Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Contribution of Unresolved Sources to Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission from the Galactic Plane

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Unresolved sources can account for the outer Galaxy's diffuse gamma-ray excess, but not the inner Galaxy's.

desk verdict Credible, transparent estimate of unresolved-source contribution to the LHAASO diffuse excess; outer-Galaxy claim is plausible but rests on an unquantified faint-end extrapolation, while the inner-Galaxy gap is robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02720 v1 pith:HQKUR7ES submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Jiayin He , Houdun Zeng , Yi Zhang , Qiang Yuan , Rui Zhang , Jun Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords diffusegamma-rayemissionunresolvedsourcesLHAASOsourcecountdistributionLynden-BellC-minusmethodTeV–PeVgammaraysGalacticplanecosmic-raypropagation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

LHAASO-KM2A has measured diffuse gamma-ray emission from the Galactic plane between 10 TeV and 1 PeV, and the flux exceeds predictions based on cosmic rays interacting with the interstellar medium. This paper asks how much of that excess comes from many individually undetected gamma-ray sources rather than from new physics or unusual cosmic-ray propagation. Using the first LHAASO source catalog, the authors reconstruct the intrinsic source-count distribution with a non-parametric method and extrapolate it below the detection threshold. They find that in the outer Galaxy the unresolved-source contribution, added to the standard cosmic-ray model, matches the measured diffuse flux within uncertainties; in the inner Galaxy it does not, leaving roughly half of the low-energy flux unexplained. The result matters because it separates a concrete, testable astrophysical population from the need for additional components.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the Lynden-Bell C− method, a non-parametric estimator that recovers the intrinsic joint distribution of integrated flux and photon spectral index from a sample truncated by detection thresholds. The authors apply it to the 65 KM2A and 60 WCDA sources in the first LHAASO catalog with |b|<5°, fitting the cumulative flux distribution to a broken power law with faint-end slope β1≈1.0 and bright-end slope β2≈3.3 for KM2A, and a Gaussian photon-index distribution. They then form a flux-dependent detection efficiency λ(F) by comparing observed source counts with the best-fit distribution, model the spatial distribution of sources along the Galactic plane, and integrate the undetected fraction over flux and photon index to get the unresolved flux per solid angle in each ROI. That integral, Equation 13, is what converts an extrapolated catalog population into a prediction for the diffuse emission.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the source-count distribution at fluxes below the current LHAASO threshold, for example from a deeper survey with the same arrays, would settle the claim: if the cumulative N(>F) deviates from the broken power-law extrapolation with faint-end slope β1≈1.0, then the predicted unresolved flux, and with it the outer-Galaxy consistency, fails. A simpler proximate test is to propagate the quoted uncertainty on β1 (1.008 ± 0.208) into the reported SED bands and see whether the outer-Galaxy match survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the diffuse gamma-ray excess seen by LHAASO-KM2A can be partially but not fully attributed to unresolved sources. For the outer Galaxy (125° < l < 235°, |b| < 5°), the flux from sources too faint to be