the origin of cosmic rays still remains an unanswered fundamental research question .
cosmic ray distributions of various aspects have been measured , most notably the steeply falling spectrum up to the ultra - high energy regime with cosmic ray energies even exceeding @xmath4  eev @xcite .    for ultra - high energy cosmic rays , deflections in magnetic fields should diminish with increasing energy , such that directional correlations should lead to a straight - forward identification of accelerating sites . however , even at the highest energies the arrival distributions of cosmic rays appear to be rather isotropic .
only hints for departures from isotropic distributions have been reported , e.g. , a so - called hot spot @xcite , and a dipole signal @xcite . at least with the apparent isotropy , limits on the density of extragalactic sources
were derived which depend on the cosmic ray energy @xcite .
a recent determination of ultra - high energy cosmic ray composition from measurements of the shower depth in the atmosphere revealed contributions of heavy nuclei above @xmath5  eev @xcite .
this observation may explain the seemingly isotropic arrival distribution as deflections of nuclei in magnetic fields scale with their nuclear charges @xmath1 .    obviously , when searching for cosmic ray sources , a key role is therefore attributed to magnetic fields .
the galactic field in particular is strong enough to displace original arrival directions of protons with energy @xmath6  eev by several degrees from their original arrival directions outside the galaxy @xcite .
the displacement angles for nuclei even reach tens of degrees .
the knowledge on the extragalactic magnetic fields is much less certain , but is likely to be less important than the galactic field and is not studied in this contribution .    to identify sources of cosmic rays , rather precise corrections for the propagation within the galactic magnetic field
are needed . in previous directional correlation analyses ,
only the overall magnitude of deflections was taken into account , e.g. @xcite , or corrections for cosmic ray deflections were applied using analytic magnetic field expressions reflecting the spiral structure of our galaxy @xcite .
recently , parameterizations of the galactic magnetic field have been developed which are based on numerous measurements of faraday rotation @xcite , and in addition polarized synchrotron radiation for the second reference .
based on directional characteristics and the field strength of the parameterizations , deflections of cosmic rays are predicted to depend strongly on their arrival direction , charge and energy . in the following
we will refer to the regular field with the bisymmetric disk model of the first reference as the pt11 field parameterization , and to the regular field of the latter as the jf12 field parameterization , respectively .
angular distributions of cosmic rays in these galactic field parameterizations have been studied before , e.g. , with respect to general properties of the jf12 parameterization @xcite , specific source candidates @xcite , general properties of deflections and magnifications @xcite , and to the potential of revealing correlations between cosmic rays and their sources @xcite .    in this work
we investigate whether cosmic ray deflections in the galactic magnetic field can be reliably corrected for , given the current knowledge of the field . to simplify discussions of energy and nuclear dependencies
we will define rigidity as the ratio of the cosmic ray energy and number @xmath1 of elementary charges @xmath7 @xmath8 in our investigations we use galactic coordinates as our reference system , with longitude @xmath9 and latitude @xmath10 . for a number of visualizations we use cartesian
coordinates alternatively with height @xmath11 above the galactic plane , with the earth being located at @xmath12  kpc .    based on the two field parameterizations pt11 and jf12
we initially discuss key distributions of cosmic ray deflection , dispersion effects in arrival distributions , directional variance in field transparency , and the influence of random field components . from the rigidity dependencies of these distributions ,
we recommend a minimum rigidity threshold above which cosmic ray deflection may be controlled in terms of probability distributions .
furthermore , we take the different results of the two galactic field parameterizations as a measure of our current knowledge of the galactic field .
we compare their cosmic ray angular deflections and study differences in the dispersion of arrival distributions .
finally , we study the practical consequences of galactic field corrections and their uncertainties by performing simulated point source searches and by quantifying the field impact in terms of discovery potential .
the two field parameterizations pt11 and jf12 each follow a different ansatz .
both take into account about @xmath13 faraday rotation measurements .
the pt11 field has been fitted to two large sets of faraday rotation measurements .
the jf12 field has been adapted to several large sets of faraday rotation measurements and to synchrotron polarization measurements , thereby increasing the information per analysed direction by two additional complementary measurements @xcite .
both use the electron density model ne2001 @xcite with an enlarged vertical scale for weighting the line - of - sight integrals of the magnetic field .
a ) b )    fig .
[ fig : parameterization ] shows the field strength as a function of the radial distance from the galactic center along the solar system line - of - sight and the distance perpendicular to the galactic plane .
the fields exhibit different shapes and magnitudes ; especially notable in fig .
[ fig : parameterization]a is the field extent of the jf12 parametrization above and below the galactic plane with non - negligible field strengths even at a distance of @xmath14  kpc . the pt11 field ( fig .
[ fig : parameterization]b ) , on the other hand , exhibits a rather concentrated halo field , which is centered around a distance of @xmath15  kpc to the galactic plane .    when studying the magnitude of angular deflections of cosmic rays resulting from these parameterizations , we take the angle @xmath16 between the incoming direction to the galaxy and the arrival direction on earth as a measure of the directional change ( fig . [
fig : beta ] ) .     between the direction on earth and the direction outside the galaxy ( pt11).,scaledwidth=50.0% ]    to get a first impression of the different deflections resulting from the two field parameterizations we use backward tracking techniques of antiprotons through the galactic field . with this technique
we obtain individual trajectories for matter particles entering from outside the galaxy and then following the reverse path .
the method ensures that every trajectory leads to observation on earth .    in fig .
