A23 Del Zanna, L., V olpi, D., Amato, E., & Bucciantini, N. 2006, A&A, 453, 621

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    1986, Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation(originally pub- lished with (Springer-Verlag)

    Devroye, L. 1986, Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation(originally pub- lished with (Springer-Verlag)

    work page 1986

  22. [22]

    2008, Ap&SS, 316, 43 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

    Eggenberger, P., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., et al. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 43 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 537, A146

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    & Zhang, L

    Fang, J. & Zhang, L. 2010, A&A, 515, A20 Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. & Kaspi, V . M. 2006, ApJ, 643, 332 Fermi-LAT Collaboration, Acharyya, A., Adelfio, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 110

    work page 2010

  24. [24]

    Ferreira, S. E. S. & de Jager, O. C. 2008, A&A, 478, 17 Article number, page 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa_revised

    work page 2008

  25. [25]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 511, 1439

    Fiori, M., Olmi, B., Amato, E., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 511, 1439

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 3494

    Fiori, M., Zampieri, L., Burtovoi, A., Caraveo, P., & Tibaldo, L. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3494

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Gaensler, B. M. & Slane, P. O. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 17

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    D., Slane, P

    Gelfand, J. D., Slane, P. O., & Zhang, W. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2051

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    2010, PhD thesis, University of Geneva, Switzerland Gullón, M., Pons, J

    Georgy, C. 2010, PhD thesis, University of Geneva, Switzerland Gullón, M., Pons, J. A., Miralles, J. A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 615 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., et al. 2018a, A&A, 612, A2 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., et al. 2018b, A&A, 612, A1

    work page 2010

  30. [30]

    Review on the Observed and Physical Properties of Core Collapse Supernovae

    Hamuy, M. 2003, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:astro-ph/0301006]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  31. [31]

    Horvath, J. E. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1983

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Hurt, R. et al. 2025, mw_plot documentation,https://milkyway-plot. readthedocs.io/en/stable/, accessed: 2026-03-28

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    A., Karastergiou, A., & Kramer, M

    Johnston, S., Smith, D. A., Karastergiou, A., & Kramer, M. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1957

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    2013, in The Universe Evolution: As- trophysical and Nuclear Aspects

    Kargaltsev, O., Rangelov, B., & Pavlov, G. 2013, in The Universe Evolution: As- trophysical and Nuclear Aspects. Edited by I. Strakovsky and L. Blokhintsev. Nova Science Publishers, 359–406

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 1

    Kolb, C., Blondin, J., Slane, P., & Temim, T. 2017, ApJ, 844, 1

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Komissarov, S. S. & Lyubarsky, Y . E. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 779

    work page 2004

  37. [37]

    2008, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, V ol

    Konopelko, A. 2008, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, V ol. 2, Interna- tional Cosmic Ray Conference, 767–770

    work page 2008

  38. [38]

    G., Jordan, C

    Lyne, A. G., Jordan, C. A., Graham-Smith, F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 857

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    & Torres, D

    Martin, J. & Torres, D. F. 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 36, 128 Martín, J., Torres, D. F., & Pedaletti, G. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3868 Martín, J., Torres, D. F., & Rea, N. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 415

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    2024, A&A, 690, A116

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

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06627

    Martin, P., Mertz, I., Kempf, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06627

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    2022, A&A, 666, A7

    Martin, P., Tibaldo, L., Marcowith, A., & Abdollahi, S. 2022, A&A, 666, A7

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    P., Bersten, M

    Martinez, L., Anderson, J. P., Bersten, M. C., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 660, A42

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Meyer, D. M.-A. & Meliani, Z. 2022, MNRAS, 515, L29

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    M.-A., Meliani, Z., & Torres, D

    Meyer, D. M.-A., Meliani, Z., & Torres, D. F. 2024, A&A, 692, A207

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Meyer, D. M.-A. & Torres, D. F. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 186

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    M.-A., Torres, D

    Meyer, D. M.-A., Torres, D. F., & Meliani, Z. 2025, A&A, 696, L9

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    2016, Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings, 273-275, 367, 37th International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP) Müller, B., Melson, T., Heger, A., & Janka, H.-T

    Mukherjee, R. 2016, Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings, 273-275, 367, 37th International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP) Müller, B., Melson, T., Heger, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 491

