Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Loop I/NPS morphology predictions in the ultralong-wavelength band

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 claims that the decades-old dispute over whether the Loop I/NPS radio arc is a nearby supernova shell or a bubble near the Galactic Center can be settled by its appearance at ultralong wavelengths: below about 3 MHz the nearby…

desk verdict A genuine, testable prediction for the Loop I/NPS origin debate, with a load-bearing but openly discussed dependence on electron-density models. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00431 v3 pith:PF7CKW5X submitted 2024-12-31 astro-ph.GA

Yanping Cong , Bin Yue , Yidong Xu , Furen Deng , Jiajun Zhang , Xuelei Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords LoopINorthPolarSpurultralong-wavelengthradioastronomyfree-freeabsorptionGalacticsynchrotronemissionelectrondensityskymorphology
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 tries to settle a long-standing question about Loop I/NPS, the giant radio arc above the Galactic plane: is it a nearby shell of supernova remnants, or a giant bubble close to the Galactic Center? The authors build two emissivity models that both reproduce the observed 408 MHz radio map, then extrapolate to 1-10 MHz including free-free absorption by interstellar electrons. They find a clean, observable distinction: the nearby shell stays bright even at about 1 MHz, while the distant bubble loses its low-latitude part below about 3 MHz because electrons between the Sun and the Galactic Center absorb those sightlines. If correct, a single all-sky map in the ultralong-wavelength band can discriminate the two origins.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the line-of-sight free-free absorption optical depth, $\tau_\nu \approx 3.28\times10^{-7}(T_e/10^4\,{\rm K})^{-1.35}(\nu/{\rm GHz})^{-2.1}({\rm EM}/{\rm pc\,cm^{-6}})$, evaluated with electron densities from the NE2001 and YMW16 Galactic electron models and emission measures for the Loop I/NPS shell derived from X-ray observations. This quantity converts the geometric difference between the two scenarios into a frequency-dependent morphology, because opacity climbs steeply as frequency falls and grows with the electron column between the emitter and the observer. At frequencies above about 3 MHz the column is too thin to matter; below that, it selectively removes the low-latitude sightlines to the distant bubble.

What would settle it

Observe the Loop I/NPS region near 1 MHz with an all-sky instrument that can see the arc's few-degree structure: a bright arc continuing below $b\approx30^\circ$ would falsify the Galactic Center prediction, while an arc truncated at roughly $b\approx30^\circ$ would falsify the nearby-supernova prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that free-free absorption turns the distance of Loop I/NPS into a visible frequency-dependent morphology. In the nearby supernova-remnant model, the emitting shell is so close that interstellar absorption along the short sightline is negligible, so the full arc remains bright down to roughly 1 MHz. In the Galactic Center model, the shell sits about 8 kpc from the Sun and the absorbing electron column between it and the Sun is large at low Galactic latitudes, so by about 3 MHz the arc begins to fade and at 1 MHz only the part with $b\gtrsim30^\circ$ survives. The two models were fitted to the same 408 MHz template, so the predicted difference is not an artifact of the fitting procedure but a consequence of where the shell lies along the line of sight.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction assumes the standard maps of free electrons between the Sun and the Galactic Center are accurate at low Galactic latitudes; if those maps overstate the electron column, the low-latitude arc would remain visible and the two models would look alike.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An all-sky map near 1 MHz with enough angular resolution to resolve the arc can directly decide between the two models.
  • If the Galactic Center model is right, ultralong-wavelength surveys will show only the high-latitude arc, with the low-latitude root of the loop appearing as an absorption shadow rather than as emission.
  • If the nearby-supernova model is right, the full bright arc provides a stable low-frequency feature that can serve as a check on instrument calibration and on models of the Galactic radio background.
  • Even in the Galactic Center model, the arc above about $b\approx30^\circ$ remains visible down to 1 MHz, which the paper uses to argue that the vertical column of absorbing electrons above the Sun is small.
  • Because both models fit the same 408 MHz map, the predicted 1 MHz split isolates the source-distance question rather than depending on the template used to build the arc.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the frequency at which the low-latitude arc disappears is itself a probe of the free-electron column toward the inner Galaxy, so the arc could be used as a screen to map absorption along those sightlines.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper shows that mixed nearby-plus-Galactic-Center geometries can mimic the pure models in a single snapshot; a sequence of maps at several frequencies would still separate them by tracking how the low-latitude part fades with frequency.
  • Beyond the paper: the same distance-versus-absorption logic applies to other large radio loops, so ultralong-wavelength surveys could serve as a crude distance indicator for Galactic loops generally.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops two phenomenological emissivity models for the Loop I/NPS (a nearby SNR/superbubble model and a distant Galactic Center bubble model), fits both to the 408 MHz Haslam sky map, and extrapolates to ultra-long wavelengths (10, 3, and 1 MHz) including free-free absorption computed with the NE2001 and YMW16 electron density models. The central result is that in the nearby model the full Loop I/NPS arc remains visible at 1 MHz, whereas in the GC model the low-latitude part (b ≲ 30°) is absorbed and only the high-latitude part (b ≳ 30°) remains visible, providing a potential morphological discriminator for upcoming ultra-long-wavelength missions such as DSL and FARSIDE.