[ fig : angularsky ] we show the magnitudes of the angular deflections @xmath16 of cosmic rays with rigidity @xmath17  ev .
the position in the map denotes the initial direction on earth in galactic coordinates for the backtracked antiprotons .
the color code refers to the magnitude of angular deflections which reach up to @xmath18 deg .    for the jf12 parameterization ( fig .
[ fig : angularsky]a ) , deflections are largest near directions of the galactic center which is expected from the magnitude of the field shown in fig .  [
fig : parameterization]a . with the pt11 parameterization ( fig .
[ fig : angularsky]b ) , deflections are largest in any direction near the galactic plane which is attributed to the strong disk field ( fig .
[ fig : parameterization]b ) .     in the galactic magnetic field for antimatter with rigidity @xmath17
ev starting from earth in the direction presented in galactic coordinates , a ) jf12 , b ) pt11 .
, title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]a )   in the galactic magnetic field for antimatter with rigidity @xmath17  ev starting from earth in the direction presented in galactic coordinates , a ) jf12 , b ) pt11 . ,
title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]b )    as expected , the differences in the field parameterizations relate directly to a different impact on cosmic ray deflections . in the following section we study a number of aspects related to the directional changes of cosmic rays when traversing the galactic field .
the goal of this section is to determine a kinematic regime where information on cosmic ray arrival directions can be obtained by transformation of probability distributions . for this purpose
we first analyze cosmic ray angular deflections as a function of rigidity . as our primary criterion
we require angular deflections to be below @xmath19  deg in order to distinguish ballistic deflections from diffusive - type random walk .    beyond this
we investigate the dispersion of arrival probability distributions by the galactic field , and the splitting of arrival distributions into several images .
furthermore we show directional dependencies of the field transparency for cosmic matter and antimatter particles .
we also study the influence of random components of the field which imposes uncertainties on the arrival directions .
the two magnetic field parameterizations exhibit different field strengths above and below the galactic plane , and differ substantially in their field characteristics near the plane ( fig.[fig : parameterization ] ) .
therefore , we divide the sky into three regions of equal solid angles , and study angular deflections for each region separately .
the boundaries of these regions are fixed at galactic latitudes of @xmath20  deg .    to ensure that every cosmic ray trajectory leads to observation on earth we use the backward tracking method explained in the previous section .
we use the term `` northern region '' to refer to antiparticles originating on earth in the direction of positive latitudes above @xmath21  deg .
negative latitudes below @xmath22  deg , on the other hand , are referred to as the `` southern region '' , while for latitudes in - between we use the term `` disk region '' .
a ) b )    c ) d )    in fig .
[ fig : angular]a we show the average directional change @xmath23 between the direction on earth and the direction outside the galaxy as a function of the cosmic ray rigidity @xmath24 using the jf12 field . the distribution was derived from @xmath25 million simulated cosmic rays per rigidity interval . in fig .
[ fig : angular]c we show the corresponding spread @xmath26 in terms of standard deviations . for low rigidities @xmath27  ev , cosmic ray confinement owing to the size of our galaxy and its magnetic field leads to large directional changes @xmath28  deg and large average variations in @xmath16 ( @xmath29  deg ) .    at rigidity @xmath30  ev
, the largest average deflection of @xmath31  deg is found in the southern region ( fig .
[ fig : angular]a , downward - pointing triangles ) . the corresponding spread amounts to @xmath32  deg ( fig .
[ fig : angular]c ) , such that for @xmath33 of the cosmic rays the deflection angle remains below @xmath34  deg .
the average deflection in the northern region is substantially smaller with only @xmath35  deg , however , the spread of @xmath36  deg is larger ( upward - pointing triangles ) . also here most of the cosmic ray deflections are below @xmath34  deg .
a similar conclusion holds for the disk region ( square symbols ) .
the pt11 parameterization exhibits very similar tendencies for rigidity @xmath30  ev as can be seen in figs .
[ fig : angular]b , d . in the disk region
the deflections exceed those of the other regions for rigidities above @xmath37  ev ( square symbols ) . here
the deflections also exceed that of the jf12 parameterization as was already visualized in fig .  [
fig : angularsky ] above .
overall , at rigidities @xmath38  ev the deflections are consistently reduced and correspondingly enhance the control over cosmic ray deflection . in the following studies we will therefore use the rigidity of @xmath30  ev as a benchmark .      cosmic rays originating from a point source may arrive slightly dispersed after their propagation through extragalactic fields . when traversing the galactic field the extent of the arrival distribution may even be enlarged .    in order to obtain information on the arrival direction and arrival probability on earth of a cosmic ray that enters the galaxy in any direction , we use a lensing technique @xcite .
the lenses consist of matrices based on the healpix format @xcite , where we divide the sphere into @xmath39 equally sized pixels of approximately @xmath40 in size . for each rigidity interval a separate matrix
is produced by backtracking a set of @xmath41 antiparticles , which are distributed uniformly in each pixel .
the matrices thus contain the probability of a cosmic ray entering the galaxy with rigidity @xmath24 at pixel direction @xmath42 to be observed in pixel direction @xmath43 .
as defined above , @xmath44 refer to the galactic longitudes , and @xmath45 to the latitudes , respectively .    by design , the lenses project an extragalactic isotropic distribution onto an isotropic distribution on earth .
note that some incoming directions have more simulated trajectories leading to observation on earth , while other directions have less , such that there are directionally dependent variations in the transparency of the field .
we normalize the lenses to ensure that the lenses return relative arrival probabilities , and that an isotropic cosmic ray flux is preserved .
however , for cosmic rays arriving from individual sources the flux varies depending on the source directions which we will show below .
the technical details of the lenses and their production are outlined in @xcite .
the lenses used in this contribution were calculated with the crpropa v@xmath46 program @xcite using the pt11 and jf12 parameterizations .    in fig .
