Prospective study on observations of gamma-ray emission from active galactic nuclei using the HADAR experiment

Qian Xiang-Li; Sun Hui-Ying; Chen Tian-Lu; Danzengluobu; Feng You-Liang; Gao Qi; Gou Quan-Bu; Guo Yi-Qing; Hu Hong-Bo; Kang Ming-Ming; Li Hai-Jin; Liu Cheng; Liu Mao-Yuan; Liu Wei; Qiao Bing-Qiang; Wang Xu; Wang Zhen; Xin Guang-Guang; Yao Yu-Hua; Yuan Qiang; Zhang Yi

doi:10.7498/aps.72.20221976

Abstract

The High Altitude Detection of Astronomical Radiation (HADAR) experiment is a refracting terrestrial telescope array based on the atmospheric Cherenkov imaging technique. It is a hybrid array consisting of four water-lens telescopes and a surrounding scintillation detector array for observing Cherenkov light induced by 10 GeV–10 TeV cosmic rays and gamma rays in the atmosphere. The water-lens telescope mainly consists of a hemispherical lens with a diameter of 5 m acting as a Cherenkov light collector, a cylindrical metal tank with a 4 m radius and 7 m height, and an imaging system at the bottom of the tank. The sky region covered by HADAR is much larger than the current generation of Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes, and even the CTA. The field-of-view (FOV) of HADAR can reach up to 60 degrees. The HADAR experiment possesses the advantages of a large field-of-view and low energy threshold, so it can continuously scan wide portions of the sky and easily observe extragalactic gamma-ray sources. The majority of the extragalactic gamma-ray sources detected at very high energy (VHE) energies are active galactic nuclei (AGNs). In this study, we present the potential of using the HADAR experiment for detecting AGN. Based on the AGN catalog sources of the Fermi Large Area Telescope (Fermi-LAT), the observed energy is extrapolated to the VHE range. The VHE gamma rays propagating over cosmological distances can interact with the low-energy of the extragalactic background light (EBL) and produce electron-positron pairs. Therefore, we consider the absorption effects of different EBL models when calculating the expected gamma ray spectra of the AGN sample. We select the sample with redshift measurements and locations inside the FOV of HADAR from 4LAC catalog. In total, there are 375 BL Lacertae objects (BL Lacs) and 289 flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs) satisfying the selection conditions. The integral gamma ray spectra are derived and compared with the sensitivity curve of HADAR, the number of sources with fluxes above the sensitivity of HADAR is counted. Further, we calculate the statistical significance of HADAR for AGN source observation based on the equi-zenith angle sky scanning analysis method. The simulation results reveal that a total of 31 sources of Fermi-LAT AGN can be detected by HADAR with a significance greater than five standard deviations over a one-year survey period, most of which are BL Lacs.

Keywords:

Authors and contacts

1.
School of Intelligent Engineering, Shandong Management University, Jinan 250357, China
2.
Key Laboratory of Cosmic Rays, Ministry of Education, Tibet University, Lhasa 850000, China
3.
Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
4.
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
5.
College of Physics, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China
6.
Tsung-Dao Lee Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
7.
Suzhou Aerospace Information Research Institute, Suzhou 215000, China
8.
College of Physics, Chongqing University, Chongqing 401331, China
9.
Key Laboratory of Dark Matter and Space Astronomy, Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210023, China

Corresponding author: Chen Tian-Lu, chentl@ihep.ac.cn ; Guo Yi-Qing, guoyq@ihep.ac.cn ;

Funds: Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 12263005, 11873005, 11705103, 12005120, 12147218, U1831208, U1632104, 11875264, U2031110) and the Key Laboratory for Cosmic Ray of the Education Ministry of China, Tibet University (Grant No. KLCR-202201)

