Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 61 references

The GeV $\gamma$-ray emission from the composite SNR CTB 87

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fermi data split CTB 87's gamma-ray glow into two sources, linking the hard one to a pulsar wind nebula.

desk verdict A credible Fermi-LAT analysis that finds a hard GeV companion to VER J2016+371, but the two-source decomposition needs a single-source log-parabola baseline before the claim is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03794 v1 pith:ZNNW4SKX submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.HE

Yuliang Xin , Jian Tang , Weixiong Ding , Xi Liu , Yunfeng Zhang , Xiaolei Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayastronomysupernovaremnantspulsarwindnebulaeFermi-LATCTB87VERJ2016+371molecularcloudsleptonicmodeling
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

The paper analyzes more than 16 years of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data toward the composite supernova remnant CTB 87 and finds evidence for two separate point sources where the catalog lists one. A soft-spectrum source, PsA, is attributed to the SNR shock interacting with molecular clouds, while a hard-spectrum source, PsB, connects smoothly to the TeV spectrum of VER J2016+371 and is identified as its GeV counterpart. The authors propose that VER J2016+371 is powered by the pulsar wind nebula around PSR J2016+3711 and show that a simple leptonic model with a broken power-law electron distribution can explain the radio-to-TeV emission. This matters because it assigns a physical origin to a previously unclassified TeV source and demonstrates how energy-resolved Fermi analysis can pull apart overlapping gamma-ray components.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is an energy-resolved likelihood analysis in which Fermi-LAT data are split into a low band (1-30 GeV) and a high band (30 GeV-1 TeV) and fitted separately, exposing two point-source positions separated by only 0.016 degrees yet with clearly different spectral indices. Because the positions are far below the LAT point-spread function, the two-source decomposition rests on this spectral-index contrast and on a model comparison via the Akaike information criterion. The physical interpretation is carried by a one-zone leptonic model: a broken power-law electron spectrum simultaneously fits the synchrotron radio/X-ray emission and the inverse-Compton gamma-ray emission of VER J2016+371.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same Fermi-LAT data that fits a single log-parabola source over 1 GeV to 1 TeV and finds a likelihood within about 5 units of the two-source model would falsify the PsA/PsB decomposition; a future high-resolution TeV observation resolving VER J2016+371 as an extended source with no point-like GeV counterpart would also contradict the identification of PsB as its counterpart.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the gamma-ray emission once cataloged as a single source, 4FGL J2016.2+3712, actually consists of two point sources with distinctly different spectra. In the 1-30 GeV band the dominant source PsA has a soft power-law index of 2.473, whereas in the 30 GeV-1 TeV band the source PsB has a hard index of 1.396; the two-source model is favored over the single-source model by an AIC difference of about -9.6. The soft component aligns with molecular clouds traced by CO emission and is modeled as hadronic emission from SNR shock-cloud interaction, while the hard component aligns with the TeV spectrum of VER J2016+371, making PsB the GeV counterpart and pointing to a pulsar wind nebula origin. A leptonic one-zone model with a broken power-law electron distribution (break near 9 GeV, magnetic field near 7 microgauss) reproduces the radio, X-ray, and gamma-ray data, with parameters typical of gamma-ray PWNe.

