Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Detection of extended X-ray emission around the PeVatron microquasar V4641 Sgr with XRISM

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read XRISM detects extended X-ray emission around the microquasar V4641 Sgr, revealing a 13-pc region where particle acceleration occurs within 10 pc of the black hole.

desk verdict First X-ray extended emission around V4641 Sgr, with a Chandra re-analysis as independent support; the NXB template worry is real but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08089 v2 pith:QUMPNIHV submitted 2024-12-11 astro-ph.HE

Hiromasa Suzuki , Naomi Tsuji , Yoshiaki Kanemaru , Megumi Shidatsu , Laura Olivera-Nieto , Samar Safi-Harb , Shigeo S. Kimura , Eduardo de la Fuente
show 21 more authors
Sabrina Casanova Kaya Mori Xiaojie Wang Sei Kato Dai Tateishi Hideki Uchiyama Takaaki Tanaka Hiroyuki Uchida Shun Inoue Dezhi Huang Marianne Lemoine-Goumard Daiki Miura Shoji Ogawa Shogo B. Kobayashi Chris Done Maxime Parra María Díaz Trigo Teo Muñoz-Darias Montserrat Armas Padilla Ryota Tomaru Yoshihiro Ueda
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords microquasarPeVatronV4641SgrXRISMXtendextendedX-rayemissionparticleaccelerationbinarycosmic-ray
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 reports the first detection of extended X-ray emission around the microquasar V4641 Sgr, using the XRISM Xtend CCD imager. The emission is modeled as a Gaussian with a width of $7 \pm 3$ arcmin, corresponding to $13 \pm 5$ pc at the source distance of 6.2 kpc, and carries an integrated 2--10 keV flux of about $(4\text{--}6) \times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. The detection is claimed at $>4.5\sigma$ in imaging and $>10\sigma$ in spectra. If correct, this is the first X-ray view of the acceleration environment around a PeVatron microquasar, placing new constraints on the magnetic field and diffusion coefficient near the source.

What carries the argument

The central object is the XRISM Xtend CCD camera, a wide-field ($38' \times 38'$) X-ray imager with low background, used in a short ~20 ks target-of-opportunity observation. The argument rests on a background-construction pipeline: non-X-ray background is subtracted using night-Earth occultation data scaled by the 9.0--13.0 keV rate, vignetting is corrected with day-Earth data, and the remaining excess is quantified by fitting a one-dimensional radial profile with a point-spread-function component plus a Gaussian extended source, and by simultaneous spectral fits of source and background regions using XSPEC with sky-background models (Local Hot Bubble, Milky Way Halo, cosmic X-ray background) and a particle-background model.

