Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Modeling the X-ray emission of the Boomerang nebula and implication for its potential ultrahigh-energy gamma-ray emission

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the Boomerang pulsar wind nebula's magnetic field is weak, around 10 microgauss near the pulsar and 1 microgauss at the edge, and that inverse-Compton radiation from its electrons therefore contributes 10–50% of the…

desk verdict Honest, well-built PWN model with a genuinely new simultaneous profile fit, but its headline weak-field/IC claim rests on a closure assumption the authors test but do not quantify. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09901 v1 pith:7XP7C2XS submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.HE

Xiao-Bin Chen , Xuan-Han Liang , Ruo-Yu Liu , Xiang-Yu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarwindnebulaBoomerangPSRJ2229+6114LHAASOJ2226+6057ultrahigh-energygammaraysinverseComptonradiationX-rayradialprofilesmagneticfieldstrength
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 sets out to settle why previous models disagreed about the Boomerang nebula's magnetic field by fitting, in a dynamical pulsar-wind-nebula model, both the radial X-ray surface brightness profile and the radial photon-index profile measured by Chandra and XMM-Newton. The authors find that all three transport scenarios they consider (convection-dominated, mixed, and diffusion-dominated) require a weak field: about 10 microgauss near the termination shock, dropping to about 1 microgauss at the periphery, with electron injection fractions far below unity. A weak field matters because it changes the nebula's role as a gamma-ray source: the same electrons that make the X-rays can up-scatter background photons to ultrahigh energies, supplying 10–50% of the flux of the coincident LHAASO source at 100 TeV and up to 30% at 500 TeV. If this is right, the Boomerang nebula is not just a radio/X-ray object but a genuine contributor to one of the brightest ultrahigh-energy gamma-ray sources, with most of the pulsar's spin-down power going into protons or thermal particles rather than the electron–magnetic-field channels.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a spherically symmetric dynamical pulsar-wind-nebula model with a Fokker–Planck transport equation for electrons: $$\frac{\partial n}{\partial t}=D\frac{\$partial^{2}$ n}{\partial $r^{2}$}+\left(\frac{1}{$r^{2}$}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}($r^{2}$D)-V\right)\frac{\partial n}{\partial r}-\frac{1}{$r^{2}$}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}($r^{2}$V)n+\frac{\partial}{\partial\gamma}(\dot{\gamma}n)+Q_{\rm inj}.$$ Electrons are injected at the termination shock as a power law $Q_{\rm inj}(\gamma,t)\propto\gamma^{-\alpha}$, carried outward by a convective flow $V(r)\propto r^{-\beta}$, and diffused with coefficient $D\propto r^{1-\beta}E^{1/3}$, while the magnetic field follows $B(r,t)=B_0(t)(r/R_{\rm ts})^{\beta-1}$ with energy budget set by $\eta_B$. The predicted X-ray surface brightness and photon index are obtained by line-of-sight integration, and the model is fit to the Chandra/XMM-Newton profiles with a Markov-chain Monte Carlo method in three transport scenarios. The decisive ingredient is that the energy closure is relaxed to $\eta_B+\eta_e\le1$, allowing most of the spin-down luminosity to leave the lepton and magnetic channels.