Load-bearing premise

The hard source PsB is a genuinely separate gamma-ray emitter rather than a spectral-curvature artifact of the softer source or a leftover of the Galactic diffuse model, since the two positions are only 0.016 degrees apart, far below Fermi-LAT's point-spread function.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the two-source decomposition holds, VER J2016+371 is the GeV-to-TeV counterpart of the pulsar wind nebula around PSR J2016+3711, adding a mature (about 11 kyr) PWN to the small sample with both GeV and TeV spectra.
  • PsA, with its soft spectrum and molecular-cloud association, becomes a clear case of hadronic gamma-ray emission from SNR shock-cloud interaction in a composite system that also hosts a PWN.
  • The leptonic model's parameters (magnetic field about 7 microgauss, electron energy about 7.8e48 erg, conversion efficiency about 9%) imply that the pulsar's rotational energy budget is sufficient to power the observed nebula.
  • Subsequent TeV observations by the next generation of Cherenkov telescopes can directly test the model by measuring the TeV spectrum and morphology, which should continue smoothly from the GeV band if PsB is the counterpart.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue is to test whether a single log-parabola source plus the existing diffuse backgrounds can fit the full 1 GeV-1 TeV data as well as the two-point-source model; if it can, the PsA/PsB split would be an artifact of spectral curvature rather than two physical sources.
  • Because the two source positions are only 0.016 degrees apart, the decomposition is essentially statistical; a future reanalysis with the same data but a different Galactic diffuse background template would show how robust the two-source conclusion is.
  • The same energy-split technique could be applied to other composite SNRs or unidentified Fermi sources where a single catalog source shows a curved spectrum, potentially revealing hidden PWNe.
  • If future TeV observations resolve VER J2016+371 as extended, the point-like assumption for PsB would need revision, and the GeV-to-TeV connection would then constrain the PWN's magnetic field profile rather than a one-zone model.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 16 years of Fermi-LAT Pass 8 data toward the composite SNR CTB 87 and claims the detection of two distinct GeV point sources in the direction of the catalog source 4FGL J2016.2+3712: a soft source (PsA, power-law index ~2.9) attributed to SNR–molecular-cloud interaction, and a hard source (PsB, index ~1.7) proposed as the GeV counterpart of the TeV source VER J2016+371, suggesting a pulsar wind nebula origin. The authors also present a one-zone leptonic model for the multi-wavelength SED of VER J2016+371 and a hadronic model for PsA. The central claim is the two-source decomposition, based on an energy-dependent spectral-index change and a small positional offset between the 1–30 GeV and 30 GeV–1 TeV fits.

Significance. If the two-source decomposition is real, the identification of PsB as the GeV counterpart of VER J2016+371 would strengthen the PWN interpretation of the TeV source and add a well-studied composite system to the growing sample of GeV-TeV PWNe. The paper makes good use of a long Fermi dataset, the recent pulsar discovery (PSR J2016+3711), and standard likelihood tools. The SED modeling is clearly labeled as a fit rather than a prediction, and the authors explicitly note the degeneracies in some parameters (e.g., the proton cutoff energy). The main scientific value hinges on the robustness of the two-source model, which is not fully tested in the current manuscript.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2, Table 2] The two-source model is not compared against a single-source curved spectral model. The AIC comparison in Table 2 is between a single power-law (Model 1) and two power-laws (Model 2), and the log-parabola test in §2.3 is applied only to PsA and PsB after the split, not to the original 4FGL J2016.2+3712 as a single source. Because the two positions are separated by only 0.016 deg, well within their 1σ uncertainties, the two sources are not spatially resolved, and a single source with a curved spectrum (e.g., a log-parabola or an exponentially cutoff power law) could plausibly produce a hard high-energy tail that mimics PsB. The authors should fit a single curved source to the full 1 GeV–1 TeV band and compare its fit quality with the two-power-law model using an information criterion or a likelihood ratio test with the correct degrees of freedom. Without this baseline, the claim that PsB is a distinct hard source is not established.
  2. [§2.2, Table 2] The statistical significance of the spectral-index difference between the low- and high-energy bands is not quantified. The indices 2.574 ± 0.138 (1–30 GeV) and 1.394 ± 0.343 (30 GeV–1 TeV) differ by about 1.18, corresponding to roughly 3.2σ when errors are combined, which is marginal evidence for an additional hard component. The authors should report a significance estimate for this difference, for example by fitting a single power-law plus a broken power-law or by performing a likelihood ratio test of one source versus two sources with a common position. As written, the statement that "different spectra suggest two different components" rests on an effect that is not overwhelming, and the TS of PsB (~29, about 5σ) alone does not distinguish between a separate source and spectral curvature of a single source.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The values of -log(Likelihood) in Table 2 are negative, which is unconventional; the text should state the sign convention used in the AIC calculation to avoid confusion.
  2. [Figure 4] The GeV spectrum of PsB is not shown in Figure 4, even though the text argues that it smoothly connects to the TeV spectrum of VER J2016+371; adding the PsB data points would help the reader judge the continuity.
  3. [§2.2] The extension test is described qualitatively; the paper should provide the likelihood ratios or the limits on the Gaussian width for PsA and PsB to allow the reader to verify the point-source assumption.
  4. [§3] The distance of 6.1 kpc is adopted, but the earlier 12 kpc estimate is mentioned in the introduction; a brief note on how the derived energy budgets and luminosities scale with distance would improve the paper.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase "more than 16 yrs PASS 8 data" is slightly awkward; "more than 16 yr of PASS 8 data" is more natural.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-source decomposition is a model comparison and the SED models are explicitly fits, not predictions.

