MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017) Preprint 15 January 2019 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.0

MAGIC and Fermi -LAT gamma-ray results onunassociated HAWC sources

M. L. Ahnen1, S. Ansoldi2,20, L. A. Antonelli3, C. Arcaro4, D. Baack5, A. Babic6, B. Banerjee7, P. Bangale8, U. Barresde Almeida8,9, J. A. Barrio10, J. Becerra Gonzalez11, W. Bednarek12, E. Bernardini4,13,23, R. Ch. Berse5, A. Berti2,24,W. Bhattacharyya13, A. Biland1, O. Blanch14, G. Bonnoli15, R. Carosi15, A. Carosi3, G. Ceribella8, A. Chatterjee7,S. M. Colak14, P. Colin8, E. Colombo11, J. L. Contreras10, J. Cortina14, S. Covino3, P. Cumani14, P. Da Vela15, F. Dazzi3,A. De Angelis4, B. De Lotto2, M. Delfino14,25, J. Delgado14, F. Di Pierro4, A. Domınguez10, D. Dominis Prester6, D. Dorner16,M. Doro4, S. Einecke5, D. Elsaesser5, V. Fallah Ramazani17, A. Fernandez-Barral4,14? D. Fidalgo10, M. V. Fonseca10,L. Font18, C. Fruck8, D. Galindo19, R. J. Garcıa Lopez11, M. Garczarczyk13, M. Gaug18, P. Giammaria3, N. Godinovic6,D. Gora13, D. Guberman14, D. Hadasch20, A. Hahn8, T. Hassan14, M. Hayashida20, J. Herrera11, J. Hose8, D. Hrupec6,K. Ishio8, Y. Konno20, H. Kubo20, J. Kushida20, D. Kuvezdic6, D. Lelas6, E. Lindfors17, S. Lombardi3, F. Longo2,24,M. Lopez10, C. Maggio18, P. Majumdar7, M. Makariev21, G. Maneva21, M. Manganaro11, K. Mannheim16, L. Maraschi3,M. Mariotti4, M. Martınez14, S. Masuda20, D. Mazin8,20, K. Mielke5, M. Minev21, J. M. Miranda15, R. Mirzoyan8,A. Moralejo14, V. Moreno18, E. Moretti8, T. Nagayoshi20, V. Neustroev17, A. Niedzwiecki12, M. Nievas Rosillo10, C. Nigro13,K. Nilsson17, D. Ninci14, K. Nishijima20, K. Noda14, L. Nogues14, S. Paiano4, J. Palacio14, D. Paneque8, R. Paoletti15,J. M. Paredes19, G. Pedaletti13, M. Peresano2, M. Persic2, P. G. Prada Moroni22, E. Prandini4, I. Puljak6, J. R. Garcia8,I. Reichardt4, W. Rhode5, M. Ribo19, J. Rico14, C. Righi3, A. Rugliancich15, T. Saito20, K. Satalecka13, T. Schweizer8,J. Sitarek12,20, I. Snidaric6, D. Sobczynska12, A. Stamerra3, M. Strzys8, T. Suric6, M. Takahashi20, L. Takalo17, F. Tavecchio3,P. Temnikov21, T. Terzic6, M. Teshima8,20, N. Torres-Alba19, A. Treves2, S. Tsujimoto20, G. Vanzo11, M. VazquezAcosta11, I. Vovk8, J. E. Ward14, M. Will8, D. Zaric6, (MAGIC Collaboration), A. Albert26, R. Alfaro27, C. Alvarez28,R. Arceo28, J. C. Arteaga-Velazquez29, D. Avila Rojas27, H.A. Ayala Solares30, A. Becerril27, E. Belmont-Moreno27,S. Y. BenZvi31, A. Bernal32, J. Braun33, K. S. Caballero-Mora28, T. Capistran34, A. Carraminana34, S. Casanova35,M. Castillo29, U. Cotti29, J. Cotzomi36, S. Coutino de Leon34, C. De Leon36, E. De la Fuente37, R. Diaz Hernandez34,S. Dichiara32, B. L. Dingus26, M. A. DuVernois33, J. C. Dıaz-Velez37, R. W. Ellsworth38, K. Engel39, O. Enriquez-Rivera40, D. W. Fiorino39, H. Fleischhack41, N. Fraija32, J. A. Garcıa-Gonzalez27, F. Garfias32, A. Gonzalez-Munoz27,M. M. Gonzalez32, J. A. Goodman39, Z. Hampel-Arias33, J. P. Harding26, S. Hernandez27, F. Hueyotl-Zahuantitla28,C. M. Hui42, P. Huntemeyer41, A. Iriarte32, A. Jardin-Blicq43, V. Joshi43, S. Kaufmann28, A. Lara40, R. J. Lauer44,W. H. Lee32, D. Lennarz45, H. Leon Vargas27, J. T. Linnemann46, A. L. Longinotti34, G. Luis-Raya47, R. Luna-Garcıa48,R. Lopez-Coto43, K. Malone30, S. S. Marinelli46, O. Martinez36, I. Martinez-Castellanos39, J. Martınez-Castro48, H. Martınez-Huerta49, J. A. Matthews44, P. Miranda-Romagnoli50, E. Moreno36, M. Mostafa30, A. Nayerhoda35, L. Nellen51, M. Newbold52,M. U. Nisa31, R. Noriega-Papaqui50, R. Pelayo48, J. Pretz30, E. G. Perez-Perez47, Z. Ren44, C. D. Rho31, C. Riviere39, D. Rosa-Gonzalez34, M. Rosenberg30, E. Ruiz-Velasco43, F. Salesa Greus35, A. Sandoval27, M. Schneider53, M. Seglar Arroyo30,G. Sinnis26, A. J. Smith39, R. W. Springer52, P. Surajbali43, I. Taboada45†, O. Tibolla28, K. Tollefson46, I. Torres34,T. N. Ukwatta26, G. Vianello54, L. Villasenor36, F. Werner43, S. Westerhoff33, J. Wood33, T. Yapici31, G. Yodh55, A. Zepeda49,H. Zhou26, J. D. alvarez29, (HAWC Collaboration), M. Ajello56 L. Baldini57 G. Barbiellini58,59 B. Berenji60 E. Bissaldi61,62

R. D. Blandford63 R. Bonino64,65 E. Bottacini63,66 T. J. Brandt67 J. Bregeon68 P. Bruel69 R. A. Cameron63 R. Caputo70

P. A. Caraveo71 D. Castro72,67 E. Cavazzuti73 G. Chiaro71 S. Ciprini74,75 D. Costantin76 F. D’Ammando77,78 F. de Palma62,79

A. Desai56 N. Di Lalla57 M. Di Mauro63 L. Di Venere61,62 A. Domınguez80 C. Favuzzi61,62 Y. Fukazawa81 S. Funk82 P. Fusco61,62

F. Gargano62 D. Gasparrini74,75 N. Giglietto61,62 F. Giordano61,62 M. Giroletti77 T. Glanzman63 D. Green83,67 I. A. Grenier84

S. Guiriec85,67 A. K. Harding67 E. Hays67 J.W. Hewitt86‡ D. Horan69 G. Johannesson87,88 M. Kuss89 S. Larsson90,91

I. Liodakis63 F. Longo58,59 F. Loparco61,62 P. Lubrano75 J. D. Magill83 S. Maldera64 A. Manfreda57 M. N. Mazziotta62

I.Mereu92 P. F. Michelson63 T. Mizuno93 M. E. Monzani63 A. Morselli94 I. V. Moskalenko63 M. Negro64,65 E. Nuss68

N. Omodei63 M. Orienti77 E. Orlando63 J. F. Ormes95 M. Palatiello58,59 V. S. Paliya56 M. Persic58,96 M. Pesce-Rollins89

V. Petrosian63 F. Piron68 T. A. Porter63 G. Principe82 S. Raino61,62 B. Rani67 M. Razzano89,97 S. Razzaque98 A. Reimer99,63

O. Reimer99,63 C. Sgro89 E. J. Siskind100 G. Spandre89 P. Spinelli61,62 H. Tajima101,63 M. Takahashi102 J. B. Thayer63

D. J. Thompson67 D. F. Torres103,104 E. Torresi105 E. Troja67,83 J. Valverde69 K. Wood106 M. Yassine58,59 (Fermi-LATCollaboration),

(Affiliations can be found after the references)

Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ

© 2017 The Authors

arX

iv:1

901.