detected, computed from the LHAASO catalog's source-count distribution extrapolated down to $10^{-18}$ ph $cm^{-2}$ $s^{-1}$ (KM2A) and $10^{-16}$ ph $cm^{-2}$ $s^{-1}$ (WCDA), plus the conventional cosmic-ray propagation model, is roughly consistent with the measured SED. The unresolved contribution falls from about 28% to 7% with energy. For the inner Galaxy (15° < l < 125°, |b| < 5°), the same calculation leaves about 50% of the measured flux unexplained below roughly 30 TeV, so the authors conclude that additional components, such as pulsar halos or photon leakage from pulsar wind nebulae, are required there. They also note the flux ratio of unresolved sources between inner and outer regions is about 1.8 from geometry alone.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that the source-count distribution fitted to catalog sources above the detection threshold continues unchanged down to fluxes of $10^{-18}$ ph $cm^{-2}$ $s^{-1}$ (KM2A) and $10^{-16}$ ph $cm^{-2}$ $s^{-1}$ (WCDA), so the unresolved flux is set by a faint population that has not actually been observed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the outer Galaxy, the diffuse excess between 10 TeV and 1 PeV can be explained without invoking new cosmic-ray physics; the required ingredient is a population of faint sources that follows the catalog's source-count slope.
  • The unresolved contribution is energy-dependent, decreasing from roughly 28% to 7% in the outer Galaxy and 17% to 5% in the inner Galaxy, so source confusion matters most at the lowest energies of the KM2A band.
  • For the inner Galaxy, some additional gamma-ray component below about 30 TeV is needed; candidate explanations include pulsar halos and leakage from pulsar wind nebulae.
  • The source-count distribution inferred from bright LHAASO sources has predictive power for future deeper surveys: a detection of the predicted faint population would confirm the interpretation, while a break in the slope would require revising it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the outer-Galaxy match is real, the same extrapolation can be turned around: the diffuse emission itself becomes a measurement of the faint-end source-count slope, and future LHAASO data with a lower threshold will provide a direct cross-check.
  • The assumed spatial distribution of sources, anchored to supernova remnants and pulsars, is a free input; a different radial profile would change the inner-to-outer flux ratio of 1.8 and could weaken or strengthen the inner-Galaxy shortfall, so the conclusion is partly a statement about that distribution.
  • The WCDA sample shows a hard-spectrum subpopulation with Γ≲2 below 25 TeV; if those sources form a distinct class, the unresolved flux at 1–25 TeV could be dominated by a population not represented in the KM2A band, changing the predicted SED shape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper estimates the contribution of unresolved gamma-ray sources to the LHAASO-KM2A diffuse Galactic emission by deriving the source count distribution and photon-index distribution from the first LHAASO catalog using the Lynden-Bell C− method. It fits a broken power law for dN/dF and a Gaussian for the photon-index distribution, constructs the detection efficiency, and integrates Eq. (13) down to very faint fluxes to obtain unresolved-source SEDs for the inner and outer Galaxy. Comparing the sum of the unresolved contribution and the CR propagation model of Zhang et al. (2023) with LHAASO-KM2A data, the paper concludes that the outer Galaxy (125°<l<235°) is roughly consistent within uncertainties, while the inner Galaxy requires additional components below about 30 TeV.