Significance. If the prediction is robust, the paper offers a clean, falsifiable observable that distinguishes two long-debated origins of Loop I/NPS, with a specific morphological cutoff (b ≈ 30°) that can be tested by planned space-based interferometers. The work has notable strengths: the electron densities for absorption are taken from independent pulsar-DM-calibrated models and HaloSat X-ray emission measures, no low-frequency sky map is used as an input, and the authors test two electron models (NE2001 and YMW16). The main weakness is that the central discriminator rests on the absolute free-free optical depth, whose controlling parameters (electron column, effective temperature, and clumping) carry unquantified uncertainties that could erase the predicted cutoff.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 / Sec. 2.3] The claimed b ≈ 30° visibility cutoff in the GC model is controlled by the free-free optical depth along low-latitude sightlines, computed with NE2001 and YMW16. The manuscript does not state the electron temperature assigned to the diffuse ISM components when Eq. (7) is applied to those models, and it does not propagate the uncertainties of NE2001/YMW16, which are calibrated on pulsar dispersion measures and are most uncertain in the inner Galaxy. Since τ ∝ EM Te^-1.35, a factor of ~2–3 lower EM or a hotter effective Te would make the low-latitude arc transparent at 1 MHz and erase the predicted discriminator. Please state the adopted Te for the diffuse ISM explicitly and add a quantitative sensitivity test, for example scaling the electron column by factors of 2 and 3 and varying Te from ~3000 K to 10^4 K.
  2. [Sec. 2.3] The conversion from the NE2001/YMW16 electron density models to the emission measure used in Eq. (7) is not defined. The manuscript refers to a 'fluctuation parameter' (3.0 for NE2001, 0.3 for YMW16) but never specifies how it enters the path integral of n_e^2. Because free-free absorption depends on the square of the electron density and on clumping, the absolute optical depths shown in Fig. 4, and hence the 1–3 MHz morphologies in Figs. 5 and 6, are not reproducible as written. Please define the fluctuation parameter and provide the exact radiative transfer equation used to combine emissivity and absorption.
  3. [Sec. 2.2 / Fig. 2] The statement that both emissivity models 'replicate the morphology of the observed sky map very well' is not supported by any quantitative measure. No residual map, chi-square statistic, or comparison outside the Loop I/NPS region is provided, and the emissivity model contains many free parameters (Table 1 plus the trimming geometries). Because the low-frequency predictions are extrapolations of the 408 MHz fits, please include a residual map and at least one goodness-of-fit statistic for each model to demonstrate that the two scenarios are equally acceptable at the anchor frequency.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2] The coordinates of the Loop I/NPS center are written with a repeated YL component; the third coordinate should be ZL (e.g., '−8.3, −0.12, 0.07 kpc' and '0.0, −1.5, 5.0 kpc').
  2. [Fig. 4] The colorbar label 'log(T ao)' appears to be a typographical error; it should be 'log(τ)' or 'log(τ_ff)'.
  3. [Sec. 3.1 / Sec. 4] The YMW16 test is described in Sec. 3.1 as absorbing 'the root of the Loop I/NPS a bit' in the SNRs model, while the abstract and Sec. 4 state that the full Loop I/NPS is still visible at ~1 MHz; please reconcile this wording or clarify that the root absorption is weak and does not affect the qualitative conclusion.
  4. [Sec. 2.3] The radiative transfer equation is not written down; the paper only refers to 'integrating the radiative transfer function along each line-of-sight'. Please state the equation (e.g., T_b(ν) = ∫ ε e^{-τ} ds) so that the treatment of emissivity and absorption is explicit and self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 1 MHz morphology predictions are genuine extrapolations from 408 MHz fits and independent electron-density models.