0398

2v1

[as

tro-

ph.H

E]

13

Jan

2019

2 The MAGIC, HAWC and Fermi-LAT Collaborations

ABSTRACTThe HAWC Collaboration released the 2HWC catalog of TeV sources, in which 19show no association with any known high-energy (HE; E & 10 GeV) or very-high-energy (VHE; E & 300 GeV) sources. This catalog motivated follow-up studies by boththe MAGIC and Fermi -LAT observatories with the aim of investigating gamma-rayemission over a broad energy band. In this paper, we report the results from the firstjoint work between HAWC, MAGIC and Fermi -LAT on three unassociated HAWCsources: 2HWC J2006+341, 2HWC J1907+084∗ and 2HWC J1852+013∗. Although nosignificant detection was found in the HE and VHE regimes, this investigation showsthat a minimum 1◦ extension (at 95% confidence level) and harder spectrum in theGeV than the one extrapolated from HAWC results are required in the case of 2HWCJ1852+013∗, while a simply minimum extension of 0.16◦ (at 95% confidence level) canalready explain the scenario proposed by HAWC for the remaining sources. Moreover,the hypothesis that these sources are pulsar wind nebulae is also investigated in detail.

Key words: gamma rays: general – gamma rays: individual: (2HWC J2006+341,2HWC J1907+084∗, 2HWC J1852+013∗) – pulsars: general

1 INTRODUCTION

The synergy of current gamma-ray observatories is aunique opportunity to explore the Universe between afew tens of MeV to hundreds of TeV. The study of sucha broad energy band can be accomplished by means ofdifferent detection techniques. At the highest energies arethe Water Cherenkov arrays, such as the High AltitudeWater Cherenkov (HAWC) Observatory, which is sensitiveto cosmic and gamma rays between 100 GeV and 100TeV. A large effective area and high duty cycle makeHAWC an optimal instrument to perform survey studieson multi-TeV sources. Other detection techniques acheivea better sensitivity than HAWC at energies below ap-proximately 10 TeV: the Imaging Atmospheric CherenkovTelescope (IACT) technique, as implemented by the MajorAtmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov (MAGIC)telescopes, provides better angular and energy resolution.However, the duty cycle of such atmospheric Cherenkovtelescopes is greatly reduced by high-intensity backgroundlight or non-optimal weather conditions at night. At evenlower energies (∼ GeV), detectors on board satellites, likethe Fermi-Large Area Telescope (LAT), are used to detectgamma rays. This instrument has a high duty cycle, awide field of view (FoV) of 20% of the sky and very goodgamma/hadron separation.

HAWC has published two catalogs of TeV sources:1HWC for sources in the inner Galactic plane using 275days of data with a configuration of approximately one-third of the full array (HAWC-111; Abeysekara et al. 2016),and 2HWC for almost the entire sky using 507 days of thecompleted HAWC detector (Abeysekara et al. 2017c). Thesecond catalog improves over the first with respect to ex-posure time, detector size and angular resolution, resultingin a significant improvement in sensitivity. As done for theprevious catalog, 2HWC data was analyzed using a binnedlikelihood method described in Younk et al. (2015). In this

? alba.fernandezbarral@cta-observatory.org† itaboada@gatech.edu‡ john.w.hewitt@unf.edu

method a source model needs to be assumed for all sourcesin the sky. The model for each source is characterized by thesource morphology and its spectrum. For the 2HWC anal-ysis, HAWC used two different approaches: (1) a point-likesearch adopting a spectrum defined by a power-law func-

tion, dN/dE = N0(EE0

)−Γ(with N0 the normalization, E0

the pivot energy and Γ the spectral index), with spectral in-dex Γ = 2.7, and (2) extended source searches with a sourcemorphology modeled as a uniform disk of 0.5◦, 1◦ and 2◦in radius and spectral index Γ = 2.0. The total number ofsources identified in this catalog was 39, of which 19 were notassociated with any previously reported TeV source withinan angular distance of 0.5◦. All 2HWC sources presented atest statistic (TS) above 25 (equivalent to a pre-trial signifi-cance of ∼ 5σ).

The 2HWC catalog motivated follow-up studies withH.E.S.S. (Lopez-Coto et al. 2017), VERITAS (Park et al.2017) and also MAGIC and Fermi-LAT. In this work, wefocused on the 19 sources with no high-energy (HE; E & 10GeV) or very-high-energy (VHE; E & 300 GeV) associa-tion, in order to provide new multi-wavelength informationof candidates without a lower energy counterpart. After eval-uating those sources, a short list of three targets was se-lected: 2HWC J2006+341 (RA = 301.55◦, Dec = 34.18◦),2HWC J1907+084∗ (RA = 286.79◦, Dec = 8.50◦) and2HWC J1852+013∗ (RA = 283.01◦, Dec = 1.38◦). Thesesources were chosen because they lie in the FoV of previ-ous MAGIC observations, allowing MAGIC to analyze thesesources without performing new dedicated observations.

Even though the HAWC spectra of each source weredetermined using a likelihood fit, the 2HWC catalog didnot use a likelihood method to describe multiple sources si-multaneously. In the 2HWC catalog, the asterisk of 2HWCJ1907+084* and 2HWC J1852+013* indicates that thesources were near another source with larger significance andthus their characterization may be influenced by neighboringsources. 2HWC J2006+340, 2HWC J1907+084* and 2HWCJ1852+013* were detected in the point source search withsignificances of 6.10σ, 5.80σ and 8.50σ, respectively. Thecorresponding photon index and flux normalization valuesobtained in the 2HWC catalog are listed in Table 1. Their

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

MAGIC and Fermi-LAT results on HAWC sources 3

Table 1. Coordinates, photon index, flux at the pivot energy (7 TeV) and energy range for the analyzed sources. Values are provided

in the 2HWC catalog, except for the energy range, which was obtained in a dedicated analysis. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Based on a study of the Crab Nebula by HAWC (Abeysekara et al. 2017b), the systematic uncertainty can be divided into severalcomponents: 0.10◦ in angular resolution, 0.2 in photon index, and 50% in flux normalization.

RA Dec l b 1σ stat. error Photon index Flux normalization Energy range

[◦] [◦] [◦] [◦] [◦] [×10−15 TeV−1cm−2s−1] [TeV]

2HWC J2006+341 301.55 34.18 71.33 1.16 0.13 2.64 ± 0.15 9.6 ± 1.9 1 – 86

2HWC J1907+084∗ 286.79 8.50 42.28 0.14 0.27 3.25 ± 0.18 7.3 ± 2.5 0.18 – 10

2HWC J1852+013∗ 283.01 1.38 34.23 0.50 0.13 2.90 ± 0.10 18.2 ± 2.3 0.4 – 50

Table 2. Distance in degrees between the four MAGIC wobble pointing positions (W1, W2, W3 and W4) and the selected 2HWCsources. The total time after data quality cuts, in hours, achieved by MAGIC in each case is also shown.

W1 W2 W3 W4

Distance [◦] ttotal [h] Distance [◦] ttotal [h] Distance [◦] ttotal [h] Distance [◦] ttotal [h]

2HWC J2006+341 0.5 16.0 0.9 14.0 0.4 16.3 1.0 14.8

2HWC J1907+084∗ 0.5 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.7 1.3 1.1 0.9

2HWC J1852+013∗ 1.1 30.8 0.7 28.8 1.2 29.6 0.6 27.5

corresponding energy range is computed with a dedicatedHAWC analysis (see Section 2.1) and also given in the ta-ble.

