contamination. In the observational setup described in section 4.1, IC 310 is neither in the ON nor in the OFF regions, thus it is not included in this analysis either. Since in this section we focus on the sensitivity to the DM emission, we neglect the CR component in the following, which indeed has already been properly discussed and considered for obtaining the main DM results in this paper, i.e. those derived via the template-fitting analysis in section 6. In total, we create 4 simulations for the ON-OFF analysis, two assuming the MED annihilation and DEC decay scenarios, both integrated to look like a point-like source in the center of Perseus; and two more simulations adopting the MED and DEC DM templates, this time including a central mask.

We follow the likelihood maximization method and the likelihood ratio test (TS), as done in the template-fitting analysis, to search for a signal. The likelihood for the ON-OFF method corresponds to a product of Poissonian likelihoods for the ON and OFF regions, described for each energy bin (i-th) and ON-OFF regions (j-th) as:

$$ \mathcal{L}(A_{\chi}|D) = \prod_{ij} \frac{(N_{ij}^S + \kappa_{ij} N_{ij}^B)^{N_{ij}^{ON}}}{N_{ij}^{ON}!} e^{-(N_{ij}^S + \kappa_{ij} N_{ij}^B)} \times \frac{(N_{ij}^B)^{N_{ij}^{OFF}}}{N_{ij}^{OFF}!} e^{-N_{ij}^B}, \quad (I.1) $$

where $N_{ij}^S$ is the number of expected signal events in the ON region, $N_{ij}^B$ is the number of expected background events, $\kappa$ is the normalization factor to account for potentially different background acceptance in the ON and OFF regions, $N_{ij}^{ON}$ is the number of observed photons in the ON region and $N_{ij}^{OFF}$ the same but for the OFF regions.<fnref n="38" /> In this case, we only fit one parameter, the DM normalization $A_{\chi}$, resulting in profiling a one-dimensional likelihood, with the corresponding flat prior of positive normalization values. To perform this analysis, we use the gammapy software package for $\gamma$-ray data analysis, especially the function FluxPointsEstimator, with the iminuit backend.

No hint of detection neither for annihilation nor for decay is obtained in our simulations, thus we proceed to obtain the corresponding upper (lower for decay) DM limits. For this analysis, we use a number of Poissonian realizations as suggested by our studies in appendix J. In particular, we average 100 realizations in order to obtain statistically meaningful and stable results. We also check several variations of this final configuration (referred as “Case 1” in the following) to test the impact of the details of the observational strategy in the DM limits. In table 8 we show the different setups here evaluated and figure 32 the corresponding upper limits in each case. For the latter, we adopt the MED annihilation case and use the 2D spatial template for the DM emission, yet we neglect the mask for computational reasons in cases 2, 3, and 4.

Figure 32 shows that all the tested cases lie within the $1\sigma$ scatter band of the “Case 1” configuration. Indeed, the discrepancy that is observed at the lowest considered energies is due to the inclusion of the mask for the “Case 1” configuration while no mask is present for the rest of cases. We conclude that the configuration selected in section 4.1 is also optimal for DM searches in Perseus based on the ON-OFF method.

We show in figure 33 the 95% C.L. limits for the canonical “Case 1” ON-OFF setup, for the different assumptions on the spatial extension of the DM-induced emission (i.e., point-like

<footnote n="38">³⁸This likelihood is known to result in biased estimates for observations with very low counts, typical scenario for the high energy behaviour of faint sources.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 8.** Different observational setups tested in the ON-OFF analysis of this section. $\theta_{pointing}$ is the pointing offset with respect to the center of Perseus, where the ON region is centered; $\theta_{ON}$ is the aperture radius of the ON region (which for all the considered setups coincide with the aperture radius of each of the OFF regions), $N_{OFF}$ is the number of OFF regions considered, and $\kappa$ is the normalization parameter introduced in equation (I.1). Our default configuration is “Case 1” (highlighted in bold in the table), i.e. the same introduced in section 4.1.</caption><thead><tr><th>Case</th><th>θ<sub>pointing</sub> [deg]</th><th>θ<sub>ON</sub> [deg]</th><th>N<sub>OFF</sub></th><th>κ</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 32.** 95% C.L. mean upper limits to the annihilation cross-section under the different ON-OFF configurations shown in table 8. In all cases we adopt the MED model and the $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ channel, and consider the spatial extension of the DM-induced emission in Perseus. The green band represents the $1\sigma$ scatter of the projected limits around “Case 1”. The mean is computed over 50 Poisson realizations for computational reasons. Note that no mask is included for cases 2, 3 and 4, which explains some of the observed differences among curves. See text for discussion.</figcaption></figure>

and extended), for both the MED annihilation and DEC decay models. At a first glance, we can see that the best limits are reached for the point-like source assumption in all of the cases, as expected. This is even more pronounced at the lowest DM masses considered, since in the case of “Extended+mask” the mask removes a comparatively larger fraction of photons, this way weakening the limits. The comparison with other IACT results on DM searches in galaxy clusters show that CTA prospects are up to more than $\mathcal{O}(10)$ constraining, depending on the DM mass range and annihilation/decay channel.39

<footnote n="39">39 Each individual analysis required of a different — in many cases very sophisticated — definition and treatment of the ON-OFF regions, analysis cuts, spatial morphology of the underlying DM signal, etc. Yet, we remind that none of these IACT results were computed using a template-fitting analysis. Thus, in this sense, they represent a fair comparison with our ON-OFF results.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 33.** Left panels (right panels): 95% C.L. mean upper (lower) limits for the annihilation MED model (DEC decay model) for $\tau^+\tau^-$ (top panels) and $b\bar{b}$ (bottom panels) for the ON-OFF “Case 1” configuration (see table 8). The solid black line shows the results considering the spatial extension of the DM emission plus a mask of 0.1 deg in the center of Perseus, while the dot-dashed black line corresponds to the results for the over-simplistic point-like DM source assumption; see text for details. The green band represents the $1\sigma$ scatter of the projected limits. We also show for comparison the results from the MAGIC observations of Perseus (olive long-dashed lines; [117]) and the results from the H.E.S.S observations of Fornax (purple dashed lines; [115, 116]).</figcaption></figure>

Finally, we also explore the impact of the different analysis pipeline on our limits. In the right panel of figure 34, together with our template-fitting analysis results for annihilation (solid line, MED model, see section 6.2), we show the results obtained for the canonical “Case 1” ON-OFF setup (‘ON-OFF — Extended+mask’, dot-dashed line). We can appreciate the loss in sensitivity in the lower mass range, mainly due to the central mask. In the high mass range (above $\sim 1$ TeV), the limits become a factor up to $\sim 4$ times more constraining than the template-fitting ones, thanks to an over-simplistic modelling of the rest of astrophysical sources. In the same right panel of figure 34, we also include the annihilation results for the point-like source assumption. We can notice that this approach (‘ON-OFF — PS’; dashed line) is the most optimistic scenario, as expected, improving the limits of the template-fitting analysis by a factor $\sim 2-2.5$, yet being within the $2\sigma$ scatter of the template-fitting results in all the explored mass range. Although useful and relevant to understand the absolute sensitivity reach for CTA in an idealistic scenario, we recall that these ‘ON-OFF — PS’
<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 34.** Limits for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ channel for three different analysis methods for annihilation (**left panel**) and decay (**right panel**). The solid line refers to the template-fitting approach (MED model in case of annihilation, see sections 6.2 and 6.3); the dot-dashed line is for the ON-OFF “Case 1” configuration, and the dotted line indicates our most simplistic analysis, i.e. ON-OFF assuming a point source for all the DM in the cluster. The green (yellow) band shows the $1\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) scatter of the projected limits using the template-fitting approach.</figcaption></figure>

limits do not describe a realistic science case and correspond to an overly simplistic setup. An important conclusion from these comparisons among different analyses is that, despite the very different methods and assumptions on the modelling of $\gamma$-ray sources in the area, we obtain upper limits that lie within the $2\sigma$ scatter of the template-fitting results. This demonstrates not only the robustness of the found results but also points towards a low correlation of the DM parameters with respect to those corresponding to the rest of $\gamma$-ray sources in the cluster, including CRs (further investigated in appendix H). This effect is also quantified for the decay scenario in the left panel of figure 34. We show our canonical results for the template-fitting analysis (solid line, see section 6.3), together with the limits resulting from the “Case 1” ON-OFF setup (ON-OFF — Extended+mask, dot-dashed line) and the simplistic ON-OFF analysis for which we assume the DM emission to be a point-like source (ON-OFF — PS, dashed line). As expected, the most simplistic approach (ON-OFF — PS) is the one providing the most optimistic constraints, in this case being a factor~2–2.5 better than the template-fitting results, yet lying within the $2\sigma$ scatter of the latter. We remark that the aim of this overly simplistic approach is simply to understand the maximum sensitivity reach of CTA in an idealistic, unrealizable scenario. As for the results of the “ON-OFF — Extended+mask” method, the effect of the mask is clearly visible in the lower mass range as a worsening with respect to the canonical limits, while there is a light improvement for masses above a few TeV, still being within the $1\sigma$ scatter band. Thus, the use of the different analysis methods produce mean lower limits within the $2\sigma$ scatter of our canonical, template-fitting results, in agreement with that found for annihilation as well.

## J Convergence of the DM fits versus the number of simulations

The simulated observations that we use as CTA data (for more details see section 6) produce the corresponding photons and events assuming a Poisson distribution. To obtain stable and
<figure><img src="image_38.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 35.** Convergence of the $1\sigma$ (top panels) and $2\sigma$ (bottom panels) bands in the case of the template-fitting analysis technique, for $b\bar{b}$ (left panels) and $\tau^+\tau^-$ (right panels) channels and for different values of the fitted DM mass.</figcaption></figure>

representative prospects, we need to average the results over a certain number of different outcomes of the Poisson randomization process. To guarantee a number of realizations high enough to have trustful results, at the same time representing a good compromise in terms of computational time, we analyze the evolution of the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ scatter bands corresponding to the DM upper limits (for the MED annihilation scenario) with respect to the number of simulations that are considered in the computation of the mean upper limits. This is shown in figure 35 and figure 36 for the template-fitting and ON-OFF analysis methods, respectively (note though that in the latter case we only study the $1\sigma$ band).

In figure 35 we can see that the $1\sigma$ bands converge around 80 realizations to a value of ~0.1 dex, mostly independently of the DM mass or annihilation channel. The $2\sigma$ bands seem to converge instead after around one hundred realizations, to a value between 0.2–0.4 dex depending on the mass (no clear correlation is observed). With these results at hand, we decide to average our DM limits over 100 Poissonian realizations for the template-fitting analysis.

In figure 36 the $1\sigma$ band converges much more quickly, around 50 realizations for any channel or DM mass. In contrast to the case of the template fitting, we appreciate a clear correlation of the convergence value with DM mass: larger masses lead to higher $1\sigma$ values. This is surely related to the likelihood we used for the ON-OFF method (equation (I.1)), which is known to result in biased estimates in case of observations with very low counts, as it
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 36.** Convergence of the $1\sigma$ band for the case of the ON-OFF analysis technique, for $b\bar{b}$ (left panel) and $\tau^+\tau^-$ (right panel) channels, and for different values of the fitted DM mass.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 9.** Recovered values, with their corresponding errors, of the parameters describing the astrophysical sources in Perseus (see equation (6.2)). In all cases, we adopt the MED annihilation model for the DM component considered in the template-fitting. The error corresponds to the symmetrical $1\sigma$ statistical error.</caption><thead><tr><th>Source</th><th>Parameter</th><th>Units</th><th>Input value</th><th>Recovered value</th><th>Error</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">NGC 1275</td><td>Amplitude</td><td>TeV<sup>-1</sup> cm<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.1 &times; 10<sup>-11</sup></td><td>2.14 &times; 10<sup>-11</sup></td><td>7 &times; 10<sup>-13</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Index</td><td>-</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.59</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">IC 310</td><td>Amplitude</td><td>TeV<sup>-1</sup> cm<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2.1 &times; 10<sup>-11</sup></td><td>7.6 &times; 10<sup>-13</sup></td><td>2 &times; 10<sup>-14</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Index</td><td>-</td><td>1.81</td><td>1.80</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">IRF-BKG</td><td>Prefactor</td><td>-</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.9999</td><td>0.0017</td></tr><tr><td>Index</td><td>-</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.3 &times; 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>6.3 &times; 10<sup>-4</sup></td></tr><tr><td>CR</td><td>Prefactor</td><td>-</td><td>1.00</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.35</td></tr></tbody></table>

is the case of large WIMP masses. Indeed, our simulations including a DM annihilation flux plus the CTA instrumental background have an extremely low number of photons, resulting in a higher error of the estimated upper limit. We decide to present the mean DM limits from the ON-OFF results after averaging over 100 Poissonian realizations.

## K Recovered astrophysical parameters from the DM template-fitting

In table 9 we show the best-fit values (averaged over 100 simulations) obtained for all the parameters involved in the modelling of the $\gamma$-ray sources considered in the analysis (see equation (6.2)). The shown results are for the case of including a DM template corresponding to the MED annihilation model. The recovered best-fit values are all compatible with the input value used to create the simulations within the $1\sigma$ error. Also, we tested that these values do not seem to be correlated with either the considered DM mass or annihilation channel of the fit, indeed recovering the same value within 10% of the error in all cases.
# L CTA sensitivity to DM in Perseus with ctools

In this appendix, we describe the analysis performed with `ctools` software to search for γ-ray DM emission in the simulated CTA observations (see section 4.1) of the Perseus cluster. The main goal is to perform a comparison with the results already obtained with the `gammapy` software, presented in section 6, and to also quantify the compatibility among them.

## L.1 Data preparation

We simulate three different sets of observations of the Perseus cluster using the `ctools` public code [220]. `ctools` is a software to simulate and analyze data for γ-ray observatories. It is based on the `gammalib` C-library. To generate the observations, we use the `ctobssim` tool to simulate γ-ray events in ten energy bins starting from 30 GeV to 100 TeV, same as used for the `gammapy` analysis (check section 6). The total duration of the observations is 300 h, obtained after stacking 300 individual observations of 1 h duration each (section 4.1).

The first two data sets correspond to classical ON-OFF analyses, used in current IACTs. The first ON-OFF setup, as it is explained in section I for `gammapy`, we assume that the DM-induced γ-ray emission is described by a point source (PS). We also neglect the contributions of the other γ-ray sources in Perseus, and only consider the instrumental background contribution that is modeled via the IRFs. Also following section I, the second ON-OFF data set uses a more realistic modeling of the Perseus cluster by including the emission of NGC 1275. We use the DM templates to model the spatial morphology of the DM signal (see section 3.3). Additionally, we place a circular mask of 0.1 deg radius, as in [117], to block out the bright emission from NGC 1275 (equation (4.1)). The instrumental background is modeled by the IRFs. In the end, we also create four sets of simulations, as done with `gammapy`, for the ON-OFF observations: two for the MED model annihilation scenario, i.e., one assuming the point-like source ('PS') approximation and another one for the extended source plus the mask ('ES+Mask'); and two for DEC decay scenario, 'PS' and 'ES+Mask' setups.