Significance. If robust, the result provides a concrete, catalog-based explanation of part of the TeV-PeV diffuse excess and sharpens the need for extra components in the inner Galaxy. The analysis is transparent, uses the public LHAASO catalog, and gives explicit formulas for each step; the authors also acknowledge catalog incompleteness and source-extension limitations in Section 6. However, the headline conclusion is currently supported mainly by central-value comparisons: the propagated uncertainties of the source-count fit are not shown in the SED bands, the detection efficiency is built from the same best-fit model used for the extrapolation, and the assumed source spatial distribution directly rescales the result. These issues are fixable but need to be addressed before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Figure 5, Eq. (13), Table 1] The quoted SED bands for unresolved sources do not include the uncertainties of the fitted source-count parameters. In particular, the KM2A sub-break slope is β1=1.008±0.208, and because the detection efficiency saturates above F≈6×10^-15 ph cm^-2 s^-1 (Fig. 4), the unresolved flux integral is dominated by the extrapolated population below that flux. A 1σ change in β1 can shift the unresolved SED by tens of percent, which is enough to affect the 'roughly consistent' outer-Galaxy conclusion. Please propagate the Table 1 parameter uncertainties, including their covariance, into the Figure 5 bands and state the resulting range for the outer-Galaxy residual.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (13)] The detection efficiency λ(F) is constructed as the ratio of the observed source count to the best-fit dN/dF, and the same best-fit broken power law is then used in Eq. (13) to extrapolate below the detection threshold. This makes the unresolved flux estimate dependent on the functional form assumed for the source count distribution in a way that is not captured by the statistical errors in Table 1. I ask for a robustness test with at least one alternative parameterization (e.g., a steeper or flatter sub-threshold slope, or a smoothly curved function) and a statement of how the outer-Galaxy conclusion changes under that alternative.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (10)–(13)] The ROI photon fractions f_inner,ROI≈0.31 and f_outer,ROI≈0.22 are computed from an assumed spatial distribution of sources (Eq. 10) with fixed parameters (r⊙=8.5 kpc, zs=0.2 kpc) and no uncertainty. Since the unresolved SED in Eq. (13) is proportional to f_i,ROI, a change in the scale height or radial profile directly rescales the predicted contribution. The paper does not validate Eq. (10) against the longitude distribution of the LHAASO catalog sources. Please quantify the sensitivity of the unresolved flux to the assumed spatial distribution or calibrate it with the observed source positions.
  4. [Section 5, Figure 5] The claim that the outer Galaxy is 'roughly consistent' is based on visual overlap of bands, but no quantitative measure (e.g., chi-square, residual significance, or pull) is given for the sum of the CR model and unresolved sources. Because the model and unresolved components are added linearly and the data uncertainties may be correlated across energy bins, a quantitative comparison would make the central claim testable and would clarify whether the agreement is actually within the propagated uncertainties.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figure 3 caption] There are small typographical errors: 'Lyden-Bell' should be 'Lynden-Bell' in the text and figure caption, and 'sorces' should be 'sources' in the Figure 3 caption.
  2. [Eq. (13)] Please define dN/dF dΓ explicitly as the joint differential source count and state the units of the integration limits; the current notation is ambiguous between a product and a joint distribution.
  3. [Figure 4] The detection efficiency is shown without error bars; adding Poisson uncertainties would help the reader assess at which flux the 100% completeness claim is reliable.
  4. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'We have verified that varying the integration limits for the flux and photon index has a negligible effect' should be supported with a short quantitative demonstration, since the lower limits of 10^-18 and 10^-16 ph cm^-2 s^-1 are far below the catalog threshold and the verification is directly relevant to the extrapolation.
  5. [Equations (3) and (7)] The survival-product step of the Lynden-Bell method is terse; a short explanation of why n_j−1 and m_j−1 appear in the product, and how the product is ordered over sources, would improve readability for readers not familiar with the method.
  6. [Figure 5, lower panels] The lower subplots show fractional contributions without uncertainty bands; these fractions inherit the same unpropagated errors noted above and should be updated if the bands are updated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the unresolved-source flux is an extrapolation of the LHAASO catalog, and the diffuse data used for comparison are not inputs to the fit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) estimate the intrinsic source count distribution from the published LHAASO catalog using the Lynden-Bell C- method; (2) fit a broken power law to that distribution; (3) define the detection efficiency as the ratio of observed counts to best-fit counts; (4) compute the unresolved-source flux by integrating the fitted dN/dF weighted by (1 - lambda) over flux and photon index (Eq. 13); and (5) compare the result to the independently measured LHAASO-KM2A diffuse gamma-ray SED. The measured diffuse flux enters only at the final comparison stage, not in any fit, so the outer-Galaxy consistency claim is an external test rather than a quantity forced by the inputs. The unresolved flux is indeed determined by the fitted source-count model and the observed catalog, but that is the intended estimate: the flux carried by sources that the model population places below the detection efficiency. The CR baseline model cited from Zhang et al. (2023) shares authors with the present paper, but it is an independently fitted propagation model whose parameters come from local cosmic-ray data, not from the present target claim. The deep integration limits down to 10^-18 ph cm^-2 s^-1 are stated to have negligible effect, and for beta1 ~ 1.008 the integrand scales as F^(1-beta1), so the contribution is dominated by fluxes near the detection threshold rather than by the extreme faint tail. Remaining concerns, such as the quoted slope uncertainty (beta1 = 1.008 +/- 0.208) not being propagated into the SED bands and the assumed source spatial distribution, are model and statistical risks, not circularity. No step reduces to its own output by construction, and no load-bearing argument is supported solely by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The unresolved flux estimate is an extrapolation: a power-law source count fitted to bright catalog sources is extended several orders of magnitude below the survey threshold, combined with an assumed spatial distribution and a cosmic-ray propagation baseline. The fitted slopes, particularly KM2A beta1 near 1.0, control the result, and their uncertainties are not propagated into the final SED bands.