The paper is structured as follows: in Section 2, thedata analysis for MAGIC and Fermi-LAT observations arepresented. Description of the specific HAWC analysis on theselected sources is also included. The observations and re-sults, for each source separately, are shown in Section 3.Discussion and conclusion can be found in Sections 4 and 5,respectively.

2 DATA ANALYSIS

2.1 HAWC

The HAWC Observatory is the second generation of ground-based gamma-ray extensive air shower arrays, located inSierra Negra, Mexico (19.0◦N, 97.3◦ W, 4100 m a.s.l.), andsuccessor to the Milagro Gamma-ray Observatory. The cur-rent system, inaugurated on March 20 2015, is comprisedof 300 water Cherenkov detectors (WCD) over an area of22,000 m2. Science operations began before detector com-pletion, under the HAWC-111 configuration. The angularresolution of HAWC varies with event size (fraction of photo-multiplier tubes reporting a signal or fhit) from 0.17◦ to 1.0◦(Abeysekara et al. 2017b). HAWC operates with > 95% dutycycle with a large FoV of 15% of the sky, which allows it toscan two-thirds of the sky every 24 hours.

Information presented here on 2HWC J2006+341,2HWC J1907+084* and 2HWC J1852+013* is taken mostlyfrom the 2HWC catalog Abeysekara et al. (2017c). The onlyexception is the energy range shown in Table 1. The likeli-hood analysis in HAWC is computed over fhit bins, whichcan be considered an energy estimator. However, the fhitbins depend strongly on the declination and spectral hard-ness of each source, and so does this fhit/energy correla-tion. The energy range is then given as a constraint on thephoton distribution as a function of fhit for each separatesource. Following Abeysekara et al. (2017c), we take the en-ergy range as the boundaries within which the events con-tribute to the 75% of the TS value.

2.2 MAGIC

MAGIC is a stereoscopic system of two 17 m diame-ter IACTs situated on the Canary island of La Palma,Spain (28.8◦N, 17.8◦ W, 2225 m a.s.l.). The current systemachieves an integral sensitivity of 0.66 ± 0.03% of the CrabNebula flux (CU) in 50 hours of observation above 220 GeV(Aleksic et al. 2016). The energy threshold in stereoscopicmode is as low as 50 GeV at low zenith angles under darkobservational conditions (Aleksic et al. 2012).

The analysis presented in this work is performed usingthe standard MAGIC analysis software (MARS; Zanin et al.2013). The significance is computed following Eq. 17 of Li &Ma (1983). Differential and integral flux upper limits (ULs)are calculated using the Rolke algorithm (Rolke et al. 2005)with a confidence level (CL) of 95%, assuming a Poissonianbackground and a total systematic uncertainty of 30%.

As mentioned above, the three analyzed sources wereincluded in the FoV of former MAGIC observations. Thesearchival data were taken using the false-source trackingmode, or wobble-mode: the telescopes point at four differ-ent positions located 0.4◦ from the nominal source, whichallows us to evaluate the background simultaneously (Fominet al. 1994). Thus, our observations were not dedicated tothe 2HWC sources and so, their coordinates are shifted fromthe camera center by different distances than the standardoffset of 0.4◦ (see Figure 1). To account for their location inthe camera, the background used in the calculation of ULswas evaluated through the off-from-wobble-partner (OfWP)method (Zanin et al. 2013). Table 2 summarizes the dis-tances between the camera center and the 2HWC sourcesat the four different wobble positions. The total observationtime, after data quality cuts, for each case is also quoted inTable 2. It is worth highlighting that the MAGIC sensitivitydepends on the angular offset from the pointing direction.However, after the MAGIC upgrade of 2011–2012, the sensi-tivity at offset angles larger than 0.4◦ improved considerablyas shown by Aleksic et al. (2016). For the analysis performedin this work, and given the range of angular offsets for allthe candidates, the sensitivity remains between ∼ 0.6 − 1.0% CU.

Observations of 2HWC J1852+013∗ were carried out en-

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

4 The MAGIC, HAWC and Fermi-LAT Collaborations

tirely under dark conditions, i.e. in absence of moonlight. Onthe other hand, 2HWC J2006+341 and 2HWC J1907+084∗

were observed with nominal high-voltage at background lev-els ranging between 1 and 8 times the brightness of the darksky due to different Moon phases. The higher the moonlightlevel, the brighter is the night sky background and therefore,stronger cuts to the signal are applied during this analysis,following the prescription of Ahnen et al. (2017). This istaken into account by selecting appropriate Monte Carlo-simulated gamma-ray and background data to match theobservational conditions. The background data are used forthe computation of the gamma/hadron separation throughthe Random Forest (RF), a multi-dimensional classificationalgorithm based on decision trees (Albert et al. 2008).

Since the three HAWC sources each have a maximumsignificance in the point-source HAWC maps, they may bepoint-like sources for MAGIC as well. Therefore, we analyzethe candidates under two hypotheses: we assume that thesources are point-like for MAGIC (point spread function;PSF . 0.10◦, beyond a few hundred GeV) or are extendedwith a radius of 0.16◦. Larger extensions cannot be adopteddue to the OfWP method and the standard 0.4◦ offsetapplied in the wobble pointing mode, because the expectedregion of gamma-ray emission from the 2HWC source andthe background regions selected to compute flux ULs wouldoverlap.

2.3 Fermi-LAT

The LAT on board the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescopehas continuously monitored the sky since 2008. It is sensitiveto HE gamma rays between 20 MeV and ∼1 TeV (Atwoodet al. 2009) and scans the entire sky every 3 hours. For thiswork we used data taken between 2008 August and 2017February based on the Pass 8 SOURCE photon reconstruc-tion. The Pass 8 data offer two primary benefits for thestudy of HE gamma-ray sources: a greater acceptance com-pared with previous LAT reconstructions and an improvedPSF with a 68% containment angle less than 0.2◦ above 10GeV that is nearly constant with increasing energy (Atwoodet al. 2013).

For each source of interest we analyze energies between10 GeV and 1 TeV using the standard binned likelihoodframework provided by the Fermi Science Tools (v10r01p01).Data within a 10◦ radius of interest were binned into 8 en-ergy bins per decade and a spatial bin size of 0.05◦. We usedthe recommended Galactic and isotropic backgrounds1.

We did not extend our analysis to lower energies fortwo primary reasons: for any HAWC source to be detectedat lower energies, it must be detectable at >10 GeV with theLAT, unless the HAWC and LAT emission is produced bya different component; and this high-energy cut suppressesphotons from gamma-ray pulsars and Galactic diffuse emis-sion in the plane. As a source model for this analysis weuse the Third Catalog of Hard Fermi-LAT Sources for point

1 Galactic interstellar emission model: gll iem v06. f its,Isotropic: iso P8R2 SOURCE V6 v06.txt. Please see:http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/access/lat/

BackgroundModels.html

sources (3FHL; Ajello et al. 2017) and the Fermi GalacticExtended Source (FGES) catalog for extended sources (Ack-ermann et al. 2017).

Using ∼8.5 years of Pass 8 data, we search for newsources separately testing both a point or extended sourceat the location of the HAWC candidate. The spectrum ofthe source is modeled as a simple power law. After initiallyfitting a putative point source at the HAWC position, theposition is re-localized. The normalization of other sourceswithin 5◦ are left as free parameters in the fit. To search fora possible extended source, we use a uniformly illuminateddisk with a radius of 0.2◦ as the initial spatial model. Thef ermipy package (Wood et al. 2017) fits both the radius andcentroid of the possible extended source. If a statisticallysignificant source is not found, ULs at the position of the2HWC source are computed at 95% CL using a Bayesianmethod. The assumed spectral indices are 2.0, 3.0 and theindex reported in the 2HWC catalog (see Table 1). Extendedsource ULs are computed assuming a radius of 0.16◦, forcomparison with the limits placed by MAGIC.