[ fig : images ] we show examples of arrival directions on earth for simulated cosmic rays with rigidity @xmath47  ev together with their original source directions using the jf12 parameterization of the regular field .
the incoming cosmic rays followed a fisher probability distribution @xcite @xmath48 with a gaussian width of @xmath49  deg .
their arrival directions were calculated with the lensing techniques described above .
the color code indicates the relation between sources and their cosmic rays .
for all scenarios , the fraction of arriving cosmic rays is shown on the right side of the figure , normalized to the source with the highest arrival probability .
different images of the cosmic rays appear depending on their incoming direction .
for example , a source direction which coincides on average with the cosmic rays after traversing the galactic field is denoted by the green symbols . only a widening of the directional distribution is observed .
another example is a source direction where the cosmic ray distribution is displaced without a strong spread ( purple symbols ) .
examples of source directions where the cosmic rays are substantially deflected and exhibit a wide - spread distribution of arrival directions are denoted by the light blue and dark blue symbols . for some source directions , small variations in the cosmic ray incoming direction lead to largely different paths , and therefore to several distinct images of the arrival directions ( red symbols ) .    to investigate dispersion effects in the galactic field we again choose initial cosmic rays to follow a fisher probability distribution with a gaussian width of @xmath46  deg . in principle
this value could be related to dispersion effects caused by extragalactic fields , which implies a dependency on cosmic ray rigidity .
however , to ensure clarity of our galactic field investigations we will use a fixed gaussian spread for all cosmic rays incoming to our galaxy throughout this work .
ev originating from arbitrarily chosen sources ( star symbols ) , and the relative arrival probability in percent .
relations of cosmic rays with their sources and corresponding arrival probabilities are indicated by the color code ( jf12).,scaledwidth=45.0% ]    after the cosmic rays traversed the galactic field we quantify the direction and extent of the resulting arrival distribution by calculating around every healpix pixel @xmath43 with non - zero probability a circular curve which includes @xmath50 of all arrival probabilities .
we then use the radius @xmath51 of the smallest circle as a measure of the extent of the probability distribution @xcite .    in fig.[fig :
extent ] we show the extent of the arrival probability distributions in terms of the smallest average radius @xmath52 as a function of cosmic ray rigidity @xmath24 . again we show separately the three galactic regions defined above . as we start with extragalactic directions we use the term `` northern region '' to refer to initial directions with galactic latitudes above @xmath21  deg , etc .     of arrival probability distributions on earth resulting from cosmic rays incoming to our galaxy with a fixed gaussian width of @xmath46  deg in three regions separated by galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg as a function of rigidity @xmath24 , a ) jf12 , b ) pt11 .
for the exact definition of @xmath51 refer to the text . , title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]a )   of arrival probability distributions on earth resulting from cosmic rays incoming to our galaxy with a fixed gaussian width of @xmath46  deg in three regions separated by galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg as a function of rigidity @xmath24 , a )
jf12 , b ) pt11 .
for the exact definition of @xmath51 refer to the text . , title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]b )
the projection of the incoming distribution causes a dispersion or a focusing effect , depending on the original cosmic ray direction and its rigidity @xmath24 . in the southern region
( downward - pointing triangles ) a focusing effect is visible for rigidities around @xmath53  ev .
in contrast , the disk region ( square symbols ) exhibits dispersion effects up to the largest rigidities .    below @xmath54  ev the average extent
@xmath52 is large for both fields , such that it appears difficult to identify arrival directions on earth from a given extragalactic direction .
the jf12 field exhibits several pronounced features which appear to be specific to the jf12 field parametrization .
such effects are not visible in the pt11 parametrization where @xmath52 appears to increase continuously with reduced rigidity up to @xmath55  deg .    above @xmath30
ev both parametrizations lead to similar results with a dispersion effect in the disk region ( square symbols ) , and dispersion and focusing effects in the southern region ( downward - pointing triangles ) . the largest extent of the probability region is found for the pt11 field corresponding to a dispersion of the initial probability distribution by a factor of @xmath46 at @xmath30  ev , which may still be acceptable for an analysis of cosmic ray arrival directions .      extending the above study of dispersion we investigate multiple images arising in cosmic ray arrival distributions on earth .
again cosmic rays from an incoming direction are fisher - distributed with a gaussian width of @xmath46  deg . for some incoming directions ,
the small angular deviations within this distribution are sufficient to change the arrival direction on earth substantially , leading to distinct maxima in the arrival distributions .
examples for such multiple images are denoted in fig .
[ fig : images ] by the red symbols .
we count the number of arrival images by searching for connected areas of arbitrary shape in - between which the probability falls below a pre - defined threshold . for this
we coarsen the healpix resolution in the arrival distribution from originally @xmath56  deg to @xmath57  deg and require each pixel to carry at least @xmath58 of the pixel with the maximum arrival probability .
the image multiplicity then arises from counting connected areas that are separated from one another by at least one pixel below the pre - defined threshold .    in fig .
[ fig : jets ] we show the average multiplicity @xmath59 of arrival images as a function of cosmic ray rigidity @xmath24 in the three regions of the galactic sphere separated by galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg .
overall , the image multiplicity decreases with increasing rigidity .
the multiplicity arising from the pt11 parametrization ( fig .
[ fig : jets]b ) appears to exceed that of the jf12 parameterization ( fig .