free parameters (6)
  • KM2A broken power-law source count parameters (beta1, beta2, log10 Fb, log10 A) = beta1=1.008±0.208, beta2=3.348±0.680, log10 Fb=-13.290±0.101, log10 A=15.302±0.077
    Fitted to the Lynden-Bell cumulative distribution of integrated flux. The low-flux slope beta1 controls the extrapolated unresolved population.
  • WCDA broken power-law source count parameters (beta1, beta2, log10 Fb, log10 A) = beta1=1.166±0.152, beta2=2.199±0.173, log10 Fb=-11.279±0.139, log10 A=13.360±0.053
    Fitted to the WCDA sample in the 1-25 TeV range, used for the unresolved contribution below 25 TeV.
  • KM2A Gaussian photon index distribution parameters (mu, sigma) = mu=3.562±0.091, sigma=0.343±0.054
    Fitted to the Lynden-Bell cumulative distribution of photon indices; used in the integral over Gamma in Equation 13.
  • WCDA Gaussian photon index distribution parameters (mu, sigma) = mu=2.712±0.064, sigma=0.338±0.041
    Fitted to the WCDA sample; used for the unresolved contribution below 25 TeV.
  • Detection threshold lines (slope and intercept) for KM2A and WCDA = Not reported in the paper
    Obtained by linear regression on TS-normalized fluxes; these lines define the data sets J_k and J'_k and are critical inputs to the Lynden-Bell method.
  • Flux integration lower limits in Equation 13 = 10^-18 ph cm^-2 s^-1 (KM2A), 10^-16 ph cm^-2 s^-1 (WCDA)
    Chosen by hand; the authors state that varying the limits has a negligible effect, so this is a minor free choice.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Lynden-Bell C- method yields unbiased intrinsic distributions of flux and photon index for the truncated sample, given the fitted threshold line.
    Invoked in Section 3; assumes the truncation is fully described by the threshold line and that the intrinsic flux and photon index are uncorrelated.
  • domain assumption The unresolved source population follows the same intrinsic flux and spectral-index distributions as catalog sources, even at fluxes far below the detection threshold.
    Used in Equation 13 to extrapolate the fitted broken power law down to 10^-18 ph cm^-2 s^-1; this extrapolation dominates the unresolved flux estimate.
  • domain assumption The spatial distribution of unresolved sources follows the assumed pulsar/SNR distribution f(r,z) from Trotta et al. (2011).
    Used in Equations 10-12 to derive finner,ROI approx 0.31 and fouter,ROI approx 0.22, which set the inner-to-outer flux ratio of unresolved sources.
  • domain assumption The cosmic-ray propagation model prediction of Zhang et al. (2023) is an accurate baseline for the diffuse Galactic emission.
    The comparison in Figure 5 and the conclusion that the outer Galaxy is consistent depend on this baseline; several authors of the present paper are co-authors of the model paper.
  • domain assumption The source masking and regions of interest used in the unresolved-source calculation are identical to those used in the LHAASO-KM2A diffuse emission measurement.
    Stated in Section 4.2; any mismatch between the adopted mask and the actual measurement mask would bias the flux comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contribution of Unresolved Sources to Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission from the Galactic Plane." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HQKUR7ES