FullText HTML : translate this paragraph

References

[1]	Aharonian F, Akhperjanian A G, Bazer-Bachi A R 2007 Astrophys. J. 664 L71 Google Scholar
[2]	Albert J, Aliu E, Anderhub H 2007 Astrophys. J. 669 862 Google Scholar
[3]	Sikora M, Begelman M C, Rees M J 1994 Astrophys. J. 421 153 Google Scholar
[4]	Marscher A P 2016 Galaxies. 4 37 Google Scholar
[5]	Aharonian F 2000 New. Astron. 5 377 Google Scholar
[6]	Mücke A, Protheroe R J, Engel R, Rachen J P, Stanev T 2003 Astropart. Phys. 18 593 Google Scholar
[7]	Fossati G, Maraschi L, Celotti A, Comastri A, Ghisellini G 1998 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 299 433 Google Scholar
[8]	Ghisellini G, Righi C, Costamante L, Tavecchio F 2017 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 469 255 Google Scholar
[9]	Padovani P, Giommi P 1995 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 277 1477 Google Scholar
[10]	Ajello M, Arimoto M, Axelsson M 2019 Astrophys. J. 878 52 Google Scholar
[11]	Hinton J A 2004 New. Astron. Rev. 48 331 Google Scholar
[12]	Aleksić J, Ansoldi S, Antonelli L A 2016 Astropart. Phys. 72 61 Google Scholar
[13]	Weekes T C, Badran H, Biller S D 2002 Astropart. Phys. 17 221 Google Scholar
[14]	Abeysekara A U, Alfaro R, Alvarez C 2013 Astropart. Phys. 50 26 Google Scholar
[15]	Sciascio G D 2016 Nucl. Part. Phys. P. 279 166 Google Scholar
[16]	CTA Consortium 2018 Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array (Singapore: World Scientific) pp11–26
[17]	Punch M, Akerlof C W, Cawley M F 1992 Nature 358 477 Google Scholar
[18]	Quinn J, Akerlof C W, Biller S 1996 Astrophys. J. 456 L83 Google Scholar
[19]	Albert J, Aliu E, Anderhub H 2008 Science 320 1752 Google Scholar
[20]	Aliu E, Archambault S, Arlen T 2012 Astrophys. J. 750 94 Google Scholar
[21]	Abramowski A, Acero F, Aharonian F 2012 Astron. Astrophys. 538 A103 Google Scholar
[22]	Abramowski A, Acero F, Aharonian F 2013 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 434 1889 Google Scholar
[23]	Abdo A A, Ackermann M, Ajello M 2011 Astrophys. J. 736 131 Google Scholar
[24]	Ahnen M L, Ansoldi S, Antonelli L A 2017 Astron. Astrophys. 603 A31 Google Scholar
[25]	Abdalla H, Adam R, Aharonian F 2021 Astron. Astrophys. 648 A23 Google Scholar
[26]	Arlen T, Aune T, Beilicke M 2012 Astrophys. J. 762 92 Google Scholar
[27]	Abdo A A, Ackermann M, Ajello M 2011 Astrophys. J. 727 129 Google Scholar
[28]	Bartoli B, Bernardini P, Bi X J 2012 Astrophys. J. 758 2 Google Scholar
[29]	Albert J, Aliu E, Anderhub H 2007 Astrophys. J. 667 358 Google Scholar
[30]	Gilmore R C, Madau P, Primack J R, Somerville R S, Haardt F 2009 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 399 1694 Google Scholar
[31]	Inoue S, Salvaterra R, Choudhury T R, Ferrara A, Ciardi B, Schneider R 2010 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 404 1938 Google Scholar
[32]	Takahashi K, Inoue S, Ichiki K, Nakamura T 2011 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 410 2741 Google Scholar
[33]	Wang Z, Guo Y Q, Cai H 2018 Exp. Astron. 45 363 Google Scholar
[34]	Xin G G, Yao Y H, Qian X L 2021 Astrophys. J. 923 112 Google Scholar
[35]	Holler M, Balzer A, Chalmé-Calvet R, de Naurois M, and Zaborov D 2015 Proceedings of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Hague, Netherlands, 30 July–6 August 2015 34 980
[36]	Aleksić J, Ansoldi S, Antonelli L A 2016 Astropart. Phys. 72 76 Google Scholar
[37]	Ma X H, Bi Y J, Cao Z 2022 Chinese Phys. C 46 030001 Google Scholar
[38]	DeYoung T 2012 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 692 72 Google Scholar
[39]	Zhao Y, Yuan Q, Bi X J, Zhu F R, Jia H Y 2016 Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25 1650006 Google Scholar
[40]	Cai H, Zhang Y, Liu C 2017 J. Instrum. 12 09023 Google Scholar
[41]	Chen T L, Liu C, Gao Q 2019 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 927 46 Google Scholar
[42]	Ajello M, Angioni R, Axelsson M 2020 Astrophys. J. 892 105 Google Scholar
[43]	Stecker F W, De Jager O C, Salamon M H 1992 Astrophys. J. 390 L49 Google Scholar
[44]	Franceschini A, Rodighiero G, Vaccari M 2008 Astron. Astrophys. 487 837 Google Scholar
[45]	Finke J D, Razzaque S, Dermer C D 2010 Astrophys. J. 712 238 Google Scholar
[46]	Domínguez A, Primack J R, Rosario D J 2011 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 410 2556 Google Scholar
[47]	Gilmore R C, Somerville R S, Primack J R, Domínguez A 2012 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 422 3189 Google Scholar
[48]	Helgason K, Kashlinsky A 2012 Astrophys. J. Lett. 758 L13 Google Scholar
[49]	Inoue Y, Inoue S, Kobayashi M A R, Makiya R, Niino Y, Totani T 2013 Astrophys. J. 768 197 Google Scholar
[50]	Stecker F W, Scully S T, Malkan M A 2016 Astrophys. J. 827 6 Google Scholar
[51]	Abdollahi S, Acero F, Ackermann M 2020 Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 247 33 Google Scholar
[52]	Amenomori M, Ayabe S, Chen D 2005 Astrophys. J. 633 1005 Google Scholar
[53]	Gaisser T K, Stanev T, Tilav S 2013 Front. Phys. 8 748 Google Scholar