full rationale

The paper's central prediction is that a nearby SNR/superbubble Loop I/NPS remains a bright arc at ~1 MHz, while a GC-origin Loop I/NPS becomes invisible below b~30 degrees because of free-free absorption by electrons between the GC and the Sun. The derivation chain is not circular. The emissivity parameters of the disk and Loop components are fit to the Haslam 408 MHz all-sky map in Secs. 2.1-2.2, which is an input at a frequency where free-free absorption is negligible; the 1-10 MHz predictions follow from radiative transfer with Eq. (7), using free-electron distributions from NE2001 and YMW16, which are calibrated on pulsar dispersion measures and are external to this paper. The Loop I/NPS electron density is derived from HaloSat X-ray observations in Sec. 2.3, also an independent data set; the paper explicitly shows that the Loop's self-absorption is negligible (<~3e-3) and therefore does not drive the result. The YMW16 cross-check reproduces the same qualitative conclusion. The cited prior work by the same authors (Cong et al. 2021, 2022) supplies the spectral index and free-free formulae, but these are empirical fits to external sky maps and standard radiative-transfer relations, not premises that encode the predicted morphology; the paper also checks robustness to the spectral index and direction dependence. No quantity presented as a prediction is used as an input, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation or to a definition. The main vulnerability is the dependence of the b~30 degree cutoff on the NE2001/YMW16 electron column and on the assumed electron temperature, but that is a modeling uncertainty, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis rests on phenomenological parameters fitted to the 408 MHz map and standard electron-density models; the central claim depends mainly on the assumed geometry (nearby vs. GC) and the foreground electron column.

free parameters (6)
  • Galactic disk emissivity parameters (thin+thick) = Table 1: A~5, R~7.8/5.7, alpha~1.9/0.15, Z=0.3/3.0
    Fitted to the Haslam 408 MHz map; they set the smooth disk background that the Loop I/NPS sits on and hence affect the contrast of the predicted arc.
  • Loop I/NPS emissivity parameters (r_L, Delta r_s, eps_s, eps_i) = SNRs: 0.22,0.02,129.7,0.001; GC: 7.8,2.5,1.37,0.26
    Fitted to the Haslam 408 MHz map after trimming the sphere; these determine the angular shape and brightness of the predicted arc at all frequencies.
  • Ad hoc trimming geometries = Ellipse axes (2rL,0.4rL,2rL); sphere radius rL at chosen center
    Chosen by hand to reproduce the observed loop's east-west asymmetry; they set the exact shape of the predicted arc.
  • Synchrotron spectral index beta_G = -2.51
    Adopted from Cong et al. (2021), a fit to 35-408 MHz maps; controls the frequency extrapolation of the intrinsic (unabsorbed) sky.
  • Loop shell electron densities plus filling factor and temperature = MCMC result (not tabulated); f_e=0.5, T_e=1e6 K
    Fitted to 14 HaloSat X-ray EM lines of sight; used only for the Loop's self-absorption, which the paper finds negligible.
  • Fluctuation parameter for NE2001/YMW16 = NE2001: 3.0; YMW16: 0.3
    Calibrated so the predicted global radio background spectrum matches observations; affects small-scale absorption patterns but not the large-scale b<30 degree cutoff.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The Loop I/NPS can be represented as a thin spherical shell with uniform shell and interior emissivity (Eq. 4), trimmed by ad hoc cuts to match 408 MHz morphology.
    This is the central morphological model; the authors state it is phenomenological and does not assume a physical origin.
  • domain assumption Galactic synchrotron emissivity follows a single power law in frequency with constant index beta_G (Eq. 1).
    Used to extrapolate from 408 MHz to 1-10 MHz; the authors discuss possible spectral-index variations and argue they do not change the conclusion, but do not model them in the main result.
  • domain assumption NE2001 and YMW16 models give the free-electron distribution of the Milky Way, including the foreground between the Sun and the GC.
    Both models are calibrated on pulsar dispersion measures; the b≈30 degree cutoff in the GC model is a direct consequence of the electron column they predict.
  • domain assumption The HaloSat emission measure is mainly from the Loop I/NPS even in the GC scenario.
    The authors write they 'naively assume' this; it affects only the Loop's self-absorption, which is shown to be small.
  • domain assumption The Haslam 408 MHz map, after subtracting free-free and extragalactic emission, is a faithful image of the Galactic synchrotron sky.
    Used as the fitting target for all emissivity parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Loop I/NPS morphology predictions in the ultralong-wavelength band." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PF7CKW5X