full rationale

This paper's derivation chain is not circular. The two-source identification rests on an AIC comparison between a single-source and a two-source model (Section 2.2, Table 2), and the claimed spectral difference is an empirical result from independent fits in two energy bands; the subsequent association of PsB with VER J2016+371 is a cross-instrument positional and spectral comparison, not a construct of the model. The leptonic and hadronic models are explicitly described as fits (e.g., 'the break energy of electrons is fitted to be about 9 GeV', 'a magnetic field strength of ~7 microG and a total energy of electrons above 1 GeV of 7.8e48 erg are required'), and the paper never presents the SED models as predictions. Self-citations (e.g., Liu et al. 2024b for typical PWN magnetic fields) are used only as external comparison values, not as load-bearing justifications. The absence of a single-source log-parabola baseline in Section 2.2 is a statistical robustness limitation that could affect the two-source claim, but it is not a case of a result reducing to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central identification of PsB as the GeV counterpart of VER J2016+371 relies on the two-source spectral decomposition, which assumes the standard Fermi-LAT background model and the PWN interpretation of the radio and X-ray nebula. The leptonic and hadronic SED models introduce ten or more fitted or adopted parameters (break energies, indices, fields, densities, distance); the paper labels them as fitted rather than predicted, so they are free parameters of the interpretation, not independent validations.

free parameters (10)
  • PsA spectral index = 2.902 ± 0.109
    Power-law index of the soft GeV component, fitted to 1 GeV-1 TeV Fermi-LAT data (Table 2, Model 2).
  • PsB spectral index = 1.689 ± 0.232
    Power-law index of the hard GeV component, fitted to 1 GeV-1 TeV Fermi-LAT data (Table 2, Model 2).
  • Proton spectral index (alpha_p) = ~2.9
    Fitted to the PsA gamma-ray spectrum under the hadronic model (Section 3).
  • Proton cutoff energy (E_p,cut) = 1 TeV
    Set by hand to reproduce the PsA SED; the paper states this value is not well constrained (Section 3).
  • Gas density (n_gas) = 40 cm^-3
    Adopted from a rough estimate by Liu et al. (2018) for the eastern edge of CTB 87 and applied to the whole PsA region (Section 3).
  • Distance (d) = 6.1 kpc
    Adopted from Kothes et al. (2003); an earlier HI-absorption estimate of 12 kpc is noted in the introduction.
  • Electron break energy (E_br) = ~9 GeV
    Fitted to reproduce the radio spectral steepening above about 11 GHz in the leptonic model (Section 3).
  • Electron spectral indices (gamma_1, gamma_2) = ~1.5, ~2.8
    Fitted to the low-frequency radio and the high-frequency radio plus hard X-ray data, respectively (Section 3).
  • Electron cutoff energy (E_e,cut) = > 400 TeV
    Lower bound required to produce the observed hard X-rays; quoted without a precise fitted value (Section 3).
  • Magnetic field (B) = ~7 uG
    Chosen or required to match the radio and X-ray synchrotron fluxes in the leptonic model (Section 3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Fermi-LAT Pass 8 SOURCE-class events with the P8R3_SOURCE_V3 IRF and the standard Galactic and isotropic diffuse models provide an unbiased description of the gamma-ray sky in this ROI.
    Invoked in Section 2.1; the analysis trusts the instrument response and diffuse background models.
  • domain assumption The radio and non-thermal X-ray emission of CTB 87 is dominated by the pulsar wind nebula rather than the SNR shell.
    Taken from Matheson et al. (2013), Guest et al. (2020), and Kothes et al. (2020); used in Section 3 to justify the leptonic PWN model for VER J2016+371.
  • domain assumption The electron population in the PWN follows a broken power law with an exponential cutoff.
    Standard PWN SED modeling form (Bucciantini et al. 2011), assumed in Section 3 to fit the multi-wavelength data.
  • domain assumption The gamma-ray emission from PsA is produced by hadronic pp interactions with a power-law proton spectrum and exponential cutoff.
    Assumed in Section 3; supported by the presence of molecular clouds but not independently verified by this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The GeV $\gamma$-ray emission from the composite SNR CTB 87." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZNNW4SKX