Cited By

图 1 HADAR阵列示意图　(a)阵列分布图; (b)单个水透镜详细结构图^[34]

Figure 1. Schematic of HADAR: (a) Layout of the HADAR experiment; (b) detailed design of a water-lens telescope^[34]

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

图 2 HADAR实验的角分辨, 入射事例的天顶角分别为10°, 20°和30°^[34]

Figure 2. Performance of HADAR angular resolution. The incident zenith angles are 10°, 20° and 30°^[34]

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

图 3 HADAR实验的有效面积　(a)不同天顶角伽马事例入射时的有效面积及与其他实验的比较; (b)实验的有效孔径

Figure 3. Performance of HADAR effective area: (a) Effective areas for incident γ-ray events at different zenith angles and comparison with other IACT and EAS experiments; (b) acceptance for HADAR and other experiments

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

图 4 HADAR及其他伽马射线实验的灵敏度曲线对比图

Figure 4. Comparisons of the sensitivity of HADAR with other γ-ray instruments

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

图 5 筛选出的664个AGN源的能谱指数分布图(左)与红移分布图(右)

Figure 5. Distribution of photon index (left) and redshift (right) for 664 selected AGN sources

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

图 6 预期的经过5种不同EBL模型吸收之后的AGN源的伽马射线能谱图及与HADAR灵敏度曲线的比较. 其中蓝色实线为BL Lacs, 红色虚线为FSRQs, 黑色粗线为HADAR的灵敏度曲线

Figure 6. Expected γ-ray spectra of the AGN sample after EBL absorption. Different panels are for the five different EBL models as labeled. The blue solid lines represent BL Lacs and red dashed lines represent FSRQs. The sensitivity of HADAR is shown with the thick black line

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

图 7 赤道坐标系(J2000 坐标)下HADAR对河外源的观测显著性预期, 显著性显示范围为–3—15

Figure 7. Expected significance of extragalactic sources in the equatorial coordinates (J2000 epoch) in the HADAR FOV. The visualization range is limited between –3 and 15

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

表 1 HADAR实验一年观测时间对河外源观测的显著性估计, 列表从左到右依次为: Fermi源名称, 相关联的源, 赤经, 赤纬, 红移, 归一化的流强, $ E_0 $, 谱指数α, 谱指数β, 一年内的有效观测时间, 预期显著性

Table 1. Expected significance of extragalactic sources with HADAR between 30 GeV and 10 TeV using a 1 yr observation time. Columns from left to right are as follows: Fermi source name, associations, R.A., Dec., redshift, normalization flux, $ E_0 $, spectral index α, spectral index β, effective livetime, expected significance by HADAR