[ fig : jets]a ) .     of images in the arrival probability distributions on earth resulting from cosmic rays incoming to our galaxy with a gaussian width of @xmath46  deg in three regions separated by galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg as a function of rigidity @xmath24 , a ) jf12 , b ) pt11 . for
the image definition refer to the text . , title="fig:",scaledwidth=44.0%]a )   of images in the arrival probability distributions on earth resulting from cosmic rays incoming to our galaxy with a gaussian width of @xmath46  deg in three regions separated by galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg as a function of rigidity @xmath24 , a ) jf12 , b ) pt11 .
for the image definition refer to the text .
, title="fig:",scaledwidth=44.0%]b )    for directions in the northern and southern regions , typically @xmath56 image of the arrival direction arises . in the disk region , however , multiple images appear even for cosmic rays with large rigidity . here
the image multiplicity is especially large for the pt11 parameterization ( fig .
[ fig : jets]b , square symbols ) which is related to the pronounced halo field visualized in fig .
[ fig : parameterization]b .
multiple images reduce the predictive power of cosmic ray arrival directions and may require additional selection depending on the individual analysis . as criteria to reduce image multiplicity both cosmic ray rigidity and a selection of incoming directions away from the galactic disk region are relevant .
related to the above study on dispersion we investigate extragalactic directions causing a relatively enhanced flux of cosmic rays on earth @xcite , and directions for which the arrival probability disappears as no simulated trajectory leads to earth .
these effects have a direct impact on the visibility of a source by cosmic ray messengers , and the luminosity required for observation on earth .
examples of varying transparency of the field depending on the incoming directions are shown in fig .
[ fig : images ] .    to demonstrate the enhanced flux of a few extragalactic directions we show in fig .
[ fig : focusing]a for incoming cosmic rays with rigidity @xmath30  ev the probability @xmath60 of arriving on earth coded in color .
the lightly colored regions indicate incoming cosmic ray directions with a high probability of observation on earth .    in order to quantify flux enhancement
we organize the incoming directions ( binned in @xmath39 pixels of @xmath56  deg ) according to their arrival probabilities @xmath61 on earth and select the leading @xmath62 directions .
these incoming directions cover a solid angular region of @xmath63 and provide a relative flux contribution of @xmath64 .
of observing a cosmic ray with rigidity @xmath30  ev on earth as a function of the incoming direction to our galaxy ( jf12 ) .
b ) flux @xmath65 on earth originating from the @xmath66-percentile of the directions with the largest arrival probabilities in fig .
a ) . , title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]a )   of observing a cosmic ray with rigidity @xmath30  ev on earth as a function of the incoming direction to our galaxy ( jf12 ) .
b ) flux @xmath65 on earth originating from the @xmath66-percentile of the directions with the largest arrival probabilities in fig .
a ) . , title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]b )    in fig .
[ fig : focusing]b we show for the above example the observed flux @xmath65 of cosmic rays originating from the @xmath66 incoming directions with the highest probabilities indicated in fig .
[ fig : focusing]a , when assuming an isotropic extragalactic flux .
we find that these few incoming directions cause a wide spread distribution and contribute @xmath67 to the observed flux .    in a more general approach
we show in fig .
[ fig : int_flux ] the relative flux @xmath68 of observed cosmic rays as a function of the solid angular region @xmath69 covered by the incoming directions with the highest arrival probabilities . at low rigidity @xmath30  ev in the jf12 parameterization @xmath33 of the cosmic ray flux on earth is caused by about @xmath50 of the extragalactic directions ( fig .
[ fig : int_flux]a ) . with increasing rigidity
all extragalactic directions contribute equally to the flux on earth .
the pt11 parameterization yields similar results as shown in fig .
[ fig : int_flux]b , however , with less inhomogeneity at low rigidity @xmath24 .     of observed cosmic rays originating from the incoming directions with the highest arrival probabilities covering @xmath69 of the sky , a )
jf12 , b ) pt11 . ,
title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]a )    of observed cosmic rays originating from the incoming directions with the highest arrival probabilities covering @xmath69 of the sky , a ) jf12 , b ) pt11 . ,
title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]b )    in contrast , the flux from certain extragalactic directions is not only suppressed but can even disappear , as no path leads to observation on earth . as an example we show in fig .
[ fig : antimatter]a example trajectories of cosmic antimatter with rigidity @xmath17  ev from the same extragalactic direction traversing a thin slice of @xmath70  pc around the @xmath71-@xmath11-plane in the galactic coordinate system .
the trajectories are expected to miss the solar environment ( marked by the yellow star ) . to enable this demonstration for antimatter
we produced a separate set of lenses by backtracking matter particles in the jf12 field .
ev incoming to the jf12 field from the same direction that miss the solar system ( yellow star ) .
the trajectories are shown in a thin slice of @xmath70  pc around the @xmath71-@xmath11-plane .
b ) directions with unobserved cosmic matter ( full curves ) and antimatter ( dashed curve ) in terms of covered solid angle @xmath72 as a function of rigidity @xmath24 ( blue curve jf12 , red curve pt11 ) . ,
title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]a )  ev incoming to the jf12 field from the same direction that miss the solar system ( yellow star ) .
the trajectories are shown in a thin slice of @xmath70  pc around the @xmath71-@xmath11-plane .
b ) directions with unobserved cosmic matter ( full curves ) and antimatter ( dashed curve ) in terms of covered solid angle @xmath72 as a function of rigidity @xmath24 ( blue curve jf12 , red curve pt11 ) . ,
title="fig:",scaledwidth=44.0%]b )    in general , both matter and antimatter particles entering the galaxy exhibit directions with a negligible arrival probability on earth . in fig .