@misc{pith2026250203794,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The GeV $\gamma$-ray emission from the composite SNR CTB 87},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZNNW4SKX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03794}
}
abstract

We report the GeV $\gamma$-ray emission around the composite supernova remnant (SNR) CTB 87 with more than 16 yrs PASS 8 data recorded by the Fermi Large Area Telescope. Two separate point sources with the different GeV spectra are identified in this region: one has a soft $\gamma$-ray spectrum, likely due to interactions between the SNR shock and molecular clouds (MCs); and another source with a hard GeV $\gamma$-ray spectrum aligns with the TeV spectrum of VER J2016+371, suggesting it as the GeV counterpart. Considering the observations of CTB 87 in the radio and X-ray bands, VER J2016+371 is proposed to originate from the pulsar wind nebula (PWN) associated with PSR J2016+3711. A leptonic model with a broken power-law electron distribution could explain the multi-wavelength data of VER J2016+371, with fitted parameters matching typical $\gamma$-ray PWNe. Deeper searching for the SNR shock of CTB 87 in other bands and the future TeV observations by LHAASO and CTA are crucial to reveal the nature of CTB 87.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03794 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 4 ◦ .0 × 4 ◦ .0 TS map in the energy range of 1 GeV - 1 TeV by subtracting the emission from 4FGL-DR4 sources and the diffuse backgrounds. The red pluses mark the sources in the 4FGL-DR4 catalog, and 4FGL J2016.2+3712 and 4FGL J2015.5+3710 are shown as the green and white crosses, respectively. The best-fit positions of three newly added point sources are indicated as the cyan pluses, with the 1σ uncertainty of each… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 1 ◦ .0 × 1 ◦ .0 TS maps in the energy range of 1 - 30 GeV (top) and 30 GeV - 1 TeV (bottom). The cyan (black) solid circle indicates the best-fit position of PsA (PsB) in the energy range of 1 - 30 GeV (30 GeV - 1 TeV) with a 68% uncertainty radius. The X-ray emission region of CTB 87 observed by Chandra is shown as the magenta dashed ellipse (Matheson et al. 2013). The blue plus marks the position of PSR J2016+3711… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SEDs of PsA (gray dots) and PsB (red dots) in the energy range of 1 GeV − 1 TeV with the corresponding colored histogram shown as the TS value for each energy bin. The arrows indicate the 95% upper limits for the energy bin with TS value smaller than 5.0. The solid and dashed lines show the global best-fit power-law spectrum and its 1σ statistic error for PsA and PsB in the energy range of 1 GeV − 1 TeV. The green a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The multi-wavelength SED of VER J2016+371 with the leptonic model and PsA with hadronic model. The radio data marked by the magenta dots are from Dickel & DeNoyer (1975); Duin et al. (1975); Weiler & Shaver (1978); Geldzahler et al. (1980); Morsi & Reich (1987); Pineau…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2010, , 714, 927, 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/927

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/1/927 2010

  2. [2]

    2020, , 247, 33, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    Abdollahi , S., Acero , F., Ackermann , M., et al. 2020, , 247, 33, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  3. [3]

    Cosmic-ray acceleration and escape from supernova remnant W44 as probed by Fermi-LAT and MAGIC

    Abe , S., Abhir , J., Abhishek , A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03889. 2501.03889

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    U., Alfaro , R., Alvarez , C., et al

    Abeysekara , A. U., Alfaro , R., Alvarez , C., et al. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 50, 26, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.08.002

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.08.002 2013

  5. [5]

