Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

eROSITA X-ray Analysis of the PeVatron Candidate Westerlund 1

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper finds no X-ray synchrotron emission from the PeVatron candidate HESS J1646-458 and uses the resulting upper limit to cap its magnetic field at about 7 microgauss.

desk verdict Solid eROSITA nondetection of X-ray synchrotron emission from HESS J1646-458; the paper's headline B-field bound is model-dependent and should be quoted with a caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12990 v2 pith:T5KMBZA5 submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.HE

Konstantin Haubner , Manami Sasaki , Alison Mitchell , Gabriele Ponti , Gavin Rowell , Sabrina Einecke , Miroslav Filipovic , Sanja Lazarevic
show 2 more authors
Gerd Puehlhofer Andrew Strong
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords PeVatronWesterlund1HESSJ1646-458synchrotronradiationcosmicrayaccelerationeROSITAX-raybackgroundsubtractionmagneticfieldupperlimit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the very-high-energy gamma-ray source HESS J1646-458, associated with the massive star cluster Westerlund 1, accelerates electrons or protons to petaelectronvolt energies. Because gamma rays alone cannot tell the two scenarios apart, the authors used eROSITA survey data to look for X-ray synchrotron radiation, which only a population of accelerated electrons can produce efficiently. They find no such emission out to 40 arcminutes from the cluster and place an upper bound on the synchrotron flux of $1.9\times10^{-3}\,\mathrm{keV^{-1}\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$. Fitting a leptonic spectral energy distribution to this limit together with very-high-energy gamma-ray data yields an upper bound on the magnetic field of about $7\,\mu\mathrm{G}$ ($6.6\,\mu\mathrm{G}$ at 1σ for a minimum electron energy of 500 MeV), compatible with both leptonic and hadronic emission scenarios. The paper therefore does not settle the PeVatron question, but it gives the first empirical X-ray handle on the magnetic field in this source.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a symmetric background subtraction built around the bright low-mass X-ray binary GX 340+0, whose dust-scattering and stray-light halo contaminates the whole HESS J1646-458 field. Four annular source regions around Wd 1 are paired with background regions obtained by mirroring them through GX 340+0, so that, assuming a spherically symmetric halo, each source-background pair contains identical contamination; the remaining X-ray background is modeled with the standard eROSITA components (local hot bubble, circumgalactic medium, Galactic corona, cosmic X-ray background) plus a phenomenological absorbed disk-blackbody component for the GX 340+0 halo. On top of the clean background fits, a power-law component is added to set upper limits on any synchrotron flux, and the resulting bound is fed into a Markov-chain Monte Carlo spectral energy distribution fit of an exponential cutoff power-law electron distribution that produces inverse-Compton and synchrotron emission against the cosmic microwave, infrared, optical, and stellar radiation fields.

What would settle it

A pointed X-ray observation with sufficient sensitivity to detect a positive excess above the fitted background in the 10 to 40 arcminute annuli around Wd 1, at a flux above $1.9\times10^{-3}\,\mathrm{keV^{-1}\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$ at 1 keV, would falsify the nondetection claim; alternatively, a measurement showing that GX 340+0's scattering halo is asymmetric at the percent level would invalidate the mirrored-background assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' own terms, the central result is a nondetection: the four eROSITA all-sky survey data sets show no sign of an X-ray synchrotron component in the annuli from 3 to 40 arcminutes around Wd 1 that cover HESS J1646-458. The source region spectra are consistent with pure background emission, and the source-minus-background residuals have negative means, so the authors derive a 90% upper confidence bound on the synchrotron flux of $1.9\times10^{-3}\,\mathrm{keV^{-1}\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$ at 1 keV summed over the four regions. Using this limit in a leptonic spectral energy distribution fit with an exponential cutoff power-law electron distribution, they obtain a 1σ upper bound on the magnetic field strength of $6.6\,\mu\mathrm{G}$ for minimum electron energy $E_{\min}=500$ MeV, which they conservatively quote as about $7\,\mu\mathrm{G}$. This is consistent with the theoretical range $0.7\,\mu\mathrm{G}$ to $4.5\,\mu\mathrm{G}$ for a leptonic scenario at the cluster wind termination shock, and it leaves purely leptonic, hadronic, and hybrid gamma-ray scenarios all viable. For Wd 1 itself, the eROSITA data cannot distinguish a two-temperature thermal model from a thermal-plus-power-law model, so the thermal or nonthermal nature of the diffuse cluster emission remains undecided.