[ fig : antimatter]b we show the fraction of the sky in terms of solid angles @xmath72 , where none of @xmath73 simulated cosmic rays reached earth as a function of their rigidity @xmath24 . for antimatter trajectories in the jf12 field , invisible directions appear at small and large rigidities ( dashed curve ) .    for matter particles of rigidity @xmath30  ev traversing the jf12 field ,
the invisible sky fraction is about @xmath58 and disappears above @xmath74  ev ( blue curve ) .
in contrast , for the pt11 field the invisible fraction of the sky for matter particles appears to be generally small ( red curve ) .    at cosmic ray rigidities of @xmath30  ev
, variations in the field transparency from specific extragalactic directions lead to relative suppression and enhancement effects which may eventually require corrections in individual arrival direction analyses .
the variations are strongly reduced with increasing cosmic ray rigidity .      beyond the regular large - scale component
, recent galactic magnetic field models also contain small - scale random structures which are motivated e.g. by supernovae @xcite .
such local disturbances are expected to cause a randomly oriented field component which introduces uncertainties in the predicted arrival directions of extragalactic cosmic rays .
we expect this impact to be small , since the direction of the random component changes on a scale that is substantially smaller than the gyroradius of cosmic rays constrained in the galaxy .    to investigate the influence of such random fields we compare two different realizations of the so - called striated and turbulent random components as described in @xcite with a coherence length of @xmath75  pc .
cosmic rays are then deflected in both the regular jf12 and the first random field realization , and in the regular jf12 and the second random field , respectively .    as we aim to investigate the influence of the random fields on arrival directions we use the lensing technique . to obtain the most probable arrival direction on earth we use the same techniques described above when studying the dispersion of the probability distribution ( section [ sec : dispersion ] ) .
we calculate the radius @xmath51 containing @xmath50 of the arrival probabilities , and use the center of the pixel with the smallest radius @xmath51 as the expected arrival direction .    in fig.[fig : delta]a we sketch the angular distance @xmath76 between the arrival directions resulting from the two random field realizations . here the incoming cosmic ray direction to the galaxy is indicated by the star symbol , and the two alternative arrival directions are denoted by the circular symbols .    in fig.[fig
: delta]b we show the angular distances @xmath76 between the arrival directions on earth using the two realizations of the random fields as a function of cosmic ray rigidity @xmath24 .
the red curve indicates the median values . for rigidity
@xmath30  ev the uncertainty in the arrival directions is below @xmath14  deg for @xmath50 of the cosmic rays , and rarely extends to more than @xmath19  deg .     between two cosmic ray arrival directions ( circular symbols ) from an incoming direction ( star symbol ) , and directional difference @xmath77 of the deflections ( tangential to the sphere ) resulting from different magnetic field orientations .
b ) angular distances @xmath76 between the arrival directions using two different realizations of the striated and turbulent random components in addition to the regular jf12 field parametrization as a function of rigidity @xmath24 .
the median is depicted by the curve.,title="fig:",scaledwidth=40.0%]a )   between two cosmic ray arrival directions ( circular symbols ) from an incoming direction ( star symbol ) , and directional difference @xmath77 of the deflections ( tangential to the sphere ) resulting from different magnetic field orientations .
b ) angular distances @xmath76 between the arrival directions using two different realizations of the striated and turbulent random components in addition to the regular jf12 field parametrization as a function of rigidity @xmath24 .
the median is depicted by the curve.,title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]b )    as expected , the impact of the random field is significantly smaller compared to the deflections of the cosmic rays arising from the regular galactic field ( fig.[fig : angular ] ) . however , the uncertainties generated by such random deflections are sufficiently sizable to consider optimization of the rigidity threshold for individual arrival direction analyses .      in order to work in a phase space region in which cosmic ray deflections can be controlled at least in a probabilistic way a minimum cosmic ray rigidity of @xmath30  ev is recommended .
this value results from avoiding deflections leading to a bend of @xmath19  deg which overlaps with cosmic ray diffusion .
all other distributions presented above on the dispersion of arrival probability distributions and multiple images , variance in field transparency , and uncertainties due to random field components are in accordance with this minimal rigidity value .    for a typical large - scale analysis the @xmath30
ev rigidity threshold may be sufficient .
however , depending on individual analysis requirements , the above key distributions may help to determine whether the rigidity threshold needs to be adjusted to larger values , or whether restrictions to incoming directions aside the galactic disk region need to be introduced .
for a typical point source search , the reliability of galactic field corrections are of utmost importance . as a first step
we compare directly the cosmic ray deflections resulting from the two field parameterizations pt11 and jf12 .    in order to exemplify the impact of these differences on point source
searches we simulate a typical corresponding analysis .
we determine the discovery potential when the true galactic field is known , and quantify the reduced discovery potential when taking into account the different deflections of the two field parameterizations .
uncertainties in the current knowledge of the galactic field can be obtained to some extent from the different arrival distributions of the two field parameterizations pt11 and jf12 .
note that their fields are not completely independent regarding the overlap in the measurements constraining their fits , and usage of similar electron density distributions .
however , the two parameterizations follow different ansatzes and include disjoint measurements , such that a direct comparison of cosmic ray deflections at least gives an idea of limited knowledge in the magnetic field .    for cosmic rays originating from the identical extragalactic direction @xmath78 we investigate the different deflections resulting from the two field parameterizations .
we use the above - mentioned lensing technique to deliver arrival probability distributions . as outlined in section [ sec : turbulent ] , we calculate the most probable arrival direction on earth by using the center of the pixel with the smallest radius @xmath51 containing @xmath50 of the arrival probabilities .
this gives the expected arrival directions @xmath79 for the jf12 parametrization and for the pt11 parametrization , respectively .
we first study the different directions of cosmic ray deflections by their azimuthal angular distance @xmath77 which is measured tangentially to the sphere ( see fig.[fig : delta]a ) .
these directional differences reflect different field orientations of the two parameterizations .     in the directions of the deflections between
jf12 and pt11 , a ) for rigidity @xmath17  ev in the three regions separated by galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg , b ) as a function of rigidity .
the curve depicts the median values . ,
title="fig:",scaledwidth=44.0%]a )   in the directions of the deflections between jf12 and pt11 , a ) for rigidity @xmath17  ev in the three regions separated by galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg , b ) as a function of rigidity .
the curve depicts the median values .