    U., Archer , A., Aune , T., et al

    Abeysekara , A. U., Archer , A., Aune , T., et al. 2018, , 861, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a2 2018

  6. [6]

    2013, , 773, 77, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/77

    Acero , F., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2013, , 773, 77, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/77

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/77 2013

  7. [7]

    2013, Science, 339, 807, 10.1126/science.1231160

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2013, Science, 339, 807, 10.1126/science.1231160

    doi:10.1126/science.1231160 2013

  8. [8]

    G., Aye , K

    Aharonian , F., Akhperjanian , A. G., Aye , K. M., et al. 2004, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 109, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.06.006

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.06.006 2004

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    Akaike , H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    1974

  2. [10]

    A., et al

    Aleksi \'c , J., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L. A., et al. 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 61, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.04.004

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2014, , 788, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/78

    Aliu , E., Aune , T., Behera , B., et al. 2014, , 788, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/78

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    1934, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 20, 259, 10.1073/pnas.20.5.259

    Baade , W., & Zwicky , F. 1934, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 20, 259, 10.1073/pnas.20.5.259

    1934 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet , J., Bruel , P., Burnett , T. H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration . 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02773

    Cao , Z., della Volpe , D., Liu , S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02773. 1905.02773

    2019

  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]

    S., Taam , R

    Cheng , K. S., Taam , R. E., & Wang , W. 2006, , 641, 427, 10.1086/500345

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Agudo , I., et al

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium , Acharya , B. S., Agudo , I., et al. 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array , 10.1142/10986

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    de Jager , O. C. 2008, , 678, L113, 10.1086/588283

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    R., & DeNoyer , L

    Dickel , J. R., & DeNoyer , L. K. 1975, , 80, 437, 10.1086/111760

    1975 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Israel , F

    Duin , R. M., Israel , F. P., Dickel , J. R., & Seaquist , E. R. 1975, , 38, 461

    1975

  14. [22]

    M., & Slane , P

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

    2006 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J., Pauls , T., & Salter , C

    Geldzahler , B. J., Pauls , T., & Salter , C. J. 1980, , 84, 237

    1980

  16. [24]

    Green , D. A. 2009, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 37, 45, 10.48550/arXiv.0905.3699

    2009 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    A., & Gull , S

    Green , D. A., & Gull , S. F. 1989, , 237, 555, 10.1093/mnras/237.3.555

    1989 doi

  18. [26]

    2020, , 491, 3013, 10.1093/mnras/stz3270

    Guest , B., Safi-Harb , S., MacMaster , A., et al. 2020, , 491, 3013, 10.1093/mnras/stz3270

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Abramowski , A., et al. 2018, , 612, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629377

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Gotthelf , E

    Helfand , D. J., Gotthelf , E. V., & Halpern , J. P. 2001, , 556, 380, 10.1086/321533

    2001 doi

  21. [29]

    W., Badran , H

    Holder , J., Atkins , R. W., Badran , H. M., et al. 2006, Astroparticle Physics, 25, 391, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.04.002

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    Hurley-Walker , N., Scaife , A. M. M., Green , D. A., et al. 2009, , 396, 365, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14583.x

    2009

  23. [31]

    P., Ipatov , A

    Ivanov , V. P., Ipatov , A. V., Rahimov , I. A., & Andreeva , T. S. 2023, Astronomy Reports, 67, 963, 10.1134/S1063772923100062

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2016, , 816, 100, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/100

    Jogler , T., & Funk , S. 2016, , 816, 100, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/100

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    2013, in The Universe Evolution: Astrophysical and Nuclear Aspects

    Kargaltsev , O., Rangelov , B., & Pavlov , G. 2013, in The Universe Evolution: Astrophysical and Nuclear Aspects. Edited by I. Strakovsky and L. Blokhintsev. Nova Science Publishers, 359--406, 10.48550/arXiv.1305.2552

    2013 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    J., & Uyan ker , B

    Kothes , R., Fedotov , K., Foster , T. J., & Uyan ker , B. 2006, , 457, 1081, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065062

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    2003, , 588, 852, 10.1086/374219

    Kothes , R., Reich , W., Foster , T., & Byun , D.-Y. 2003, , 588, 852, 10.1086/374219