Load-bearing premise

The entire background-subtraction scheme assumes that the halo of GX 340+0 is spherically symmetric, so that regions mirrored through the binary contain exactly the same contamination as the source regions; if that symmetry fails, the negative residuals and the synchrotron upper limits are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A purely leptonic emission scenario for HESS J1646-458, with electrons accelerated at the cluster wind termination shock, remains compatible with all X-ray, radio, and gamma-ray constraints.
  • Hadronic and hybrid scenarios are also compatible, because proton-synchrotron emission is suppressed by about 13 orders of magnitude relative to electron-synchrotron emission.
  • The empirical magnetic-field cap of about 7 microgauss is consistent with the theoretically preferred range of 0.7 to 4.5 microgauss at the termination shock.
  • The question of whether Wd 1's diffuse X-ray emission is thermal or nonthermal stays open, because eROSITA cannot confirm the 6.7 keV Fe XXV line that previous XMM-Newton data detected.
  • Future pointed observations with higher spectral and spatial resolution are needed to settle the thermal versus nonthermal issue and to search for a fainter synchrotron signal.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The negative source-minus-background residuals hint that the mirror-background method may systematically over-subtract; if the GX 340+0 halo is even slightly asymmetric, the quoted upper limits could be biased, so an independent check with a differently constructed background would be valuable.
  • A testable extension suggested by the spectral energy distribution fit is that a continuous synchrotron spectrum connecting the radio upper limit to the eROSITA X-ray bound requires a cosmic-ray electron spectrum steeper than about 3.3, which matches direct measurements of the electron spectrum between 10 and 100 GeV; future radio and X-ray data could sharpen this consistency test.
  • If future gamma-ray telescopes resolve HESS J1646-458's spectrum in annuli, the same fitting machinery could map the magnetic field radially and test whether the field is concentrated at the shell rather than uniform.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an eROSITA X-ray analysis of the diffuse emission from the star cluster Westerlund 1 and the surrounding region of the VHE gamma-ray source HESS J1646-458. The authors find that the eROSITA data cannot distinguish between a purely thermal (2apec) model and a model with thermal plus nonthermal (apec+pl) components for Wd 1's diffuse emission. For HESS J1646-458, they search four annular regions extending from 3 to 40 arcmin and report no evidence for X-ray synchrotron emission, based on negative source-minus-background count-rate residuals and t-tests; they derive a 90% combined upper bound on the synchrotron flux of 1.9e-3 keV^-1 cm^-2 s^-1 at 1 keV. From a leptonic SED fit to the H.E.S.S. gamma-ray data and the X-ray/radio/Fermi-LAT upper limits, they obtain a 1-sigma upper bound on the magnetic field strength of about 6.6 uG (quoted as ~7 uG in the abstract) for an assumed minimum electron energy Emin = 500 MeV. They conclude that purely leptonic, hadronic, and hybrid emission scenarios are all compatible with the observations.