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Nadyozhin, D. K. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 97

    work page 2003

  50. [50]

    & Bucciantini, N

    Olmi, B. & Bucciantini, N. 2023, PASA, 40, e007

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    2016, Jour- nal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820601

    Olmi, B., Del Zanna, L., Amato, E., Bucciantini, N., & Mignone, A. 2016, Jour- nal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820601

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    & Torres, D

    Olmi, B. & Torres, D. F. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4357

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    & Salvati, M

    Pacini, F. & Salvati, M. 1973, ApJ, 186, 249

    work page 1973

  54. [54]

    A., Moskalenko, I

    Porter, T. A., Moskalenko, I. V ., & Strong, A. W. 2006, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 648, L29

    work page 2006

  55. [55]

    S., & Keppens, R

    Porth, O., Komissarov, S. S., & Keppens, R. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 547

    work page 2014

  56. [56]

    2009, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 9, 449

    Qiao, W.-F., Zhang, L., & Fang, J. 2009, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 9, 449

    work page 2009

  57. [57]

    L., Wright, N

    Quintana, A. L., Wright, N. J., & Martínez García, J. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1367

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    D., Shore, S

    Renzo, M., Ott, C. D., Shore, S. N., & de Mink, S. E. 2017, A&A, 603, A118

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    Reynolds, S. P. & Chevalier, R. A. 1984, ApJ, 278, 630

    work page 1984

  60. [60]

    2016, Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings, 273-275, 328, 37th In- ternational Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP)

    Rico, J. 2016, Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings, 273-275, 328, 37th In- ternational Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP)

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    2021, New Astronomy, 83, 101498

    Rozwadowska, K., Vissani, F., & Cappellaro, E. 2021, New Astronomy, 83, 101498

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    T., Joshi, V ., & Mitchell, A

    Scharrer, N., Spencer, S. T., Joshi, V ., & Mitchell, A. M. W. 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 096

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Slane, P. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 2159

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    E., Brown, J

    Sukhbold, T., Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Brown, J. M., & Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38 SWGO Collaboration et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.01786

    work page arXiv 2016

  65. [65]

    Tanaka, S. J. & Takahara, F. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 1248

    work page 2010

  66. [66]

    Tanaka, S. J. & Takahara, F. 2011, ApJ, 741, 40

    work page 2011

  67. [67]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 100

    Temim, T., Slane, P., Kolb, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 100

    work page 2015

  68. [68]

    F., Cillis, A., Martín, J., & de Oña Wilhelmi, E

    Torres, D. F., Cillis, A., Martín, J., & de Oña Wilhelmi, E. 2014, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 1, 31

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    Torres, D. F. & Lin, T. 2018, ApJ, 864, L2

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    F., Lin, T., & Coti Zelati, F

    Torres, D. F., Lin, T., & Coti Zelati, F. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1019

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    F., Martín, J., de Oña Wilhelmi, E., & Cillis, A

    Torres, D. F., Martín, J., de Oña Wilhelmi, E., & Cillis, A. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3112

    work page 2013

  72. [72]

    Truelove, J. K. & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJS, 120, 299 van der Swaluw, E., Achterberg, A., Gallant, Y . A., & Tóth, G. 2001, A&A, 380, 309 van Rensburg, C., Krüger, P. P., & Venter, C. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3853 V orster, M. J., Tibolla, O., Ferreira, S. E. S., & Kaufmann, S. 2013, ApJ, 773, 139

    work page 1999

  73. [73]

    Watters, K. P. & Romani, R. W. 2011, ApJ, 727, 123

    work page 2011

  74. [74]

    2003, MNRAS, 338, 711

    Zampieri, L., Pastorello, A., Turatto, M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 711

    work page 2003

  75. [75]

    B., & Fang, J

    Zhang, L., Chen, S. B., & Fang, J. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1210

    work page 2008

  76. [76]

    Zhu, B.-T., Zhang, L., & Fang, J. 2018, A&A, 609, A110 Article number, page 16 De Sarkar et al.: Population synthesis of middle-aged PWNe - I 10 20 30 40 50 Zero-age main-sequence mass M (M ) 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175Probability Density Inverse transform sampled Theoretical IMF M 2.35 20 40 60 80 100 120 Zero-age main-sequence mass M...

    work page 2018