@misc{pith2026250100431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Loop I/NPS morphology predictions in the ultralong-wavelength band},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PF7CKW5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00431}
}
abstract

Loop I/North Polar Spur (NPS) is the giant arc structure above the Galactic plane observed at radio wavelengths ($\lesssim 10$ GHz). There has been long-standing debate about its origin. While many people believe that it black consists of nearby supernova remnants (SNRs), some others consider it as a giant bubble close to the Galactic Center (GC), associated with the Fermi Bubble and the eROSITA X-ray bubble. At ultra-long wavelengths (wavelength $\gtrsim 10$ m or frequency $\lesssim 30$ MHz), particularly below $\sim 10$ MHz, the free-free absorption of the radio signal by diffuse electrons in the interstellar medium (ISM) becomes significant, resulting in different sky morphologies from those at higher frequencies. In this paper, we develop emissivity models for the two Loop I/NPS origin scenarios, and predict the Loop I/NPS morphology at ultra-long wavelengths in both scenarios, taking into account the free-free absorption effect.We find that in the SNRs model, the full Loop I/NPS will still be a bright arc even at $\sim 1$ MHz. In the GC model, the arc is fully visible only above $\sim 3$ MHz. While below this frequency, it is visible only at Galactic latitudes $b\gtrsim 30\degree$; the $b\lesssim 30 \degree$ part becomes invisible due to the absorption by the ISM electrons between the GC and the Sun. The upcoming space missions aiming at ultra-long wavelengths, such as the DSL and the FARSIDE, can potentially distinguish these two scenarios and provide decisive information about the origin of the Loop I/NPS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00431 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Emissivity distributions at 408 MHz in Galactocentric coordinates for the two models of the Loop I/NPS: shell-like SNRs (left) and GC (right). The slices are in the X −Y plane (face-on, top), and the Y −Z plane (edge-on, bottom), respectively. 2.3. The electron density of the Loop I/NPS In order to model the free-free absorption by electrons at the ultra-long wavelengths, we adopt the NE2001 model for Galactic free … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top left: The Loop I/NPS structure and its vicinity in raw Haslam 408 MHz sky map, viewed in stereographic pro￾jection. Top right: Similar to top left panel, however the free-free emission and extragalactic background have been subtracted. Middle left: Our predicted Loop I/NPS and its vicinity at 408 MHz in stereographic projection, for the SNRs model. Middle right: Similar to the middle left panel, but the GC model… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Loop I/NPS electron density constructed from HaloSat observations for the shell-like SNRs (left) and GC model (right), respectively. From top to bottom, we plot the X ′ = 0, Y ′ = 0, and Z ′ = 0 planes, respectively, in the Loop I/NPS-centered coordinate frame and mark the Sun’s position of the projection in each panel. In the left panels, the Sun’s position is at (−0.196, 0.118, −0.072) kpc, while in the right … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The free-free absorption optical depth at 1 MHz. Left: the optical depth of the Loop I/NPS in the shell-like SNRs model. Right: the optical depth in the GC model. The top panels solely show the optical depth attributed to the Loop I/NPS itself, while the bottom panels …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The predicted sky maps at frequencies 10, 3, and 1 MHz (from top to bottom) respectively, for the shell-like SNRs model of the Loop I/NPS (left column) and the GC model (right column). We use the NE2001 model for the free electron distribution. If the Loop I/NPS is a n…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

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. Synthesis imaging with a lunar orbit array: I. global sky map and its systematics

    astro-ph.IM 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Pixel-averaging the beam matrix suppresses sub-pixel aliasing in all-sky synthesis imaging for the lunar orbit DSL array, but polar regions remain biased and the regularization parameter must be tuned per frequency.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 22 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 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]

    h hP \@D K5 A jdw.鮞sU > 3=Sߪz I DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD<

    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...