Significance. The nondetection of X-ray synchrotron emission and the resulting flux upper limit constitute a useful observational constraint on the PeVatron candidate HESS J1646-458, and the paper demonstrates a careful treatment of the strong contamination from the LMXB GX 340+0 using both mirrored background regions and explicit spectral background fitting. The statistical analysis is transparent, and the use of t-tests and goodness-of-fit comparisons is appropriate. However, the headline magnetic-field upper bound is not robust: it depends on the assumed minimum electron energy (6.6 uG for Emin = 500 MeV, 19 uG for Emin = 100 MeV in Table 5) and it is derived from an SED fit that violates the Fermi-LAT 30 GeV upper limit by a factor of about 6 (Sect. 4.4). If the Fermi-LAT limit is taken at face value, the inferred electron normalization is too high, which would bias the synchrotron bound and hence the B-field limit downward. The paper's most novel claim therefore needs additional work before it can be accepted as a firm result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 4.4 / Fig. 8] The best-fit SED in Fig. 8 exceeds the Fermi-LAT 30 GeV upper limit of Ohm et al. (2013) by a factor of about 6, as acknowledged in Sect. 4.4. Because the electron normalization is set by the H.E.S.S. data, an overestimated normalization would bias the predicted synchrotron flux and hence the derived B-field upper bound downward. The authors argue that the Fermi-LAT upper limit is model-dependent, but they do not demonstrate this by re-deriving the limit with a softer spectrum or by including the Fermi-LAT measurement as a constraint in the fit. I request that the authors either incorporate a re-derived Fermi-LAT upper limit consistent with the spectral shape of their model, or clearly present the B-field bound as conditional on the disputed Fermi-LAT limit.
  2. [Sect. 3.7 / Table 5 / Sect. 4.3] The 1-sigma upper bound on B ranges from 6.6 uG for Emin = 500 MeV to 19 uG for Emin = 100 MeV (Table 5). The claim in Sect. 4.3 that the 6.6 uG bound is 'valid irrespective of Emin' is not justified by the analysis. At Emin = 100 MeV, the IC component already contributes at the level of the X-ray upper bound (Fig. C.1), so the model is in tension with the X-ray data and the resulting looser bound on B is a reflection of that tension, not merely a computational artifact of naima's treatment of upper limits, as the text suggests. Please marginalize over a physically plausible range of Emin with a prior, or restrict the analysis to the range where the IC model does not overshoot the X-ray upper limit, and report the resulting systematic uncertainty on the B-field bound.
  3. [Sect. 3.5 / Table 2] The conclusion of no evidence for synchrotron emission is partly based on the comparison of source regions to background regions mirrored about GX 340+0, which assumes that the LMXB halo is spherically symmetric and identical at equal angular distances from the source. The negative residual means and the t-test results in Table 2 depend directly on this assumption. Although the flux upper bound in Sect. 3.6 is derived from spectral fits that include a fitted GX 340+0 halo component, the 'nondetection' statement in the abstract and the t-test evidence rest on the mirroring. Please add a robustness test, for example by placing background regions at different azimuths at the same GX 340+0 distance or by using an alternative background model, to confirm that the negative residuals are not an artifact of the mirroring assumption.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table 1] The confidence interval for N_H^{2apec} in the second block is formatted as '2.2 2.2 -0.22' rather than with the usual plus/minus notation; this appears to be a typesetting error and should be corrected.
  2. [Sect. 3.7] The text does not specify which quantile of the posterior distribution is used for the 1-sigma upper bound on B (e.g., the 84th percentile). Please state this explicitly, since it is important for interpreting the quoted 6.6 uG and 19 uG values.
  3. [Fig. 6] The bin width used for the residual histograms is not stated in the caption; adding this information would improve reproducibility and clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the B-field upper limit is derived from independent eROSITA and H.E.S.S. data, not from a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derived quantity is the 1σ upper bound B ≲ 6.6 µG on the magnetic field in HESS J1646−458. Its derivation chain is: (1) eROSITA spectra of four annuli around Wd 1; (2) upper 90% confidence bounds on an added power-law component, summed to ηX ≤ 1.9×10−3 keV−1 cm−2 s−1 (Sect. 3.6); (3) a leptonic SED fit with naima to the VHE γ-ray data from Aharonian et al. (2022), using the eROSITA X-ray upper bound, the Planck radio limit, and the Fermi-LAT upper limit as constraints (Sect. 3.7). The B-field posterior is constrained by the independent X-ray synchrotron upper limit; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and neither the X-ray limit nor the γ-ray data are outputs of the SED model. The dependence of the bound on the assumed minimum electron energy (6.6 µG for Emin = 500 MeV versus 19 µG for Emin = 100 MeV) is an explicitly reported model uncertainty, not a circular reduction. The background model follows Ponti et al. (2023), a paper co-authored by G. Ponti, but that model is calibrated on the independent eFEDS field and is used merely as a standard background component; the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or a self-citation chain to force its central result. The violation of the Fermi-LAT HE γ-ray upper limit discussed in Sect. 4.4 is a model-dependence and consistency concern, not a circularity: the SED model is constrained by the H.E.S.S. data and the X-ray upper limit, and the disagreement with an external upper limit is openly acknowledged rather than assumed away.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's main new result is an upper limit derived from a forward leptonic model; it has no invented entities. The central claim depends on standard radiative models and a set of fitted spectral parameters, all of which are clearly described.

