Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

The main jet axis of the W49B supernova remnant

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper identifies a main jet axis in the supernova remnant W49B, defined by two opposite ears and clumps, and interprets three central X-ray arcs as fragments of circum-jet rings, a finding incompatible with a type Ia supernova.

desk verdict A clearly stated, honest morphological conjecture about W49B's jet axis and circum-jet rings, but the load-bearing identifications are visual and unquantified, and the abstract's incompatibility claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09543 v3 pith:NYLRCO7G submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.HE

Noam Soker , Dmitry Shishkin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovaremnantW49Bjetaxiscircum-jetringscore-collapsetypeIaX-raymorphologyjitteringjetsexplosionmechanism
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 tries to establish that the supernova remnant W49B was shaped by a pair of jets, identifying the line between two opposite radio ears as the main jet axis and three central X-ray arcs as fragments of rings around that axis. If true, this rules out a type Ia supernova for W49B, because type Ia explosions do not produce jets. Instead, the remnant would be a core-collapse supernova exploded by jets, or a common envelope jet supernova with a thermonuclear outburst. This matters because W49B has been contested between type Ia and core-collapse interpretations, and a morphological jet axis would decide the debate by direct image inspection rather than element abundances alone.

What carries the argument

The main jet axis is defined by two radio ears and the dense X-ray clumps at their tips, which the paper interprets as jet-inflated structures. The three bright X-ray arcs near the center are identified as fragments of circum-jet rings, meaning rings that once encircled the jet axis. These arcs carry the argument because they connect W49B morphologically to objects with known active or recent jets, such as Cygnus A, where degrading the image to W49B-like sensitivity leaves only arcs and opposite clumps visible.

What would settle it

A deep X-ray spectroscopic map of W49B could measure Doppler velocities of the three arcs and test whether they expand from a common center lying on the proposed axis; if the arcs have different expansion centers or no kinematic link to the line between the two clumps, the circum-jet ring interpretation would be falsified. Likewise, if the southwest ear and its clump show no heavy-element enhancement or distinct kinematic signature relative to surrounding ejecta, the jet-inflation assumption would lose support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that W49B contains morphological signatures of a pair of jets that operated during the explosion: a heavy-element-rich protrusion in the southwest, an opposite ear to the northeast, and a clump at each ear's tip. The line connecting the two clumps is the main jet axis, offset about four degrees counterclockwise from an earlier speculated axis. Three bright X-ray arcs near the center are argued to be partial views of complete circum-jet rings, analogous to rings seen in Cygnus A, planetary nebulae, and the supernova remnant 0540-69.3. Because type Ia supernovae do not produce jets, the presence of these signatures is incompatible with a type Ia interpretation; the paper leaves two jet-involving explosion scenarios: core collapse via jittering jets, or a common envelope jet supernova with a thermonuclear outburst.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two ears were inflated by jets from the explosion itself, rather than carved into the surrounding circumstellar medium before or during the blast, and the paper states this is assumed rather than proven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the identification holds, W49B joins the class of remnants shaped by jets, with a main jet axis that is roughly north-south and offset by four degrees from earlier speculation.
  • The type Ia supernova interpretation for W49B would be excluded, leaving a core-collapse explosion via jittering jets or a common envelope jet supernova with thermonuclear outburst as the viable options.
  • The arcs being circum-jet rings implies jets were active near the center and have since vanished, similar to planetary nebulae where jet signatures survive long after the jets stop.
  • The pair of jets that inflated the ears supplied only a fraction of the explosion energy, so the rest must come from additional jet pairs or from nuclear burning.
  • The comparison with a degraded Cygnus A image supports the idea that partial ring arcs and opposite clumps can be the only visible jet signatures in lower-sensitivity observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the ring interpretation predicts that proper-motion or Doppler measurements of the three arcs should show expansion from a common center lying on the proposed jet axis, a testable prediction for future X-ray spectroscopy.
  • Beyond the paper: the same method of degrading a bright jetted system and comparing morphologies could be applied to other barrel-shaped supernova remnants to screen for hidden jet axes.
  • Beyond the paper: if the ears were pre-existing circumstellar cavities rather than jet-inflated structures, the axis identification loses its anchor; this could be tested by searching for jet-shocked heavy-element enrichment in the southwest ear.
  • Beyond the paper: the authors leave ring-formation simulations to future work, and a three-dimensional simulation of repeated jet pulses in the same direction into a smooth core would show whether multiple circum-jet rings form naturally.
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 re-examines X-ray and radio images of the supernova remnant W49B and proposes that a line connecting two radio 'ears' (with X-ray clumps at their tips) is the main jet axis of the remnant. The authors identify three bright X-ray arcs near the centre as sections of full circum-jet rings, comparing them to rings seen in SNR 0540-69.3, two planetary nebulae, and Cygnus A. On this basis they conclude that W49B was not a type Ia supernova, leaving either a core-collapse supernova with a jittering-jets explosion mechanism or a common-envelope jets supernova with a thermonuclear outburst. The central claim is morphological and qualitative: the alignment of features is asserted from images, with an explicit assumption that the ears are jet-inflated rather than pre-existing circumstellar structures.