    2021

  4. [4]

    Baldwin , J. E. 1955, , 115, 684, 10.1093/mnras/115.6.684

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/115.6.684 1955

  5. [5]

    L., Larson , D., Weiland , J

    Bennett , C. L., Larson , D., Weiland , J. L., et al. 2013, , 208, 20, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20 2013

  6. [6]

    M., Haslam , C

    Berkhuijsen , E. M., Haslam , C. G. T., & Salter , C. J. 1971, , 14, 252

    1971

  7. [7]

    2007, , 376, 634, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11499.x

    Borka , V. 2007, , 376, 634, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11499.x

    arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    Breitschwerdt , D., & de Avillez , M. A. 2006, , 452, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361:20064989

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20064989 2006

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    F., Graham , & Wilkinson , P

    Burke , B. F., Graham , & Wilkinson , P. N. 2019, An introduction to radio astronomy, 4th edition ( Cambridge University Press )

    2019

  2. [10]

    O., & Hallinan , G

    Burns , J. O., & Hallinan , G. 2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 235, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#235, 130.01

    2020

  3. [11]

    1991, , 372, 494, 10.1086/169995

    Centurion , M., & Vladilo , G. 1991, , 372, 494, 10.1086/169995

    1991 doi

  4. [12]

    2021, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 379, 20190566, 10.1098/rsta.2019.0566

    Chen , X., Yan , J., Deng , L., et al. 2021, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 379, 20190566, 10.1098/rsta.2019.0566

    2021

  5. [13]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.16409, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.16409

    Chen , X., Gao , F., Wu , F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.16409, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.16409

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    1999, , 352, 447, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911078

    Ciotti , L., & Bertin , G. 1999, , 352, 447, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911078

    1999 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    J., & Ransom , S

    Condon , J. J., & Ransom , S. M. 2016, Essential Radio Astronomy

    2016

  8. [16]

    2021, , 914, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf55c

    Cong , Y., Yue , B., Xu , Y., et al. 2021, , 914, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf55c

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, , 940, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9df7

    Cong , Y., Yue , B., Xu , Y., Shi , Y., & Chen , X. 2022, , 940, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9df7

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    M., & Lazio , T

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

    2002 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2003, arXiv e-prints, astro

    ---. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro. astro-ph/0301598

    2003 arXiv

  12. [20]

    P., & Reynolds , R

    Cox , D. P., & Reynolds , R. J. 1987, , 25, 303, 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.001511

    1987

  13. [21]

    de Geus , E. J. 1992, , 262, 258

    1992

  14. [22]

    2018, Galaxies, 6, 56, 10.3390/galaxies6020056

    Dickinson , C. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 56, 10.3390/galaxies6020056

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    D., & Davis , R

    Dickinson , C., Davies , R. D., & Davis , R. J. 2003, , 341, 369, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06439.x

    2003

  16. [24]

    B., Schinzel , F

    Dowell , J., Taylor , G. B., Schinzel , F. K., Kassim , N. E., & Stovall , K. 2017, , 469, 4537, 10.1093/mnras/stx1136

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Anderson , M

    Eastwood , M. W., Anderson , M. M., Monroe , R. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 32, 10.3847/1538-3881/aac721

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    J., & Aschenbach , B

    Egger , R. J., & Aschenbach , B. 1995, , 294, L25, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9412086

    1995 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

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

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

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    E., May , J., Alvarez , H., & Maeda , K

    Guzm \'a n , A. E., May , J., Alvarez , H., & Maeda , K. 2011, , 525, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913628

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Reynolds , R

    Haffner , L. M., Reynolds , R. J., Tufte , S. L., et al. 2003, , 149, 405, 10.1086/378850

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    D., & Hazard , C

    Hanbury Brown , R., Davies , R. D., & Hazard , C. 1960, The Observatory, 80, 191

    1960

  23. [31]

    Haslam , C. G. T., Salter , C. J., Stoffel , H., & Wilson , W. E. 1982, , 47, 1

    1982

  24. [32]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 989511, 10.1007/s11433-018-9333-1