3 OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

In the following section, we describe the different regionsof the sky that contain the three selected sources, alongwith the corresponding observations and results. MAGICdifferential ULs are listed in Table 3, while Fermi-LAT in-tegral ULs (above 10 GeV) are quoted in Table 4 for bothpoint-like and extended hypotheses. Figure 1 presents theMAGIC significance skymaps for 2HWC J2006+341 and2HWC J1907+084∗ assuming an extended source with a0.16◦ radius. A smaller 1◦× 1◦ MAGIC significance skymapcentered in 2HWC J1852+013∗ is shown in Figure 2. Theskymap of the entire FoV for this source will be included ina dedicated MAGIC paper on the surrounding region thatis in preparation. The flat significance field displayed in allskymaps is compatible with background in the entire FoV.The multiwavelength spectral energy distribution (SED) foreach 2HWC source is presented in Figure 3.

3.1 2HWC J2006+341

2HWC J2006+341 is in the FoV (at ∼ 0.63◦) of the com-pact radio/optical nebula G70.7+1.2, which is thought tobe powered by a pulsar/binary system interacting with asurrounding molecular cloud. An unidentified source, 3FHLJ2004.2+3339, was detected at the position of this putativebinary system. Therefore, VHE gamma-ray emission fromthe G70.7+1.2 region could be expected due to the interac-tion between the pulsar wind with both the stellar wind ofthe companion star and the molecular cloud.

MAGIC observed 3FHL J2004.2+3339 with an ex-tended range of zenith angles from 5◦ to 50◦. The total datasample amounts to ∼ 61 hours of good quality data fromApril 2015 to August 2016. No significant signal is found inthe direction of 2HWC J2006+341 as either a point-like orextended source. In order to calculate the integral flux ULs,MAGIC adopts a power-law distribution with photon indexΓ = 2.64, following the HAWC results. Under point-like as-sumption, the integral UL, computed at 95% CL for energiesgreater than 300 GeV, is 4.0× 10−13 photons cm−2s−1, while

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

MAGIC and Fermi-LAT results on HAWC sources 5

Table 3. MAGIC differential ULs (at 95% CL) for 2HWC J2006+341, 2HWC J1907+084∗ and 2HWC J1852+013∗ assuming a power-

law spectrum with spectral index of Γ = 2.64, 3.25, and 2.90, respectively. ULs for both point-like (. 0.10◦) and extended (∼ 0.16◦radius) assumptions are shown in each case. Due to low statistics, ULs at the highest energy ranges are not always computed for 2HWCJ2006+341 and 2HWC J1907+084∗

Energy range 2HWC J2006+341 2HWC J1907+084∗ 2HWC J1852+013∗

[GeV] [photons cm−2s−1]Point-like Extended Point-like Extended Point-like Extended

139.2 – 300.0 2.6×10−11 6.2×10−11 7.1×10−11 3.1×10−10 1.7×10−11 4.6×10−11

300.0 – 646.3 1.4×10−12 1.0×10−11 8.0×10−12 1.7×10−11 8.6×10−13 4.9×10−12

646.3 – 1392.5 2.5×10−13 1.3×10−12 2.5×10−12 2.3×10−12 9.0×10−14 3.9×10−13

1392.5 – 3000.0 6.0×10−14 9.9×10−14 1.7×10−13 1.0×10−12 6.7×10−14 1.2×10−13

3000.0 – 6463.3 1.8×10−14 2.7×10−14 – 1.4×10−13 7.6×10−15 1.3×10−14

6463.3 – 13924.8 – 9.5×10−15 – 1.3×10−14 1.1×10−14 5.5×10−14

for 0.16◦ radius, it increases to 3.3× 10−12 photons cm−2s−1.On the other hand, the integral UL for a point-like sourcein the direction of 3FHL J2004.2+3339 is 4.3 × 10−13 pho-tons cm−2s−1 for energies above 300 GeV and assuminga power-law index of 2.6. In the GeV regime, no knownFermi catalog source is found to be coincident with 2HWCJ2006+341. The closest Fermi-LAT source is the alreadymentioned 3FHL J2004.2+3339 (coincident within the errorswith 3FGL J2004.4+338, Acero et al. 2015). This source hasbeen searched extensively for pulsations (Clark et al. 2017).Using the analysis method described in Section 2.3, no sig-nificant (TS ≥ 25) source is detected using either the pointor extended source models.

3.2 2HWC J1907+084∗

2HWC J1907+084∗ is located at ∼ 0.79◦ from 1HWCJ1904+080c, included in the first HAWC survey. 1HWCJ1904+080c was detected with a pre-trial significance of5.14σ, which motivated MAGIC follow-up observations. Thecoordinates were not coincident with any known TeV source,although it was close (at 0.3◦) to a Fermi-LAT gamma-rayhotspot (<5σ), 3FGL J1904.9+0818 (Acero et al. 2015).Nevertheless, its significance was only ∼ 4σ after trials inthe published 1HWC catalog (Abeysekara et al. 2016).

MAGIC performed observations in the direction of1HWC J1904+080c over 6 non-consecutive nights from May10 2015 to May 19 2015. After rejecting the data affected bynon-optimal weather conditions, the total amount of timereached in this FoV was 4.20 hours. The region was ob-served at medium zenith angles from 30◦ to 50◦. No excessis found during the analysis of 2HWC J1907+084∗ data.The 95% CL integral ULs for E > 300 GeV and indexΓ = 3.25 are 2.8 × 10−12 photons cm−2s−1 and 4.6 × 10−12

photons cm−2s−1 for the point-like and extended hypothe-ses, respectively. MAGIC does not find any significant excessat the position of 1HWC J1904+080c either, which leads toan integral flux UL for energies greater than 300 GeV of4.1 × 10−12 photons cm−2s−1, assuming a power-law spec-trum of Γ = 2.6. From the Fermi-LAT, the Pass 8 analy-sis yields no significant emission in the direction of 2HWCJ1907+084∗, either during the point-like or the extendedanalysis.

3.3 2HWC J1852+013∗

2HWC J1852+013∗ is located in the FoV of the W44 SNR,as well as in the FoV of the established VHE sources HESSJ1858+020 and HESS J1857+026 (subdivided in 2 emissionsites MAGIC J1857.2+0263 and MAGIC J1857.6+0297;MAGIC Collaboration et al. 2014). The region was thusextensively observed by the MAGIC collaboration. 2HWCJ1852+013∗ is also located at 0.56◦ away from 3FGLJ1852.8+0158, which is classified as a probable young pul-sar using machine learning techniques (Saz Parkinson et al.2016).

The dataset used by MAGIC here comprises approx-imately 120 hours of dark quality data, taken from April2013 to June 2014, with a span in zenith range from 25◦to 50◦. MAGIC does not find any excess in the directionof 2HWC J1852+013∗. Adopting Γ = 2.90, the constraining95% CL integral ULs are 3.8×10−13 photons cm−2s−1 for thepoint-like search and 1.7×10−12 photons cm−2s−1 for the ex-tended search. Specific background selection using OfWPwas applied in this case, ensuring that no background con-trol region overlaps with any of the several VHE emittingsources in the FoV. As per the previous sources, ULs aregiven for E > 300 GeV. Neither cataloged nor new sourcesfrom the Pass 8 analysis arises in the Fermi-LAT analysisof 2HWC J1852+013∗.