free parameters (7)
  • Magnetic field strength B = Upper 1 sigma bound 6.6 uG (for Emin=500 MeV)
    Main result; constrained by naima SED fit to gamma-ray data and the X-ray synchrotron upper limit.
  • Minimum electron energy Emin = 100, 500, 1000 MeV (assumed)
    Affects the IC and synchrotron spectral shapes and hence the B bound; for 100 MeV the bound loosens to 19 uG.
  • Electron distribution normalization Phi_e0 = 4.5 to 4.8 x 10^35 eV^-1
    Fitted to H.E.S.S. gamma-ray data; defines the electron population scale in the SED model.
  • Electron power law index Gamma_e = 2.9 to 3.0
    Fitted to H.E.S.S. data; shapes the IC and synchrotron spectra.
  • Electron cutoff energy E_c = 160 to 240 TeV (large uncertainty)
    Fitted to H.E.S.S. data; weakly constrained.
  • Synchrotron power law index for upper bounds = 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 (chosen)
    Used to derive flux upper limits; the most conservative value 2.5 is adopted for the combined bound.
  • Background model normalizations and column densities (eta_LHB, eta_CGM, eta_cor, eta_LMXB, N_CGM_H, N_cor_H) = Values in Tables A.1 and 3
    Fitted to background and source region spectra; the synchrotron upper limits depend on how well the background is modeled.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The leptonic radiation model for IC scattering (Khangulyan et al. 2014) and synchrotron emission (Aharonian et al. 2010) correctly describes the emission from HESS J1646-458.
    Adopted from prior literature; the SED fit assumes these standard radiative processes.
  • domain assumption The GX 340+0 halo contamination is spherically symmetric around the LMXB, so background regions mirrored about GX 340+0 contain the same contamination as source regions.
    Introduced in Sect. 3.2 and used in Sec. 3.5; underpins the background subtraction and the nondetection conclusion.
  • domain assumption The distance to Wd 1 is 3.9 kpc.
    Assumed from earlier gamma-ray studies (Aharonian et al. 2022; Härer et al. 2023); affects luminosity and angular-to-physical conversions.
  • domain assumption The diffuse X-ray background model from Ponti et al. 2023 applies to the Wd 1 field with adjusted column densities.
    Used for all background fits; the authors modified CGM and corona column densities to fit the Galactic plane line of sight.
  • domain assumption The VHE gamma-ray data from Aharonian et al. 2022 accurately represent the source spectrum.
    Used as the primary constraint on the electron distribution in the SED fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of eROSITA X-ray Analysis of the PeVatron Candidate Westerlund 1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T5KMBZA5

@misc{pith2026250112990,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: eROSITA X-ray Analysis of the PeVatron Candidate Westerlund 1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T5KMBZA5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12990}
}
read the original abstract