    Huang , Q., Wu , F., & Chen , X. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 989511, 10.1007/s11433-018-9333-1

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    T., Jagannathan , P., Mooley , K

    Intema , H. T., Jagannathan , P., Mooley , K. P., & Frail , D. A. 2017, , 598, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628536

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    O., Bull , P., Santos , M

    Irfan , M. O., Bull , P., Santos , M. G., et al. 2022, , 509, 4923, 10.1093/mnras/stab3346

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    1980, , 239, 316, 10.1086/158113

    Iwan , D. 1980, , 239, 316, 10.1086/158113

    1980 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, , 958, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0374

    Iwashita , R., Kataoka , J., & Sofue , Y. 2023, , 958, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0374

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Jansson , R., & Farrar , G. R. 2012, , 757, 14, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/14

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    M., et al

    Kaaret , P., Zajczyk , A., LaRocca , D. M., et al. 2019, , 884, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4193

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2018, Galaxies, 6, 27, 10.3390/galaxies6010027

    Kataoka , J., Sofue , Y., Inoue , Y., et al. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 27, 10.3390/galaxies6010027

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, Comptes Rendus Physique, 23, 1, 10.5802/crphys.97

    Lallement , R. 2023, Comptes Rendus Physique, 23, 1, 10.5802/crphys.97

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    2018, , 616, A132, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832832

    Lallement , R., Capitanio , L., Ruiz-Dern , L., et al. 2018, , 616, A132, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832832

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    L., & Wielebinski , R

    Landecker , T. L., & Wielebinski , R. 1970, Australian Journal of Physics Astrophysical Supplement, 16, 1

    1970

  35. [43]

    I., Quigley , M

    Large , M. I., Quigley , M. F. S., & Haslam , C. G. T. 1966, , 131, 335, 10.1093/mnras/131.3.335

    1966 doi

  36. [44]

    I., Quigley , M

    Large , M. I., Quigley , M. J. S., & Haslam , C. G. T. 1962, , 124, 405, 10.1093/mnras/124.5.405

    1962 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Kaaret , P., Kuntz , K

    LaRocca , D. M., Kaaret , P., Kuntz , K. D., et al. 2020 a , , 904, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbdfd

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Kaaret , P., Kirchner , D

    LaRocca , D. M., Kaaret , P., Kirchner , D. L., et al. 2020 b , Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.6.1.014003

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, , 967, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad47e0

    Liu , T., Merloni , A., Sanders , J., et al. 2024, , 967, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad47e0

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Courteau , S., & Holtzman , J

    MacArthur , L. A., Courteau , S., & Holtzman , J. A. 2003, , 582, 689, 10.1086/344506

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    2013, , 2013, 041, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/06/041

    Mertsch , P., & Sarkar , S. 2013, , 2013, 041, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/06/041

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    2023 a , , 676, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245401

    Mou , G., Wu , J., & Sofue , Y. 2023 a , , 676, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245401

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2023 b , Nature Communications, 14, 781, 10.1038/s41467-023-36478-0

    Mou , G., Sun , D., Fang , T., et al. 2023 b , Nature Communications, 14, 781, 10.1038/s41467-023-36478-0

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2021, , 651, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140799

    Padovani , M., Bracco , A., Jeli \'c , V., Galli , D., & Bellomi , E. 2021, , 651, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140799

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    V., Dickinson , C., Readhead , A

    Panopoulou , G. V., Dickinson , C., Readhead , A. C. S., Pearson , T. J., & Peel , M. W. 2021, , 922, 210, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac273f

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    2015, , 801, 138, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/138

    Patra , N., Subrahmanyan , R., Sethi , S., Udaya Shankar , N., & Raghunathan , A. 2015, , 801, 138, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/138

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016 a , , 594, A25, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526803

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    Planck Collaboration , Adam , R., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2016 b , , 594, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525967

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    2020, , 641, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Becker , W., et al

    Predehl , P., Sunyaev , R. A., Becker , W., et al. 2020, , 588, 227, 10.1038/s41586-020-2979-0

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    Quigley, M. J. S., & Haslam, C. G. T. 1965, Nature, 208, 741. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4205652

    1965

  52. [60]