4 DISCUSSION

Given that the largest population of TeV emitters inour Galaxy are pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe; see e.g.H.E.S.S. Collaboration et al. 2018a), the selected candidatesmay be expected to be this source type. However, the lackof a detection by either MAGIC or Fermi-LAT complicatesthe identification of these sources. In order to investigatetheir possible PWN nature, we look for detected pulsars nearthese 2HWC sources using the ATNF catalog2 (Manchesteret al. 2005). According to the characteristic ages of the pul-sars around the three selected 2HWC sources (all above afew tens of kyr), if these pulsars had high initial kick veloci-ties, they could now be significantly offset from their initialpositions and have left behind an old PWN with no com-pact object powering it. In this case, the pulsar position isshifted from the PWN, and without injection of magnetic

2 http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/pulsar/psrcat/

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

6 The MAGIC, HAWC and Fermi-LAT Collaborations

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

287.5 287.0 286.5 286.0 285.5 285.0

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5

7.0

RA [degrees]

Dec

[deg

rees

]

PSF

1HWC J1904+080c

2HWC J1907+084*

W1

W4

W2

W3

3FGL J1904.9+0818

302.5 302.0 301.5 301.0 300.5 300.0 299.5

35.0

34.5

34.0

33.5

33.0

32.5

RA [degrees]

Dec

[deg

rees

]

PSF

3FHL J2004.2+3339

2HWC J2006+341

W3

W1 W2

W4

Figure 1. MAGIC significance skymaps for the FoV of 2HWC J2006+341 and 2HWC J1907+084∗, searching for sources of ∼ 0.16◦ radius.The four different wobble positions, to which MAGIC pointed during the 3FHL J2004.2+3339 and 1HWC J1904+080c observations, are

tagged with W1, W2, W3 and W4 in white color. MAGIC PSF is shown in orange at the left bottom in each panel. Left panel: Skymap

of the observations at the direction of 3FHL J2004.2+3339 (yellow diamond). This FoV contains 2HWC J2006+341 (orange diamond)located at ∼ 0.63◦ from the nominal position of MAGIC observations. Centered at the position of 2HWC J2006+341, the orange dashed

circle corresponds to the assumed extension of 0.16◦ used for the MAGIC analysis. The HAWC contours (4σ, 5σ and 6σ) are shown asgreen solid lines. Right panel: Skymap for the observations of the 1HWC J1904+080c (yellow diamond) FoV in which 2HWC J1907+084∗

(orange diamond) is enclosed. Dashed orange circle represents the 0.16◦ MAGIC extended assumption, while HAWC contours (at the

level of 5σ) are shown as green solid lines. The position of the closest Fermi-LAT source, 3FGL J1904.9+0818, is marked as a reddiamond.

Table 4. Fermi-LAT 95% CL flux ULs, above 10 GeV, assuming point-like source and extended source a radius of 0.16◦.

ΓHAWC Γ=2.0 Γ = 3.0Point-like Extended Point-like Extended Point-like Extended

[×10−11 photons cm−2s−1] [×10−11 photons cm−2s−1] [×10−11 photons cm−2s−1]

J2006+341 2.4 4.4 2.3 4.7 2.4 4.2J1907+084* 3.1 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.2 3.2

J1852+013* 2.1 3.7 2.0 3.3 2.0 3.7

flux, the nebula’s emission is expected to be dominated byinverse Compton(IC).

PSR J2004+3429 is the closest known pulsar to 2HWCJ2006+341 at a separation of 0.40◦, and is the only onewithin a 1◦ radius. This pulsar lies at a distance of 10 kpc,displays a spin-down power of ÛE = 5.8 × 1035 erg s−1 andhas a characteristic age of τ = 18 kyr. Although energeticenough to power a TeV PWN (see H.E.S.S. Collaborationet al. 2018b), the distance between 2HWC J2006+341 andPSR J2004+3429 makes this connection improbable: giventhe characteristic age of 18 kyr, an offset of 0.40◦ (∼ 70pc) could only be explained with an improbably large kickvelocity for the pulsar of ∼ 4000 km s−1. The mean 2-Dspeed for both young and old (< 3 Myr) pulsars was deter-mined to be only 307 ± 47 km s−1 by Hobbs et al. (2005)with a study involving a subsample of ∼ 50 pulsars’ propermotion. The offset may be cosiderably less when consider-

ing HAWC systematic and statistical errors on the 2HWCsource location of 0.40◦± 0.10◦syst± 0.13◦stat . Assuming themost constraining possible value, 0.24◦, the necessary kickvelocity would decrease to ∼ 2300 km s−1. This value is notfar away from the fastest known pulsar at ∼ 1500 km s−1

(Hobbs et al. 2005), though that value is also uncertain giventhe distance model applied. The highest speed for a pulsarwith a well-measured distance is only 640 km s−1. Therefore,we conclude that it is unlikely that PSR J2004+3429 is di-rectly responsible for the emission detected by HAWC. Onthe other hand, Linden et al. (2017) evaluated the proba-bility of random association between 15 2HWC sources andtheir nearby pulsars, including 2HWC J2006+341 and PSRJ2004+3429. For this case, they obtained a chance overlapof only 8% (assuming a source extension of 0.9◦ as providedin the 2HWC catalog by assigning the halo-like structures

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

MAGIC and Fermi-LAT results on HAWC sources 7

Figure 2. 1◦× 1◦ MAGIC significance skymap, looking for 0.16◦

extended sources around 2HWC J1852+013∗, whose position isdepicted as an orange diamond. Dashed orange circle shows the

extension of 0.16◦ analyzed by MAGIC, whilst the green solid line

corresponds to the 8σ HAWC contour.

visible in the residual skymaps to 2HWC J2006+341, whichpresents its own uncertainties).

There are two pulsars within 0.50◦ of 2HWCJ1907+084∗: PSR J1908+0833 at 0.30◦, and PSRJ1908+0839 at 0.33◦. The former is located at a distance of∼ 11 kpc, with a characteristic age of τ = 4.1 Myr and a spin-down power of ÛE = 5.8×1032 erg s−1. The very low spin-downpower and old age make it unlikely to be currently poweringa TeV PWN. Alternatively, PSR J1908+0839, at 8.3 kpc andwith a characteristic age of τ = 1.2 Myr, is more energeticwith ÛE = 1.5× 1034 erg s−1, so a relation between this pulsarand the 2HWC source cannot be initially ruled out. As donefor 2HWC J2006+341, we calculate the kick velocity for thepulsar, now with an offset of 0.33◦ and a characteristic ageof 1.2 Myr. The obtained velocity is ∼ 40 km s−1, which islow relative to the average kick velocity observed throughproper motion studies but remains to be a valid possibility(see Figure 4b from Hobbs et al. 2005). This velocity stayswithin the young pulsars’ 2-D speed distribution even con-sidering HAWC uncertanties (0.33◦± 0.10◦syst± 0.27◦stat).We can compare PSR J1908+0839 with the pulsar hostedby Geminga, a well-known TeV PWN detected by Mila-gro (Abdo et al. 2009) and recently by HAWC (Abeysekaraet al. 2017a). Geminga’s pulsar displays a spin-down powerof ÛE = 3.25 × 1034 erg s−1, very similar to that shown byPSR J1908+0839, but its distance is ∼ 30 times smaller(dGeminga = 250 pc). Given the similar spin-down power, thenebula PSR J1908+0839 powers should also have a compara-ble luminosity with respect to Geminga’s PWN, which would

lead to a flux around three orders of magnitude smaller thanthe flux of Geminga and undetectable by HAWC. Therefore,it is unlikely that 2HWC J1907+084∗ and PSR J1908+0839are associated with one another.