The last set of simulations refers to only one circular ON region of 3 deg radius, considering the contribution of all the γ-ray sources in the Perseus cluster. NGC 1275 and IC 310 emissions are described by equations (4.1) and (4.2), respectively. The CR-induced γ-ray emission is described using the 'Baseline' model (section 2.3.1). We consider a total of four scenarios for the DM-induced γ-ray emission, i.e. (MIN, MED, MAX) for DM annihilation, and (DEC) for DM decay.

Finally, for every set of observations we simulate a total of 100 realizations, to consider the statistical background fluctuations and compute mean parameter values, and as $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands.

## L.2 DM analysis pipeline with ctools

We follow the same analysis strategy described in section 6.1 for `gammapy`. In the case of `ctools`, the DM analysis pipeline is available in the `ctadmtool` public code.<fnref n="40" /> `ctadmtool` integrates three different steps in the calculation of exclusion limits. In the first step, the

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ `ctadmtool` is partially based in `ctools` and `cscripts`, and allows the use of different observation setups and analysis strategies. It can be found in https://github.com/sergiohcdna/ctadmtool/tree/development.</footnote>
γ-ray flux induced by annihilation/decay of DM is estimated, given the parameters of the DM candidate and the spatial emission template. We use PPPC4DMID [241] to interpolate to the desired values of DM mass. `ctadmtool` computes this γ-ray flux to the number of mass points that the user wants to explore. The second step, we use the `ctlike` tool to estimate the parameters (equation (6.2)) that fit the observation, get the correlation matrix and `TS` (equation (4.4)) for every component, and compute the `TS` profiles as a function of the DM normalization. The `TS` profile is computed by letting free the parameters of all other components in the cluster. In the absence of a signal, the final step is to estimate the upper limits (95% C.L., $\Delta TS = 2.71$ with respect to the best fit) to the flux and convert to exclusion limits of the DM parameters.

We assume that the DM normalization, $A_\chi$, can only take physical values ($A_\chi \ge 0$), and that a signal detection occurs when $TS \ge 25$. We adopt 10 logarithmically-spaced values of the DM mass in the range from 50 GeV to 100 TeV, and assume two representative DM channels, $b\bar{b}$ and $\tau^+\tau^-$.

### L.3 CTA sensitivity to DM under the ON-OFF observational setup with `ctools`

We do not find a DM signal neither in the annihilation nor in the decay scenarios for the different sets of ON-OFF observations. Thus, we proceed to compute the 95% C.L. ULs to the DM-induced γ-ray flux and, from there, calculate exclusion limits of annihilation cross-section and decay lifetime as a function of the DM mass. We show in figure 37 the 95% C.L. exclusion limits for the ‘PS’ and ‘ES+Mask’ ON-OFF observational setups, and for the four sets of observations (section L.1). We observe that the best limits are obtained for the (unrealistic) ‘PS’ case, in agreement with the results obtained with `gammapy` (section I). Placing a mask on NGC 1275 (‘ES+Mask’) weakens the limits up to $\mathcal{O}(10)$ for DM mass below 1 TeV (10 TeV) for annihilation/decay channels to $\tau^+\tau^-$ ($b\bar{b}$).

### L.4 CTA sensitivity to DM based on template fitting with `ctools`

In this case, as done with `gammapy` in section 6.1, we first check with `ctadmtool` if NGC 1275 can potentially contribute to the DM- and CR-induced γ-ray emission components in the Perseus cluster, while ideally it should not. To estimate the effect of this “contamination” we extract the `TS` for every component as a function of the DM mass, for 100 realizations of the observations, and compute the mean value of the `TS` for the (MIN, MED, MAX) annihilation and (DEC) decay scenarios.

Figure 38 shows the mean value of the `TS` for the MED DM-induced γ-ray emission, CR-Baseline and NGC 1275 as a function of the DM mass used in the fit. For clarity, we only show the results for MED DM scenario, but same results are obtained for the rest of cases. We observe that for DM masses below ~1 TeV the `TS` of NGC 1275 has a decrement of almost a factor 2 with respect to that obtained above ~10 TeV. This decrement in NGC 1275 `TS` is possibly associated with the apparent positive detection of DM-induced γ-ray signal, not observed neither in the previous ON-OFF analysis with `ctadmtool` nor in the full `gammapy` analysis. Moreover, we notice that the CR component has also significant variations in the `TS` that are possibly correlated with the decrement in NGC 1275 `TS`, starting for DM masses below 10 TeV. These variations though do not change the fact that we always have a detected
<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 37.** Left panels (right panels): 95% C.L. mean upper (lower) limits for the annihilation MED model (DEC decay model) for $\tau^+\tau^-$ (top panels) and $b\bar{b}$ (bottom panels), for the ON-OFF configurations. The solid black line shows the results considering the spatial extension of the DM emission plus a mask of 0.1 deg in the center of Perseus ('ES+Mask'), while the dot-dashed black line corresponds to the results for the point-like ('PS') DM source assumption. The green (yellow) band represents the $1\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) scatter of the projected limits. We also show for comparison the results from the MAGIC observations of Perseus (purple dashed lines; [117]) and from H.E.S.S observations of Fornax (purple dashed lines for annihilation [115]; olive dashed lines for decay [116]).</figcaption></figure>

CR-induced $\gamma$-ray signal (Baseline model). We do not show the *TS* of IC 310 because it is constant for all the DM masses considered in the fit.

The behaviour and our interpretation of these *TS* curves as a function of the DM mass is supported by the correlation matrix. Figure 39 shows the average correlation matrix obtained for 100 realizations of the 300 h observations considering all the $\gamma$-ray emission components in the cluster. We select four different DM masses according to the different behaviours of the *TS* in figure 38. For DM masses below 1 TeV, we see that the DM normalization is anti-correlated to the free parameters of CRs and NGC 1275. We can also observe a mildly anti-correlation with the instrumental background parameters. It is interesting that the anti-correlation between DM and the instrumental background disappears as the DM mass increases. We can also observe that the sign of correlation between DM and NGC 1275 parameters changes around DM masses of ~TeV, and then the value of the correlation decreases as the DM mass increases. This is different to the correlation matrix obtained with *gammapy* (figure 31), where
<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

**Figure 38.** Mean *TS* values associated to three emission components in the Perseus cluster. The purple, red and olive lines correspond, respectively, to the MED DM emission model with annihilation to channel τ⁺τ⁻, the CR-Baseline model, and NGC 1275. The black dashed line is the detection threshold (*TS* ≥ 25). We observe that for masses below 1 TeV, the *TS* for NGC 1275 decreases to the half of its value for DM masses above ~10 TeV. This change seems to be associated with a detection of the DM-induced γ-ray emission that it is not observed neither for the ON-OFF setups nor in the *gammapy*-based analyses. See text for more details.

there is not obvious correlation between NGC 1275 model-parameters and DM Normalization. We also find a strong anti-correlation for DM masses above ~1 TeV between CR and NGC 1275, also differing with respect to the behaviour obtained with *gammapy*. IC 310 model parameters do not show any correlation with other parameters, which supports the fact that its *TS* is constant in the whole range of considered DM masses, as mentioned before.

From these results, we conclude that the template fitting analysis with the setup described in this section is not sufficient when using *ctadmtool*, since the strong NGC 1275 emission makes the analysis particularly tricky, and will lead to a fictitious detection of a DM-induced γ-ray signal.

In light of the previous results, in the following we propose and describe a specific analysis strategy to avoid the leaking of NGC 1275 emission into the other emission templates when using *ctools*. This alternative strategy will enable us to properly compute projected limits to velocity-averaged cross-section and lifetime of DM particles. The strategy is based on placing a mask in the center of the Perseus cluster so as to block out a significant fraction of the emission from NGC 1275. The main drawback of this approach is that, as the CRs and DM emission models also peak in this central region, we will be less sensitive to a putative emission from both contributions.

We select five different sizes for the mask, each of them applied to a particular energy range between 30 GeV and 100 TeV. More precisely, the angular size of the mask is set to
<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 39.** Correlation matrices of the free parameters of the emission models in the Perseus cluster (equation (6.2)), for four different DM masses. Shown are the mean values of the correlation matrix obtained for 100 realization of observations assuming the MED annihilation scenario.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 10.** Angular sizes (radii) of the mask applied to the simulation in the center of the Perseus cluster. The size is set to 2 times the value of the angular resolution of the CTA North Array at the energy corresponding to the lower extreme of each energy interval [121].</caption><thead><tr><td>Energy Range (TeV)</td><td>θ<sub>mask</sub> (deg)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.03–0.06</td><td>0.50</td></tr><tr><td>0.06–0.15</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>0.15–1.00</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>1.00–10.0</td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td>10.0–100.0</td><td>0.08</td></tr></tbody></table>

2 times the value of the CTA angular resolution at the energy corresponding to the lower extreme of each energy interval. Table 10 provides the corresponding mask sizes and energy ranges. With this definition of the mask, we guarantee that we remove ~95% of the photons
<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 40.** Sensitivity of CTA to a DM annihilation signal from the Perseus cluster, obtained via a template-fitting analysis with `ctools` and adopting a mask with those properties in table 10; see text for details. Curves represent the 95% C.L. upper limits on the velocity-averaged cross-section for the MED annihilation model. The green (yellow) band shows the $1\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) scatter of the projected limits. The black dashed line is the thermal relic cross-section ($\langle \sigma v \rangle_{thermal} = 3 \times 10^{-26} \text{ cm}^3 \text{ s}^{-1}$). Top left panel: Upper limits for the two considered annihilation channels, $b\bar{b}$ channel (dashed) and $\tau^+\tau^-$ (solid). Top right panel: Limits for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ channel for three different analysis methods. The solid line refers to the template-fitting placing a mask in the center of the cluster; the dot-dashed line is for the ON-OFF analysis assuming a point-like source (PS) for the DM-induced $\gamma$-ray emission, and the dotted line refers to the ON-OFF analysis when we consider a DM spatially-extended emission and place a mask in the center of the Perseus cluster (section L.1). Bottom panels: Cross-section upper limits for the $b\bar{b}$ (left panel) and $\tau^+\tau^-$ (right panel) channels in comparison with the most recent results on DM-annihilation searches in galaxy clusters using Fermi-LAT ([112], dotted, and [107], purple dot-dashed lines) and H.E.S.S ([115]; blue dashed lines).</figcaption></figure>

coming from NGC 1275. More importantly, with this analysis configuration we do not detect a DM signal in the simulation data and confirm that the TS values are not stable across all considered energies. In the same way, we do not detect a signal associated with CR-induced $\gamma$-ray emission, either.

In the absence of a clear DM signal, we compute 95% C.L. exclusion limits to the annihilation cross-section (decay lifetime) versus the DM mass. Figure 40 shows the exclusion limits for the MED annihilation scenario for both $b\bar{b}$ and $\tau^+\tau^-$ channels, while figure 41 shows the results obtained for the DEC decay scenario. In both figures, we follow the same convention to show
<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

**Figure 41.** Sensitivity of CTA to a DM decay signal from the Perseus cluster, at 95% C.L., in terms of the mean lower limits of the lifetime of the DM particle versus DM mass. The green (yellow) band shows the $1\sigma$ ($2\sigma$) scatter of the projected limits. **Top left panel:** Mean lifetime lower limits for the two considered decay channels, $b\bar{b}$ (dashed line) and $\tau^+\tau^-$ (solid). **Top right panel:** Mean lifetime lower limits for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ channel for three different analysis methods: template-fitting with a mask on NGC 1275 (solid line), ON-OFF analysis assuming a point-like source (PS) for the DM-induced $\gamma$-ray emission (dot-dashed), and ON-OFF analysis considering a spatially-extended DM emission with a mask in the center of the Perseus cluster (dotted line). See section L.1 for details. **Bottom panels:** Mean lifetime lower limits for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ (left panel) and $b\bar{b}$ (right panel) channels in comparison with the most recent results on DM decay in galaxy clusters using MAGIC data (olive dashed lines; [117]), Fermi-LAT data (black dot-dashed lines; [107]) and H.E.S.S data (purple dashed lines; [116]).

the results as in sections 6.2 and 6.3, and compare to recent results from other experiments as well. Note that results from both the template-fitting and ON-OFF extended analyses, both for annihilation and decay, are in good agreement for DM masses above 1 TeV. This is expected, as the masks adopted in both types of analyses at these energies is comparable.

## L.5 Comparison with gammapy

Finally, in this section we show the comparison between the results obtained via the two analysis pipelines used in this paper to search for a DM-induced $\gamma$-ray signal in the Perseus cluster. The results obtained with `ctools` are shown in sections L.3 and L.4, while those with `gammapy` are presented in sections 6.2, 6.3, and I. Figures 42 and 43 show the comparison for annihilating and decaying DM for the different observational setups considered in this work:
<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

**Figure 42.** Sensitivity of CTA to a DM annihilation signal from the Perseus cluster, at 95% C.L., in terms of the mean upper limits of the velocity-averaged cross-section of the DM particle versus the DM mass, obtained via the two CTA analysis softwares used in this work, **ctools** (solid line) and **gammapy** (dotted line). The green (yellow) band shows the $1\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) scatter of the projected limits obtained with **ctools**, and the gray bands (when visible) represent the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands for **gammapy**. The black dashed line is the thermal relic cross-section ($<\sigma v>_{thermal} = 3 \times 10^{-26} \text{ cm}^3 \text{ s}^{-1}$). **Top left panel:** Mean cross-section upper limits for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ annihilation channel obtained with **ctools** (solid) and **gammapy** (dotted), in both cases adopting the template-fitting analysis approach (sections 6.1 and L.4). **Top right panel:** Mean cross-section upper limits for the $b\bar{b}$ channel for **ctools** (solid) and **gammapy** (dotted) for the template fitting (sections 6.1 and L.4). **Bottom panels:** Mean cross-section upper limits for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ channel for the MED annihilation scenario, and ON-OFF 'ES + Mask' (**left panel**) and ON-OFF 'PS' analyses (**right panel**), as well as their comparison with the **gammapy** results (section I).

template fitting, ON-OFF (ES+Mask), and ON-OFF (PS). In the following, we only focus the discussion in the comparison for the MED annihilation scenario. For the DEC scenario, as well as MIN and MAX annihilation models, conclusions are similar.