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    2020, , 496, 723, 10.1093/mnras/staa1573

    Kothes , R., Reich , W., Safi-Harb , S., et al. 2020, , 496, 723, 10.1093/mnras/staa1573

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    V., et al

    Koyama , K., Petre , R., Gotthelf , E. V., et al. 1995, , 378, 255, 10.1038/378255a0

    1995 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, , 859, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfe1

    Liu , Q.-C., Chen , Y., Chen , B.-Q., et al. 2018, , 859, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfe1

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2024 a , , 528, 6761, 10.1093/mnras/stae351

    Liu , Q.-C., Zhong , W.-J., Chen , Y., et al. 2024 a , , 528, 6761, 10.1093/mnras/stae351

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 6, 19, 10.1007/s41614-022-00080-6

    Liu , S., Zeng , H., Xin , Y., & Zhang , Y. 2022, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 6, 19, 10.1007/s41614-022-00080-6

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, , 942, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca96b

    Liu , X., Guo , X., Xin , Y., Zhu , F., & Liu , S. 2023, , 942, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca96b

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2024 b , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 075016, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad50b7

    Liu , Y.-M., Zeng , H.-D., Xin , Y.-L., Liu , S.-M., & Zhang , Y. 2024 b , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 075016, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad50b7

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2013, , 774, 33, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/33

    Matheson , H., Safi-Harb , S., & Kothes , R. 2013, , 774, 33, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/33

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    2009, , 694, 12, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/12

    Mattana , F., Falanga , M., G \"o tz , D., et al. 2009, , 694, 12, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/12

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    W., & Reich , W

    Morsi , H. W., & Reich , W. 1987, , 69, 533

    1987

  38. [46]

    1990, , 246, 169

    Pineault , S., & Chastenay , P. 1990, , 246, 169

    1990

  39. [47]

    Principe , G., Mitchell , A. M. W., Caroff , S., et al. 2020, , 640, A76, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038375

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    2022, , 668, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244741

    Reich , W., Reich , P., & Kothes , R. 2022, , 668, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244741

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    2016, , 460, 3563, 10.1093/mnras/stw1255

    Saha , L. 2016, , 460, 3563, 10.1093/mnras/stw1255

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Reynolds , S

    Salter , C. J., Reynolds , S. P., Hogg , D. E., Payne , J. M., & Rhodes , P. J. 1989, , 338, 171, 10.1086/167191

    1989 doi

  43. [51]

    2011, , 727, 38, 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/38

    Shibata , T., Ishikawa , T., & Sekiguchi , S. 2011, , 727, 38, 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/38

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    H., Reich , P., Reich , W., et al

    Sun , X. H., Reich , P., Reich , W., et al. 2011, , 536, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117693

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    F., Cillis , A., Mart \' n , J., & de O \ n a Wilhelmi , E

    Torres , D. F., Cillis , A., Mart \' n , J., & de O \ n a Wilhelmi , E. 2014, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 1, 31, 10.1016/j.jheap.2014.02.001

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Landecker , T

    Wallace , B. J., Landecker , T. L., Taylor , A. R., & Pineault , S. 1997, , 317, 212

    1997

  47. [55]

    W., & Shaver , P

    Weiler , K. W., & Shaver , P. A. 1978, , 70, 389

    1978

  48. [56]

    J., Higgs , L

    Wendker , H. J., Higgs , L. A., & Landecker , T. L. 1991, , 241, 551

    1991

  49. [57]

    2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Wood , M., Caputo , R., Charles , E., et al. 2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 301, 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017), 824. 1707.09551

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Zabalza , V. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 34, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 922. 1509.03319

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    2019, , 874, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf392

    Zeng , H., Xin , Y., & Liu , S. 2019, , 874, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf392

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    2023, , 268, 61, 10.3847/1538-4365/acee7f

    Zhou , X., Su , Y., Yang , J., et al. 2023, , 268, 61, 10.3847/1538-4365/acee7f

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2018, , 609, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629108

    Zhu , B.-T., Zhang , L., & Fang , J. 2018, , 609, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629108

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.