Fermi Source	Assoc.	R.A./(°)	Dec./(°)	z	$N_0/(\rm TeV^{-1}{\cdot}cm^{-2}{\cdot}s^{-1})$	$ E_0 $/GeV	α	β	Livetime/hrs	S/σ
4FGL J0112.1+2245	S2 0109+22	18.03	22.75	0.265	1.399× 10^–5	0.76	1.99	0.057	277.8	8.9
4FGL J0222.6+4302	3C66A	35.67	43.04	0.444	1.008×10^–5	1.21	1.88	0.045	264.2	21.5
4FGL J0319.8+1845	1E 0317.0+1835	49.97	18.75	0.190	1.618×10^–8	5.98	1.67	0.0	257.8	5.1
4FGL J0650.7+2503	1ES 0647+250	102.70	25.05	0.203	6.587×10^–7	2.06	1.66	0.035	286.0	25.3
4FGL J0738.1+1742	PKS 0735+17	114.54	17.71	0.424	2.640×10^–6	1.54	1.97	0.065	251.3	7.4
4FGL J0809.8+5218	1ES 0806+524	122.46	52.31	0.138	2.222×10^–6	1.30	1.80	0.041	193.9	15.1
4FGL J0915.9+2933	Ton 0396	138.99	29.55	0.190	1.068×10^–6	1.35	1.74	0.083	294.7	7.8
4FGL J1015.0+4926	1H 1013+498	153.77	49.43	0.212	7.019×10^–6	1.01	1.76	0.041	220.0	29.9
4FGL J1058.6+5627	TXS 1055+567	164.67	56.46	0.143	2.525×10^–6	1.06	1.87	0.040	149.4	6.3
4FGL J1104.4+3812	Mkn 421	166.12	38.21	0.030	1.842×10^–5	1.29	1.72	0.023	284.9	529.6
4FGL J1117.0+2013	RBS 0958	169.27	20.23	0.139	4.167×10^–7	1.84	1.95	0.0	266.1	5.7
4FGL J1150.6+4154	RBS 1040	177.66	41.91	0.320	5.965×10^–7	1.73	1.65	0.091	270.0	6.6
4FGL J1217.9+3007	B2 1215+30	184.48	30.12	0.130	7.113×10^–6	1.07	1.88	0.040	295.1	31.6
4FGL J1221.3+3010	PG 1218+304	185.34	30.17	0.184	1.742×10^–7	4.44	1.71	0.0	295.2	31.3
4FGL J1221.5+2814	W Comae	185.38	28.24	0.102	3.516×10^–6	1.06	2.16	0.0	293.1	6.6
4FGL J1224.4+2436	MS 1221.8+2452	186.12	24.61	0.219	2.417×10^–7	2.36	1.89	0.0	284.6	5.5
4FGL J1224.9+2122	4C +21.35	186.23	21.38	0.434	2.187×10^–4	0.39	2.27	0.045	271.8	5.4
4FGL J1230.2+2517	ON 246	187.56	25.30	0.135	6.100×10^–6	0.82	1.99	0.061	286.7	6.0
4FGL J1231.7+2847	B2 1229+29	187.93	28.79	0.236	7.991×10^–7	1.58	1.99	0.0	293.9	5.1
4FGL J1427.0+2348	PKS 1424+240	216.76	23.80	0.604	6.508×10^–6	1.23	1.70	0.060	281.8	23.8
4FGL J1428.5+4240	H 1426+428	217.13	42.68	0.129	2.772×10^–8	5.02	1.66	0.0	266.1	9.7
4FGL J1555.7+1111	PG 1553+113	238.93	11.19	0.360	3.325×10^–6	1.85	1.54	0.070	199.5	58.9
4FGL J1653.8+3945	Mkn 501	253.47	39.76	0.033	4.439×10^–6	1.48	1.71	0.018	279.5	258.4
4FGL J1725.0+1152	1H 1720+117	261.27	11.87	0.180	7.214×10^–7	2.22	1.76	0.056	205.9	13.9
4FGL J1728.3+5013	I Zw 187	262.08	50.23	0.055	1.950×10^–7	3.01	1.78	0.0	213.2	24.1
4FGL J1838.8+4802	GB6J1838+4802	279.71	48.04	0.300	3.198×10^–7	2.55	1.85	0.0	231.3	6.1
4FGL J2116.2+3339	B2 2114+33	319.06	33.66	0.350	1.068×10^–6	1.71	1.74	0.102	294.4	7.2
4FGL J2202.7+4216	BL Lac	330.69	42.28	0.069	4.498×10^–5	0.75	2.18	0.060	268.2	15.0
4FGL J2250.0+3825	B3 2247+381	342.51	38.42	0.119	2.881×10^–8	5.33	1.72	0.060	284.2	9.9
4FGL J2253.9+1609	3C 454.3	343.50	16.15	0.859	6.408×10^–4	0.52	2.39	0.0	240.7	14.7
4FGL J2323.8+4210	1ES 2321+419	350.97	42.18	0.059	2.926×10^–7	2.47	1.90	0.0	268.7	13.4