It is unclear which fraction of cosmic rays above an energy of 1 PeV is accelerated by the observed Galactic PeVatron population. These sources' gamma-ray data is typically degenerate between hadronic and leptonic emission scenarios, which hinders their straightforward association with the cosmic ray population. Here, we aimed to distinguish between leptonic and hadronic particle acceleration scenarios for the PeVatron candidate HESS J1646-458, associated with the star cluster Westerlund 1 (Wd 1). We first studied the diffuse X-ray emission from Wd 1 to better understand if its origin is of thermal or nonthermal nature. In addition, we searched for X-ray synchrotron emission from the associated PeVatron candidate HESS J1646-458 to put new constraints on the magnetic field strength and the leptonic particle population of this source. We used data from eROSITA on board the SRG orbital platform to spectrally analyze the diffuse emission from Wd 1 and HESS J1646-458. For Wd 1, we compared a purely thermal model and a model with a thermal and a nonthermal component. Next, we analyzed the spectra of four annuli around Wd 1 which coincide with HESS J1646-458 to search for synchrotron radiation. We find that eROSITA data cannot distinguish between thermal and nonthermal source scenarios for the diffuse emission from Wd 1 itself. In the case of HESS J1646-458, we find no evidence of synchrotron emission. We estimated an upper confidence bound of the synchrotron flux up to 40' around Wd 1 of 1.9e-3 keV-1 cm-2 s-1, which we used to study the spectral energy distribution of the source. From this, we obtained an upper 1 sigma bound on the magnetic field strength of HESS J1646-458 of 7 uG. This is compatible with a previous estimate in the literature for a fully leptonic source scenario. A purely leptonic emission scenario, a hadronic, and a hybrid one are compatible with our results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12990 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. eROSITA RGB image of Wd 1. Red, green, and blue colors corre￾spond to 0.7 to 1.1 keV, 1.1 to 2.3 keV, and 2.3 to 10 keV, respectively. The image was smoothed using a Gaussian kernel with standard devi￾ation 10 arcsec. The large circle indicates the source area defined for Wd 1, from which the region given by the small circle around the mag￾netar CXOU 164710.2−455216 was excluded. We spectrally inspected the surround… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of the 2apec fit to the spectrum of Wd 1. Upper panel: Black data points are the source spectrum, gray data points are the back￾ground as measured in the background region. Both are binned to a min￾imum significance of 5σ. The source model is given in black, while the soft apec component is red and dashed, the harder apec component is light blue and dashed-dotted, and the GX 340+0 halo component is dark blue… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Results of the apec+pl fit to the spectrum of Wd 1. Upper panel: Black data points are the source spectrum, gray data points are the back￾ground as measured in the background region. Both are binned to a min￾imum significance of 5σ. The overall model is given in black, while the apec component is red and dashed, the powerlaw component is light blue and dashed-dotted, and the GX 340+0 halo component is dark blue and … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms of the residuals obtained via subtracting background from source spectra in blue with corresponding Gaussian fits in red. Region pairs 1, 2, 3, and 4 correspond to panels a), b), c), and d), re￾spectively. For each region pair, we employed the minimum bin si…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Background fits to the four source regions 1, 2, 3, and 4 in panels a), b), c), and d), respectively. The data are given in blue. Upper panels: The main model components are shown using different colors and line styles: The LHB is red and dashed, the CGM is orange and …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectral energy distribution fit to HESS J1646−458, assuming Emin = 500 MeV. The data are, from left to right: the Planck radio upper limit in red, the eROSITA X-ray upper confidence bound in orange, the Fermi-LAT HE γ-ray upper limit in blue, and the H.E.S.S. VHE γ-ra…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A cosmic-ray loaded nascent outflow driven by a massive star cluster

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fermi-LAT detects an extended GeV gamma-ray source and an H I cavity near Westerlund 1, interpreted as a cosmic-ray-loaded outflow leaving the Galactic disc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2022, , 260, 53

    Abdollahi , S., Acero , F., Baldini , L., et al. 2022, , 260, 53

    2022

  4. [4]

    U., Albert , A., Alfaro , R., et al

    Abeysekara , A. U., Albert , A., Alfaro , R., et al. 2020, , 124, 021102

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    2012, , 537, A114

    Abramowski , A., Acero , F., Aharonian , F., et al. 2012, , 537, A114

    2012

  6. [6]

    2011, Science, 334, 1103

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 1103

    2011

  7. [7]

    2015, , 115, 211101

    Aguilar , M., Aisa , D., Alpat , B., et al. 2015, , 115, 211101

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    2019, , 122, 101101

    Aguilar , M., Ali Cavasonza , L., Alpat , B., et al. 2019, , 122, 101101

    work page 2019

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    2022, , 666, A124

    Aharonian , F., Ashkar , H., Backes , M., et al. 2022, , 666, A124

    2022

  2. [10]

    A., Kelner , S

    Aharonian , F. A., Kelner , S. R., & Prosekin , A. Y. 2010, , 82, 043002

    2010

  3. [11]

    2021, , 911, L27

    Albert , A., Alfaro , R., Alvarez , C., et al. 2021, , 911, L27

    2021

  4. [12]

    C., & Jiang , Y.-F

    Armillotta , L., Ostriker , E. C., & Jiang , Y.-F. 2022, , 929, 170

    2022

  5. [13]

    d., et al

    Barret , D., Albouys , V., Herder , J.-W. d., et al. 2023, Experimental Astronomy, 55, 373