@misc{pith2026250102720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contribution of Unresolved Sources to Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission from the Galactic Plane},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HQKUR7ES}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02720}
}
read the original abstract

The diffuse gamma-ray emission from the Milky Way serves as a crucial probe for understanding the propagation and interactions of cosmic rays within our galaxy. The Galactic diffuse gamma-ray emission between 10 TeV and 1 PeV has been recently measured by the square kilometer array (KM2A) of the Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO). The flux is higher than predicted for cosmic rays interacting with the interstellar medium. In this work, we utilize a non-parametric method to derive the source count distribution using the published first LHAASO source catalog. Based on this distribution, we calculate the contribution of unresolved sources to the diffuse emission measured by KM2A. When comparing our results to the measured diffuse gamma-ray emission, we demonstrate that for the outer Galactic region, the contributions from unresolved sources and those predicted by models are roughly consistent with experimental observations within the uncertainty. However, for the inner Galactic region, additional components are required to account for the observed data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02720 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Integrated flux and photon spectral index of LHAASO sources with |b| < 5 ◦ used in this analysis. Left panel: KM2A; right panel: WCDA. There are 65 sources in the KM2A sample and 60 sources in the WCDA sample, represented by the red points with parameters (F, Γ). The integrated flux is the integration of the power-law SED with respect to energy, ranging from 25 to 1600 TeV for KM2A and from 1 to 25 TeV for WCDA. The… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The cumulative distribution of integrated flux. Left panel: KM2A; right panel: WCDA. The data points are derived using the Lynden-Bell C − method (Lynden-Bell 1971), and the solid curves represent the best-fit lines. We assume a broken power-law for the differential distribution of integrated flux, and the expected number of sources with integrated flux > F is obtained by integrating the differential distribution ov… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The cumulative distribution of photon index. Left panel: KM2A; right panel: WCDA. The data points are calculated from Lyden-Bell C − method(Lynden-Bell 1971), and the solid curves are the best fits. A Gaussian form is used for the description of differential distribution of photon index, where the expected number of sorces with photon index < Γ is the integral of the differential form over photon index with < Γ. The… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detection efficiencies of KM2A and WCDA, derived from the comparison between the number of observed sources and the number predicted by the source count distribution. Left panel: KM2A; right panel: WCDA. Assuming that the spatial distribution of sources along the Galac…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral energy distribution (SED) of unresolved sources. Left panel: inner Galaxy; right panel: outer Galaxy. Upper panel: The orange and green bands represent the flux of unresolved sources in the WCDA and KM2A energy ranges, respectively. The gray band indicates the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Dissecting the Diffuse Emission of the Galaxy with the HAWC Observatory

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HAWC's Pass 5 analysis of 8 years of data yields new TeV diffuse galactic emission profiles with tails beyond 3 degrees latitude and a galactic-center excess relative to standard cosmic-ray propagation models.

  2. LHAASO protons versus LHAASO diffuse gamma-rays: a consistency check

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The LHAASO proton spectrum, folded with gas maps and interaction models, predicts a diffuse gamma-ray flux that exceeds LHAASO's measured diffuse gamma-ray flux, especially in the inner Galaxy.

  3. Breaking Dark: Hunting Heavy Decaying Dark Matter with Tibet AS$_\gamma$ and LHAASO-KM2A

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Tibet ASγ and LHAASO-KM2A diffuse gamma-ray data exclude decaying dark matter lifetimes below about 10^28 seconds for masses around 10^6-10^9 GeV, for many Standard Model final states.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., Allen, B., Berley, D., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Allen, B., Berley, D., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 658, L33, doi: 10.1086/513696

    doi:10.1086/513696 2007

  2. [2]

    A., Allen, B., Aune, T., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Allen, B., Aune, T., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 688, 1078, doi: 10.1086/592213

    doi:10.1086/592213 2008

  3. [3]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 435, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/435

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/435 2010

  4. [4]

    2014, PhRvD, 90, 122007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.122007

    Abramowski, A., Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 122007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.122007