DownLoad: CSV

map

[1]	Aharonian F, Akhperjanian A G, Bazer-Bachi A R 2007 Astrophys. J. 664 L71 Google Scholar
[2]	Albert J, Aliu E, Anderhub H 2007 Astrophys. J. 669 862 Google Scholar
[3]	Sikora M, Begelman M C, Rees M J 1994 Astrophys. J. 421 153 Google Scholar
[4]	Marscher A P 2016 Galaxies. 4 37 Google Scholar
[5]	Aharonian F 2000 New. Astron. 5 377 Google Scholar
[6]	Mücke A, Protheroe R J, Engel R, Rachen J P, Stanev T 2003 Astropart. Phys. 18 593 Google Scholar
[7]	Fossati G, Maraschi L, Celotti A, Comastri A, Ghisellini G 1998 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 299 433 Google Scholar
[8]	Ghisellini G, Righi C, Costamante L, Tavecchio F 2017 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 469 255 Google Scholar
[9]	Padovani P, Giommi P 1995 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 277 1477 Google Scholar
[10]	Ajello M, Arimoto M, Axelsson M 2019 Astrophys. J. 878 52 Google Scholar
[11]	Hinton J A 2004 New. Astron. Rev. 48 331 Google Scholar
[12]	Aleksić J, Ansoldi S, Antonelli L A 2016 Astropart. Phys. 72 61 Google Scholar
[13]	Weekes T C, Badran H, Biller S D 2002 Astropart. Phys. 17 221 Google Scholar
[14]	Abeysekara A U, Alfaro R, Alvarez C 2013 Astropart. Phys. 50 26 Google Scholar
[15]	Sciascio G D 2016 Nucl. Part. Phys. P. 279 166 Google Scholar
[16]	CTA Consortium 2018 Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array (Singapore: World Scientific) pp11–26
[17]	Punch M, Akerlof C W, Cawley M F 1992 Nature 358 477 Google Scholar
[18]	Quinn J, Akerlof C W, Biller S 1996 Astrophys. J. 456 L83 Google Scholar
[19]	Albert J, Aliu E, Anderhub H 2008 Science 320 1752 Google Scholar
[20]	Aliu E, Archambault S, Arlen T 2012 Astrophys. J. 750 94 Google Scholar
[21]	Abramowski A, Acero F, Aharonian F 2012 Astron. Astrophys. 538 A103 Google Scholar
[22]	Abramowski A, Acero F, Aharonian F 2013 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 434 1889 Google Scholar
[23]	Abdo A A, Ackermann M, Ajello M 2011 Astrophys. J. 736 131 Google Scholar
[24]	Ahnen M L, Ansoldi S, Antonelli L A 2017 Astron. Astrophys. 603 A31 Google Scholar
[25]	Abdalla H, Adam R, Aharonian F 2021 Astron. Astrophys. 648 A23 Google Scholar
[26]	Arlen T, Aune T, Beilicke M 2012 Astrophys. J. 762 92 Google Scholar
[27]	Abdo A A, Ackermann M, Ajello M 2011 Astrophys. J. 727 129 Google Scholar
[28]	Bartoli B, Bernardini P, Bi X J 2012 Astrophys. J. 758 2 Google Scholar
[29]	Albert J, Aliu E, Anderhub H 2007 Astrophys. J. 667 358 Google Scholar
[30]	Gilmore R C, Madau P, Primack J R, Somerville R S, Haardt F 2009 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 399 1694 Google Scholar
[31]	Inoue S, Salvaterra R, Choudhury T R, Ferrara A, Ciardi B, Schneider R 2010 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 404 1938 Google Scholar
[32]	Takahashi K, Inoue S, Ichiki K, Nakamura T 2011 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 410 2741 Google Scholar
[33]	Wang Z, Guo Y Q, Cai H 2018 Exp. Astron. 45 363 Google Scholar
[34]	Xin G G, Yao Y H, Qian X L 2021 Astrophys. J. 923 112 Google Scholar
[35]	Holler M, Balzer A, Chalmé-Calvet R, de Naurois M, and Zaborov D 2015 Proceedings of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Hague, Netherlands, 30 July–6 August 2015 34 980
[36]	Aleksić J, Ansoldi S, Antonelli L A 2016 Astropart. Phys. 72 76 Google Scholar
[37]	Ma X H, Bi Y J, Cao Z 2022 Chinese Phys. C 46 030001 Google Scholar
[38]	DeYoung T 2012 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 692 72 Google Scholar
[39]	Zhao Y, Yuan Q, Bi X J, Zhu F R, Jia H Y 2016 Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25 1650006 Google Scholar
[40]	Cai H, Zhang Y, Liu C 2017 J. Instrum. 12 09023 Google Scholar
[41]	Chen T L, Liu C, Gao Q 2019 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 927 46 Google Scholar
[42]	Ajello M, Angioni R, Axelsson M 2020 Astrophys. J. 892 105 Google Scholar
[43]	Stecker F W, De Jager O C, Salamon M H 1992 Astrophys. J. 390 L49 Google Scholar
[44]	Franceschini A, Rodighiero G, Vaccari M 2008 Astron. Astrophys. 487 837 Google Scholar
[45]	Finke J D, Razzaque S, Dermer C D 2010 Astrophys. J. 712 238 Google Scholar
[46]	Domínguez A, Primack J R, Rosario D J 2011 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 410 2556 Google Scholar
[47]	Gilmore R C, Somerville R S, Primack J R, Domínguez A 2012 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 422 3189 Google Scholar
[48]	Helgason K, Kashlinsky A 2012 Astrophys. J. Lett. 758 L13 Google Scholar
[49]	Inoue Y, Inoue S, Kobayashi M A R, Makiya R, Niino Y, Totani T 2013 Astrophys. J. 768 197 Google Scholar
[50]	Stecker F W, Scully S T, Malkan M A 2016 Astrophys. J. 827 6 Google Scholar
[51]	Abdollahi S, Acero F, Ackermann M 2020 Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 247 33 Google Scholar
[52]	Amenomori M, Ayabe S, Chen D 2005 Astrophys. J. 633 1005 Google Scholar
[53]	Gaisser T K, Stanev T, Tilav S 2013 Front. Phys. 8 748 Google Scholar