Finally, the closest pulsar to the source 2HWCJ1852+013∗ is PSR J1851+0118, offset by only 0.10◦. Thispulsar lies at a distance of 5.6 kpc and has a charac-teristic age of ∼ 100 kyr (Yao et al. 2017). If both ob-jects are related the required pulsar velocity is a reason-able value of ∼ 100 km s−1, though this may be as high as∼ 245 km s−1 when considering the largest offset given by0.10◦± 0.10◦syst± 0.13◦stat . However, this pulsar has a rel-

atively low spin-down power, ÛE = 7.2 × 1033 erg s−1, whichalong with its high characteristic age make it unlikely toaccelerate particles that can emit gamma rays in the TeVregime. To quantitatively test this scenario, we use the Naimasoftware3 to model the relativistic parent population of thenon-thermal gamma-ray emission accounting for different ra-diative models (see Zabalza 2015). To obtain the emissivityof the electron population that gave rise to the gamma-rayemission seen by HAWC, we assume that IC is the dom-inant radiative process and that the electron spectrum isdefined by a simple power law. The target photon field forthis process is expected to be a combination of cosmic mi-crowave background (CMB) and infrared (IR) photons. Theassumed energy densities in each case are standard Galacticvalues of uCMB = 0.25 eV cm−3 and uIR = 0.30 eV cm−3.With such features, the total energy carried by electronsabove ∼ 10 TeV needed to explain HAWC detection wouldbe We(> 10 TeV) ∼ 6.0 × 1046 erg.

Alternatively, we consider the cooling time of theseelectrons (tcool), which is computed as follows (Aharonian2004):

tcool = 3 · 108(

Ee

GeV

)−1(

u

eV/cm3

)−1

[yr] (1)

where Ee = 10 TeV is the electron energy and u is the totalenergy density of the medium. In this case, we account for ICand synchrotron losses and hence, assuming a temperatureof ∼ 25 K for the IR photon field (Moderski et al. 2005), ucan be described as:

u ' B2

8π+uCMB

(1 + 0.01 · Ee

TeV

)−3/2+uIR

(1 + 0.1 · Ee

TeV

)−3/2

(2)

where B is the magnetic field. We use the aforementioned en-ergy densities for the CMB and IR photon fields, and for themagnetic field we assume the minimum possible value givenby the interstellar magnetic field, B = 3 µG, as there is nomeasured value for the source. Under these assumptions, thecooling time is tcool ∼ 57 kyr. Given the spin-down powerof PSR J1851+0118, ÛE = 7.2 × 1033 erg s−1, the total en-ergy released by the pulsar during the tcool period wouldbe W ′e ∼ 1.3 × 1046 erg. Consequently, even assuming thatall the energy released by the pulsar was used to accelerateelectrons above 10 TeV, there would not be enough energyto power a PWN with the gamma-ray brightness detected

3 naima.readthedocs.org

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

8 The MAGIC, HAWC and Fermi-LAT Collaborations

by HAWC. According to our model, such a PWN would re-quire an energy injection greater than ∼ 6.0×1046 erg, whichis already higher than W ′e. The low B and uIR used in thiscalculation of tcool provide maximum values for both tcooland the injected pulsar energy, W ′e. Higher uIR value wouldproduce higher losses and therefore, a smaller We. However,an extremely high value for uIR (well above 2 eV cm−3, theIR energy density observed around Cassiopea A and one ofthe highest for a Galactic TeV source) would be needed todecrease We below 1046 erg. We do not consider more com-plex scenarios in which ÛE or B change with time. The sameparent population study was applied to 2HWC J1907+084∗

and we reach the same conclusions that corroborated thenon-relation with the surrounding pulsars.

MAGIC and LAT ULs also help to constrain our under-standing of the spectrum and morphology of these HAWCsources. The SEDs for the three candidate PWNe are shownin Figure 3. MAGIC and Fermi-LAT analyses are computedwith the photon index provided by HAWC (see Table 1). Inthe cases of 2HWC J2006+341 and 2HWC J1907+084∗, theMAGIC and LAT extended ULs are at the level of theHAWC spectrum considering HAWC systematic errors of0.2 in the photon index and 50% in the flux normalization.However, point-like hypotheses are in contradiction withHAWC results below energies of ∼ 4 TeV and ∼ 900 GeV,respectively. Therefore, it is expected that these two 2HWCsources are extended, with at least a radius of ∼ 0.16◦. Onthe other hand, both MAGIC and Fermi-LAT results on2HWC J1852+013∗ are incompatible with the HAWC spec-trum below energies of ∼ 10 TeV.

These results can be understood in two ways: 2HWCJ1852+013∗ is much more extended than the assumed radiusof 0.16◦, which would increase MAGIC and Fermi-LAT ULsabove the flux estimated by HAWC; or the source does notemit in the sub-TeV regime, consistent with the constrainingULs obtained by both MAGIC and the LAT. In the latercase, the spectral shaped of 2HWC J1852+013∗ would havea harder spectrum in the sub-TeV regime, and a minimumenergy of around 10 TeV, instead of 400 GeV, should beassumed (see Table 1). To constrain the former case, wecalculated LAT ULs for disks of larger radii. For a disk of1.0◦ radius the LAT UL at energies > 0.2 TeV is within 1σstatistical errors of the measured HAWC flux, extrapolatedto lower energies. However, this would also require a harderspectrum in the GeV regime so as to not exceed LAT ULsat lower energies. Additionally, as reported in the 2HWCcatalog Abeysekara et al. (2017c), there may be a significantcontribution from diffuse galactic emission at the location of2HWC J1852+013* to which HAWC would be sensitive andMAGIC would not.

5 CONCLUSION

After the release of the 2HWC catalog, MAGIC and Fermi-LAT performed dedicated analyses on three new TeV sourcesdetected by the wide FoV observatory HAWC. None of themwere detected at lower energies and no hotspot was foundnear them. However, owing to the increased time and goodquality data of most of the MAGIC and the Fermi-LATobservations, constraints on the extension of the sourceswere possible. With this aim, we performed both point-like

and extended source searches. For 2HWC J2006+341 and2HWC J1907+084∗, a radius of ∼ 0.16◦ is viable given lim-its from the extended source search by MAGIC. For 2HWCJ1852+013∗, MAGIC and Fermi-LAT results with respect toHAWC spectra suggest a much larger extension or a harderspectrum below ∼ 10 TeV. Moreover, we find that none of theknown pulsars in the vicinity of 2HWC J2006+341, 2HWCJ1907+084∗ or 2HWC J1852+013∗ are likely to directlypower these objects. It may be that these 2HWC sourcesare PWN created by as yet un-detected pulsars, or havesome other origin such as a Galactic supernova remnant.More sensitive observations in the near future will providevaluable information on the nature of these sources and helpto disentangle features in the crowded regions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The MAGIC Collaboration would like to thank theInstituto de Astrofısica de Canarias for the excellentworking conditions at the Observatorio del Roque de losMuchachos in La Palma. The financial support of theGerman BMBF and MPG, the Italian INFN and INAF, theSwiss National Fund SNF, the ERDF under the SpanishMINECO (FPA2015-69818-P, FPA2012-36668, FPA2015-68378-P, FPA2015-69210-C6-2-R, FPA2015-69210-C6-4-R,FPA2015-69210-C6-6-R, AYA2015-71042-P, AYA2016-76012-C3-1-P, ESP2015-71662-C2-2-P, CSD2009-00064),and the Japanese JSPS and MEXT is gratefully acknowl-edged. This work was also supported by the Spanish Centrode Excelencia “Severo Ochoa” SEV-2012-0234 and SEV-2015-0548, and Unidad de Excelencia “Marıa de Maeztu”MDM-2014-0369, by the Croatian Science Foundation(HrZZ) Project 09/176 and the University of Rijeka Project13.12.1.3.02, by the DFG Collaborative Research CentersSFB823/C4 and SFB876/C3, and by the Polish MNiSzWgrant 745/N-HESS-MAGIC/2010/0.The HAWC Collaboration acknowledges the supportfrom: the US National Science Foundation (NSF) the USDepartment of Energy Office of High-Energy Physics; theLaboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD)program of Los Alamos National Laboratory; Consejo Na-cional de Ciencia y Tecnologıa (CONACyT), Mexico (grants271051, 232656, 260378, 179588, 239762, 254964, 271737,258865, 243290, 132197, 281653)(Catedras 873, 1563),Laboratorio Nacional HAWC de rayos gamma; L’OREALFellowship for Women in Science 2014; Red HAWC, Mexico;DGAPA-UNAM (grants IG100317, IN111315, IN111716-3,IA102715, 109916, IA102917, IN112218); VIEP-BUAP;PIFI 2012, 2013, PROFOCIE 2014, 2015; the Universityof Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; the Instituteof Geophysics, Planetary Physics, and Signatures at LosAlamos National Laboratory; Polish Science Centre grantDEC-2014/13/B/ST9/945; Coordinacion de la Investi-gacion Cientıfica de la Universidad Michoacana; RoyalSociety - Newton Advanced Fellowship 180385. Thanksto Scott Delay, Luciano Dıaz and Eduardo Murrieta fortechnical support.The Fermi-LAT Collaboration acknowledges generousongoing support from a number of agencies and institutesthat have supported both the development and the oper-ation of the LAT as well as scientific data analysis. These