In the case of the template-fitting analysis, we observe that the results obtained with **ctools** are less restrictive in comparison to the limits obtained with **gammapy** for DM masses below 1 TeV (10 TeV) for $\tau^+\tau^-$ ($b\bar{b}$) annihilation channel. This difference is a consequence of the restrictive mask placed on NGC 1275 in the alternative setup used for **ctools**, which significantly decreases the CTA sensitivity at lower energies (i.e., DM masses). The larger difference for $b\bar{b}$ is due to the fact that in this case the annihilation spectrum has its maximum
<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

**Figure 43.** Sensitivity of CTA to a DM decay signal from the Perseus cluster, at 95% C.L., in terms of the mean lower limits of the lifetime of the DM particle versus the DM mass, obtained via the two CTA analysis softwares used in this work, ctools (solid line) and gammapy (dotted line). The green (yellow) band shows the $1\sigma$ (2$\sigma$) scatter of the projected limits obtained with ctools, and the gray bands (when visible) represent the $1\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ bands for gammapy. Top left panel: Mean lifetime lower limits for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ decay channel obtained with ctools (solid) and gammapy (dotted), in both cases adopting the template-fitting analysis approach (sections 6.1 and L.4). Top right panel: Mean lifetime lower limits for the $b\bar{b}$ channel for ctools (solid) and gammapy (dotted) for the template fitting (sections 6.1 and L.4). Bottom panels: Mean lifetime lower limits for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ channel in the DEC scenario, and ON-OFF 'ES + Mask' (left panel) and ON-OFF 'PS' analyses (right panel), as well as their comparison with the gammapy results (section I).

located at ~1/20 of the considered DM mass, thus even still at high masses of around few TeV, the major contribution to the photon spectra comes from lower energies, where the CTA sensitivity is lower. Above 1 TeV or 10 TeV, depending on the annihilation channel, the results between ctools and gammapy are in good agreement, indeed being within the 2$\sigma$ statistical fluctuations.

For the ON-OFF (ES+Mask) analysis, we observe that the projected limits obtained with ctools and gammapy are in good agreement for DM masses above 1 TeV, always within the $1\sigma$ bands. Similarly to the previous case, we also observe a decrease in the sensitivity with ctools for DM masses below 1 TeV, being the magnitude of this decrement comparable to the decrease of sensitivity observed in the template-fitting method. We find the same effect for $b\bar{b}$, in concordance with the results obtained for the template fitting as well. As discussed
in previous subsections of this appendix, we believe that the size of the mask used for this analysis, of 0.1 deg radius, is not sufficient to entirely cover the emission from NGC 1275, which impacts our sensitivity at the lowest energies, where the angular resolution is worse. We did not increase the size of the mask placed on NGC 1275, as our goal is to compare the performance of the *ctools* and *gammapy* DM pipelines under the same observation setups.

Finally, for the ON-OFF (PS) analysis, we observe that the results from *ctools* and *gammapy* are in excellent agreement, within $1\sigma$ of statistical fluctuations, and independent of the assumed DM annihilation channel.

As an overall conclusion from these exercises of comparison between *ctools* and *gammapy*, we find a good agreement between both analysis pipelines at high DM masses, either in basic or more complex analysis setups and scenarios. However, for lower DM mass, typically below 1 TeV, *ctools* is less sensitive to disentangling the emission from multiple components. For the Perseus cluster, the main reason is that NGC 1275 overshines or eclipses the contribution of the DM- and CR-induced γ-ray emissions, inducing a signal leaking in these templates that causes unstable, untrustable results. Indeed, when the emission of NGC 1275 is artificially decreased by placing a mask on it, conveniently chosen according to CTA's angular resolution properties, we are capable of recovering the sensitive obtained with *gammapy*.

## References

[1] G.M. Voit, *Tracing cosmic evolution with clusters of galaxies*, Rev. Mod. Phys. **77** (2005) 207 [astro-ph/0410173] [INSPIRE].

[2] A. Kravtsov and S. Borgani, *Formation of Galaxy Clusters*, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. **50** (2012) 353 [arXiv:1205.5556] [INSPIRE].

[3] G. Brunetti and T.W. Jones, *Cosmic rays in galaxy clusters and their nonthermal emission*, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **23** (2014) 1430007 [arXiv:1401.7519] [INSPIRE].

[4] E.L. Blanton et al., *Active galactic nucleus feedback in clusters of galaxies*, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. **107** (2010) 7174 [arXiv:1004.0671] [INSPIRE].

[5] B.R. McNamara and P.E.J. Nulsen, *Mechanical Feedback from Active Galactic Nuclei in Galaxies, Groups, and Clusters*, New J. Phys. **14** (2012) 055023 [arXiv:1204.0006] [INSPIRE].

[6] A.C. Fabian, *Observational Evidence of AGN Feedback*, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. **50** (2012) 455 [arXiv:1204.4114] [INSPIRE].

[7] R.J. van Weeren et al., *Diffuse Radio Emission from Galaxy Clusters*, Space Sci. Rev. **215** (2019) 16 [arXiv:1901.04496] [INSPIRE].

[8] K. Knowles et al., *GMRT 610 MHz observations of galaxy clusters in the ACT equatorial sample*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. **486** (2019) 1332 [arXiv:1806.09579] [INSPIRE].

[9] A. Botteon et al., *The Planck clusters in the LOFAR sky — I. LoTSS-DR2: New detections and sample overview*, Astron. Astrophys. **660** (2022) A78 [arXiv:2202.11720] [INSPIRE].

[10] R.J. van Weeren, H.J.A. Rottgering, M. Bruggen and M. Hoeft, *Particle Acceleration on Megaparsec Scales in a Merging Galaxy Cluster*, Science **330** (2010) 347 [arXiv:1010.4306] [INSPIRE].

[11] R. Cassano et al., *On the connection between giant radio halos and cluster mergers*, Astrophys. J. Lett. **721** (2010) L82 [arXiv:1008.3624] [INSPIRE].
[12] S. Giacintucci et al., Occurrence of radio minihalos in a mass-limited sample of galaxy clusters, Astrophys. J. 841 (2017) 71 [arXiv:1701.01364] [INSPIRE].

[13] M. Ruszkowski and C. Pfrommer, Cosmic ray feedback in galaxies and galaxy clusters: A pedagogical introduction and a topical review of the acceleration, transport, observables, and dynamical impact of cosmic rays, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 31 (2023) 4 [arXiv:2306.03141] [INSPIRE].

[14] F. Savini et al., First evidence of diffuse ultra-steep-spectrum radio emission surrounding the cool core of a cluster, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 478 (2018) 2234 [arXiv:1805.01900].

[15] F. Savini et al., A LOFAR study of non-merging massive galaxy clusters, Astron. Astrophys. 622 (2019) A24 [arXiv:1811.08410] [INSPIRE].

[16] N. Biava et al., The ultra-steep diffuse radio emission observed in the cool-core cluster RX J1720.1+2638 with LOFAR at 54 MHz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 508 (2021) 3995 [arXiv:2110.01629] [INSPIRE].

[17] F. Govoni et al., A radio ridge connecting two galaxy clusters in a filament of the cosmic web, Science 364 (2019) 981 [arXiv:1906.07584].

[18] A. Botteon et al., A giant radio bridge connecting two galaxy clusters in Abell 1758, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499 (2020) L11 [arXiv:2008.09613] [INSPIRE].

[19] V. Cuciti et al., Galaxy clusters enveloped by vast volumes of relativistic electrons, Nature 609 (2022) 911 [arXiv:2209.13617] [INSPIRE].

[20] V.S. Berezinsky, P. Blasi and V.S. Ptuskin, Clusters of Galaxies as a Storage Room for Cosmic Rays, Astrophys. J. 487 (1997) 529 [astro-ph/9609048] [INSPIRE].

[21] A.M. Bykov et al., Shocks and non-thermal particles in clusters of galaxies, Space Sci. Rev. 215 (2019) 14 [arXiv:1902.00240] [INSPIRE].

[22] D. Wittor, On the Challenges of Cosmic-Ray Proton Shock Acceleration in the Intracluster Medium, New Astron. 85 (2021) 101550 [arXiv:2102.08059] [INSPIRE].

[23] B. Dennison, Formation of radio halos in clusters of galaxies from cosmic-ray protons, Astrophys. J. 239 (1980) L93.

[24] P. Blasi and S. Colafrancesco, Cosmic rays, radio halos and non-thermal x-ray emission in clusters of galaxies, Astropart. Phys. 12 (1999) 169 [astro-ph/9905122] [INSPIRE].

[25] K. Dolag and T.A. Ensslin, Radio halos of galaxy clusters from hadronic secondary electron injection in realistic magnetic field configurations, Astron. Astrophys. 362 (2000) 151 [astro-ph/0008333] [INSPIRE].

[26] U. Keshet and A. Loeb, Using Radio Halos and Minihalos to Measure the Distributions of Magnetic Fields and Cosmic-Rays in Galaxy Clusters, Astrophys. J. 722 (2010) 737 [arXiv:1003.1133] [INSPIRE].

[27] S. Hussain, R. Alves Batista, E.M. de Gouveia Dal Pino and K. Dolag, High-energy neutrino production in clusters of galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 507 (2021) 1762 [arXiv:2101.07702] [INSPIRE].

[28] S. Hussain, R.A. Batista, E.M. de Gouveia Dal Pino and K. Dolag, The diffuse gamma-ray flux from clusters of galaxies, Nature Commun. 14 (2023) 2486 [arXiv:2203.01260] [INSPIRE].

[29] T.A. Ensslin, P.L. Biermann, U. Klein and S. Kohle, Cluster radio relics as a tracer of shock waves of the large-scale structure formation, Astron. Astrophys. 332 (1998) 395 [astro-ph/9712293] [INSPIRE].
[30] G. Brunetti, G. Setti, L. Feretti and G. Giovannini, *Particle reacceleration in Coma cluster: Radio properties and hard x-ray emission*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. **320** (2001) 365 [astro-ph/0008518] [INSPIRE].

[31] V. Petrosian, *On the non thermal emission and acceleration of electrons in coma and other clusters of galaxies*, Astrophys. J. **557** (2001) 560 [astro-ph/0101145] [INSPIRE].

[32] M. Markevitch, F. Govoni, G. Brunetti and D. Jerius, *Bow shock and radio halo in the merging cluster A520*, Astrophys. J. **627** (2005) 733 [astro-ph/0412451] [INSPIRE].

[33] G. Brunetti and A. Lazarian, *Acceleration of primary and secondary particles in galaxy clusters by compressible MHD turbulence: from radio halos to gamma rays*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. **410** (2011) 127 [arXiv:1008.0184] [INSPIRE].

[34] H. Kang, D. Ryu and T.W. Jones, *Diffusive Shock Acceleration Simulations of Radio Relics*, Astrophys. J. **756** (2012) 97 [arXiv:1205.1895] [INSPIRE].

[35] G. Brunetti and P. Blasi, *Alfvenic reacceleration of relativistic particles in galaxy clusters in the presence of secondary electrons and positrons*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. **363** (2005) 1173 [astro-ph/0508100] [INSPIRE].

[36] A. Pinzke, S.P. Oh and C. Pfrommer, *Turbulence and Particle Acceleration in Giant Radio Haloes: the Origin of Seed Electrons*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. **465** (2017) 4800 [arXiv:1611.07533] [INSPIRE].

[37] A. Ignesti, G. Brunetti, M. Gitti and S. Giacintucci, *Radio and X-ray connection in radio mini-halos: implications for hadronic models*, Astron. Astrophys. **640** (2020) A37 [arXiv:2006.09254] [INSPIRE].

[38] Y.C. Perrott et al., *A 15.5 GHz detection of the galaxy cluster minihalo in RXJ1720.1+2638*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. **508** (2021) 2862 [arXiv:2109.08233] [INSPIRE].

[39] P. Mazzotta and S. Giacintucci, *Do radio core-halos and cold fronts in non major merging clusters originate from the same gas sloshing?*, Astrophys. J. Lett. **675** (2008) L9 [arXiv:0801.1905] [INSPIRE].

[40] J. ZuHone, M. Markevitch, G. Brunetti and S. Giacintucci, *Turbulence and Radio Mini-halos in the Sloshing Cores of Galaxy Clusters*, Astrophys. J. **762** (2013) 78 [arXiv:1203.2994] [INSPIRE].

[41] T.A. Ensslin, C. Pfrommer, V. Springel and M. Jubelgas, *Cosmic ray physics in calculations of cosmological structure formation*, Astron. Astrophys. **473** (2007) 41 [astro-ph/0603484] [INSPIRE].

[42] C. Pfrommer, T.A. Ensslin and V. Springel, *Simulating cosmic rays in clusters of galaxies — II. A unified model for radio halos and relics with predictions of the gamma-ray emission*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. **385** (2008) 1211 [arXiv:0707.1707] [INSPIRE].

[43] A. Pinzke and C. Pfrommer, *Simulating the gamma-ray emission from galaxy clusters: a universal cosmic ray spectrum and spatial distribution*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. **409** (2010) 449 [arXiv:1001.5023] [INSPIRE].

[44] FERMI-LAT collaboration, *Search for cosmic-ray induced gamma-ray emission in Galaxy Clusters*, Astrophys. J. **787** (2014) 18 [arXiv:1308.5654] [INSPIRE].

[45] T.A. Ensslin, C. Pfrommer, F. Miniati and K. Subramanian, *Cosmic ray transport in galaxy clusters: implications for radio halos, gamma-ray signatures, and cool core heating*, Astron. Astrophys. **527** (2011) A99 [arXiv:1008.4717] [INSPIRE].
[46] F. Zwicky, *Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln*, Helv. Phys. Acta **6** (1933) 110 [INSPIRE].

[47] S.D.M. White, G. Efstathiou and C.S. Frenk, *The Amplitude of mass fluctuations in the universe*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. **262** (1993) 1023 [INSPIRE].

[48] D. Clowe et al., *A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter*, Astrophys. J. Lett. **648** (2006) L109 [astro-ph/0608407] [INSPIRE].

[49] G. Bertone and D. Hooper, *History of dark matter*, Rev. Mod. Phys. **90** (2018) 045002 [arXiv:1605.04909] [INSPIRE].

[50] R. Gavazzi et al., *A weak lensing study of the Coma cluster*, Astron. Astrophys. **498** (2009) L33 [arXiv:0904.0220] [INSPIRE].

[51] S.W. Randall et al., *Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56*, Astrophys. J. **679** (2008) 1173 [arXiv:0704.0261] [INSPIRE].

[52] S.W. Allen, A.E. Evrard and A.B. Mantz, *Cosmological Parameters from Observations of Galaxy Clusters*, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. **49** (2011) 409 [arXiv:1103.4829] [INSPIRE].

[53] M. Limousin, B. Beauchesne and E. Jullo, *Dark matter in galaxy clusters: Parametric strong-lensing approach*, Astron. Astrophys. **664** (2022) A90 [arXiv:2202.02992] [INSPIRE].

[54] S. Funk, *Indirect Detection of Dark Matter with gamma rays*, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. **112** (2015) 2264 [arXiv:1310.2695] [INSPIRE].

[55] J. Conrad and O. Reimer, *Indirect dark matter searches in gamma and cosmic rays*, Nature Phys. **13** (2017) 224 [arXiv:1705.11165] [INSPIRE].

[56] M. Doro, M.A. Sánchez-Conde and M. Hütten, *Fundamental Physics Searches with IACTs*, arXiv:2111.01198 [DOI:10.1142/11141] [INSPIRE].