What would settle it

A measurement of the X-ray synchrotron cooling-break energy at several radii, combined with a precise pulsar distance, would give a model-independent magnetic-field profile; if it showed ~100 microgauss rather than ~10 microgauss in the core, the predicted 10–50% inverse-Compton contribution at 100 TeV would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the radial X-ray intensity and photon-index profiles of the Boomerang nebula can be reproduced simultaneously in a dynamical pulsar-wind-nebula model with a weak magnetic field: roughly 10 microgauss near the termination shock, falling to about 1 microgauss at the periphery, and with an injection electron spectrum that is a single power law. Across all three transport scenarios considered (convection-dominated, convection-diffusion, and diffusion-dominated), the best-fit parameters satisfy $\eta_B+\eta_e\ll1$, so the pulsar's spin-down power is mostly not stored in electrons or magnetic field. With this weak field, inverse Compton scattering of the same electrons off cosmic microwave, starlight, and infrared photons produces 10–50% of the LHAASO J2226+6057 flux at 100 TeV and up to 30% at 500 TeV, leaving the rest to SNR G106.3+2.7 or hadronic emission from protons.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that most of the pulsar's spin-down energy may be deposited outside the electron and magnetic-field channels: the model relaxes the standard closure condition to $\eta_B+\eta_e\le1$, and only with that freedom do the fits settle on a weak field; if closure is enforced, the same X-ray profiles are reproduced with a ~98 microgauss field and no significant ultrahigh-energy inverse-Compton flux.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Boomerang nebula's lepton population is a viable contributor to LHAASO J2226+6057 at 100–500 TeV, providing 10–50% at 100 TeV and up to 30% at 500 TeV depending on the transport scenario.
  • The remaining ultrahigh-energy flux would have to come from SNR G106.3+2.7 or from hadronic emission of protons accelerated in the PWN, since the model's predicted electron inverse-Compton flux at 0.2–20 TeV is 1–2 orders of magnitude below the observed MAGIC spectra.
  • If most of the spin-down power is not in electrons or magnetic field, the Boomerang environment must convert a large fraction of rotational energy into protons or thermal particles, with the atomic gas in the northeast providing target material for hadronic interactions.
  • The three transport scenarios make different predictions for the radial TeV profile, and because the inverse-Compton seed photon field is homogeneous, future TeV imaging observations can distinguish convection-dominated, convection-diffusion, or diffusion-dominated transport.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, X-ray polarimetry of the Boomerang nebula would be a direct test: a toroidal, low-turbulence ~10 microgauss field predicts a high and radially ordered polarization fraction, while a tangled or strong-field configuration would predict depolarization; the paper does not model polarization.
  • Beyond the paper, if the spin-down power mostly goes into protons, the nebula becomes a candidate hadronic PeVatron; a concrete next step would be to compute the expected neutrino flux from the surrounding atomic gas and compare with limits from neutrino observatories.
  • Beyond the paper, the same X-ray profile-fitting method could be applied to other LHAASO sources that overlap with pulsar wind nebulae, since weak-field solutions generically raise the expected leptonic ultrahigh-energy contribution and change source-association arguments.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper models the X-ray surface brightness and photon index radial profiles of the Boomerang nebula using a spherically symmetric dynamical pulsar wind nebula (PWN) evolution model with convective and/or diffusive electron transport. For three transport scenarios (convection-dominated, convection-diffusion, diffusion-dominated), MCMC fits to Chandra and XMM-Newton data yield a weak magnetic field (B0 ~ 7–10 μG near the termination shock, decreasing to ~1 μG at the periphery) and a small sum ηB + ηe, implying that inverse Compton (IC) radiation of injected electron/positron pairs contributes about 10–50% of the LHAASO J2226+6057 flux at 100 TeV and up to 30% at 500 TeV. The authors explicitly acknowledge that if the closure ηB + ηe = 1 is imposed, a strong-field solution (B0 ~ 98 μG, ηe ~ 2.8×10^-3) 'may also be roughly reproduced' (Section 5.2, Figure 6), but they do not provide a quantitative comparison between the two solutions.