    1986, , 63, 205

    Reich , P., & Reich , W. 1986, , 63, 205

    1986

  53. [61]

    2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Reich , W., & Reich , P. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 259, Cosmic Magnetic Fields: From Planets, to Stars and Galaxies, ed. K. G. Strassmeier , A. G. Kosovichev , & J. E. Beckman , 603--612, 10.1017/S1743921309031433

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    Reis , W., & Corradi , W. J. B. 2008, , 486, 471, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077946

    2008 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Bigot-Sazy , M

    Remazeilles , M., Dickinson , C., Banday , A. J., Bigot-Sazy , M. A., & Ghosh , T. 2015, , 451, 4311, 10.1093/mnras/stv1274

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    S., Costain , C

    Roger , R. S., Costain , C. H., Landecker , T. L., & Swerdlyk , C. M. 1999, , 137, 7, 10.1051/aas:1999239

    1999 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Korpela , E

    Sallmen , S. M., Korpela , E. J., & Yamashita , H. 2008, , 681, 1310, 10.1086/588802

    2008 doi

  58. [66]

    P., Corradi , W., & Reis , W

    Santos , F. P., Corradi , W., & Reis , W. 2011, , 728, 104, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/104

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    Sarkar , K. C. 2019, , 482, 4813, 10.1093/mnras/sty2944

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Kogut , A., et al

    Seiffert , M., Fixsen , D. J., Kogut , A., et al. 2011, , 734, 6, 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/6

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    Sersic , J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    1968

  62. [70]

    2018, Galaxies, 6, 62, 10.3390/galaxies6020062

    Shchekinov , Y. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 62, 10.3390/galaxies6020062

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    1977, , 60, 327

    Sofue , Y. 1977, , 60, 327

    1977

  64. [72]

    1994, , 431, L91, 10.1086/187480

    ---. 1994, , 431, L91, 10.1086/187480

    1994 doi

  65. [73]

    2000, , 540, 224, 10.1086/309297

    ---. 2000, , 540, 224, 10.1086/309297

    2000 doi

  66. [74]

    2015, , 447, 3824, 10.1093/mnras/stu2661

    ---. 2015, , 447, 3824, 10.1093/mnras/stu2661

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    2017, , 69, L8, 10.1093/pasj/psx067

    ---. 2017, , 69, L8, 10.1093/pasj/psx067

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    2016, , 459, 108, 10.1093/mnras/stw623

    Sofue , Y., Habe , A., Kataoka , J., et al. 2016, , 459, 108, 10.1093/mnras/stw623

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    1974, , 26, 399

    Sofue , Y., Hamajima , K., & Fujimoto , M. 1974, , 26, 399

    1974

  70. [78]

    2023, , 524, 4212, 10.1093/mnras/stad1985

    Sofue , Y., Kataoka , J., & Iwashita , R. 2023, , 524, 4212, 10.1093/mnras/stad1985

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    R., & Finkbeiner , D

    Su , M., Slatyer , T. R., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2010, , 724, 1044, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1044

    2010 doi

  72. [80]

    H., Reich , W., Waelkens , A., & En lin , T

    Sun , X. H., Reich , W., Waelkens , A., & En lin , T. A. 2008, , 477, 573, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078671

    2008 doi

  73. [81]

    H., Landecker , T

    Sun , X. H., Landecker , T. L., Gaensler , B. M., et al. 2015, , 811, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/40

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    D., & Leahy , J

    Vidal , M., Dickinson , C., Davies , R. D., & Leahy , J. P. 2015, , 452, 656, 10.1093/mnras/stv1328

    2015 doi

  75. [83]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 77, 10.3390/galaxies11030077

    Vieira , K., Korchagin , V., Carraro , G., & Lutsenko , A. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 77, 10.3390/galaxies11030077

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    2007, , 664, 349, 10.1086/518711

    Wolleben , M. 2007, , 664, 349, 10.1086/518711

    2007 doi

  77. [85]

    M., Manchester , R

    Yao , J. M., Manchester , R. N., & Wang , N. 2017, , 835, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    2017 doi

  78. [86]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1416, 10.1038/s41550-024-02362-0

    Zhang , H.-S., Ponti , G., Carretti , E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1416, 10.1038/s41550-024-02362-0

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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