[57] G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, *Supersymmetric dark matter*, Phys. Rept. **267** (1996) 195 [hep-ph/9506380] [INSPIRE].

[58] D. Hooper, *Particle Dark Matter*, in the proceedings of the *Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: The Dawn of the LHC Era*, Boulder, U.S.A. (2008) [DOI:10.1142/9789812838360_0014] [arXiv:0901.4090] [INSPIRE].

[59] G. Arcadi et al., *The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints*, Eur. Phys. J. C **78** (2018) 203 [arXiv:1703.07364] [INSPIRE].

[60] G. Bertone and M.P.T. Tait, *A new era in the search for dark matter*, Nature **562** (2018) 51 [arXiv:1810.01668] [INSPIRE].

[61] J. Smirnov and J.F. Beacom, *TeV-Scale Thermal WIMPs: Unitarity and its Consequences*, Phys. Rev. D **100** (2019) 043029 [arXiv:1904.11503] [INSPIRE].

[62] D. Tak, M. Baumgart, N.L. Rodd and E. Pueschel, *Current and Future γ-Ray Searches for Dark Matter Annihilation Beyond the Unitarity Limit*, Astrophys. J. Lett. **938** (2022) L4 [arXiv:2208.11740] [INSPIRE].

[63] M. Beneke, A. Broggio, C. Hasner and M. Vollmann, *Energetic γ-rays from TeV scale dark matter annihilation resummed*, Phys. Lett. B **786** (2018) 347 [Erratum ibid. **810** (2020) 135831] [arXiv:1805.07367] [INSPIRE].

[64] K. Kowalska and E.M. Sessolo, *The discreet charm of higgsino dark matter — a pocket review*, Adv. High Energy Phys. **2018** (2018) 6828560 [arXiv:1802.04097] [INSPIRE].
[65] G. Servant and T.M.P. Tait, *Is the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle a viable dark matter candidate?*, Nucl. Phys. B 650 (2003) 391 [hep-ph/0206071] [INSPIRE].

[66] J.A.R. Cembranos, A. Dobado and A.L. Maroto, Brane world dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 241301 [hep-ph/0302041] [INSPIRE].

[67] M. Battaglieri et al., US Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter 2017: Community Report, in the proceedings of the U.S. Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter, College Park, U.S.A. (2017) [arXiv:1707.04591] [INSPIRE].

[68] K.R. Dienes and B. Thomas, Dynamical Dark Matter: I. Theoretical Overview, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 083523 [arXiv:1106.4546] [INSPIRE].

[69] W. Buchmuller et al., Gravitino Dark Matter in R-Parity Breaking Vacua, JHEP 03 (2007) 037 [hep-ph/0702184] [INSPIRE].

[70] J.L. Feng, Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48 (2010) 495 [arXiv:1003.0904] [INSPIRE].

[71] M.A. Sánchez-Conde et al., Dark matter searches with Cherenkov telescopes: nearby dwarf galaxies or local galaxy clusters?, JCAP 12 (2011) 011 [arXiv:1104.3530] [INSPIRE].

[72] L. Pieri, J. Lavalle, G. Bertone and E. Branchini, Implications of High-Resolution Simulations on Indirect Dark Matter Searches, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 023518 [arXiv:0908.0195] [INSPIRE].

[73] M.A. Sánchez-Conde and F. Prada, The flattening of the concentration–mass relation towards low halo masses and its implications for the annihilation signal boost, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 442 (2014) 2271 [arXiv:1312.1729] [INSPIRE].

[74] Á. Moliné, M.A. Sánchez-Conde, S. Palomares-Ruiz and F. Prada, Characterization of subhalo structural properties and implications for dark matter annihilation signals, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 466 (2017) 4974 [arXiv:1603.04057] [INSPIRE].

[75] J. Silk and A. Stebbins, Clumpy cold dark matter, Astrophys. J. 411 (1993) 439 [INSPIRE].

[76] L. Bergström, J. Edsjö, P. Gondolo and P. Ullio, Clumpy neutralino dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 043506 [astro-ph/9806072] [INSPIRE].

[77] P. Madau, J. Diemand and M. Kuhlen, Dark matter subhalos and the dwarf satellites of the Milky Way, Astrophys. J. 679 (2008) 1260 [arXiv:0802.2265] [INSPIRE].

[78] O. Reimer, M. Pohl, P. Sreekumar and J.R. Mattox, Egret upper limits on the high-energy gamma-ray emission of galaxy clusters, Astrophys. J. 588 (2003) 155 [astro-ph/0301362] [INSPIRE].

[79] FERMI-LAT collaboration, GeV Gamma-ray Flux Upper Limits from Clusters of Galaxies, Astrophys. J. Lett. 717 (2010) L71 [arXiv:1006.0748] [INSPIRE].

[80] B. Huber et al., Probing the cosmic-ray content of galaxy clusters by stacking Fermi-LAT count maps, Astron. Astrophys. 560 (2013) A64 [arXiv:1308.6278] [INSPIRE].

[81] R.D. Griffin, X. Dai and C.S. Kochanek, New Limits On Gamma-Ray Emission From Galaxy Clusters, Astrophys. J. Lett. 795 (2014) L21 [arXiv:1405.7047] [INSPIRE].

[82] D.A. Prokhorov and E.M. Churazov, Counting gamma rays in the directions of galaxy clusters, Astron. Astrophys. 567 (2014) A93 [arXiv:1309.0197] [INSPIRE].

[83] F. Zandanel and S. Ando, Constraints on diffuse gamma-ray emission from structure formation processes in the Coma cluster, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 440 (2014) 663 [arXiv:1312.1493] [INSPIRE].
[84] FERMI-LAT collaboration, *Search for extended gamma-ray emission from the Virgo galaxy cluster with Fermi-LAT*, Astrophys. J. 812 (2015) 159 [arXiv:1510.00004] [INSPIRE].

[85] FERMI-LAT collaboration, *Search for gamma-ray emission from the Coma Cluster with six years of Fermi-LAT data*, Astrophys. J. 819 (2016) 149 [Erratum ibid. 860 (2018) 85] [arXiv:1507.08995] [INSPIRE].

[86] M. Colavincenzo et al., *Searching for gamma-ray emission from galaxy clusters at low redshift*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 491 (2020) 3225 [arXiv:1907.05264] [INSPIRE].

[87] H.E.S.S. collaboration, *Very high energy gamma-ray observations of the galaxy clusters Abell 496 and Abell 85 with H.E.S.S*, Astron. Astrophys. 495 (2009) 27 [arXiv:0812.1638] [INSPIRE].

[88] MAGIC collaboration, *MAGIC Gamma-Ray Telescope Observation of the Perseus Cluster of Galaxies: Implications for Cosmic Rays, Dark Matter and NGC 1275*, Astrophys. J. 710 (2010) 634 [arXiv:0909.3267] [INSPIRE].

[89] MAGIC collaboration, *Constraining Cosmic Rays and Magnetic Fields in the Perseus Galaxy Cluster with TeV observations by the MAGIC telescopes*, Astron. Astrophys. 541 (2012) A99 [arXiv:1111.5544] [INSPIRE].

[90] VERITAS collaboration, *Constraints on Cosmic Rays, Magnetic Fields, and Dark Matter from Gamma-Ray Observations of the Coma Cluster of Galaxies with VERITAS and Fermi*, Astrophys. J. 757 (2012) 123 [arXiv:1208.0676] [INSPIRE].

[91] MAGIC collaboration, *Deep observation of the NGC 1275 region with MAGIC: search of diffuse γ-ray emission from cosmic rays in the Perseus cluster*, Astron. Astrophys. 589 (2016) A33 [arXiv:1602.03099] [INSPIRE].

[92] S.-Q. Xi et al., *Detection of gamma-ray emission from the Coma cluster with Fermi Large Area Telescope and tentative evidence for an extended spatial structure*, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 063006 [arXiv:1709.08319] [INSPIRE].

[93] R. Adam et al., *γ-ray detection toward the Coma cluster with Fermi-LAT: Implications for the cosmic ray content in the hadronic scenario*, Astron. Astrophys. 648 (2021) A60 [arXiv:2102.02251] [INSPIRE].

[94] V. Baghmanyan et al., *Detailed study of extended γ-ray morphology in the vicinity of the Coma cluster with Fermi Large Area Telescope*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 516 (2022) 562 [arXiv:2110.00309] [INSPIRE].

[95] H.E.S.S. collaboration, *Constraining the cosmic-ray pressure in the inner Virgo Cluster using H.E.S.S. observations of M 87*, Astron. Astrophys. 675 (2023) A138 [arXiv:2305.09607] [INSPIRE].

[96] F. Vazza and M. Brüggen, *Do radio relics challenge diffusive shock acceleration?*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 437 (2014) 2291 [arXiv:1310.5707] [INSPIRE].

[97] F. Vazza, D. Eckert, M. Brüggen and B. Huber, *Electron and proton acceleration efficiency by merger shocks in galaxy clusters*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 451 (2015) 2198 [arXiv:1505.02782] [INSPIRE].

[98] F. Vazza et al., *Constraining the efficiency of cosmic ray acceleration by cluster shocks*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 459 (2016) 70 [arXiv:1603.02688] [INSPIRE].

[99] G. Brunetti et al., *Probing the origin of giant radio halos through radio and gamma-ray data: the case of the Coma cluster*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 426 (2012) 956 [arXiv:1207.3025] [INSPIRE].
[100] G. Brunetti, S. Zimmer and F. Zandanel, *Relativistic protons in the Coma galaxy cluster: first gamma-ray constraints ever on turbulent reacceleration*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **472** (2017) 1506 [arXiv:1707.02085] [INSPIRE].

[101] FERMI-LAT collaboration, *Searching for Dark Matter Annihilation from Milky Way Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies with Six Years of Fermi Large Area Telescope Data*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **115** (2015) 231301 [arXiv:1503.02641] [INSPIRE].

[102] L.E. Strigari, *Dark matter in dwarf spheroidal galaxies and indirect detection: a review*, *Rept. Prog. Phys.* **81** (2018) 056901 [arXiv:1805.05883] [INSPIRE].

[103] M. Di Mauro and M.W. Winkler, *Multimessenger constraints on the dark matter interpretation of the Fermi-LAT Galactic center excess*, *Phys. Rev. D* **103** (2021) 123005 [arXiv:2101.11027] [INSPIRE].

[104] T.H. Reiprich and H. Boehringer, *The Mass function of an X-ray flux-limited sample of galaxy clusters*, *Astrophys. J.* **567** (2002) 716 [astro-ph/0111285] [INSPIRE].

[105] T.E. Jeltema, J. Kehayias and S. Profumo, *Gamma Rays from Clusters and Groups of Galaxies: Cosmic Rays versus Dark Matter*, *Phys. Rev. D* **80** (2009) 023005 [arXiv:0812.0597] [INSPIRE].

[106] M. Ackermann et al., *Constraints on Dark Matter Annihilation in Clusters of Galaxies with the Fermi Large Area Telescope*, *JCAP* **05** (2010) 025 [arXiv:1002.2239] [INSPIRE].

[107] X. Huang, G. Vertongen and C. Weniger, *Probing Dark Matter Decay and Annihilation with Fermi LAT Observations of Nearby Galaxy Clusters*, *JCAP* **01** (2012) 042 [arXiv:1110.1529] [INSPIRE].

[108] J. Han et al., *Constraining Extended Gamma-ray Emission from Galaxy Clusters*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **427** (2012) 1651 [arXiv:1207.6749] [INSPIRE].

[109] E. Nezri et al., *gamma-rays from annihilating dark matter in galaxy clusters: stacking vs single source analysis*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **425** (2012) 477 [arXiv:1203.1165] [INSPIRE].

[110] M. Lisanti, S. Mishra-Sharma, N.L. Rodd and B.R. Safdi, *Search for Dark Matter Annihilation in Galaxy Groups*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **120** (2018) 101101 [arXiv:1708.09385] [INSPIRE].

[111] X. Tan, M. Colavincenzo and S. Ammazzalorso, *Bounds on WIMP dark matter from galaxy clusters at low redshift*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **495** (2020) 114 [arXiv:1907.06905] [INSPIRE].

[112] C. Thorpe-Morgan et al., *Annihilating dark matter search with 12 yr of Fermi LAT data in nearby galaxy clusters*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **502** (2021) 4039 [arXiv:2010.11006] [INSPIRE].

[113] L. Dugger, T.E. Jeltema and S. Profumo, *Constraints on Decaying Dark Matter from Fermi Observations of Nearby Galaxies and Clusters*, *JCAP* **12** (2010) 015 [arXiv:1009.5988] [INSPIRE].

[114] S. Ando and D. Nagai, *Fermi-LAT constraints on dark matter annihilation cross section from observations of the Fornax cluster*, *JCAP* **07** (2012) 017 [arXiv:1201.0753] [INSPIRE].

[115] H.E.S.S. collaboration, *Search for Dark Matter Annihilation Signals from the Fornax Galaxy Cluster with H.E.S.S.*, *Astrophys. J.* **750** (2012) 123 [Erratum ibid. **783** (2014) 63] [arXiv:1202.5494] [INSPIRE].

[116] M. Cirelli et al., *Gamma ray constraints on Decaying Dark Matter*, *Phys. Rev. D* **86** (2012) 083506 [arXiv:1205.5283] [INSPIRE].
[117] MAGIC collaboration, Constraining Dark Matter lifetime with a deep gamma-ray survey of the Perseus Galaxy Cluster with MAGIC, Phys. Dark Univ. 22 (2018) 38 [arXiv:1806.11063] [INSPIRE].

[118] A. Hektor, M. Raidal and E. Tempel, Evidence for indirect detection of dark matter from galaxy clusters in Fermi γ-Ray data, Astrophys. J. Lett. 762 (2013) L22 [arXiv:1207.4466] [INSPIRE].

[119] S. Colafrancesco et al., On the DM interpretation of the origin of non-thermal phenomena in galaxy clusters, Astron. Astrophys. 527 (2011) A80 [arXiv:1004.1286] [INSPIRE].

[120] CTA CONSORTIUM collaboration, Design concepts for the Cherenkov Telescope Array CTA: An advanced facility for ground-based high-energy gamma-ray astronomy, Exper. Astron. 32 (2011) 193 [arXiv:1008.3703] [INSPIRE].

[121] CTA CONSORTIUM collaboration, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array, World Scientific (2018) [DOI:10.1142/10986] [INSPIRE].

[122] CTA collaboration, Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to a dark matter signal from the Galactic centre, JCAP 01 (2021) 057 [arXiv:2007.16129] [INSPIRE].

[123] CHERENKOV TELESCOPE ARRAY collaboration, Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to TeV photon emission from the Large Magellanic Cloud, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 523 (2023) 5353 [arXiv:2305.16707] [INSPIRE].

[124] CTA collaboration, Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array for probing cosmology and fundamental physics with gamma-ray propagation, JCAP 02 (2021) 048 [arXiv:2010.01349] [INSPIRE].

[125] A.C. Edge, G.C. Stewart and A.C. Fabian, Properties of cooling flows in a flux-limited sample of clusters of galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 258 (1992) 177.