Significance. If the weak-field conclusion is robust, the paper would provide an important constraint on the magnetic field of a young, energetic PWN and identify a plausible electron-IC origin for a substantial fraction of the ultrahigh-energy gamma-ray emission from LHAASO J2226+6057. The work is also notable for fitting both the intensity and the photon-index profiles with a dynamical transport model, and for exploring three different transport regimes with full MCMC posteriors. However, the central claim is contingent on the adopted energy-closure assumption: the X-ray profiles alone do not select the weak-field branch, as the authors themselves show in Figure 6. Without a statistical model comparison or an explicit conditioning of the claim on the relaxed closure, the UHE IC prediction is not uniquely determined by the data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Figure 6] The central claim of a weak magnetic field is not uniquely determined by the X-ray data. The authors state that with ηB + ηe = 1 the X-ray profiles 'may also be roughly reproduced' (Section 5.2, Figure 6), yielding B0 = 98 μG and a negligible IC flux, but they provide no quantitative comparison—such as a chi-square, likelihood ratio, AIC, or BIC—between this constrained solution and the relaxed fits. Since the abstract's weak-field conclusion and the derived 10–50% UHE IC fraction depend on the unconstrained energy sink (ηB + ηe ≤ 1), the paper must either supply a formal model-comparison statistic or explicitly restate the central claim as conditional on the relaxed closure assumption.
  2. [Section 5.2, Section 1 footnote 1] The quantitative UHE flux prediction (10–50% at 100 TeV, up to 30% at 500 TeV) and the physical interpretation of the X-ray profile out to 900'' both depend on the assumed distance of 800 pc. The authors acknowledge in Section 5.2 that at d = 7.5 kpc the head region would have an unusually large physical size (~35 pc) and they do not model this case, despite citing distance estimates ranging from 0.8 to 7.5 kpc. Because the IC flux and the angular-to-physical conversion scale with distance, the claimed contribution fractions are not robust unless the distance dependence is quantified or a stronger astrophysical justification is provided for preferring d = 800 pc.
  3. [Section 3, Table 2] The three transport scenarios are described as converging to a weak magnetic field, but the paper reports no goodness-of-fit statistic (likelihood, chi-square, or residual analysis) for any of the MCMC fits. Given the known degeneracy between the electron injection efficiency and the magnetic field (synchrotron emissivity depends on the product of electron normalization and B^2), it is important to show that the weak-field solutions are statistically preferred over the strong-field closure solution and over each other. The corner plots (Figures 7–9) show parameter posteriors but do not include a statistical comparison between models; adding such a comparison is essential for supporting the central inference.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] There are several typographical errors: 'Cherevnkov' should be 'Cherenkov', 'HA VC' should be 'HAWC', and 'LHASO' appears in one instance instead of 'LHAASO'. These should be corrected in a revision.
  2. [Section 3.3] In the diffusion-dominated scenario discussion, the text refers to 'the right panel of the figure 2' when describing the softening of the photon spectrum, but the relevant figure for this scenario is Figure 4, not Figure 2.
  3. [Equation (8)] The formula for γmax is typeset ambiguously: in the text it appears as '4ϵe mec2' without a clear fraction, and the substitution σ/(1+σ) = ηB is introduced only after the equation. Please ensure the equation is correctly typeset with m_e c^2 in the denominator and define ηB = σ/(1+σ) before or within the equation for clarity.
  4. [Section 6] The citation 'Kolmogorov 1941' is included in a list of previous studies that found strong magnetic fields in the Boomerang nebula, but Kolmogorov (1941) is a turbulence theory paper and is not a PWN magnetic-field measurement. Please remove it or replace it with an appropriate reference such as Kothes et al. (2006).
  5. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for 'Liu, R.-Y., & Wang, X.-Y. 2021a' and '2021b' with identical page numbers (ApJ, 922, 221). The in-text citation 'Liu & Wang 2021b' in Section 5.4 likely refers to the same work as 'Liu & Wang 2021a'; please merge them into a single reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the UHE IC flux is an extrapolation from X-ray-fitted electron populations, not a fit to gamma-ray data.

full rationale

The paper's central gamma-ray claim is that, after fitting X-ray intensity and photon-index profiles, the magnetic field is weak and IC radiation of the same electrons contributes about 10-50% of the LHAASO flux at 100 TeV and up to 30% at 500 TeV. The IC calculation uses only the electron distributions and radiation fields determined by the X-ray fit; no gamma-ray data point is used to adjust parameters, so the UHE flux is a genuine prediction rather than a circular fit. The magnetic-field inference is model-dependent: the authors explicitly relax the standard closure eta_B + eta_e = 1 to eta_B + eta_e <= 1 (Section 5.2) and acknowledge in the same section and in Figure 6 that imposing the closure roughly reproduces the X-ray profiles with eta_B = 0.9972 and B0 = 98 microG, in which case no IC contribution is expected. This is an openly disclosed degeneracy and identifiability limitation, not a definitional equivalence: the weak-field solution is not derived from the strong-field solution by construction, and the closure choice is motivated by external hadronic-acceleration literature (Atoyan & Aharonian 1996; Amato et al. 2003; LHAASO Collaboration et al. 2021) and PIC simulations, not solely by the authors' own prior results. Self-citations (Liang et al. 2022; Liu & Wang 2021a,b) are used for comparison or motivation but are not the unique load-bearing justification. The distance uncertainty (footnote 1; Section 5.2) is a stated limitation affecting quantitative predictions but not a circular step. Accordingly, no circular step satisfying the required specific-reduction standard is present; the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with the model dependence noted as a correctness and robustness concern rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result (weak magnetic field and large IC contribution) rests on several model choices, the most important being the relaxed energy closure, the assumed distance, and the spherical free-expansion dynamical state. None of these are independently verified; the X-ray data alone do not distinguish the weak-field scenario from a strong-field scenario with ηB + ηe = 1.