What would settle it

A pointed observation with significantly longer exposure, or with another low-background X-ray imager, that does not reproduce the $5\text{--}12$ arcmin excess beyond the point spread function would falsify the detection; so would a demonstration that the night-Earth background template mismatches the observation's spatial distribution at the few-percent level in the $1.2\text{--}7$ keV band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that XRISM Xtend resolved extended X-ray emission around V4641 Sgr, a black hole X-ray binary that has been identified as a PeVatron by gamma-ray observatories. After subtracting particle background using night-Earth occultation data and correcting vignetting with day-Earth data, the radial profile of 1.2--7.0 keV emission shows an excess beyond the point spread function, fitted with a Gaussian of $\sigma = 7 \pm 3$ arcmin. The spectrum of the excess is fitted both with an absorbed power law and with a thermal plasma model; the power-law flux is $(4\text{--}6) \times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in 2--10 keV. The authors interpret the extent as showing that the particle acceleration site lies within about 10 pc of the microquasar, and discuss two origins: synchrotron radiation from electrons diffusing near the source (requiring either an enhanced magnetic field of $\sim 80 \mu\mathrm{G}$ or a suppressed diffusion coefficient $\sim 10^{27}$ cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$ at 100 TeV) or thermal emission from a jet termination shock with luminosity $\sim 2 \times 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, comparable to the Eddington luminosity. They also argue against dust scattering as the origin.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the night-Earth occultation data give an accurate spatial and spectral template for the particle background in the V4641 Sgr observation once scaled by the $9\text{--}13$ keV rate, so a difference between template and observation in the non-X-ray background could mimic the extended emission.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The particle acceleration site in V4641 Sgr is within about 10 pc of the black hole, matching the small extent of the X-ray emission.
  • If the X-rays are synchrotron, the magnetic field in the region must be $\gtrsim 8 \mu\mathrm{G}$, above the Galactic mean, or the diffusion coefficient must be suppressed relative to typical interstellar values.
  • If the X-rays are thermal, the jet power required is $\sim 2 \times 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, comparable to Eddington, implying a very energetic jet that could also explain the TeV emission.
  • The extended X-ray emission appears persistent, as a 2002 Chandra observation shows similar surface brightness, suggesting it is not tied to the current outburst.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A second PeVatron microquasar with an X-ray halo would strengthen the emerging picture that jets from accreting black holes are common PeV accelerators, making V4641 Sgr a template for future searches.
  • Combining the X-ray halo size with the TeV extension could yield a measurement of the diffusion coefficient and magnetic field as a function of distance from the jet, a testable prediction for future multi-wavelength campaigns.
  • Follow-up radio observations of the ~20 pc scale region could directly reveal a jet termination shock and distinguish the thermal-shock scenario from the synchrotron scenario.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports XRISM Xtend observations of the microquasar V4641 Sgr obtained on 30 September 2024, and claims the first detection of extended X-ray emission around this PeVatron candidate. Using a radial-profile analysis in the 1.2–7.0 keV band, the authors find a Gaussian excess with σ = 7 ± 3 arcmin (13 ± 5 pc at 6.2 kpc) centered on the source, with an imaging significance of ≳4.5σ. The spectral analysis of a source region off the point source yields a 2–10 keV integrated flux of (4–6) × 10⁻¹² erg s⁻¹ cm⁻² and a spectral detection significance of >10σ. The paper then interprets the extension as either synchrotron emission from 100 TeV electrons (requiring B ≈ 80 μG or D ≈ 10²⁷ cm² s⁻¹) or as thermal plasma from a jet termination shock with L_jet ≈ 2 × 10³⁹ erg s⁻¹, and discusses a dust-scattering halo origin, which is disfavored.