    2023

  6. [14]

    R., Smith , N., & Andrews , J

    Beasor , E. R., Smith , N., & Andrews , J. E. 2023, , 952, 113

    2023

  7. [15]

    2019, , 484, 2931

    Borghese , A., Rea , N., Turolla , R., et al. 2019, , 484, 2931

    2019

  8. [16]

    S., Stolte , A., et al

    Brandner , W., Clark , J. S., Stolte , A., et al. 2008, , 478, 137

    2008

  9. [17]

    2022, , 661, A1

    Brunner , H., Liu , T., Lamer , G., et al. 2022, , 661, A1

    2022

  10. [18]

    C., & Rodr \' guez , L

    Cant \'o , J., Raga , A. C., & Rodr \' guez , L. F. 2000, , 536, 896

    2000

  11. [19]

    A., An , Q., et al

    Cao , Z., Aharonian , F. A., An , Q., et al. 2021, , 594, 33

    2021

  12. [20]

    1979, , 228, 939

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939

    1979

  13. [21]

    S., Muno , M

    Clark , J. S., Muno , M. P., Negueruela , I., et al. 2008, , 477, 147

    2008

  14. [22]

    S., Negueruela , I., Crowther , P

    Clark , J. S., Negueruela , I., Crowther , P. A., & Goodwin , S. P. 2005, , 434, 949

    2005

  15. [23]

    S., Ritchie , B

    Clark , J. S., Ritchie , B. W., & Negueruela , I. 2020, , 635, A187

    2020

  16. [24]

    R., Mon , B., Haggard , D., et al

    Corrales , L. R., Mon , B., Haggard , D., et al. 2017, , 839, 76

    2017

  17. [25]

    A., Hadfield , L

    Crowther , P. A., Hadfield , L. J., Clark , J. S., Negueruela , I., & Vacca , W. D. 2006, , 372, 1407

    2006

  18. [26]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    2003

  19. [27]

    & Dubois , Y

    Dashyan , G. & Dubois , Y. 2020, , 638, A123

    2020

  20. [28]

    Dickey , J. M. & Lockman , F. J. 1990, , 28, 215

    1990

  21. [29]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  22. [30]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Freyberg , M., Perinati , E., Pacaud , F., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , & K. Nakazawa , 114441O

    2020

  23. [31]

    T., & Chubb , T

    Friedman , H., Byram , E. T., & Chubb , T. A. 1967, Science, 156, 374

    1967

  24. [32]

    2019, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 28, 1930022

    Gabici , S., Evoli , C., Gaggero , D., et al. 2019, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 28, 1930022

    2019

  25. [33]

    V., Flaccomio , E., Broos , P

    Getman , K. V., Flaccomio , E., Broos , P. S., et al. 2005, , 160, 319

    2005

  26. [34]

    K., Reville , B., Hinton , J., Mohrmann , L., & Vieu , T

    H \"a rer , L. K., Reville , B., Hinton , J., Mohrmann , L., & Vieu , T. 2023, , 671, A4

    2023

  27. [35]

    A., Vink , J., Bykov , A

    Helder , E. A., Vink , J., Bykov , A. M., et al. 2012, , 173, 369

    2012

  28. [36]

    Hillas , A. M. 2005, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 31, R95

    2005

  29. [37]

    Ipavich , F. M. 1975, , 196, 107

    1975

  30. [38]

    J., Norci , L., & Meurs , E

    Kavanagh , P. J., Norci , L., & Meurs , E. J. A. 2011, , 16, 461

    2011

  31. [39]

    J., Vink , J., Sasaki , M., et al

    Kavanagh , P. J., Vink , J., Sasaki , M., et al. 2019, , 621, A138

    2019

  32. [40]

    A., & Kelner , S

    Khangulyan , D., Aharonian , F. A., & Kelner , S. R. 2014, , 783, 100

    2014

  33. [41]

    & Dougherty , S

    Kothes , R. & Dougherty , S. M. 2007, , 468, 993

    2007

  34. [42]

    Lagage , P. O. & Cesarsky , C. J. 1983, , 125, 249

    1983

  35. [43]

    D., Predehl , P., et al

    Lamer , G., Schwope , A. D., Predehl , P., et al. 2021, , 647, A7

    2021

  36. [44]