free parameters (8)
  • log10 eta_B = convection: -1.83; convection-diffusion: -2.07; diffusion-dominated: -1.88
    Fraction of spin-down luminosity converted to magnetic field energy; fitted by MCMC to X-ray radial profiles.
  • log10 eta_e = convection: -1.33; convection-diffusion: -1.61; diffusion-dominated: -1.78
    Fraction of spin-down luminosity injected as relativistic electrons; fitted.
  • alpha = convection: 2.00; convection-diffusion: 1.69; diffusion-dominated: 1.25
    Injection electron spectral index; fitted.
  • beta = convection: 0.23; convection-diffusion: 0.28; diffusion-dominated: 0.31
    Radial index of the flow velocity and magnetic field profiles; fitted.
  • epsilon = convection: 0.91; convection-diffusion: 0.57; diffusion-dominated: 0.23
    Electron acceleration efficiency at the termination shock; fitted.
  • D0 (100 TeV at TS) = 0 (convection-dominated); ~1e26 cm2/s (convection-diffusion); ~1e27 cm2/s (diffusion-dominated)
    Diffusion coefficient normalization at the termination shock; chosen by hand to define each transport scenario, not fitted.
  • P0 = 40 ms
    Assumed initial spin period, gives tage ~ 4200 yr and places the PWN in free expansion; not constrained by data.
  • SNR flat component amplitude = not reported
    Normalization of the flat X-ray surface brightness component attributed to SNR G106.3+2.7 extending into the head region; presumably fixed from the tail, not listed among fitted parameters.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry of the PWN and the radiation field
    Equation (5) solves the transport equation in 1D spherical symmetry; Section 2 introduces this as assumption (3), justified by the lack of azimuthal dependence in the chosen sector.
  • domain assumption Free expansion phase with tage < tRS and tage < tau0
    Section 2.1 assumes P0 = 40 ms giving tage ~ 4200 yr and tau0 ~ 6000 yr, with the reverse shock not yet arrived; this determines Rpwn(t) via Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption Power-law injection spectrum with gamma_min = 2000 and no broken power law
    Eq. (3) assumes a single power-law injection; the radio break in the nebula is not modeled.
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD relation V(r) ∝ r^{-β}, B(r) ∝ r^{β-1}
    Eqs. (6)-(7) assume a power-law velocity and magnetic field profile with a single index β, following Kennel & Coroniti but simplified; β is fitted.
  • domain assumption Kolmogorov-type diffusion D ∝ E^{1/3} and D ∝ 1/B
    Eq. (10) assumes a standard Kolmogorov turbulence scaling; alternative turbulence spectra are not explored.
  • domain assumption Free escape boundary condition n(Rpwn) = 0
    Section 2.1 imposes n(Rpwn) = 0, following Vorster & Moraal (2013); this affects the electron distribution near the boundary.
  • ad hoc to paper Relaxation of the closure ηB + ηe = 1 to ηB + ηe ≤ 1
    Section 5.2 relaxes the energy closure to allow proton/thermal energization; the weak-field conclusion depends on this prior.
  • domain assumption Pulsar distance d = 800 pc
    Table 1 adopts d = 800 pc from Kothes et al. (2001); the text notes estimates range up to 7.5 kpc, which would change the physical scale and the model's applicability.
  • domain assumption Background radiation fields: CMB + starlight (0.1 eV/cm3, 5000 K) + IR (0.1 eV/cm3, 70 K)
    Section 2.2 uses fixed energy densities and temperatures from Porter & Strong (2005) for IC scattering; these are inputs, not fitted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the X-ray emission of the Boomerang nebula and implication for its potential ultrahigh-energy gamma-ray emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7XP7C2XS

@misc{pith2026241109901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the X-ray emission of the Boomerang nebula and implication for its potential ultrahigh-energy gamma-ray emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7XP7C2XS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09901}
}
abstract