[126] S.A. Walker et al., Is there a giant Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in the sloshing cold front of the Perseus cluster?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 468 (2017) 2506 [arXiv:1705.00011] [INSPIRE].

[127] J.S. Sanders et al., Measuring bulk flows of the intracluster medium in the Perseus and Coma galaxy clusters using XMM-Newton, Astron. Astrophys. 633 (2020) A42 [arXiv:1911.13108] [INSPIRE].

[128] G.K. Miley and G.C. Perola, The Large Scale Radio Structure of NGC 1275, Astron. Astrophys. 45 (1975) 223.

[129] J.E. Noordam and A.G. de Bruyn, High dynamic range mapping of strong radio sources, with application to 3C84, Nature 299 (1982) 597.

[130] A. Pedlar et al., The radio structure of NGC 1275, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 246 (1990) 477.

[131] J.O. Burns, M.E. Sulkanen, G.R. Gisler and R.A. Perley, Where have all the cluster halos gone?, Astrophys. J. 388 (1992) L49.

[132] L.G. Sijbring, A radio continuum and HI line study of the perseus cluster, Rijksuniversiteit, Groningen, The Netherlands (1993).

[133] D. Sijbring and A.G. de Bruyn, Multifrequency radio continuum observations of head-tail galaxies in the Perseus cluster, Astron. Astrophys. 331 (1998) 901.

[134] M. Gendron-Marsolais et al., Deep 230-470 MHz VLA observations of the mini-halo in the Perseus cluster, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 469 (2017) 3872 [arXiv:1701.03791] [INSPIRE].

[135] M.-L. Gendron-Marsolais et al., High-resolution VLA low radio frequency observations of the Perseus cluster: radio lobes, mini-halo and bent-jet radio galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499 (2020) 5791 [arXiv:2005.12298] [INSPIRE].
[136] M.-L. Gendron-Marsolais et al., VLA resolves unexpected radio structures in the Perseus cluster of galaxies, arXiv:2101.05305 [DOI:10.3847/1538-4357/abddbb].

[137] H. Boehringer et al., A ROSAT HRI study of the interaction of the X-ray-emitting gas and radio lobes of NGC 1275, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 264 (1993) L25 [INSPIRE].

[138] A.C. Fabian et al., Chandra imaging of the complex x-ray core of the Perseus cluster, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 318 (2000) L65 [astro-ph/0007456] [INSPIRE].

[139] A.C. Fabian et al., A very deep chandra observation of the perseus cluster: shocks, ripples and conduction, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 366 (2006) 417 [astro-ph/0510476] [INSPIRE].

[140] I. Zhuravleva et al., Turbulent Heating in Galaxy Clusters Brightest in X-rays, Nature 515 (2014) 85 [arXiv:1410.6485] [INSPIRE].

[141] FERMI-LAT collaboration, Fermi Discovery of Gamma-Ray Emission from NGC 1275, Astrophys. J. 699 (2009) 31 [arXiv:0904.1904] [INSPIRE].

[142] A. Neronov, D.V. Semikoz and I. Vovk, Very high-energy gamma-ray emission from IC 310, Astron. Astrophys. 519 (2010) L6 [arXiv:1003.4615] [INSPIRE].

[143] C. Combet et al., Decaying dark matter: a stacking analysis of galaxy clusters to improve on current limits, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 063517 [arXiv:1203.1164] [INSPIRE].

[144] P. Fouque, J.M. Solanes, T. Sanchis and C. Balkowski, Structure, mass and distance of the virgo cluster from a tolman-bondi model, Astron. Astrophys. 375 (2001) 770 [astro-ph/0106261] [INSPIRE].

[145] V.G. Sinitsyna and V.Y. Sinitsyna, Emission from the Galaxy NGC 1275 at High and Very High Energies and its Origin, Astron. Lett. 40 (2014) 75 [arXiv:1403.1740] [INSPIRE].

[146] HITOMI collaboration, Atmospheric gas dynamics in the Perseus cluster observed with Hitomi, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 70 (2018) 9 [arXiv:1711.00240] [INSPIRE].

[147] O. Urban et al., Azimuthally Resolved X-Ray Spectroscopy to the Edge of the Perseus Cluster, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 437 (2014) 3939 [arXiv:1307.3592] [INSPIRE].

[148] R. Adam et al., MINOT: Modeling the intracluster medium (non-)thermal content and observable prediction tools, Astron. Astrophys. 644 (2020) A70 [arXiv:2009.05373] [INSPIRE].

[149] S.M. Molnar et al., Accretion Shocks in Clusters of Galaxies and their SZ Signature from Cosmological Simulations, Astrophys. J. 696 (2009) 1640 [arXiv:0902.3323] [INSPIRE].

[150] H. Aung, D. Nagai and E.T. Lau, Shock and splash: gas and dark matter halo boundaries around ΛCDM galaxy clusters, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 508 (2021) 2071 [arXiv:2012.00977] [INSPIRE].

[151] G. Hurier, R. Adam and U. Keshet, First detection of a virial shock with SZ data: implication for the mass accretion rate of Abell 2319, Astron. Astrophys. 622 (2019) A136 [arXiv:1712.05762] [INSPIRE].

[152] A. Cavaliere and R. Fusco-Femiano, X-rays from hot plasma in clusters of galaxies, Astron. Astrophys. 49 (1976) 137 [INSPIRE].

[153] E. Churazov, W. Forman, C. Jones and H. Bohringer, Xmm-newton observations of the perseus cluster I: the temperature and surface brightness structure, Astrophys. J. 590 (2003) 225 [astro-ph/0301482] [INSPIRE].

[154] E. Churazov et al., XMM — Newton observations of the Perseus cluster 2: Evidence for gas motions in the core, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 347 (2004) 29 [astro-ph/0309427] [INSPIRE].
[155] C. Jones and W. Forman, *Einstein Observatory Images of Clusters of Galaxies*, *Astrophys. J.* **511** (1999) 65 [INSPIRE].

[156] N. Werner, O. Urban, A. Simionescu and S.W. Allen, *A uniform metal distribution in the intergalactic medium of the Perseus cluster of galaxies*, *Nature* **502** (2013) 656 [arXiv:1310.7948] [INSPIRE].

[157] K. Lodders, H. Palme and H.-P. Gail, *Abundances of the elements in the solar system*, in *Solar System, Landolt-Börnstein — Group VI Astronomy and Astrophysics. Vol. 4B*, Springer (2009), pg. 712 [DOI:10.1007/978-3-540-88055-4_34] [arXiv:0901.1149] [INSPIRE].

[158] S. Ettori, A.C. Fabian and D.A. White, *Rosat pspc observations of the outer regions of the perseus cluster of galaxies*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **300** (1998) 837 [astro-ph/9806375] [INSPIRE].

[159] J. Donnert, F. Vazza, M. Brüggen and J. ZuHone, *Magnetic Field Amplification in Galaxy Clusters and its Simulation*, *Space Sci. Rev.* **214** (2018) 122 [arXiv:1810.09783] [INSPIRE].

[160] G.B. Taylor et al., *Magnetic fields in the center of the perseus cluster*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **368** (2006) 1500 [astro-ph/0602622] [INSPIRE].

[161] A. Bonafede et al., *The Coma cluster magnetic field from Faraday rotation measures*, *Astron. Astrophys.* **513** (2010) A30 [arXiv:1002.0594] [INSPIRE].

[162] C. Pfrommer, V. Springel, T.A. Ensslin and M. Jubelgas, *Detecting shock waves in cosmological smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **367** (2006) 113 [astro-ph/0603483] [INSPIRE].

[163] E. Kafexhiu, F. Aharonian, A.M. Taylor and G.S. Vila, *Parametrization of gamma-ray production cross-sections for pp interactions in a broad proton energy range from the kinematic threshold to PeV energies*, *Phys. Rev. D* **90** (2014) 123014 [arXiv:1406.7369] [INSPIRE].

[164] V. Zabalza, *naima: a Python package for inference of relativistic particle energy distributions from observed nonthermal spectra*, PoS ICRC2015 (2016) 922 [arXiv:1509.03319] [INSPIRE].

[165] A. Dominguez et al., *Extragalactic Background Light Inferred from AEGIS Galaxy SED-type Fractions*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **410** (2011) 2556 [arXiv:1007.1459] [INSPIRE].

[166] S.R. Kelner, F.A. Aharonian and V.V. Bugayov, *Energy spectra of gamma-rays, electrons and neutrinos produced at proton-proton interactions in the very high energy regime*, *Phys. Rev. D* **74** (2006) 034018 [Erratum ibid.* **79** (2009) 039901] [astro-ph/0606058] [INSPIRE].

[167] L. Orusa, M. Di Mauro, F. Donato and M. Korsmeier, *New determination of the production cross section for γ rays in the Galaxy*, *Phys. Rev. D* **107** (2023) 083031 [arXiv:2302.01943] [INSPIRE].

[168] D. Khangulyan, F.A. Aharonian and S.R. Kelner, *Simple Analytical Approximations for Treatment of Inverse Compton Scattering of Relativistic Electrons in the Blackbody Radiation Field*, *Astrophys. J.* **783** (2014) 100 [arXiv:1310.7971] [INSPIRE].

[169] F.A. Aharonian, S.R. Kelner and A.Y. Prosekin, *Angular, spectral, and time distributions of highest energy protons and associated secondary gamma-rays and neutrinos propagating through extragalactic magnetic and radiation fields*, *Phys. Rev. D* **82** (2010) 043002 [arXiv:1006.1045] [INSPIRE].

[170] D. Kushnir and E. Waxman, *Nonthermal emission from clusters of galaxies*, *JCAP* **08** (2009) 002 [arXiv:0903.2271] [INSPIRE].
[171] M. Gitti, G. Brunetti and G. Setti, *Modeling the interaction between ICM and relativistic plasma in cooling flows: The Case of the Perseus cluster*, *Astron. Astrophys.* **386** (2002) 456 [arXiv:0202279] [INSPIRE].

[172] F. Zandanel, C. Pfrommer and F. Prada, *On the physics of radio haloes in galaxy clusters: scaling relations and luminosity functions*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **438** (2014) 124 [arXiv:1311.4795] [INSPIRE].

[173] D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman, *emcee: The MCMC Hammer*, *Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.* **125** (2013) 306 [arXiv:1202.3665] [INSPIRE].

[174] G.W. Pratt et al., *The galaxy cluster mass scale and its impact on cosmological constraints from the cluster population*, *Space Sci. Rev.* **215** (2019) 25 [arXiv:1902.10837] [INSPIRE].

[175] C.L. Sarazin, *The Energy spectrum of primary cosmic ray electrons in clusters of galaxies and inverse Compton emission*, *Astrophys. J.* **520** (1999) 529 [astro-ph/9901061] [INSPIRE].

[176] G. Brunetti and A. Lazarian, *Compressible Turbulence in Galaxy Clusters: Physics and Stochastic Particle Re-acceleration*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* **378** (2007) 245 [astro-ph/0703591] [INSPIRE].

[177] F. Miniati, *The Matryoshka Run. II. Time-dependent Turbulence Statistics, Stochastic Particle Acceleration, and Microphysics Impact in a Massive Galaxy Cluster*, *Astrophys. J.* **800** (2015) 60 [arXiv:1409.3576] [INSPIRE].

[178] G. Brunetti and F. Vazza, *Second-order Fermi Reacceleration Mechanisms and Large-Scale Synchrotron Radio Emission in Intracluster Bridges*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **124** (2020) 051101 [arXiv:2001.07718] [INSPIRE].

[179] K. Nishiwaki, K. Asano and K. Murase, *Particle Reacceleration by Turbulence and Radio Constraints on Multimessenger High-energy Emission from the Coma Cluster*, *Astrophys. J.* **922** (2021) 190 [arXiv:2105.04541] [INSPIRE].

[180] G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, *Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints*, *Phys. Rept.* **405** (2005) 279 [hep-ph/0404175] [INSPIRE].

[181] M. Cirelli, *Indirect Searches for Dark Matter: a status review*, *Pramana* **79** (2012) 1021 [arXiv:1202.1454] [INSPIRE].

[182] X.-S. Hu, B.-Y. Zhu, T.-C. Liu and Y.-F. Liang, *Constraints on the annihilation of heavy dark matter in dwarf spheroidal galaxies with gamma-ray observations*, *Phys. Rev. D* **109** (2024) 063036 [arXiv:2309.06151] [INSPIRE].

[183] G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta and J.F. Beacom, *Precise Relic WIMP Abundance and its Impact on Searches for Dark Matter Annihilation*, *Phys. Rev. D* **86** (2012) 023506 [arXiv:1204.3622] [INSPIRE].

[184] T. Bringmann, P.F. Depta, M. Hufnagel and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, *Precise dark matter relic abundance in decoupled sectors*, *Phys. Lett. B* **817** (2021) 136341 [arXiv:2007.03696] [INSPIRE].

[185] PLANCK collaboration, *Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters*, *Astron. Astrophys.* **641** (2020) A6 [Erratum ibid. **652** (2021) C4] [arXiv:1807.06209] [INSPIRE].

[186] V. Poulin, P.D. Serpico and J. Lesgourgues, *A fresh look at linear cosmological constraints on a decaying dark matter component*, *JCAP* **08** (2016) 036 [arXiv:1606.02073] [INSPIRE].

[187] A.J. Cuesta et al., *Dark Matter decay and annihilation in the Local Universe: CLUES from Fermi*, *Astrophys. J. Lett.* **726** (2011) L6 [arXiv:1007.3469] [INSPIRE].
[188] J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White, The Structure of cold dark matter halos, Astrophys. J. 462 (1996) 563 [astro-ph/9508025] [INSPIRE].

[189] J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White, A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering, Astrophys. J. 490 (1997) 493 [astro-ph/9611107] [INSPIRE].

[190] A. Simionescu et al., Baryons at the Edge of the X-ray Brightest Galaxy Cluster, Science 331 (2011) 1576 [arXiv:1102.2429] [INSPIRE].

[191] M. Kuhlen, M. Vogelsberger and R. Angulo, Numerical Simulations of the Dark Universe: State of the Art and the Next Decade, Phys. Dark Univ. 1 (2012) 50 [arXiv:1209.5745] [INSPIRE].

[192] J. Zavala and C.S. Frenk, Dark matter haloes and subhaloes, Galaxies 7 (2019) 81 [arXiv:1907.11775] [INSPIRE].

[193] S. Ando, T. Ishiyama and N. Hiroshima, Halo Substructure Boosts to the Signatures of Dark Matter Annihilation, Galaxies 7 (2019) 68 [arXiv:1903.11427] [INSPIRE].

[194] A.M. Green, S. Hofmann and D.J. Schwarz, The First wimpy halos, JCAP 08 (2005) 003 [astro-ph/0503387] [INSPIRE].

[195] T. Bringmann, Particle Models and the Small-Scale Structure of Dark Matter, New J. Phys. 11 (2009) 105027 [arXiv:0903.0189] [INSPIRE].