Significance. If the detection is robust, it is a valuable observational constraint on particle acceleration and transport around a Galactic PeVatron microquasar, complementing the HAWC and LHAASO gamma-ray detections. The paper makes a genuine effort to control systematics: it uses night-earth and day-earth occultation data for the particle background and vignetting, models the sky background with standard components, considers a GRXE contribution, and checks an archival Chandra observation. These steps strengthen confidence in the result. However, the central claim rests on the stability and representativeness of the night-earth NXB template as a spatial and spectral proxy, and that assumption is not independently demonstrated in this manuscript; the cited <5% particle-background uncertainty is from a paper in preparation. Because the claimed extended emission is broad, faint, and centered on the target, it is exactly the component most degenerate with a smooth NXB gradient. The manuscript therefore needs additional quantitative background-stability tests before the detection can be considered fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The imaging detection and the quoted Gaussian width (σ = 7 ± 3 arcmin) rely on subtracting a night-earth NXB image scaled to match the 9.0–13.0 keV event rate of the observation. The paper does not demonstrate that the spatial distribution of the NXB is stable between the March–July 2024 template and the 30 September 2024 observation. Since the extended source is broad and centered on the target, a few-percent spatial gradient in the residual NXB could mimic or suppress the claimed excess. Please provide a quantitative test, such as comparing NXB maps from different sub-intervals of the trend data, fitting the radial profile with an additional power-law surface-brightness gradient, or deriving the systematic uncertainty on the Gaussian width from the scatter of such fits.
  2. [Section 3.2] The >10σ spectral detection significance is computed with the C-statistic using a night-earth-based particle-background model, but the systematic uncertainty on the NXB spectral shape (cited as ≲10% from Uchida et al., in prep.) is not propagated into this significance or into the quoted flux. A 10% variation in the Au-M, Ni-K, or Au-L line rates, or in the continuum slope, could alter the residual spectrum attributed to the extended source. Please show how ΔC and the best-fit extended flux change when the NXB line normalizations are varied independently by ±10%, and report the resulting significance range.
  3. [Section 3.1, end] The text states that the F-test significance of ≳4.5σ is obtained 'taking into account the upper limits of the systematic uncertainties described below,' but the systematics (PSF tail <80%, off-axis effective area <30%, particle background <5%) are only cited from other papers or an in-preparation work and are not quantitatively folded into the radial-profile fit. In particular, the <5% particle-background uncertainty is not demonstrated for this specific observation. Please describe the procedure by which the 4.5σ value was derived from the systematic envelopes, and include a test in which the NXB normalization or slope is allowed to vary radially within plausible bounds.
  4. [End of Section 3.2] The GRXE robustness test adds a GRXE component 'with the highest flux level allowed from the best-fit radial-profile models,' and then quotes a reduced ≈9σ significance. The derivation of this 'highest flux level' is not described in enough detail to judge whether it is truly conservative. Please specify how this upper limit was obtained from the radial-profile analysis, and, if possible, repeat the spectral fit with the GRXE normalization fixed at this upper limit and at zero to show the range of significances.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/header] The draft header contains a typo: 'PeV atron' should be 'PeVatron'.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract says the extent is 'a radius of 7±3 arcmin (13±5 pc at a distance of 6.2 kpc)', while the Discussion refers to a 'derived extension of ∼20 pc'. Please clarify whether 13 pc is the Gaussian σ in physical units and whether 20 pc corresponds to a different definition (e.g., 2σ or diameter). The current wording invites confusion about whether the emission extends over tens of parsecs in radius or diameter.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'course binning' but should read 'coarse binning'.
  4. [Section 3.2] The paper states that case (b) 'better explains the observations' based on a lower C-stat/d.o.f., but the 10% contamination fraction is assumed, not fitted, so the improvement of ΔC = 42.5 is not a model comparison with a free parameter. A brief note clarifying that the 10% is an input assumption, not a fitted parameter, would avoid an implicit claim of statistical preference.
  5. [Section 4, jet luminosity equation] In the equation L_jet ∼ 2 × 10³⁹ erg s⁻¹ (n_ISM/0.08 cm⁻³)(v_jet/1500 km s⁻¹)³(R/10 pc)², the symbols n_ISM, v_jet, and R are not all defined at the point of use; please define them explicitly in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the extended-emission detection and the derived B/D/jet constraints are independent of the paper's inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observational measurement: after subtracting a particle-background template derived from night-Earth data (scaled by the 9.0–13.0 keV event rate) and correcting vignetting with day-Earth data, a Gaussian excess with sigma = 7 ± 3 arcmin is fitted to the radial profile, and a spectral excess is found in the source region. The significance is evaluated by F-test and likelihood-ratio tests against models without the extended component. The extended component is not defined in terms of the fitted parameters; the NXB template is constructed from independent occultation data and the source model is additive. The theoretical interpretations (B about 80 microG or D about 1e27 cm^2/s, B > 8 microG, L_jet about 2e39 erg/s) are computed from the measured extent and flux using standard synchrotron, diffusion, and shock formulas with literature inputs, not fitted to reproduce the detection. The only self-citation of note is the <5% particle-background uncertainty quoted from 'Uchida et al., in prep.', which is an instrument-calibration estimate by overlapping authors; it is not used to define the extended emission and does not make the derivation circular. The night-Earth template's spatial/spectral fidelity is a genuine systematic risk, but a systematic risk is not a circularity under the definitions used here.

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

The detection itself rests on standard X-ray background subtraction and calibration assumptions. The physical interpretations add assumed electron spectra and hadronic gamma-ray origins, but these do not affect the detection claim.

free parameters (5)
  • Extended-source Gaussian sigma = 7 ± 3 arcmin
    Fitted to the 1.2-7.0 keV radial profile; sets the physical size of the extended emission and is the core measurement.
  • Power-law photon index (case b) = 1.8 ± 0.2
    Fitted to the source-region spectrum; the spectral index is noted to be poorly constrained and depends on the BGD contamination assumption.
  • Column density NH (case b) = 0.6 ± 0.4 × 10^22 cm^-2
    Fitted in the spectral model; affects the unabsorbed flux.
  • Power-law flux normalization = 9.2 ± 1.1 × 10^-15 erg/s/cm2/arcmin2
    Fitted; used to derive the integrated flux.
  • Electron temperature (thermal case) = 3.2 ± 0.7 keV
    Fitted in the apec model for the thermal interpretation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The night-earth dataset provides an accurate particle-background spatial/spectral template after scaling by the 9-13 keV count rate.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 for image subtraction and Section 3.2 for the background spectral model.
  • domain assumption The day-earth dataset provides an accurate vignetting correction as a uniform sky image.
    Used in Section 3.1 to correct the image for the effective-area variation.
  • domain assumption The distance to V4641 Sgr is 6.2 kpc (MacDonald et al. 2014; Gandhi et al. 2019).
    Used to convert angular extent to physical size (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption The gamma-ray emission is predominantly hadronic (Alfaro et al. 2024; LHAASO Collaboration 2024).
    Used in Section 4 to derive the B ≳ 8 μG lower limit from the IC constraint.
  • ad hoc to paper The accelerated electron spectrum is a cutoff power-law with index 2-3 and cutoff energy 10-100 TeV.
    Assumed in Section 4 to compute the synchrotron/IC models; not based on a measurement of the electron spectrum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection of extended X-ray emission around the PeVatron microquasar V4641 Sgr with XRISM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUMPNIHV

@misc{pith2026241208089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection of extended X-ray emission around the PeVatron microquasar V4641 Sgr with XRISM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUMPNIHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08089}
}
abstract

A recent report on the detection of very-high-energy gamma rays from V4641 Sagittarii (V4641 Sgr) up to ~0.8 peta-electronvolt has made it the second confirmed "PeVatron" microquasar. Here we report on the observation of V4641 Sgr with X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) in September 2024. Thanks to the large field of view and low background, the CCD imager Xtend successfully detected for the first time X-ray extended emission around V4641 Sgr with a significance of > 4.5 sigma and > 10 sigma based on our imaging and spectral analysis, respectively. The spatial extent is estimated to have a radius of $7 \pm 3$ arcmin ($13 \pm 5$ pc at a distance of 6.2 kpc) assuming a Gaussian-like radial distribution, which suggests that the particle acceleration site is within ~10 pc of the microquasar. If the X-ray morphology traces the diffusion of accelerated electrons, this spatial extent can be explained by either an enhanced magnetic field (~80 uG) or a suppressed diffusion coefficient (~$10^{27}$ cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$ at 100 TeV). The integrated X-ray flux, (4-6)$\times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ (2-10 keV), would require a magnetic field strength higher than the galactic mean (> 8 uG) if the diffuse X-ray emission originates from synchrotron radiation and the gamma-ray emission is predominantly hadronic. If the X-rays are of thermal origin, the measured extension, temperature, and plasma density can be explained by a jet with a luminosity of ~$2\times 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, which is comparable to the Eddington luminosity of this system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08089 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MAXI/GSC light curves of V4641 Sgr showing the bursting activity in September 2024, obtained from http: //maxi.riken.jp/star data/J1819-254/J1819-254.html. The observation period with XRISM is indicated with the blue transparent region. since September 2024 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) A 1.2–7.0 keV XRISM Xtend image with the regions for the spectral analysis. (b) Same with a course binning. (c) The image after the particle-background subtraction and vignetting correction and with the HAWC gamma-ray contours (> 1 TeV; Alfaro et al. 2024) and the Xtend field of view (FoV) overlaid. The 68% containment circle of the point spread function at 6.4 keV is shown as a reference. The images are shown o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) A 1.2–7.0 keV XRISM Xtend image with the radial-profile extraction region centered at V4641 Sgr (green). (b) Extracted radial profile with the models for the point spread function at 6.4 keV, sky background, particle background, and extended emission modeled with a Gaussian function. The transparent regions indicate the systematic uncertainty ranges (see text for details). ure 3 (a)). The location of the partial… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) X-ray spectra obtained with XRISM Xtend and the best-fit spectral models in the case where contamination of the extended emission in the BGD region is ignored and (b) assumed to be 10% in flux of the source region. The green, blue, and orange solid lines indicate t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Broadband spectral energy distribution. The X￾ray flux is derived for the XRISM source region ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 82, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0565-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0565-5 2018

  2. [2]

    2024, Nature, 634, 557, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07995-9

    Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 557, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07995-9

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07995-9 2024

  3. [3]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, XSPEC: The First Ten Years, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  4. [4]

    1990, Cosmic ray astrophysics (Amsterdam: North Holland)

    Ptuskin, V. 1990, Cosmic ray astrophysics (Amsterdam: North Holland)

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  6. [6]

    R., Ji, L., Smith, R

    Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/128

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/128 2012

  7. [7]

    2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed

    Gallo, E. 2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. T. Belloni, Vol. 794, 85, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8 4

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8 2010

  8. [8]

    Maccarone, T. J. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz438 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2024, Science, 383, 402, doi: 10.1126/science.adi2048 HEASARC. 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU. http://ascl.net/1408.004 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz438 2019