The Boomerang nebula is a bright radio and X-ray pulsar wind nebula (PWN) powered by an energetic pulsar, PSR~J2229+6114. It is spatially coincident with one of the brightest ultrahigh-energy (UHE, $\ge 100$\,TeV) gamma-ray sources, LHAASO~J2226+6057. While X-ray observations have provided radial profiles for both the intensity and photon index of the nebula, previous theoretical studies have not reached an agreement on their physical interpretation, which also lead to different anticipation of the UHE emission from the nebula. In this work, we model its X-ray emission with a dynamical evolution model of PWN, considering both convective and diffusive transport of electrons. On the premise of fitting the X-ray intensity and photon index profiles, we find that the magnetic field within the Boomerang nebula is weak ($\sim 10\mu$G in the core region and diminishing to $1\mu\,G$ at the periphery), which therefore implies a significant contribution to the UHE gamma-ray emission by the inverse Compton (IC) radiation of injected electron/positron pairs. Depending on the particle transport mechanism, the UHE gamma-ray flux contributed by the Boomerang nebula via the IC radiation may constitute about $10-50\%$ of the flux of LHAASO~J2226+6057 at 100\,TeV, and up to 30\% at 500\,TeV. Finally, we compare our results with previous studies and discuss potential hadronic UHE emission from the PWN. In our modeling, most of the spindown luminosity of the pulsar may be transformed into thermal particles or relativistic protons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09901 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. X-ray Images of the Boomerang nebula. The central-colored part is the combination of the X-ray observation from Chandra and XMM-Newton (Ge et al. 2021). The green circle has a radius of 100” centered at the position of PSR J2229+6114. The two cyan arc marks the approximate boundary between the head (900”) and the tail (1800”) of the SNR in the X-ray band. The white curve outlines the 1.4 GHz radio continuum of the S… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: the fitting result of the radial profiles of X-ray surface brightness and photon index for convection-only scenario. The optimal fitting values for MCMC are: ηB = 0.015, ηe = 0.046, α = 2.001, β = 0.231, ϵ = 0.91. The red line represents the PWN electron component, the green dash-dotted line represents the SNR electron component, and the blue solid line with 1σ error band (gray) is the sum of the two. Cy… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: fitting result of the radial profiles of X-ray surface brightness and photon index for convection-diffusion scenario. The optimal fitting values for MCMC are: ηB = 8.458 × 10−3 , ηe = 0.0246, α = 1.692, β = 0.2836, ϵ = 0.570. Right panel: local electron spectra at different radius for the convection-diffusion scenario. Legend same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: fitting result of the radial profiles of X-ray surface brightness and photon index for Diffusion-dominated scenario. The optimal fitting values for MCMC are: ηB = 0.0223, ηe = 0.0117, α = 1.476, β = 0.3146, ϵ = 0.1893. Right panel: local electron spectra at…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The multi-wavelength spectral energy distribution of PWN Boomerang for three scenarios. The green line represents a circular area with a radius of 100” around the pulsar, and the orange line depicts a southwest extension structure stretching 900”, with the width of eac…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fitting result of the radial profiles of X-ray surface brightness and photon index for forcing zero proton fraction. In this case, the parameters are as follows: ηB = 0.9972, ηe = 2.818 × 10−3 , α = 1.91, β = 0.33 and ϵ = 0.52. that in the thermal bath depends on prope…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The corner plot of the MCMC fitting for the convection-dominated scenario. APPENDIX A. MCMC FITTING TO THE X-RAY OBSERVATIONS OF THE BOOMERANG NEBULA The corner plots of the MCMC fitting to three electron transport scenarios are shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9. REFERENCES …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The corner plot of the MCMC fitting for the convection-diffusion scenario. eta_B = 1.88 +0.40 0.66 2.4 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 eta_e eta_e = 1.78 +0.68 0.33 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 epsilon epsilon = 0.23 +0.35 0.09 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 alpha2 alpha2 = 1.25 +0.30 0.30 3.2 2.4 1.6 0.…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The corner plot of the MCMC fitting for the diffusion-dominated scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    7 4H͔S8 Ni\\ 'cba P 0faMjbg8z .6Y;`p68z]19ላ > m p Vq񹸐 [|IL6& δ` 537 1<nb lw)T\ a–| l5|Ǟ` ؉ ަqQ[K`Lٛ