[196] J.M. Cornell, S. Profumo and W. Shepherd, Kinetic Decoupling and Small-Scale Structure in Effective Theories of Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 015027 [arXiv:1305.4676] [INSPIRE].

[197] F.C. van den Bosch, G. Ogiya, O. Hahn and A. Burkert, Disruption of Dark Matter Substructure: Fact or Fiction?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 474 (2018) 3043 [arXiv:1711.05276] [INSPIRE].

[198] F.C. van den Bosch and G. Ogiya, Dark Matter Substructure in Numerical Simulations: A Tale of Discreteness Noise, Runaway Instabilities, and Artificial Disruption, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 475 (2018) 4066 [arXiv:1801.05427] [INSPIRE].

[199] G. Ogiya et al., DASH: a library of dynamical subhalo evolution, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 485 (2019) 189 [arXiv:1901.08601] [INSPIRE].

[200] A. Aguirre-Santaella et al., Shedding light on low-mass subhalo survival and annihilation luminosity with numerical simulations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 518 (2022) 93 [arXiv:2207.08652] [INSPIRE].

[201] J. Diemand et al., Clumps and streams in the local dark matter distribution, Nature 454 (2008) 735 [arXiv:0805.1244] [INSPIRE].

[202] L. Pieri, J. Lavalle, G. Bertone and E. Branchini, Implications of High-Resolution Simulations on Indirect Dark Matter Searches, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 023518 [arXiv:0908.0195] [INSPIRE].

[203] V. Springel et al., A blueprint for detecting supersymmetric dark matter in the Galactic halo, arXiv:0809.0894 [INSPIRE].

[204] V. Springel et al., The Aquarius Project: the subhalos of galactic halos, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 391 (2008) 1685 [arXiv:0809.0898] [INSPIRE].

[205] V. Bonnivard et al., CLUMPY: Jeans analysis, γ-ray and ν fluxes from dark matter (sub-)structures, Comput. Phys. Commun. 200 (2016) 336 [arXiv:1506.07628] [INSPIRE].

[206] M.S. Delos and S.D.M. White, Prompt cusps and the dark matter annihilation signal, JCAP 10 (2023) 008 [arXiv:2209.11237] [INSPIRE].
[207] J. Lavalle, Q. Yuan, D. Maurin and X.J. Bi, Full Calculation of Clumpiness Boost factors for Antimatter Cosmic Rays in the light of Lambda-CDM N-body simulation results. Abandoning hope in clumpiness enhancement?, Astron. Astrophys. 479 (2008) 427 [arXiv:0709.3634] [INSPIRE].

[208] Á. Moliné et al., ΛCDM halo substructure properties revealed with high-resolution and large-volume cosmological simulations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 518 (2023) 157 [arXiv:2110.02097] [INSPIRE].

[209] J.S. Bullock, Shapes of dark matter halos, astro-ph/0106380 [INSPIRE].

[210] A. Charbonnier, C. Combet and D. Maurin, CLUMPY: a code for gamma-ray signals from dark matter structures, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 656 [arXiv:1201.4728] [INSPIRE].

[211] M. Hütten, C. Combet and D. Maurin, CLUMPY v3: γ-ray and ν signals from dark matter at all scales, Comput. Phys. Commun. 235 (2019) 336 [arXiv:1806.08639] [INSPIRE].

[212] C.T.A. Observatory and C.T.A. Consortium, CTAO Instrument Response Functions — prod5 version v0.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5499840 (2021).

[213] J. Knödlseder et al., Analysis of the H.E.S.S. public data release with ctools, Astron. Astrophys. 632 (2019) A102 [arXiv:1910.09456] [INSPIRE].

[214] Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory and Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium, CTAO Instrument Response Functions — version prod3b-v2, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5163273 (2016).

[215] FERMI-LAT collaboration, Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 247 (2020) 33 [arXiv:1902.10045] [INSPIRE].

[216] FERMI-LAT collaboration, Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 2, arXiv:2005.11208 [INSPIRE].

[217] MAGIC collaboration, Gamma-ray flaring activity of NGC1275 in 2016–2017 measured by MAGIC, Astron. Astrophys. 617 (2018) A91 [arXiv:1806.01559] [INSPIRE].

[218] MAGIC collaboration, Rapid and multiband variability of the TeV bright active nucleus of the galaxy IC 310, Astron. Astrophys. 563 (2014) A91 [arXiv:1305.5147] [INSPIRE].

[219] P.D.T. Luque et al., Galactic diffuse gamma rays meet the PeV frontier, Astron. Astrophys. 672 (2023) A58 [arXiv:2203.15759] [INSPIRE].

[220] J. Knödlseder et al., GammaLib and ctools: A software framework for the analysis of astronomical gamma-ray data, Astron. Astrophys. 593 (2016) A1 [arXiv:1606.00393] [INSPIRE].

[221] T.-P. Li and Y.-Q. Ma, Analysis methods for results in gamma-ray astronomy, Astrophys. J. 272 (1983) 317 [INSPIRE].

[222] J. Rico, Gamma-Ray Dark Matter Searches in Milky Way Satellites — A Comparative Review of Data Analysis Methods and Current Results, Galaxies 8 (2020) 25 [arXiv:2003.13482] [INSPIRE].

[223] CTA CONSORTIUM collaboration, Gammapy — A prototype for the CTA science tools, PoS ICRC2017 (2018) 766 [arXiv:1709.01751] [INSPIRE].

[224] J. Trümper, ROSAT — A New Look at the X-ray Sky, Science 260 (1993) 1769.

[225] PLANCK collaboration, Planck 2015 results. XXII. A map of the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A22 [arXiv:1502.01596] [INSPIRE].
[226] Y. Rephaeli and S. Sadeh, Galactic Energetic Particles and Their Radiative Yields in Clusters, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 101301 [arXiv:1605.04461] [INSPIRE].

[227] FERMI-LAT collaboration, Constraints on the Galactic Halo Dark Matter from Fermi-LAT Diffuse Measurements, Astrophys. J. 761 (2012) 91 [arXiv:1205.6474] [INSPIRE].

[228] H. Dembinski et al., scikit-hep/iminuit, https://github.com/scikit-hep/iminuit.

[229] W.A. Rolke, A.M. Lopez and J. Conrad, Limits and confidence intervals in the presence of nuisance parameters, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 551 (2005) 493 [physics/0403059] [INSPIRE].

[230] ICECUBE collaboration, Search for neutrinos from decaying dark matter with IceCube, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 831 [arXiv:1804.03848] [INSPIRE].

[231] A. Sommerfeld, Über die Beugung und Bremsung der Elektronen, Annalen Phys. 403 (1931) 257 [INSPIRE].

[232] T. Lacroix et al., Classification of gamma-ray targets for velocity-dependent and subhalo-boosted dark-matter annihilation, JCAP 10 (2022) 021 [arXiv:2203.16440] [INSPIRE].

[233] ASTROPY collaboration, Astropy: A Community Python Package for Astronomy, Astron. Astrophys. 558 (2013) A33 [arXiv:1307.6212] [INSPIRE].

[234] S. van der Walt, S.C. Colbert and G. Varoquaux, The NumPy Array: A Structure for Efficient Numerical Computation, Comput. Sci. Eng. 13 (2011) 22 [arXiv:1102.1523] [INSPIRE].

[235] E. Jones et al., SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python, (2001).

[236] A. Zonca et al., healpy: equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in Python, J. Open Source Softw. 4 (2019) 1298 [INSPIRE].

[237] F. Perez and B.E. Granger, IPython: A System for Interactive Scientific Computing, Comput. Sci. Eng. 9 (2007) 21 [INSPIRE].

[238] J.D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment, Comput. Sci. Eng. 9 (2007) 90 [INSPIRE].

[239] G. Hurier, S.R. Hildebrandt and J.F. Macias-Perez, MILCA: A Maximum Internal Linear Component Analysis for the extraction of spectral emissions, Astron. Astrophys. 558 (2013) A118 [arXiv:1007.1149] [INSPIRE].

[240] P. De la Torre Luque, D. Gaggero, D. Grasso and A. Marinelli, Prospects for detection of a galactic diffuse neutrino flux, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 9 (2022) 1041838 [arXiv:2209.10011] [INSPIRE].

[241] M. Cirelli et al., PPPC 4 DM ID: A Poor Particle Physicist Cookbook for Dark Matter Indirect Detection, JCAP 03 (2011) 051 [Erratum ibid. 10 (2012) E01] [arXiv:1012.4515] [INSPIRE].
The CTA consortium