[1]	Sun Hui-Ying, Qian Xiang-Li, Chen Tian-Lu, Danzengluobu, Feng You-Liang, Gao Qi, Gou Quan-Bu, Guo Yi-Qing, Hu Hong-Bo, Kang Ming-Ming, Li Hai-Jin, Liu Cheng, Liu Mao-Yuan, Liu Wei, Qiao Bing-Qiang, Wang Xu, Wang Zhen, Xin Guang-Guang, Yao Yu-Hua, Yuan Qiang, Zhang Yi. Expectation on observations of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray sources using the HADAR experiment. Acta Physica Sinica, 2023, 72(19): 199501. doi: 10.7498/aps.72.20230977
[2]	Li Li, Zhao Zhi-Guo, Gu Hua-Guang. Suppression effects of excitatory and inhibitory self-feedbacks on neuronal spiking near Hopf bifurcation. Acta Physica Sinica, 2022, 71(5): 050504. doi: 10.7498/aps.71.20211829
[3]	Ding Xue-Li, Jia Bing, Li Yu-Ye. Explanation to negative feedback induced-enhancement of neural electronic activities with phase response curve. Acta Physica Sinica, 2019, 68(18): 180502. doi: 10.7498/aps.68.20190197
[4]	Dong Lei, Lu Zhen-Wu, Liu Xin-Yue, Li Zheng-Wei. Performance optimization of three down-sampling imaging strategies and their comparison with the conventional Fourier telescope. Acta Physica Sinica, 2019, 68(7): 074203. doi: 10.7498/aps.68.20181801
[5]	Zhu-Yue, Zhang Zi-Liang, Yang Yan-Ji, Xue Rong-Feng, Cui Wei-Wei, Lu Bo, Wang Juan, Chen Tian-Xiang, Wang Yu-Sa, Li Wei, Han Da-Wei, Huo Jia, Hu Wei, Li Mao-Shun, Zhang Yi, Zhu Yu-Xuan, Liu Miao, Zhao Xiao-Fan, Chen Yong. Quantum efficiency calibration for low energy detector in hard X-ray modulation telescope satellite. Acta Physica Sinica, 2017, 66(11): 112901. doi: 10.7498/aps.66.112901
[6]	Fang Zhi-Ming, Cui Rong-Yi, Jin Jing-Xuan. Video saliency detection algorithm based on biological visual feature and visual psychology theory. Acta Physica Sinica, 2017, 66(10): 109501. doi: 10.7498/aps.66.109501
[7]	Yan Zhao-Jun, Chen Xin-Yang, Zheng Li-Xin, Ding Yuan-Yuan, Zhu Neng-Hong. Zero co-phasing reference calibration method based on dispersed interferogram for segmented mirror telescope. Acta Physica Sinica, 2016, 65(19): 199501. doi: 10.7498/aps.65.199501
[8]	Yu Shu-Hai, Dong Lei, Liu Xin-Yue, Ling Jian-Yong. Analysis on reconstruction of virtual images of Fourier telescopy. Acta Physica Sinica, 2015, 64(18): 184205. doi: 10.7498/aps.64.184205
[9]	Yan Zhao-Jun, Chen Xin-Yang, Yang Peng-Qian, Zhou Dan, Zheng Li-Xin, Zhu Neng-Hong. Co-phasing detecting method based on grating dispersed fringe for Fizeau optical interferometric telescope. Acta Physica Sinica, 2015, 64(14): 149501. doi: 10.7498/aps.64.149501