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2009, , 706, 1331, 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1331

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/2/1331 2009

  5. [5]

    A., Aliu , E., Arlen , T., et al

    Acciari , V. A., Aliu , E., Arlen , T., et al. 2009, , 703, L6, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/L6

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/l6 2009

  6. [6]

    2020, , 896, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab96cc

    Albert , A., Alfaro , R., Alvarez , C., et al. 2020, , 896, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab96cc

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab96cc 2020

  7. [7]

    2009, , 693, 1275, 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1275

    Aloisio , R., Berezinsky , V., & Gazizov , A. 2009, , 693, 1275, 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1275

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/2/1275 2009

  8. [8]

    2003, , 402, 827, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030279

    Amato , E., Guetta , D., & Blasi , P. 2003, , 402, 827, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030279

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030279 2003

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    W., et al

    AS Collaboration , Amenomori , M., Bao , Y. W., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 460, 10.1038/s41550-020-01294-9

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    M., & Aharonian , F

    Atoyan , A. M., & Aharonian , F. A. 1996, , 278, 525, 10.1093/mnras/278.2.525

    1996 doi

  3. [11]

    Bandiera , R., Bucciantini , N., Mart \' n , J., Olmi , B., & Torres , D. F. 2023, , 520, 2451, 10.1093/mnras/stad134

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2011, , 410, 381, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17449.x

    Bucciantini , N., Arons , J., & Amato , E. 2011, , 410, 381, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17449.x

    2011

  5. [13]

    2006, , 454, 393, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054491

    Bucciantini , N., & Del Zanna , L. 2006, , 454, 393, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054491

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 602, 10.1038/s41550-023-01936-8

    Bucciantini , N., Ferrazzoli , R., Bachetti , M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 602, 10.1038/s41550-023-01936-8

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    A., An , Q., et al

    Cao , Z., Aharonian , F. A., An , Q., et al. 2021, , 594, 33, 10.1038/s41586-021-03498-z

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, , 271, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    Cao , Z., Aharonian , F., An , Q., et al. 2024, , 271, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    A., & Dubus , G

    Cerutti , B., Philippov , A. A., & Dubus , G. 2020, , 642, A204, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038618

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Chevalier, R. A. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 539, L45, 10.1086/312835

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    M., & Lazio , T

    Cordes , J. M., & Lazio , T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    2002 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    C., & Harding , A

    de Jager , O. C., & Harding , A. K. 1992, , 396, 161, 10.1086/171706

    1992 doi

  13. [21]

    2022, , 930, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac66cf

    de O \ n a Wilhelmi , E., L \'o pez-Coto , R., Amato , E., & Aharonian , F. 2022, , 930, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac66cf

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

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

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    K., & Matsumoto , H

    Fujita , Y., Bamba , A., Nobukawa , K. K., & Matsumoto , H. 2021, , 912, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf14a

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    M., & Slane , P

    Gaensler , B. M., & Slane , P. O. 2006, , 44, 17, 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528

    2006 arXiv

  17. [25]

    2021, The Innovation, 2, 100118, 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100118

    Ge , C., Liu , R.-Y., Niu , S., Chen , Y., & Wang , X.-Y. 2021, The Innovation, 2, 100118, 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100118

    2021

  18. [26]

    P., Camilo , F., Gotthelf , E

    Halpern , J. P., Camilo , F., Gotthelf , E. V., et al. 2001 a , , 552, L125, 10.1086/320347

    2001 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Gotthelf , E

    Halpern , J. P., Gotthelf , E. V., Leighly , K. M., & Helfand , D. J. 2001 b , , 547, 323, 10.1086/318361

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    Joncas , G., & Higgs , L. A. 1990, , 82, 113

    1990

  21. [29]

    F., & Coroniti , F

    Kennel , C. F., & Coroniti , F. V. 1984, , 283, 694, 10.1086/162356

    1984 doi

  22. [30]

    1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    Kolmogorov , A. 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    1941

  23. [31]

    2006, , 638, 225, 10.1086/498666

    Kothes , R., Reich , W., & Uyan ker , B. 2006, , 638, 225, 10.1086/498666

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    2001, , 560, 236, 10.1086/322511