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.122007 2014

  5. [5]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/3

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/3 2012

  6. [6]

    A., & Atoyan, A

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

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    C., et al

    Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, J. C., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad00b6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad00b6 2024

  8. [8]

    W., Bi, X

    Amenomori, M., Bao, Y. W., Bi, X. J., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 141101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.141101 2021

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al

    Bartoli, B., Bernardini, P., Bi, X. J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/20

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, Phys

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 151001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.151001 —. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 271, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, A New Perspective on the Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission Excess

    Chen, E., Fang, K., & Bi, X. 2024, A New Perspective on the Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission Excess. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15474 9

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    2023, Diffuse Ultra-High-Energy Gamma-Ray Emission From TeV Halos

    Dekker, A., Holst, I., Hooper, D., et al. 2023, Diffuse Ultra-High-Energy Gamma-Ray Emission From TeV Halos. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00051

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    E., Hartman, R

    Fichtel, C. E., Hartman, R. C., Kniffen, D. A., et al. 1975, ApJ, 198, 163, doi: 10.1086/153590

    1975 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 813, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0813

    Giacinti, G., Kachelriess, M., Koldobskiy, S., Neronov, A., & Semikoz, D. 2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 813, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0813

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a4e

    He, X.-Y., Zhang, P.-P., Yuan, Q., & Guo, Y.-Q. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a4e

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Bertsch, D

    Hunter, S. D., Bertsch, D. L., Catelli, J. R., et al. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 481, 205, doi: 10.1086/304012 LHAASO Collaboration. 2024, Science Bulletin, 69, 449, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2023.12.040

    1997 doi

  9. [17]

    Linden, T., & Buckman, B. J. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 121101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.121101

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, Phys

    Lipari, P., & Vernetto, S. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 043003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043003

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Luque, P. D. l. T., Gaggero, D., Grasso, D., et al. 2023, Astron. Astrophys., 672, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243714

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    1971, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 155, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/155.1.95

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1971, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 155, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/155.1.95

    1971 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Bennett, K., Bignami, G

    Mayer-Hasselwander, H. A., Bennett, K., Bignami, G. F., et al. 1982, A&A, 105, 164

    1982

  14. [22]

    2023, Phys

    Shao, C., Lin, S., & Yang, L. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, L061305, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L061305

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/45

    Singal, J., Petrosian, V., & Ajello, M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/45

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    W., Moskalenko, I

    Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V., & Reimer, O. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 537, 763, doi: 10.1086/309038 —. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 613, 962, doi: 10.1086/423193

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, Multi-messenger observations support cosmic ray interactions surrounding acceleration sources

    Sun, D.-X., Zhang, P.-P., Guo, Y.-Q., Liu, W., & Yuan, Q. 2023, Multi-messenger observations support cosmic ray interactions surrounding acceleration sources. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02372

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    V., et al

    Trotta, R., J´ ohannesson, G., Moskalenko, I. V., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 729, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/106

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    L., & Pagliaroli, G

    Vecchiotti, V., Zuccarini, F., Villante, F. L., & Pagliaroli, G. 2022, Astrophys. J., 928, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4df4

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02221-y

    Yan, K., Liu, R.-Y., Zhang, R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02221-y

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, Phys

    Yao, Y.-H., Dong, X.-L., Guo, Y.-Q., & Yuan, Q. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 063001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063001

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, Universe, 10, 340, doi: 10.3390/universe10090340

    Yin, X., & Zeng, H. 2024, Universe, 10, 340, doi: 10.3390/universe10090340

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf65e

    Zeng, H., Petrosian, V., & Yi, T. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf65e

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, Phys

    Zhang, P.-P., Qiao, B.-Q., Yuan, Q., Cui, S.-Q., & Guo, Y.-Q. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023002

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf842

    Zhang, R., Huang, X., Xu, Z.-H., Zhao, S., & Yuan, Q. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf842

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.