    2024, , 681, A78

    Locatelli , N., Ponti , G., Zheng , X., et al. 2024, , 681, A78

    2024

  37. [45]

    A., Barreiro , R

    Martire , F. A., Barreiro , R. B., & Mart \' nez-Gonz \'a lez , E. 2022, , 2022, 003

    2022

  38. [46]

    Y., et al

    Masui , K., Mitsuda , K., Yamasaki , N. Y., et al. 2009, , 61, S115

    2009

  39. [47]

    2024, , 682, A34

    Merloni , A., Lamer , G., Liu , T., et al. 2024, , 682, A34

    2024

  40. [48]

    2021, , 504, 6096

    Morlino , G., Blasi , P., Peretti , E., & Cristofari , P. 2021, , 504, 6096

    2021

  41. [49]

    P., Law , C., Clark , J

    Muno , M. P., Law , C., Clark , J. S., et al. 2006, , 650, 203

    2006

  42. [50]

    E., Rocha , D

    Navarete , F., Damineli , A., Ramirez , A. E., Rocha , D. F., & Almeida , L. A. 2022, , 516, 1289

    2022

  43. [51]

    J., Dorda , R., et al

    Negueruela , I., Alfaro , E. J., Dorda , R., et al. 2022, , 664, A146

    2022

  44. [52]

    2018, , 478, 926

    Ohira , Y., Kisaka , S., & Yamazaki , R. 2018, , 478, 926

    2018

  45. [53]

    A., & White , R

    Ohm , S., Hinton , J. A., & White , R. 2013, , 434, 2289

    2013

  46. [54]

    V., Galli , D., et al

    Padovani , M., Ivlev , A. V., Galli , D., et al. 2020, , 216, 29

    2020

  47. [55]

    Pedlar , A., Muxlow , T. W. B., Garrett , M. A., et al. 1999, , 307, 761

    1999

  48. [56]

    2023, , 522, 5529

    Peschken , N., Hanasz , M., Naab , T., W \'o lta \'n ski , D., & Gawryszczak , A. 2023, , 522, 5529

    2023

  49. [57]

    2023, , 674, A195

    Ponti , G., Zheng , X., Locatelli , N., et al. 2023, , 674, A195

    2023

  50. [58]

    2021, , 647, A1

    Predehl , P., Andritschke , R., Arefiev , V., et al. 2021, , 647, A1

    2021

  51. [59]

    & Pfrommer , C

    Ruszkowski , M. & Pfrommer , C. 2023, , 31, 4

    2023

  52. [60]

    A., Abdollahi , S., Ajello , M., et al

    Smith , D. A., Abdollahi , S., Ajello , M., et al. 2023, , 958, 191

    2023

  53. [61]

    2021, , 656, A132

    Sunyaev , R., Arefiev , V., Babyshkin , V., et al. 2021, , 656, A132

    2021

  54. [62]

    2021, , 647, A19

    Tarricq , Y., Soubiran , C., Casamiquela , L., et al. 2021, , 647, A19

    2021

  55. [63]

    2020, , 494, 3166

    Vieu , T., Gabici , S., & Tatischeff , V. 2020, , 494, 3166

    2020

  56. [64]

    2012, , 20, 49

    Vink , J. 2012, , 20, 49

    2012

  57. [65]

    1961, , 73, 51

    Westerlund , B. 1961, , 73, 51

    1961

  58. [66]

    Westerlund , B. E. 1987, , 70, 311

    1987

  59. [67]

    G., & Ruszkowski , M

    Wiener , J., Zweibel , E. G., & Ruszkowski , M. 2019, , 489, 205

    2019

  60. [68]

    E., Galeazzi , M., et al

    Wulf , D., Eckart , M. E., Galeazzi , M., et al. 2019, , 884, 120

    2019

  61. [69]

    2018, , 611, A77

    Yang , R.-z., de O \ n a Wilhelmi , E., & Aharonian , F. 2018, , 611, A77

    2018

  62. [70]

    Yeung , M. C. H., Freyberg , M. J., Ponti , G., et al. 2023, , 676, A3

    2023

  63. [71]

    2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Zabalza , V. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 34, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 922

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.