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    M., Rupen, M

    Hjellming, R. M., Rupen, M. P., Hunstead, R. W., et al. 2000, ApJ, 544, 977, doi: 10.1086/317255

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 193, 991, doi: 10.1007/s10909-018-1913-4

    Ishisaki, Y., Ezoe, Y., Yamada, S., et al. 2018, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 193, 991, doi: 10.1007/s10909-018-1913-4

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    D., & Snowden, S

    Kuntz, K. D., & Snowden, S. L. 2008, A&A, 478, 575, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077912

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    2002, PASJ, 54, 327, doi: 10.1093/pasj/54.3.327 LHAASO Collaboration

    Kushino, A., Ishisaki, Y., Morita, U., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 327, doi: 10.1093/pasj/54.3.327 LHAASO Collaboration. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08988, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.08988

    2002 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Holland, M

    Loewenstein, M., Hill, R. S., Holland, M. P., et al. 2020, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 11444, 114445D, doi: 10.1117/12.2560840

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    MacDonald, R. K. D., Bailyn, C. D., Buxton, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/2

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Y., et al

    Masui, K., Mitsuda, K., Yamasaki, N. Y., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, S115, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.sp1.S115

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, in Proc

    Mori, K., Tomida, H., Nakajima, H., et al. 2022, in Proc

    2022

  9. [17]

    12181, 121811T, doi: 10.1117/12.2626894 Mori et al

    SPIE, Vol. 12181, 121811T, doi: 10.1117/12.2626894 Mori et al. 2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Nikzad, & K

    Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, Vol. 13093, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 130931I, doi: 10.1117/12.3019804

    doi

  11. [19]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 21, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx116

    Nakajima, H., Maeda, Y., Uchida, H., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 21, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx116

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17608

    Neronov, A., Oikonomou, F., & Semikoz, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17608

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad822d

    Yamaguchi, H. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad822d

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Kuulkers, E., van der Klis, M., et al

    Orosz, J. A., Kuulkers, E., van der Klis, M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 489, doi: 10.1086/321442

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    Predehl, P., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 1995, A&A, 293, 889

    1995

  16. [24]

    S., Moskalenko, I

    Ptuskin, V. S., Moskalenko, I. V., Jones, F. C., Strong, A. W., & Zirakashvili, V. N. 2006, ApJ, 642, 902, doi: 10.1086/501117

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    2002, A&A, 391, 1013, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020865 9

    Revnivtsev, M., Gilfanov, M., Churazov, E., & Sunyaev, R. 2002, A&A, 391, 1013, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020865 9

    2002 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c05

    Safi-Harb, S., Mac Intyre, B., Zhang, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c05

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 2179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1094

    Salvesen, G., & Pokawanvit, S. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1094

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Gaetz, T

    Suzuki, H., Plucinsky, P. P., Gaetz, T. J., & Bamba, A. 2021, A&A, 655, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141458

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed

    Tamura, K., Hayashi, T., Boissay-Malaquin, R., et al. 2022, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, Vol. 12181, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 121811V, doi: 10.1117/12.26...

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tashiro, M., Maejima, H., Toda, K., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10699, Proc. SPIE, 1069922, doi: 10.1117/12.2309455

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    2020, in Proc

    Tashiro, M., Maejima, H., Toda, K., et al. 2020, in Proc

    2020

  24. [32]

    11444, 1144422, doi: 10.1117/12.2565812 Tashiro et al

    SPIE, Vol. 11444, 1144422, doi: 10.1117/12.2565812 Tashiro et al. 2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, Vol. 13093, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 130931G, doi: 1...

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 037001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.3.037001

    Terada, Y., Holland, M., Loewenstein, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 037001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.3.037001

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    G., & Koyama, K

    Uchiyama, H., Nobukawa, M., Tsuru, T. G., & Koyama, K. 2013, PASJ, 65, 19, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.1.19

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016 XRISM Collaboration

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016 XRISM Collaboration. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.14301, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.14301

    2000 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    K., Nobukawa, M., Uchiyama, H., & Koyama, K

    Yamauchi, S., Nobukawa, K. K., Nobukawa, M., Uchiyama, H., & Koyama, K. 2016, PASJ, 68, 59, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw057

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Yeung, M. C. H., Ponti, G., Freyberg, M. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A399, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451045

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.