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

MAGIC and Fermi-LAT results on HAWC sources 9

include the National Aeronautics and Space Administrationand the Department of Energy in the United States,the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique and the CentreNational de la Recherche Scientifique / Institut National dePhysique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules in France,the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana and the Istituto Nazionaledi Fisica Nucleare in Italy, the Ministry of Education,Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), HighEnergy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) andJapan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) in Japan,and the K. A. Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Re-search Council and the Swedish National Space Board inSweden. This work performed in part under DOE ContractDE-AC02-76SF00515.

REFERENCES

Abdo A. A., et al., 2009, ApJ, 700, L127

Abeysekara A. U., et al., 2016, ApJ, 817, 3

Abeysekara A. U., et al., 2017a, Science, 358, 911

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

Abeysekara A. U., et al., 2017c, ApJ, 843, 40

Acero F., et al., 2015, ApJS, 218, 23

Ackermann M., et al., 2017, ApJ, 843, 139

Aharonian F. A., 2004, Very high energy cosmic gamma radiation

: a crucial window on the extreme Universe. World ScientificPublishing Co, doi:10.1142/4657

Ahnen M. L., et al., 2017, Astroparticle Physics, 94, 29

Ajello M., et al., 2017, ApJS, 232, 18

Albert J., et al., 2008, Nuclear Instruments and Methods inPhysics Research A, 588, 424

Aleksic J., et al., 2012, Astroparticle Physics, 35, 435

Aleksic J., et al., 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 76

Atwood W. B., et al., 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071

Atwood W., et al., 2013, preprint, (arXiv:1303.3514)

Clark C. J., et al., 2017, ApJ, 834, 106

Fomin V. P., Stepanian A. A., Lamb R. C., Lewis D. A., PunchM., Weekes T. C., 1994, Astroparticle Physics, 2, 137

H.E.S.S. Collaboration et al., 2018a, A&A, 612, A1

H.E.S.S. Collaboration et al., 2018b, A&A, 612, A2

Hobbs G., Lorimer D. R., Lyne A. G., Kramer M., 2005, MNRAS,360, 974

Li T.-P., Ma Y.-Q., 1983, ApJ, 272, 317

Linden T., Auchettl K., Bramante J., Cholis I., Fang K., Hooper

D., Karwal T., Li S. W., 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 103016

Lopez-Coto R., Marandon V., HAWC F. B. f. t., HESS collabo-

rations 2017, preprint, (arXiv:1708.03137)

MAGIC Collaboration et al., 2014, A&A, 571, A96

Manchester R. N., Hobbs G. B., Teoh A., Hobbs M., 2005, AJ,129, 1993

Moderski R., Sikora M., Coppi P. S., Aharonian F., 2005, MN-RAS, 363, 954

Park N., for the VERITAS Collaboration Fermi-LATCollaboration HAWC collaboration 2017, preprint,

(arXiv:1708.05744)

Rolke W. A., Lopez A. M., Conrad J., 2005, Nuclear Instruments

and Methods in Physics Research A, 551, 493

Saz Parkinson P. M., Xu H., Yu P. L. H., Salvetti D., Marelli M.,Falcone A. D., 2016, ApJ, 820, 8

Wood M., Caputo R., Charles E., Di Mauro M., Magill J., JeremyPerkins for the Fermi-LAT Collaboration 2017, preprint,

(arXiv:1707.09551)

Yao J. M., Manchester R. N., Wang N., 2017, ApJ, 835, 29

Younk P. W., Lauer R. J., Vianello G., Harding J. P., Ayala

Solares H. A., Zhou H., Michelle Hui for the HAWC Collabo-

ration 2015, preprint, (arXiv:1508.07479)Zabalza V., 2015, preprint, (arXiv:1509.03319)

Zanin R., Carmona E., Sitarek J., Colin P., Frantzen K., 2013, in

Proc. of the 33st International Cosmic Ray Conference, Riode Janeiro, Brasil.

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

10 The MAGIC, HAWC and Fermi-LAT Collaborations

101 102 103 104 105

Energy [GeV]10 14

10 13

10 12

10 11

10 10

E2 dN dE [T

eV c

m2 s

1 ]

2HWC J2006+341Fermi-LAT point-likeFermi-LAT 0.16 radiusMAGIC point-likeMAGIC 0.16 radiusHAWCHAWC systematics

101 102 103 104 105

Energy [GeV]10 14

10 13

10 12

10 11

10 10

10 9

10 8

E2 dN dE [T

eV c

m2 s

1 ]

2HWC J1907+084*Fermi-LAT 0.16 radiusFermi-LAT point-likeMAGIC 0.16 radiusMAGIC point-likeHAWCHAWC systematics

101 102 103 104 105

Energy [GeV]10 14

10 13

10 12

10 11

10 10

10 9

10 8

E2 dN dE [T

eV c

m2 s

1 ]

2HWC J1852+013*Fermi-LAT point-likeFermi-LAT 0.16 radiusMAGIC point-likeMAGIC 0.16 radiusHAWCHAWC systematics

Figure 3. Spectral energy distribution from 10 GeV up to ∼ 90 TeV. In all cases, the assumed spectrum for the sources is a power-law

function with photon index Γ = 2.64 for 2HWC J2006+341 (top), Γ = 3.25 for 2HWC J1907+084∗ (middle) and Γ = 2.90 for 2HWCJ1852+013∗ (bottom), as obtained by HAWC (see Table 1). Fermi-LAT 95% confidence level ULs for 0.16◦ disk and point-like hypothesesare shown with dashed green and light green lines, respectively. MAGIC 95% confidence level ULs are displayed for both a point-like

hypothesis (light orange) and a 0.16◦ radial extension (orange). The HAWC spectrum (dark blue) is obtained for the parameters givenin Table 1. The light blue band indicates the HAWC spectrum taking into account 1σ systematic errors of 0.2 and 50% in the photon

index and flux, respectively.