, title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]b )    in fig.[fig : psi]a we show the directional difference @xmath77 for cosmic ray rigidity @xmath17  ev for the three regions separated by galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg . for the southern region almost all directions of the deflections are within @xmath19  deg ( red histogram ) . in the northern region
most of the incoming directions show @xmath80  deg ( blue histogram ) . about @xmath81 of the incoming directions exhibit @xmath82  deg ,
i.e. here the directions are nearly opposite .    in the disk region the differences between the two fields
are large as half of the incoming directions are within @xmath19  deg , and the other half has directional differences above @xmath19  deg ( green histogram ) .     of cosmic rays after deflections in jf12 and pt11 ,
a ) for rigidity @xmath17  ev in the three regions separated by galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg , b ) as a function of rigidity .
the curve depicts the median values .
, title="fig:",scaledwidth=44.0%]a )   of cosmic rays after deflections in jf12 and pt11 , a ) for rigidity @xmath17  ev in the three regions separated by galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg , b ) as a function of rigidity .
the curve depicts the median values . ,
title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]b )    in fig.[fig : psi]b we show the rigidity dependence of the directional difference @xmath77 for all regions where the curve represents the median values . for all rigidities above @xmath30  ev , the most likely differences in the directions of the deflections are below @xmath14  deg , and for @xmath50 of the cosmic rays the field directions are within @xmath83  deg .
the second important aspect of the field differences is the absolute angular distance in the arrival directions resulting from the pt11 and jf12 parameterizations which are denoted by @xmath76 ( see fig.[fig : delta]a ) .    in fig.[fig :
comparison]a we show the angular distance @xmath76 for cosmic rays with rigidity @xmath17  ev for the three regions separated by galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg . for the northern and southern regions
the angular distance between the two parametrizations is below @xmath84  deg for @xmath85 of the incoming directions ( blue , red histograms ) .    in the disk region , only @xmath86 of the arrival directions show angular distances below @xmath84  deg , while the majority of incoming directions have larger angular distances up to @xmath87  deg .    in fig.[fig :
comparison]b we show the angular distance @xmath76 for all regions as a function of cosmic ray rigidity .
the curve represents the median values . for cosmic rays with small rigidity @xmath30
ev , half of them result at an angular difference below @xmath88  deg .
however , there is a long tail towards large angular distances resulting from the two field parameterizations .
although sizable differences in the directional characteristics and magnitudes of the two field parameterizations exist , their influence is sufficiently reduced at large cosmic ray rigidity .
for example , at @xmath17  ev , the absolute deflection angles @xmath16 as well as the angular distances @xmath76 arising from the two fields become consistently small for most incoming directions .      in fig .
[ fig : source_arrivals ] we show example arrival distributions of cosmic rays with rigidity a )  @xmath89  ev , b )  @xmath17  ev originating from ten sources .
the directions of the sources are denoted by the star symbols .
the initial cosmic ray distributions followed the fisher distribution with a gaussian width of @xmath46  deg .     and @xmath33 levels .
the incoming cosmic ray distributions were centered at the directions denoted by the star symbols and fisher distributed with a gaussian width of @xmath46  deg ; rigidity a ) @xmath89  ev , b ) @xmath17  ev . ,
title="fig:",scaledwidth=44.0%]a )   and @xmath33 levels .
the incoming cosmic ray distributions were centered at the directions denoted by the star symbols and fisher distributed with a gaussian width of @xmath46  deg ; rigidity a ) @xmath89  ev , b ) @xmath17  ev .
, title="fig:",scaledwidth=44.0%]b )    indicated by the dark ( light ) red regions are the @xmath90 ( @xmath33 ) arrival probability distributions of the cosmic ray after deflections by the pt11 field .
the blue regions give the corresponding arrival probability distributions from the jf12 field .    at cosmic ray rigidity
@xmath89  ev ( fig .
[ fig : source_arrivals]a ) at least half of the arrival probability distributions exhibit substantial overlap for the pt11 and jf12 fields . with increasing rigidity ( fig .
[ fig : source_arrivals]b , @xmath17  ev ) the overlap increases as expected .
the number of images is also reduced at larger rigidity .
this implies that , at large rigidities , the agreement of the two field parameterizations is sufficiently large to investigate the impact of the field uncertainties on a point source search which we present in the following section .
for our simulated search for origins of cosmic rays we study separately sources in the three regions of the galaxy ( latitude @xmath20  deg ) . in each region
we repeatedly simulate ten sources and demand the cosmic rays to follow a fisher probability distribution with a gaussian width of @xmath46  deg .
we also simulate isotropically distributed cosmic rays with full sky coverage as a background contribution . in the following we perform multiple analyses with sets of @xmath91 cosmic rays for which we vary the contribution of signal cosmic rays , i.e. cosmic rays arriving from the ten sources , between signal fraction @xmath92 and @xmath93 .    to quantify the analysis sensitivity we use the log - likelihood function @xmath94 } \;. \label{eq : loglikeli}\ ] ]
the sum refers to all simulated @xmath95 cosmic rays .