    Kothes , R., Uyaniker , B., & Pineault , S. 2001, , 560, 236, 10.1086/322511

    2001 doi

  25. [33]

    2021, Science, 373, 425, 10.1126/science.abg5137

    LHAASO Collaboration , Cao , Z., Aharonian , F., et al. 2021, Science, 373, 425, 10.1126/science.abg5137

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, Universe, 8, 547, 10.3390/universe8100547

    Liang , X.-H., Li , C.-M., Wu , Q.-Z., Pan , J.-S., & Liu , R.-Y. 2022, Universe, 8, 547, 10.3390/universe8100547

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, , 875, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab125c

    Liu , R.-Y., Ge , C., Sun , X.-N., & Wang , X.-Y. 2019, , 875, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab125c

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    2021 b , , 922, 221, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ba0

    ---. 2021 b , , 922, 221, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ba0

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    2020, , 494, 2618, 10.1093/mnras/staa911

    Liu , R.-Y., & Yan , H. 2020, , 494, 2618, 10.1093/mnras/staa911

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    2020, , 897, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9ff2

    Liu , S., Zeng , H., Xin , Y., & Zhu , H. 2020, , 897, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9ff2

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    2023, , 671, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244931

    MAGIC Collaboration , Abe , H., Abe , S., et al. 2023, , 671, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244931

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    2013, Predicting the X-ray Flux of Evolved Pulsar Wind Nebulae Based on VHE Gamma-Ray Observations, arXiv

    Mayer, M., Brucker, J., Holler, M., et al. 2013, Predicting the X-ray Flux of Evolved Pulsar Wind Nebulae Based on VHE Gamma-Ray Observations, arXiv. 1202.1455

    2013 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Y., & Romani , R

    Ng , C. Y., & Romani , R. W. 2004, , 601, 479, 10.1086/380486

    2004 doi

  34. [43]

    1973, , 186, 249, 10.1086/152495

    Pacini , F., & Salvati , M. 1973, , 186, 249, 10.1086/152495

    1973 doi

  35. [44]

    Parker , E. N. 1965, , 13, 9, 10.1016/0032-0633(65)90131-5

    1965 doi

  36. [45]

    2022, , 926, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4161

    Peng , Q.-Y., Bao , B.-W., Lu , F.-W., & Zhang , L. 2022, , 926, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4161

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    2000, , 120, 3218, 10.1086/316863

    Pineault , S., & Joncas , G. 2000, , 120, 3218, 10.1086/316863

    2000 doi

  38. [47]

    2024, , 960, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0120

    Pope , I., Mori , K., Abdelmaguid , M., et al. 2024, , 960, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0120

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    A., & Strong , A

    Porter , T. A., & Strong , A. W. 2005, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 4, 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC29), Volume 4, 77, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0507119

    2005 doi arXiv

  40. [49]

    Y., Kelner , S

    Prosekin , A. Y., Kelner , S. R., & Aharonian , F. A. 2015, , 92, 083003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083003

    2015 doi

  41. [50]

    P., & Chevalier , R

    Reynolds , S. P., & Chevalier , R. A. 1984, , 278, 630, 10.1086/161831

    1984 doi

  42. [51]

    B., & Lightman , A

    Rybicki , G. B., & Lightman , A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics (New York: Wiley-Interscience)

    1979

  43. [52]

    H., Lovisari , L., Nevalainen , J., & David , L

    Schellenberger , G., Reiprich , T. H., Lovisari , L., Nevalainen , J., & David , L. 2015, , 575, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424085

    2015 doi

  44. [53]

    2009, , 698, 1523, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1523

    Sironi , L., & Spitkovsky , A. 2009, , 698, 1523, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1523

    2009 doi

  45. [54]

    A., & T \'o th , G

    van der Swaluw , E., Achterberg , A., Gallant , Y. A., & T \'o th , G. 2001, , 380, 309, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011437

    2001 doi

  46. [55]

    J., & Moraal , H

    Vorster , M. J., & Moraal , H. 2013, , 765, 30, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/30

    2013 doi

  47. [56]

    2023, , 943, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaaa0

    Zhu , B.-T., Lu , F.-W., & Zhang , L. 2023, , 943, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaaa0

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.