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

MAGIC and Fermi-LAT results on HAWC sources 11

1 ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland2 Universita di Udine, and INFN Trieste, I-33100 Udine,Italy3 National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF), I-00136Rome, Italy4 Universita di Padova and INFN, I-35131 Padova, Italy5 Technische Universitat Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund,Germany6 Croatian MAGIC Consortium: University of Rijeka, 51000Rijeka, University of Split - FESB, 21000 Split, Universityof Zagreb - FER, 10000 Zagreb, University of Osijek,31000 Osijek and Rudjer Boskovic Institute, 10000 Zagreb,Croatia.7 Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, 1/AF Bidhan-nagar, Salt Lake, Sector-1, Kolkata 700064, India8 Max-Planck-Institut fur Physik, D-80805 Munchen,Germany9 Now at Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fısicas (CBPF),22290-180 URCA, Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brasil10 Unidad de Partıculas y Cosmologıa (UPARCOS), Uni-versidad Complutense, E-28040 Madrid, Spain11 Inst. de Astrofısica de Canarias, E-38200 La Laguna, andUniversidad de La Laguna, Dpto. Astrofısica, E-38206 LaLaguna, Tenerife, Spain12 University of Lodz, Department of Astrophysics, PL-90236 Lodz, Poland13 Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), D-15738Zeuthen, Germany14 Institut de Fısica d’Altes Energies (IFAE), The BarcelonaInstitute of Science and Technology (BIST), E-08193 Bel-laterra (Barcelona), Spain15 Universita di Siena and INFN Pisa, I-53100 Siena, Italy16 Universitat Wurzburg, D-97074 Wurzburg, Germany17 Finnish MAGIC Consortium: Tuorla Observatory andFinnish Centre of Astronomy with ESO (FINCA), Univer-sity of Turku, Vaisalantie 20, FI-21500 Piikkio, AstronomyDivision, University of Oulu, FIN-90014 University of Oulu,Finland18 Departament de Fısica, and CERES-IEEC, UniversitatAutonoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain19 Universitat de Barcelona, ICC, IEEC-UB, E-08028Barcelona, Spain20 Japanese MAGIC Consortium: ICRR, The Universityof Tokyo, 277-8582 Chiba, Japan; Department of Physics,Kyoto University, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan; Tokai University,259-1292 Kanagawa, Japan; The University of Tokushima,770-8502 Tokushima, Japan21 Inst. for Nucl. Research and Nucl. Energy, BulgarianAcademy of Sciences, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria22 Universita di Pisa, and INFN Pisa, I-56126 Pisa, Italy23 Humboldt University of Berlin, Institut fur PhysikD-12489 Berlin Germany24 also at Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita di Trieste,I-34127 Trieste, Italy25 also at Port d’Informacio Cientıfica (PIC) E-08193,Bellaterra (Barcelona) Spain26Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, LosAlamos, NM, USA27Instituto de Fısica, Universidad Nacional Autonoma deMexico, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico28Universidad Autonoma de Chiapas, Tuxtla Gutierrez,Chiapas, Mexico29Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo,Morelia, Mexico30Department of Physics, Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, PA, USA31Department of Physics & Astronomy, University ofRochester, Rochester, NY , USA32Instituto de Astronomıa, Universidad Nacional Autonomade Mexico, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico33Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison,Madison, WI, USA34Instituto Nacional de Astrofısica, Optica y Electronica,Puebla, Mexico35Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences,PL-31342 IFJ-PAN, Krakow, Poland36Facultad de Ciencias Fısico Matematicas, BenemeritaUniversidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico37Departamento de Fısica, Centro Universitario de Cien-cias Exactas e Ingenierıas, Universidad de Guadalajara,Guadalajara, Mexico38School of Physics, Astronomy, and Computational Sci-ences, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA39Department of Physics, University of Maryland, CollegePark, MD, USA40Instituto de Geofısica, Universidad Nacional Autonomade Mexico, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico41Department of Physics, Michigan Technological Univer-sity, Houghton, MI, USA42NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Astrophysics Office,Huntsville, AL 35812, USA43Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, 69117 Heidel-berg, Germany44Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA45School of Physics and Center for Relativistic Astrophysics- Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA 3033246Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan StateUniversity, East Lansing, MI, USA47Universidad Politecnica de Pachuca, Pachuca, Hgo,Mexico48Centro de Investigacion en Computacion, InstitutoPolitecnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico49Physics Department, Centro de Investigacion y de Estu-dios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, DF, Mexico50Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca,Mexico51Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad NacionalAutonoma de Mexico, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico52Department of Physics and Astronomy, University ofUtah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA53Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA54Department of Physics, Stanford University: Stanford,

CA 94305aAS4060, USA55Department of Physics and Astronomy. University ofCalifornia. Irvine, CA 92697, USA56Department of Physics and Astronomy, Clemson Univer-sity, Kinard Lab of Physics, Clemson, SC 29634-0978, USA57Universita di Pisa and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucle-are, Sezione di Pisa I-56127 Pisa, Italy58Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Trieste,I-34127 Trieste, Italy59Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita di Trieste, I-34127Trieste, Italy60California State University, Los Angeles, Department ofPhysics and Astronomy, Los Angeles, CA 90032, USA61Dipartimento di Fisica “M. Merlin” dell’Universita e delPolitecnico di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy62Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Bari,I-70126 Bari, Italy

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

12 The MAGIC, HAWC and Fermi-LAT Collaborations

63W. W. Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, KavliInstitute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, De-partment of Physics and SLAC National AcceleratorLaboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA64Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino,I-10125 Torino, Italy65Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita degli Studi di Torino,I-10125 Torino, Italy66Department of Physics and Astronomy, University ofPadova, Vicolo Osservatorio 3, I-35122 Padova, Italy67NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD20771, USA68Laboratoire Univers et Particules de Montpellier, Uni-versite Montpellier, CNRS/IN2P3, F-34095 Montpellier,France69Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique,CNRS/IN2P3, F-91128 Palaiseau, France70Center for Research and Exploration in Space Science andTechnology (CRESST) and NASA Goddard Space FlightCenter, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA71INAF-Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica CosmicaMilano, via E. Bassini 15, I-20133 Milano, Italy72Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cam-bridge, MA 02138, USA73Italian Space Agency, Via del Politecnico snc, 00133Roma, Italy74Space Science Data Center - Agenzia Spaziale Italiana,Via del Politecnico, snc, I-00133, Roma, Italy75Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Perugia,I-06123 Perugia, Italy76Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia “G. Galilei”, Univer-sita di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy77INAF Istituto di Radioastronomia, I-40129 Bologna, Italy78Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universita di Bologna,I-40127 Bologna, Italy79Universita Telematica Pegaso, Piazza Trieste e Trento,48, I-80132 Napoli, Italy80Grupo de Altas Energıas, Universidad Complutense deMadrid, E-28040 Madrid, Spain81Department of Physical Sciences, Hiroshima University,Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan82Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg,Erlangen Centre for Astroparticle Physics, Erwin-Rommel-Str. 1, 91058 Erlangen, Germany83Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland,College Park, MD 20742, USA84Laboratoire AIM, CEA-IRFU/CNRS/Universite ParisDiderot, Service d’Astrophysique, CEA Saclay, F-91191 Gifsur Yvette, France85The George Washington University, Department ofPhysics, 725 21st St, NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA86University of North Florida, Department of Physics, 1UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224 , USA87Science Institute, University of Iceland, IS-107 Reykjavik,Iceland88Nordita, Royal Institute of Technology and StockholmUniversity, Roslagstullsbacken 23, SE-106 91 Stockholm,Sweden89Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa,I-56127 Pisa, Italy90Department of Physics, KTH Royal Institute of Technol-ogy, AlbaNova, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden91The Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmoparticle Physics,AlbaNova, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden92Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita degli Studi di Perugia,I-06123 Perugia, Italy93Hiroshima Astrophysical Science Center, Hiroshima

University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan94Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma“Tor Vergata”, I-00133 Roma, Italy95Department of Physics and Astronomy, University ofDenver, Denver, CO 80208, USA96Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste, Istituto Nazionaledi Astrofisica, I-34143 Trieste, Italy97Funded by contract FIRB-2012-RBFR12PM1F from theItalian Ministry of Education, University and Research(MIUR)98Department of Physics, University of Johannesburg, POBox 524, Auckland Park 2006, South Africa99Institut fur Astro- und Teilchenphysik and Institut furTheoretische Physik, Leopold-Franzens-Universitat Inns-bruck, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria100NYCB Real-Time Computing Inc., Lattingtown, NY11560-1025, USA101Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, Nagoya Uni-versity, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan102Max-Planck-Institut fur Physik, D-80805 Munchen,Germany103Institute of Space Sciences (CSICIEEC), Campus UAB,Carrer de Magrans s/n, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain104Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats(ICREA), E-08010 Barcelona, Spain105INAF-Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica CosmicaBologna, via P. Gobetti 101, I-40129 Bologna, Italy106Praxis Inc., Alexandria, VA 22303, resident at NavalResearch Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375, USAThis paper has been typeset from a TEX/LATEX file prepared by

the author.

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)