parameter @xmath96 denotes the anticipated fraction of signal cosmic rays from the sources when analyzing the data , and the isotropically distributed cosmic rays are assumed to contribute with @xmath97 correspondingly .
the probabilities @xmath98 represent the anticipated arrival probability distributions for cosmic rays with rigidity @xmath24 which originate from the sources and are expected to be observed in directions ( @xmath99 ) on earth .
they were obtained using the lensing techniques .
the background probability @xmath100 corresponds to the inverse number of pixels for which we used the above @xmath39 pixels of approximately @xmath40 .    as the test statistics we use the likelihood ratio @xmath101 which approximately follows a @xmath102 distribution with @xmath56 degree of freedom @xcite
for each anticipated signal fraction @xmath96 we repeat the simulation of cosmic ray sets @xmath103 times and determine the average maximum @xmath104 .
the significance by which isotropic arrival distributions can be excluded is then estimated by converting the integral @xmath105 above @xmath104 to gaussian standard deviations @xmath106 .    in the analysis we use as the simulated scenario the jf12 arrival probability distributions @xmath98 to describe cosmic ray deflections .
to obtain a benchmark for a best - case scenario , where the field and the cosmic ray rigidities are perfectly known , we first analyze cosmic rays with rigidity @xmath89  ev by using the jf12 field , here representing the true field .
note that this scenario returns optimistic results as we neglect deflections in the small - scale random field and demand sources to be located in one of the three galactic regions exclusively .    in fig.[fig
: sensitivity]a we show the significance @xmath106 as a function of the signal fraction @xmath107 of the simulated sample . with perfect knowledge of the galactic field
a signal fraction of @xmath108 is sufficient for a @xmath109 discovery ( full curves ) .    to take into account uncertainties in the galactic field as encoded in the two different parameterizations
, we then perform the analysis with the pt11 arrival probability distributions instead of the true jf12 probability distributions . as
the results are slightly dependent on the exact directions of the sources , we repeat the analyses nine times in each region and present the average resulting values .    in fig.[fig
: sensitivity]a we show the significance @xmath106 of a deviation from isotropic arrival distributions as a function of the average signal fraction @xmath107 for the three regions ( dashed curves ) .
a signal fraction of @xmath110 is sufficient for a @xmath111 discovery for the northern and southern regions , and slightly larger for the disk region ( @xmath112 ) . when compared to the above best - case scenario ,
the field uncertainties require the signal fraction for discovery to increase substantially by a factor of @xmath113 .    in fig .
[ fig : sensitivity]b we present the required signal fraction @xmath114 for discovery as a function of cosmic ray rigidity @xmath24 .
the full curves represent the required signal fraction for the benchmark scenario having perfect knowledge of the galactic magnetic field . the required signal fraction @xmath114 when including field uncertainties are shown by the dashed curves .
it is interesting to note that , although deflections are on average twice as large in the southern region compared to the northern region , their sensitivities are of similar value above rigidity @xmath89  ev . in the disk region
the different characteristics of the two parameterizations have a large impact on the point source search . here
the required signal fraction almost doubles irrespective of rigidity .
deg and sets of @xmath91 cosmic rays with fraction @xmath107 originating from the sources and @xmath115 from isotropic background with full sky coverage .
a ) significances for deviation from isotropic arrival distributions at @xmath89  ev using the true galactic field ( full curve ) for the anticipated arrival probability @xmath116 in eq .
( [ eq : loglikeli ] ) , and the other field alternatively ( dashed curves ) .
b ) required signal fraction for a @xmath111 deviation from isotropic arrival directions using the true field ( full curve ) compared to using the other field ( dashed curves ) as a function of rigidity @xmath24 . ,
title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]a )  deg and sets of @xmath91 cosmic rays with fraction @xmath107 originating from the sources and @xmath115 from isotropic background with full sky coverage .
a ) significances for deviation from isotropic arrival distributions at @xmath89  ev using the true galactic field ( full curve ) for the anticipated arrival probability @xmath116 in eq .
( [ eq : loglikeli ] ) , and the other field alternatively ( dashed curves ) .
b ) required signal fraction for a @xmath111 deviation from isotropic arrival directions using the true field ( full curve ) compared to using the other field ( dashed curves ) as a function of rigidity @xmath24 . ,
title="fig:",scaledwidth=45.0%]b )    as expected , the sensitivity of the point source search improves consistently with increasing cosmic ray rigidity . again comparing with the above best - case scenario , cosmic rays with @xmath17  ev entering the galaxy in the northern or southern regions require a moderate @xmath58 increase in the required signal fraction for discovery owing to field uncertainties .
in contrast , incoming directions at the disk region need a @xmath117-fold larger signal fraction .    in view of our current knowledge of the galactic field ,
for analyses which aim at selected source directions and require corresponding galactic field corrections we recommend a cosmic ray rigidity of at least @xmath89  ev . in our simulated search the required signal fraction for a @xmath111 discovery remains below @xmath58 .
our direct comparisons of cosmic ray deflections in the two field parameterizations provide some information on the actual knowledge of the entire field map . for cosmic ray rigidity
@xmath30  ev , the angular distance after deflections in the two fields is within @xmath118  deg for @xmath50 of the directions incoming to our galaxy .
this value is much smaller at @xmath17  ev rigidity , where the differences are below @xmath119  deg for @xmath120 of the directions incoming to our galaxy .
to study the influence of uncertainties in the field on searches for cosmic ray origins , we analyzed simulated astrophysical scenarios using a log - likelihood method .