[10]	Liao Hong-Yu, Ma Xiao-Yu, Guo You-Ming, Rao Chang-Hui, Wei Kai. Analysis of tracking error of telescope based on AR-search-iteration algorithm. Acta Physica Sinica, 2014, 63(17): 179501. doi: 10.7498/aps.63.179501
[11]	Jin Zuo-Lun, Han Jing, Zhang Yi, Bai Lian-Fa. Low light level image target detection based on texture saliency. Acta Physica Sinica, 2014, 63(6): 069501. doi: 10.7498/aps.63.069501
[12]	Wang Ping, Pan Yue. Severe hail identification model based on saliency characteristics. Acta Physica Sinica, 2013, 62(6): 069202. doi: 10.7498/aps.62.069202
[13]	Dong Fu-Tong, Wang Fei-Lu, Zhong Jia-Yong, Zhao Gang. Research on the opacity of Fe M-shell unresolved transition array. Acta Physica Sinica, 2012, 61(16): 163201. doi: 10.7498/aps.61.163201
[14]	Zhao Bao-Yin, Lü Bai-Da. A new synthesis method for synthesizing on-axis flat-topped beams by using a defocusing telescope system. Acta Physica Sinica, 2008, 57(5): 2919-2924. doi: 10.7498/aps.57.2919
[15]	Wang Bin, Tang Chang-Jian, Liu Pu-Kun. Cherenkov radiation of relativistic electron beam in the ion-channel. Acta Physica Sinica, 2006, 55(11): 5953-5958. doi: 10.7498/aps.55.5953
[16]	Han Ying-Kui, Wang Qing-Yue, Zhang Zhi-Gang, Zhang Wei-Li, Chai Lu, Yuan Xiao-Dong, Huang Xiao-Jun. Effect of a folded reflecting telescope on the pulse front in the femtosecond ch irped pulse amplification system. Acta Physica Sinica, 2005, 54(4): 1613-1618. doi: 10.7498/aps.54.1613
[17]	Xu Guang, Qian Lie-Jia, Wang Tao, Zhu He-Yuan, Fan Dian-Yuan. Time telescope for the expanding of ultrashort pulses. Acta Physica Sinica, 2004, 53(1): 93-98. doi: 10.7498/aps.53.93
[18]	WU JIAN-QIANG, LIU SHENG-GANG, MO YUAN-LONG. LINEAR THEORY OF UNMAGNETIZED PLASMA FILLED DIELECTRIC CHERENKOV MASER. Acta Physica Sinica, 1997, 46(2): 324-331. doi: 10.7498/aps.46.324
[19]	ZHANG YI-BO. STUDY OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPONTANEOUS RADIATION AND STIMULATED RADIATION IN CERENKOV FREE ELECTRON LASERS. Acta Physica Sinica, 1987, 36(10): 1344-1348. doi: 10.7498/aps.36.1344
[20]	. . Acta Physica Sinica, 1966, 22(8): 855-858. doi: 10.7498/aps.22.855

Catalog

Vol. 72, Issue 4 - 2023-02-20

Metrics

Abstract views: 5260
PDF Downloads: 156
Cited By: 0

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

Search

Article

留言板