K. Abe¹, S. Abe², F. Acero³,⁴, A. Acharyya⁵, R. Adam¹,⁶,⁷,*, A. Aguasca-Cabot⁸, I. Agudo⁹, A. Aguirre-Santaella¹⁰, J. Alfaro¹¹, R. Alfaro¹², N. Alvarez-Crespo¹³, R. Alves Batista¹⁰, J.-P. Amans¹⁴, E. Amato¹⁵, E. O. Angüner¹⁶, L. A. Antonelli¹⁷, C. Aramo¹⁸, M. Araya¹⁹, C. Arcaro²⁰, L. Arrabito²¹, K. Asano², Y. Ascasíbar¹⁰, J. Aschersleben²², H. Ashkar⁷, L. Augusto Stuani²³, D. Baack²⁴, M. Backes²⁵,²⁶, A. Baktash²⁷, C. Balazs²⁸, M. Balbo²⁹, O. Ballester³⁰, A. Baquero Larriva¹³,³¹, V. Barbosa Martins³², U. Barres de Almeida³³,³⁴, J. A. Barrio¹³, P. I. Batista³², I. Batkovic³⁵, R. Batzofin³⁶, J. Baxter², J. Becerra González³⁷, G. Beck³⁸, J. Becker Tjus³⁹, W. Benbow⁴⁰, J. Bernete Medrano⁴¹, K. Bernlöhr⁴², A. Berti⁴³, B. Bertucci⁴⁴, V. Beshley⁴⁵, P. Bhattacharjee⁴⁶, S. Bhattacharyya⁴⁷, B. Bi⁴⁸, N. Biederbeck²⁴, A. Biland⁴⁹, E. Bissaldi⁵⁰,⁵¹, J. Biteau⁵²,⁵³, O. Blanch³⁰, J. Blazek⁵⁴, C. Boisson¹⁴, J. Bolmont⁵⁵, P. Bordas⁸, Z. Bosnjak⁵⁶, E. Bottacini³⁵, F. Bradascio⁵⁷, C. Braiding⁵⁸, E. Bronzini⁵⁹, R. Brose⁶⁰, A. M. Brown⁶¹, F. Brun⁵⁷, G. Brunetti⁶², N. Bucciantini¹⁵, A. Bulgarelli⁵⁹, I. Burelli⁶³, L. Burmistrov⁶⁴, M. Burton⁶⁵,⁶⁶, T. Bylund³, P. G. Calisse⁶⁷, A. Campoy-Ordaz⁶⁸, B. K. Cantlay⁶⁹,⁷⁰, M. Capalbi⁷¹, A. Caproni⁷², R. Capuzzo-Dolcetta¹⁷, P. Caraveo⁷³, S. Caroff⁴⁶, R. Carosi⁷⁴, E. Carquin¹⁹, M.-S. Carrasco⁷⁵, E. Cascone⁷⁶, F. Cassol⁷⁵, A. J. Castro-Tirado⁹, D. Cerasole⁷⁷, M. Cerruti⁷⁸, P. Chadwick⁶¹, S. Chaty⁷⁸, A. W. Chen³⁸, M. Chernyakova⁷⁹, A. Chiavassa⁸⁰,⁸¹, J. Chudoba⁵⁴, L. Chytka⁵⁴, A. Cifuentes⁴¹, C. H. Coimbra Araujo⁸², V. Conforti⁵⁹, F. Conte⁴², J. L. Contreras¹³, J. Cortina⁴¹, A. Costa⁸³, H. Costantini⁷⁵, G. Cotter⁸⁴, P. Cristofari¹⁴, O. Cuevas⁸⁵, Z. Curtis-Ginsberg⁸⁶, G. D'Amico⁸⁷, F. D'Ammando⁶², M. Dalchenko⁶⁴, F. Dazzi⁸⁸, M. de Bony de Lavergne³, V. De Caprio⁷⁶, F. De Frondat Laadim¹⁴, E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino³⁴, B. De Lotto⁶³, M. De Lucia¹⁸, D. De Martino⁷⁶, R. de Menezes⁸⁰,⁸¹, M. de Naurois⁷, N. De Simone³², V. de Souza²³, M. V. del Valle³⁴, E. Delagnes⁸⁹, A. G. Delgado Giler²³,²², C. Delgado⁴¹, M. Dell'aiera⁴⁶, D. della Volpe⁶⁴, D. Depaoli⁴², T. Di Girolamo⁹⁰,¹⁸, A. Di Piano⁵⁹, F. Di Pierro⁸⁰, R. Di Tria⁷⁷, L. Di Venere⁵¹, S. Diebold⁴⁸, A. Djannati-Atai⁷⁸, J. Djuvsland⁸⁷, R. M. Dominik²⁴, A. Donini¹⁷, D. Dorner⁹¹,⁴⁹, J. Dörner³⁹, M. Doro³⁵, R. D. C. dos Anjos⁸², J.-L. Dournaux¹⁴, C. Duangchan⁹²,⁷⁰, C. Dubos⁵², D. Dumora⁹³, V. V. Dwarkadas⁹⁴, J. Ebr⁵⁴, C. Eckner⁴⁶,⁹⁵, K. Egberts³⁶, S. Einecke⁵⁸, D. Elsässer²⁴, G. Emery⁷⁵, M. Escobar Godoy⁹⁶, J. Escudero⁹, P. Esposito⁹⁷,⁷³, S. Ettori⁵⁹, C. Evoli⁹⁸, D. Falceta-Goncalves⁹⁹, V. Fallah Ramazani³⁹, A. Fattorini²⁴, A. Faure²¹, E. Fedorova¹⁷,¹⁰⁰, S. Fegan⁷, K. Feijen⁷⁸, Q. Feng⁴⁰, G. Ferrand¹⁰¹,¹⁰², F. Ferrarotto¹⁰³, E. Fiandrini⁴⁴, A. Fiasson⁴⁶, M. Filipovic¹⁰⁴, V. Fioretti⁵⁹, L. Foffano¹⁰⁵, L. Font Guiteras⁶⁸, G. Fontaine⁷, S. Fröse²⁴, Y. Fukazawa¹⁰⁶, Y. Fukui¹⁰⁷, D. Gaggero⁷⁴, G. Galanti⁷³, S. Gallozzi¹⁷, V. Gammaldi¹⁰, M. Garczarczyk³², C. Gasbarra¹⁰⁸, D. Gasparrini¹⁰⁸, M. Gaug⁶⁸, A. Ghalumyan¹⁰⁹, F. Gianotti⁵⁹, M. Giarrusso¹¹⁰, J. Giesbrecht³³, N. Giglietto⁵⁰,⁵¹, F. Giordano⁷⁷, J.-F. Glicenstein⁵⁷, H. Göksu⁴², P. Goldoni¹¹¹, J. M. González¹¹², M. M. González¹², J. Goulart Coelho¹¹³, J. Granot¹¹⁴,¹¹⁵, R. Grau³⁰, L. Gréaux⁵², D. Green⁴³, J. G. Green⁴³, I. Grenier¹¹⁶, G. Grolleron⁵⁵, J. Grube¹¹⁷, O. Gueta³², J. Hackfeld³⁹,²⁴, D. Hadasch², P. Hamal⁵⁴, W. Hanlon⁴⁰, S. Hara¹¹⁸, V. M. Harvey⁵⁸, T. Hassan⁴¹, L. Heckmann⁴³, M. Heller⁶⁴, S. Hernández Cadena¹,¹²,*, O. Hervet⁹⁶, J. Hie¹¹⁹, N. Hiroshima², B. Hnatyk¹⁰⁰, R. Hnatyk¹⁰⁰, J. Hoang⁹⁶, D. Hoffmann⁷⁵, W. Hofmann⁴², J. Holder¹²⁰, D. Horan⁷, P. Horvath¹²¹, D. Hrupec¹²², M. Hütten¹,²,*, M. Iarlori¹²³, T. Inada², F. Incardona⁸³, S. Inoue¹⁰², F. Iocco⁹⁰,¹⁸, M. Iori¹⁰³, M. Jamrozy¹²⁴, P. Janecek⁵⁴, F. Jankowsky¹²⁵, C. Jarnot¹¹⁹, P. Jean¹¹⁹, I. Jiménez Martínez⁴¹, W. Jin⁵, C. Juramy-Gilles⁵⁵, J. Jurysek⁵⁴, M. Kagaya², D. Kantzas⁹⁵, V. Karas¹²⁶, H. Katagiri¹²⁷, J. Kataoka¹²⁸, S. Kaufmann⁶¹,
D. Kerszberg³⁰, B. Khélifi⁷⁸, R. Kissmann¹²⁹, T. Kleiner³², G. Kluge¹³⁰, W. Kluźniak¹³¹,
J. Knödlseder¹¹⁹, Y. Kobayashi², K. Kohri¹³², N. Komin³⁸, P. Kornecki¹⁴, K. Kosack³, G. Kowal⁹⁹,
H. Kubo², J. Kushida¹, A. La Barbera⁷¹, N. La Palombara⁷³, M. Láinez¹³, A. Lamastra¹⁷,
J. Lapington¹³³, P. Laporte¹⁴, S. Lazarević¹⁰⁴, F. Leitgeb³², M. Lemoine-Goumard⁹³, J.-P. Lenain⁵⁵,
F. Leone¹³⁴, G. Leto⁸³, F. Leuschner⁴⁸, E. Lindfors¹³⁵, M. Linhoff²⁴, I. Liodakis¹³⁵, S. Lombardi¹⁷,
F. Longo¹³⁶, R. López-Coto⁹, M. López-Moya¹³, A. López-Oramas³⁷, S. Loporchio⁵⁰,⁵¹,
P. L. Luque-Escamilla¹³⁷, O. Macias¹³⁸, J. Mackey⁶⁰, P. Majumdar¹³⁹, D. Malyshev⁹², D. Mandat⁵⁴,
M. Manganaro¹⁴⁰, G. Manicò¹¹⁰,¹³⁴, M. Mariotti³⁵, S. Markoff¹³⁸, I. Márquez⁹, P. Marquez³⁰,
G. Marsella¹⁴¹,¹¹⁰, G. A. Martínez⁴¹, M. Martínez³⁰, O. Martínez¹⁴², C. Marty¹¹⁹, A. Mas-Aguilar¹³,
M. Mastropietro¹⁷, G. Maurin⁴⁶, D. Mazin²,⁴³, D. Melkumyan³², A. J. T. S. Mello⁸²,¹⁴³,
J.-L. Meunier⁵⁵, D. M.-A. Meyer³⁶, M. Meyer²⁷, D. Miceli²⁰, M. Michailidis⁴⁸, J. Michałowski¹⁴⁴,
T. Miener¹³, J. M. Miranda¹⁴², A. Mitchell⁹², M. Mizote¹⁴⁵, T. Mizuno¹⁴⁶, R. Moderski¹³¹,
M. Molero³⁷, C. Molfese⁸⁸, E. Molina³⁷, T. Montaruli⁶⁴, D. Morcuende¹³,⁹, K. Morik²⁴, G. Morlino¹⁵,
A. Morselli¹⁰⁸, E. Moulin⁵⁷, V. Moya Zamanillo¹³, K. Munari⁸³, T. Murach³², A. Muraczewski¹³¹,
H. Muraishi¹⁴⁷, S. Nagataki¹⁰², T. Nakamori¹⁴⁸, R. Nemmen³⁴,¹⁴⁹, N. Neyroud⁴⁶, L. Nickel²⁴,
J. Niemiec¹⁴⁴, D. Nieto¹³, M. Nievas Rosillo³⁷, M. Nikołajuk¹⁵⁰, K. Nishijima¹, K. Noda²,
D. Nosek¹⁵¹, V. Novotny¹⁵¹, S. Nozaki⁴³, P. O'Brien¹³³, M. Ohishi², Y. Ohtani², A. Okumura¹⁵²,¹⁵³,
J.-F. Olive¹¹⁹, B. Olmi¹⁵⁴,¹⁵⁵, R. A. Ong¹⁵⁵, M. Orienti⁶², R. Orito¹⁵⁶, M. Orlandini⁵⁹, E. Orlando¹³⁶,
M. Ostrowski¹²⁴, I. Oya⁶⁷, A. Pagliaro⁷¹, M. Palatiello⁶³, G. Panebianco⁵⁹, D. Paneque⁴³,
F. R. Pantaleo⁵¹,⁵⁰, R. Paoletti¹⁵⁷, J. M. Paredes⁸, N. Parmiggiani⁵⁹, S. R. Patel⁵², B. Patricelli¹⁷,¹⁵⁸,
D. Pavlović¹⁴⁰, M. Pech⁵⁴, M. Pecimotika¹⁴⁰,¹⁵⁹, U. Pensec⁵⁵,¹⁴, M. Peresano⁸¹,⁸⁰,
J. Pérez-Romero¹⁰,⁴⁷,*, G. Peron⁷⁸, M. Persic¹⁶⁰,¹⁶¹, P.-O. Petrucci¹⁶², O. Petruk⁴⁵, G. Piano¹⁰⁵,
E. Pierre⁵⁵, E. Pietropaolo¹²³, F. Pintore⁷¹, G. Pirola⁴³, S. Pita⁷⁸, C. Plard⁴⁶, F. Podobnik¹⁵⁷,
M. Pohl³⁶,³², M. Polo⁴¹, E. Pons⁴⁶, G. Ponti¹⁶³, E. Prandini³⁵, J. Prast⁴⁶, G. Principe¹³⁶,
C. Priyadarshi³⁰, N. Produit²⁹, E. Pueschel³², G. Pühlhofer⁴⁸, M. L. Pumo¹³⁴,¹¹⁰, M. Punch⁷⁸,
F. Queiroz¹⁶⁴,¹⁶⁵, A. Quirrenbach¹²⁵, S. Rainò⁷⁷, R. Rando³⁵, S. Razzaque¹⁶⁶,¹¹⁵, S. Recchia⁸¹,
M. Regeard⁷⁸, P. Reichherzer⁸⁴,³⁹, A. Reimer¹²⁹, O. Reimer¹²⁹, A. Reisenegger¹¹,¹⁶⁷, W. Rhode²⁴,
D. Ribeiro¹⁶⁸, M. Ribó⁸, T. Richtler¹⁶⁹, J. Rico³⁰, F. Rieger⁴², C. Righi¹⁶³, L. Riitano⁸⁶, V. Rizi¹²³,
E. Roache⁴⁰, G. Rodriguez Fernandez¹⁰⁸, J. J. Rodríguez-Vázquez⁴¹, P. Romano¹⁶³, G. Romeo⁸³,
J. Rosado¹³, A. Rosales de Leon⁵⁵, G. Rowell⁵⁸, B. Rudak¹³¹, C. B. Rulten⁶¹, F. Russo⁵⁹, I. Sadeh³²,
L. Saha⁴⁰, T. Saito², H. Salzmann⁴⁸, D. Sanchez⁴⁶, M. Sánchez-Conde¹⁰,*, P. Sangiorgi⁷¹, H. Sano²,
M. Santander⁵, A. Santangelo⁴⁸, R. Santos-Lima³⁴, A. Sanuy⁸, T. Šarić¹⁷⁰, A. Sarkar³², S. Sarkar⁸⁴,
K. Satalecka¹³⁵, F. G. Saturni¹⁷, V. Savchenko¹⁷¹, A. Scherer¹¹, P. Schipani⁷⁶, B. Schleicher⁹¹,⁴⁹,
J. L. Schubert²⁴, F. Schussler⁵⁷, U. Schwanke¹⁷², G. Schwefer⁴², M. Seglar Arroyo³⁰, S. Seiji¹,
D. Semikoz⁷⁸, O. Sergijenko¹⁰⁰,¹⁷³,¹⁷⁴, M. Servillat¹⁴, V. Sguera⁵⁹, R. Y. Shang¹⁵⁵, P. Sharma⁵²,
H. Siejkowski¹⁷⁵, A. Sinha¹³, C. Siqueira²³, V. Sliusar²⁹, A. Slowikowska¹⁷⁶, H. Sol¹⁴, A. Specovius⁹²,
S. T. Spencer⁹²,⁸⁴, D. Spiga¹⁶³, A. Stamerra¹⁷,¹⁷⁷, S. Stanič⁴⁷, T. Starecki¹⁷⁸, R. Starling¹³³,
Ł. Stawarz¹²⁴, C. Steppa³⁶, T. Stolarczyk³, J. Strišković¹²², Y. Suda¹⁰⁶, T. Suomijärvi⁵²,
H. Tajima¹⁵², D. Tak³², M. Takahashi¹⁵², R. Takeishi², S. J. Tanaka¹⁷⁹, T. Tavernier⁵⁴,
L. A. Tejedor¹³, K. Terauchi¹⁸⁰, R. Terrier⁷⁸, M. Teshima⁴³, W. W. Tian², L. Tibaldo¹¹⁹,
O. Tibolla⁶¹, F. Torradeflot¹⁸¹,⁴¹, D. F. Torres¹⁸², E. Torresi⁵⁹, G. Tosti¹⁶³,⁴⁴, L. Tosti⁴⁴,
N. Tothill¹⁰⁴, F. Toussenel⁵⁵, V. Touzard¹¹⁹, A. Tramacere²⁹, P. Travnicek⁵⁴, G. Tripodo¹⁴¹,¹¹⁰,
S. Truzzi¹⁵⁷, A. Tsiahina¹¹⁹, A. Tutone⁷¹, M. Vacula¹²¹,⁵⁴, B. Vallage⁵⁷, P. Vallania⁸⁰,¹⁸³,
C. van Eldik⁹², J. van Scherpenberg⁴³, J. Vandenbroucke⁸⁶, V. Vassiliev¹⁵⁵, M. Vázquez Acosta³⁷,
M. Vecchi²², S. Ventura¹⁵⁷, S. Vercellone¹⁶³, G. Verna¹⁵⁷, A. Viana²³, N. Viaux¹⁸⁴, A. Vigliano⁶³,
C. F. Vigorito⁸⁰,⁸¹, V. Vitale¹⁰⁸, V. Vodeb⁴⁷, V. Voisin⁵⁵, S. Vorobiov⁴⁷, G. Voutsinas⁶⁴, I. Vovk²,
T. Vuillaume⁴⁶, S. J. Wagner¹²⁵, R. Walter²⁹, M. Wechakama⁶⁹,⁷⁰, R. White⁴², A. Wierzcholska¹⁴⁴,
M. Will⁴³, D. A. Williams⁹⁶, F. Wohlleben⁴², A. Wolter¹⁶³, T. Yamamoto¹⁴⁵, R. Yamazaki¹⁷⁹,
T. Yoshida¹²⁷, T. Yoshikoshi², M. Zacharias¹²⁵,²⁶, G. Zaharijas⁴⁷, D. Zavrtanik⁴⁷, M. Zavrtanik⁴⁷,
A. A. Zdziarski¹³¹, A. Zech¹⁴, V. I. Zhdanov¹⁰⁰, M. Živec⁴⁷, J. Zuriaga-Puig¹⁰,
P. De la Torre Luque¹⁸⁵,ª

¹ Department of Physics, Tokai University, 4-1-1, Kita-Kaname, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa 259-1292, Japan

² Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, 5-1-5, Kashiwa-no-ha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan

³ Université Paris-Saclay, Université Paris Cité, CEA, CNRS, AIM, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France

⁴ FSLAC IRL 2009, CNRS/IAC, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

⁵ University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Gallalee Hall, Box 870324 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0324, U.S.A.

⁶ Université Côte d'Azur, Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur, CNRS, Laboratoire Lagrange, France

⁷ Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, École polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, 91120 Palaiseau, France

⁸ Departament de Física Quàntica i Astrofísica, Institut de Ciències del Cosmos, Universitat de Barcelona, IEEC-UB, Martí i Franquès, 1, 08028, Barcelona, Spain

⁹ Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía-CSIC, Glorieta de la Astronomía s/n, 18008, Granada, Spain

¹⁰ Instituto de Física Teórica UAM/CSIC and Departamento de Física Teórica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, c/ Nicolás Cabrera 13-15, Campus de Cantoblanco UAM, 28049 Madrid, Spain

¹¹ Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Libertador Bernardo O'Higgins 340, Santiago, Chile

¹² Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Delegación Coyoacán, 04510 Ciudad de México, Mexico

¹³ IPARCOS-UCM, Instituto de Física de Partículas y del Cosmos, and EMFTEL Department, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, E-28040 Madrid, Spain

¹⁴ LUTH, GEPI and LERMA, Observatoire de Paris, Université PSL, Université Paris Cité, CNRS, 5 place Jules Janssen, 92190, Meudon, France

¹⁵ INAF — Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Largo E. Fermi, 5 — 50125 Firenze, Italy

¹⁶ TÜBİTAK Research Institute for Fundamental Sciences, 41470 Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey

¹⁷ INAF — Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, Via di Frascati 33, 00040, Monteporzio Catone, Italy

¹⁸ INFN Sezione di Napoli, Via Cintia, ed. G, 80126 Napoli, Italy

¹⁹ CCTVVal, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Avenida España 1680, Valparaíso, Chile

²⁰ INFN Sezione di Padova, Via Marzolo 8, 35131 Padova, Italy

²¹ Laboratoire Univers et Particules de Montpellier, Université de Montpellier, CNRS/IN2P3, CC 72, Place Eugène Bataillon, F-34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France

²² Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen, Landleven 12, 9747 AD, Groningen, The Netherlands

²³ Instituto de Física de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Trabalhador São-carlense, 400 — CEP 13566-590, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

²⁴ Astroparticle Physics, Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Otto-Hahn-Str. 4a, 44227 Dortmund, Germany

²⁵ Department of Physics, Chemistry & Material Science, University of Namibia, Private Bag 13301, Windhoek, Namibia

²⁶ Centre for Space Research, North-West University, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa

²⁷ Universität Hamburg, Institut für Experimentalphysik, Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany

²⁸ School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia

²⁹ Department of Astronomy, University of Geneva, Chemin d'Ecogia 16, CH-1290 Versoix, Switzerland

³⁰ Institut de Física d'Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
31 Faculty of Science and Technology, Universidad del Azuay, Cuenca, Ecuador.