the method includes the anticipated probability distributions for cosmic ray arrival after traversing the galactic field , and quantifies deviations from isotropic arrival distributions .
we estimated the influence of field uncertainties by using one field parameterization in the simulation of the scenario , and by applying the other field parameterization in the log - likelihood analysis .
for cosmic rays with rigidity @xmath17  ev arriving from sources within galactic latitudes @xmath20  deg ( disk region ) we found that the field uncertainties increase the required signal fraction for a @xmath121 discovery substantially by more than a factor of two .
however , for sources in the northern and southern regions emitting cosmic rays with @xmath17  ev , the field uncertainties are relatively small and increase the required signal fraction for a @xmath121 discovery by @xmath58 only .
corrections for deflections in the galactic magnetic field using the two parameterizations pt11 and jf12 can be meaningfully considered for cosmic ray rigidities above @xmath38  ev . above this rigidity
, deflections can be distinguished from diffusive random walk .
this has strong implications for analyses using cosmic ray data with mixed composition .
for protons this rigidity corresponds to energies above @xmath122  eev .
however , when analyzing , e.g. , neon nuclei with charge @xmath123 , meaningful corrections can be performed for energies above @xmath6  eev only .    when quantifying uncertainties in the galactic field from comparisons of the two field parameterizations pt11 and jf12 , the rigidity threshold needs to be raised substantially .
then both fields give similar predictions for cosmic ray deflections in the northern and southern regions with galactic latitudes @xmath124  deg . in the disk region
@xmath125  deg , however , the differences in the predictions remain large .
consequently , in our simulated search for cosmic ray origins the arising uncertainties are substantial for sources near the galactic disk , and may be considered acceptable for sources aside the disk emitting cosmic rays with rigidities @xmath126  ev .
we wish to thank very much g. farrar for fruitful discussions , and g. farrar , p. tinyakov and m. sutherland for valuable comments on the manuscript .
this work is supported by the ministerium fr wissenschaft und forschung , nordrhein - westfalen , the bundesministerium fr bildung und forschung ( bmbf ) , and the helmholtz alliance for astroparticle physics .
abraham , j. , abreu , p. , aglietta , m. , et al .
( the pierre auger collaboration ) , 2010 , phys .
b 685 , 239 abu - zayyad , t. , aida , r. , allen , m. , et al . , ( the telescope array collaboration ) , 2013 , astrophys .
j. , 768 , l1 abbasi r. u. , abe , m. , abu - zayyad , t. , et al .
( the telescope array collaboration ) , 2014 , astrophys .
j. , 790 , l21 aab , a. , abreu , p. , aglietta , m. , et al .
( the pierre auger collaboration ) , 2015 , astrophys .
j. , 802 , no . 2 , 111 abreu , p. , aglietta , m. , ahlers , m. , et al . , ( the pierre auger collaboration ) , 2013 , jcap 1305 , no .
05 , 009 aab , a. , abreu , p. , aglietta , m. , et al .
( the pierre auger collaboration ) , 2014 , phrvd , 90 , 122005 aab , a. , abreu , p. , aglietta , m. , et al .
( the pierre auger collaboration ) , 2014 , phrvd , 90 , no .
12 , 122006 stanev , t. , 1997 , astrophys . j. , 479 , 290 aartsen , m.  g. , abraham , k. , ackermann , m. , et al .
( the pierre auger collaboration , telescope array collaboration , icecube collaboration ) , 2016 , jcap 01 , 037 tinyakov , p. g. and tkachev , i. i. , 2002 , astropart .
phys . , 18 , 165 pshirkov , m. s. , tinyakov , p. g. , kronberg , p. p. , & newton - mcgee , k. j. , 2011 , astrophys . j. , 738 , 192 jansson , r. , & farrar , g. r. , 2012 , astrophys .
j. , 757 , 14 farrar , g.  r. , 2014 , comptes rendus physique , 15 , 339 , arxiv:1405.3680 keivani , a. , farrar , g.  r. , & m.  sutherland , m. , 2014 , astropart .
61 , 47 farrar , g.  r. , awal , n. , khurana , d. , & sutherland , m. , 2015 , 34th int .
cosmic ray conf . , the hague , the netherlands , pos ( icrc2015 ) 560 , arxiv:1508.04530 farrar , g.  r. , et al . , 2016 , in preparation erdmann , m. , mller , g. , & urban , m. , 2015 , 34th int .
cosmic ray conf . , the hague , the netherlands , pos ( icrc2015 ) 557 , arxiv:1508.03737 cordes , j. m. , & lazio , t. j. w. , 2002 , arxiv : astro - ph/0207156 harari , d. , mollerach , s. , & roulet , e. , 2000 , jhep , 0002 , 035 bretz , h .-
p . , erdmann , m. , schiffer , p. , walz , d. , & winchen , t. , 2014 , astropart .
c54 , 110 gorski , k. , hivon , e. , banday , a. , et al . , 2005 ,
j. , 622 , 759 , 771 winchen , t. , 2013 , phd thesis , rwth aachen university batista , r. a. , dundovic , a. , erdmann , m. , et al .
, 2016 , jcap 05 , 38 fisher , r. , 1953 , proc .
a , 217 , 295 mller , g. , 2016 , phd thesis , rwth aachen university pshirkov , m. s. , tinyakov , p. g. , & urban , f. r. , 2013 , mnras , 436 , 2326 jansson , r. , & farrar , g. r. , 2012 , astrophys . j. , 761 , l11 beck , m. c. , beck , a. m. , beck , r. , et al . , 2014 , arxiv:1409.5120 wilks , s.  s. , 1938 , ann . math .
number 1 , 60