32 Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Platanenallee 6, 15738 Zeuthen, Germany

33 Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rua Xavier Sigaud 150, RJ 22290-180, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

34 Instituto de Astronomia, Geofísica e Ciências Atmosféricas — Universidade de São Paulo, Cidade Universitária, R. do Matão, 1226, CEP 05508-090, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

35 INFN Sezione di Padova and Università degli Studi di Padova, Via Marzolo 8, 35131 Padova, Italy

36 Institut für Physik & Astronomie, Universität Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse 24/25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany

37 Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias and Departamento de Astrofísica, Universidad de La Laguna, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

38 University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Jan Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein, 2000 Johannesburg, South Africa

39 Institut für Theoretische Physik, Lehrstuhl IV: Plasma-Astroteilchenphysik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany

40 Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden St, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.

41 CIEMAT, Avda. Complutense 40, 28040 Madrid, Spain

42 Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany

43 Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, Föhringer Ring 6, 80805 München, Germany

44 INFN Sezione di Perugia and Università degli Studi di Perugia, Via A. Pascoli, 06123 Perugia, Italy

45 Pidstryhach Institute for Applied Problems in Mechanics and Mathematics NASU, 3B Naukova Street, Lviv, 79060, Ukraine

46 Univ. Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, Laboratoire d'Annecy de Physique des Particules — IN2P3, 74000 Annecy, France

47 Center for Astrophysics and Cosmology (CAC), University of Nova Gorica, Nova Gorica, Slovenia

48 Institut für Astronomie und Astrophysik, Universität Tübingen, Sand 1, 72076 Tübingen, Germany

49 ETH Zürich, Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, Otto-Stern-Weg 5, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland

50 Politecnico di Bari, via Orabona 4, 70124 Bari, Italy

51 INFN Sezione di Bari, via Orabona 4, 70126 Bari, Italy

52 Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, 91405 Orsay, France

53 Institut universitaire de France (IUF)

54 FZU — Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Na Slovance 1999/2, 182 21 Praha 8, Czech Republic

55 Sorbonne Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies, LPNHE, 4 place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France

56 University of Zagreb, Faculty of electrical engineering and computing, Unska 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

57 IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Bât 141, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France

58 School of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia

59 INAF — Osservatorio di Astrofisica e Scienza dello spazio di Bologna, Via Piero Gobetti 93/3, 40129 Bologna, Italy

60 Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 31 Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 2, Ireland

61 Centre for Advanced Instrumentation, Department of Physics, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, U.K.

62 INAF — Istituto di Radioastronomia, Via Gobetti 101, 40129 Bologna, Italy

63 INFN Sezione di Trieste and Università degli Studi di Udine, Via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy

64 University of Geneva — Département de physique nucléaire et corpusculaire, 24 rue du Général-Dufour, 1211 Genève 4, Switzerland

65 Armagh Observatory and Planetarium, College Hill, Armagh BT61 9DG, U.K.

66 School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia

67 Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory, Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany

68 Unitat de Física de les Radiacions, Departament de Física, and CERES-IEEC, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici C3, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain

69 Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Kasetsart University, 50 Ngam Wong Wan Rd., Lat Yao, Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900, Thailand

70 National Astronomical Research Institute of Thailand, 191 Huay Kaew Rd., Suthep, Muang, Chiang Mai,
50200, Thailand

71 INAF — Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica Cosmica di Palermo, Via U. La Malfa 153, 90146 Palermo, Italy

72 Universidade Cruzeiro do Sul, Núcleo de Astrofísica Teórica (NAT/UCS), Rua Galvão Bueno 8687, Bloco B, sala 16, Libertade 01506-000 — São Paulo, Brazil

73 INAF — Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica Cosmica di Milano, Via A. Corti 12, 20133 Milano, Italy

74 INFN Sezione di Pisa, Edificio C — Polo Fibonacci, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa

75 Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS/IN2P3, CPPM, Marseille, France

76 INAF — Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Via Salita Moiariello 16, 80131 Napoli, Italy

77 INFN Sezione di Bari and Università degli Studi di Bari, via Orabona 4, 70124 Bari, Italy

78 Université Paris Cité, CNRS, Astroparticule et Cosmologie, F-75013 Paris, France

79 Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland

80 INFN Sezione di Torino, Via P. Giuria 1, 10125 Torino, Italy

81 Dipartimento di Fisica — Università degli Studi di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, 10125 Torino, Italy

82 Universidade Federal Do Paraná — Setor Palotina, Departamento de Engenharias e Exatas, Rua Pioneiro, 2153, Jardim Dallas, CEP: 85950-000 Palotina, Paraná, Brazil

83 INAF — Osservatorio Astrofisico di Catania, Via S. Sofia, 78, 95123 Catania, Italy

84 University of Oxford, Department of Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PU, U.K.

85 Universidad de Valparaíso, Blanco 951, Valparaíso, Chile

86 University of Wisconsin, Madison, 500 Lincoln Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, U.S.A.

87 Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Museplass 1, 5007 Bergen, Norway

88 INAF — Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Viale del Parco Mellini 84, 00136 Rome, Italy

89 IRFU/DEDIP, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Bat 141, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France

90 Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II” — Dipartimento di Fisica “E. Pancini”, Complesso universitario di Monte Sant’Angelo, Via Cintia — 80126 Napoli, Italy

91 Institute for Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, Universität Würzburg, Campus Hubland Nord, Emil-Fischer-Str. 31, 97074 Würzburg, Germany

92 Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen Centre for Astroparticle Physics, Nikolaus-Fiebiger-Str. 2, 91058 Erlangen, Germany

93 Université Bordeaux, CNRS, LP2I Bordeaux, UMR 5797, 19 Chemin du Solarium, F-33170 Gradignan, France

94 Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, 5640 S Ellis Ave, Chicago, Illinois, 60637, U.S.A.

95 LAPTh, CNRS, USMB, F-74940 Annecy, France

96 Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics and Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, U.S.A.

97 University School for Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia, Palazzo del Broletto, Piazza della Vittoria 15, 27100 Pavia, Italy

98 Gran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), Viale Francesco Crispi 7, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy and
INFN-Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso (LNGS), via G. Acitelli 22, 67100 Assergi (AQ), Italy

99 Escola de Artes, Ciências e Humanidades, Universidade de São Paulo, Rua Arlindo Bettio, CEP 03828-000, 1000 São Paulo, Brazil

100 Astronomical Observatory of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 3 Observatorna Street, Kyiv, 04053, Ukraine

101 The University of Manitoba, Dept of Physics and Astronomy, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada

102 RIKEN, Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama, 351-0198, Japan

103 INFN Sezione di Roma La Sapienza, P.le Aldo Moro, 2 — 00185 Roma, Italy

104 Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia

105 INAF — Istituto di Astrofisica e Planetologia Spaziali (IAPS), Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100, 00133 Roma, Italy

106 Physics Program, Graduate School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Hiroshima University, 739-8526 Hiroshima, Japan

107 Department of Physics, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464-8602, Japan
108 INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Rome, Italy

109 Alikhanyan National Science Laboratory, Yerevan Physics Institute, 2 Alikhanyan Brothers St., 0036, Yerevan, Armenia

110 INFN Sezione di Catania, Via S. Sofia 64, 95123 Catania, Italy

111 Université Paris Cité, CNRS, CEA, Astroparticule et Cosmologie, F-75013 Paris, France

112 Universidad Andres Bello, República 252, Santiago, Chile

113 Núcleo de Astrofísica e Cosmologia (Cosmo-ufes) & Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo (UFES), Av. Fernando Ferrari, 514. 29065-910. Vitória-ES, Brazil

114 Astrophysics Research Center of the Open University (ARCO), The Open University of Israel, P.O. Box 808, Ra'anana 4353701, Israel

115 Department of Physics, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, U.S.A.

116 Université Paris Cité, Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, CNRS, AIM, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France

117 King's College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, U.K.

118 Learning and Education Development Center, Yamanashi-Gakuin University, Kofu, Yamanashi 400-8575, Japan

119 IRAP, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, CNES, UPS, 9 avenue Colonel Roche, 31028 Toulouse, Cedex 4, France

120 Department of Physics and Astronomy and the Bartol Research Institute, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A.

121 Palacký University Olomouc, Faculty of Science, Joint Laboratory of Optics of Palacký University and Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, 17. listopadu 1192/12, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic

122 Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Trg Ljudevita Gaja 6, 31000 Osijek, Croatia

123 Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche e Chimiche, Università degli Studi dell'Aquila and GSGC-LNGS-INFN, Via Vetoio 1, L'Aquila, 67100, Italy

124 Astronomical Observatory, Jagiellonian University, ul. Orla 171, 30-244 Cracow, Poland

125 Landessternwarte, Zentrum für Astronomie der Universität Heidelberg, Königstuhl 12, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany

126 Astronomical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Bocni II 1401, 14100 Prague, Czech Republic

127 Faculty of Science, Ibaraki University, Mito, Ibaraki, 310-8512, Japan

128 Faculty of Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan

129 Universität Innsbruck, Institut für Astro- und Teilchenphysik, Technikerstr. 25/8, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria

130 University of Oslo, Department of Physics, Sem Saelandsvei 24 — PO Box 1048 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway

131 Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Bartycka 18, 00-716 Warsaw, Poland

132 Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies, KEK (High Energy Accelerator Research Organization), 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, 305-0801, Japan

133 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, U.K.

134 Università degli studi di Catania, Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia “Ettore Majorana”, Via S. Sofia 64, 95123 Catania, Italy

135 Finnish Centre for Astronomy with ESO, University of Turku, Finland, FI-20014 University of Turku, Finland

136 INFN Sezione di Trieste and Università degli Studi di Trieste, Via Valerio 2 I, 34127 Trieste, Italy

137 Escuela Politécnica Superior de Jaén, Universidad de Jaén, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, Edif. A3, 23071 Jaén, Spain

138 Anton Pannekoek Institute/GRAPPA, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands

139 Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, A CI of Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kolkata 700064, West Bengal, India

140 University of Rijeka, Faculty of Physics, Radmile Matejic 2, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia

141 Dipartimento di Fisica e Chimica “E. Segrè”, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Via Archirafi 36, 90123, Palermo, Italy
142 Grupo de Electronica, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Av. Complutense s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain

143 Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Av. Sete de Setembro, 3165 — Rebouças CEP, 80230-901, Curitiba — PR, Brasil

144 The Henryk Niewodniczański Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Radzikowskiego 152, 31-342 Cracow, Poland

145 Department of Physics, Konan University, Kobe, Hyogo, 658-8501, Japan

146 Hiroshima Astrophysical Science Center, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan

147 School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 228-8555, Japan

148 Department of Physics, Yamagata University, Yamagata, Yamagata 990-8560, Japan

149 Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, U.S.A.

150 University of Bialystok, Faculty of Physics, ul. K. Ciolkowskiego 1L, 15-245 Bialystok, Poland

151 Charles University, Institute of Particle & Nuclear Physics, V Holešovičkách 2, 180 00 Prague 8, Czech Republic

152 Institute for Space — Earth Environmental Research, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan

153 Kobayashi — Maskawa Institute for the Origin of Particles and the Universe, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan

154 INAF — Osservatorio Astronomico di Palermo “G.S. Vaiana”, Piazza del Parlamento 1, 90134 Palermo, Italy

155 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, U.S.A.

156 Graduate School of Technology, Industrial and Social Sciences, Tokushima University, Tokushima 770-8506, Japan

157 INFN and Università degli Studi di Siena, Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, della Terra e dell'Ambiente (DSFTA), Sezione di Fisica, Via Roma 56, 53100 Siena, Italy

158 University of Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy

159 Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Bijenicka 54, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia

160 INAF — Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Vicolo dell'Osservatorio 5, 35122 Padova, Italy

161 INAF — Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova and INFN Sezione di Trieste, gr. coll. Udine, Via delle Scienze 208 I-33100 Udine, Italy

162 Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IPAG, 41 rue de la Piscine, Domaine Universitaire, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France

163 INAF — Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, Via Brera 28, 20121 Milano, Italy

164 International Institute of Physics, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, 59078-970, Natal, RN, Brasil

165 Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, 59078-970, Natal, RN, Brasil

166 Centre for Astro-Particle Physics (CAPP) and Department of Physics, University of Johannesburg, PO Box 524, Auckland Park 2006, South Africa

167 Departamento de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Avenida José Pedro Alessandri 774, Ñuñoa, Santiago, Chile

168 Department of Physics, Columbia University, 538 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, U.S.A.

169 Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Concepción, Barrio Universitario S/N, Concepción, Chile

170 University of Split — FESB, R. Boskovica 32, 21 000 Split, Croatia

171 EPFL Laboratoire d'astrophysique, Observatoire de Sauverny, CH-1290 Versoix, Switzerland

172 Department of Physics, Humboldt University Berlin, Newtonstr. 15, 12489 Berlin, Germany

173 Main Astronomical Observatory of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Zabolotnoho str., 27, 03143, Kyiv, Ukraine

174 Space Technology Centre, AGH University of Science and Technology, Aleja Mickiewicza, 30, 30-059, Kraków, Poland

175 Academic Computer Centre CYFRONET AGH, ul. Nawojki 11, 30-950, Kraków, Poland

176 Institute of Astronomy, Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, ul. Grudziądzka 5, 87-100 Toruń, Poland

177 Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory gGmbH, Via Gobetti, Bologna, Italy
<footnote n="178">178 Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems, Nowowiejska 15/19, 00-665 Warsaw, Poland</footnote>

<footnote n="179">179 Department of Physical Sciences, Aoyama Gakuin University, Fuchinobe, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-5258, Japan</footnote>

<footnote n="180">180 Division of Physics and Astronomy, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8502, Japan</footnote>

<footnote n="181">181 Port d'Informació Científica, Edifici D, Carrer de l'Albareda, 08193 Bellaterrra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="182">182 Institute of Space Sciences (ICE, CSIC), and Institut d'Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC), and Institució Catalana de Recerca I Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Campus UAB, Carrer de Can Magrans, s/n 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="183">183 INAF — Osservatorio Astrofisico di Torino, Strada Osservatorio 20, 10025 Pino Torinese, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="184">184 Departamento de Física, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Avenida España, 1680 Valparaíso, Chile</footnote>

<footnote n="185">185 Stockholm University and the Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmoparticle Physics, Stockholm, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author</footnote>

<footnote>ª P. De la Torre Luque is not associated with CTA consortium.</footnote>