Significance. If the jet axis and circum-jet rings in W49B are real, the paper would provide a direct morphological argument against a type Ia origin for one of the most debated supernova remnants, and it would extend the recent program of identifying jet signatures in core-collapse remnants. However, the load-bearing evidence is entirely visual, with no quantitative significance tests, no error estimates on the axis position angle, and a comparison image whose processing parameters are chosen ad hoc. The paper is transparent about its assumptions and leaves simulations for future work, but in its current form the central claim is a plausible hypothesis rather than an established inference. The careful statement of the assumptions is a strength, as is the explicit comparison with a range of other objects, but the lack of quantification substantially limits the present impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, first paragraph] The paper explicitly assumes that the ears are jet-inflated and admits that they could instead be pre-existing cavities in the circumstellar medium. The only argument offered against this is that 'there is a non-spherical mass distribution near the centre that, as we claim below, has the same symmetry as the line connecting the two ears,' but this symmetry is never quantified. If the ears are pre-existing cavities, the inferred jet axis and the interpretation of the arcs lose their foundation. Please quantify the symmetry (e.g., centroid positions, position angles with uncertainties, or a statistical comparison of the inner mass distribution with the ear-axis direction) or explicitly downgrade the conclusion to a conditional hypothesis.
  2. [§3.3, Figs. 6–7] The comparison with Cygnus A rests on an image that is degraded by truncating the lower 50% of pixel brightness and applying a 2-pixel Gaussian smoothing, with no pre-registered criterion for these choices. The resulting similarity between the degraded Cygnus A image and W49B is therefore not an independent test; it is partly a consequence of the chosen processing parameters. To make this comparison meaningful, the authors should either derive the parameters from the known observational differences (exposure time and field of view) in a quantitative way, or perform a parameter study showing that the similarity is robust over a reasonable range of choices. Without this, the 'deduction' of circum-jet rings in W49B from the Cygnus A analogy is not supported.
  3. [§4] The paper leaves the mechanism of circum-jet ring formation to 'future studies' and presents three speculative classes of interaction, none of which is demonstrated for CCSN conditions. Given that the rings are the key evidence against a type Ia origin, this is a significant gap. An alternative explanation (e.g., projected geometry of a barrel-shaped structure, or pre-existing CSM variations) is not quantitatively ruled out. The authors should either provide a more concrete model, or clearly present the ring interpretation and the resulting progenitor constraint as a hypothesis that requires future testing, rather than as a firm deduction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The citation 'Lacy et al. (2001)' in the caption should be 'Lacey et al. (2001)' to match the reference list.
  2. [§2, last sentence of the first paragraph] The sentence contains a typo: 'near the centre of he explosion' should read 'near the centre of the explosion'.
  3. [Abstract and §5] The statement that 'identifying the main jet axis is incompatible with a type Ia supernova' is stronger than what the analysis supports, because the identification itself is uncertain. Consider softening the wording to 'would be incompatible' or 'challenges'.
  4. [§3.3, Fig. 6] The circles used to denote rings in panel (b) are described as 'pale ellipses' in the caption but 'circles' in the text; please make the terminology consistent.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central claim is supported by a self-consistency loop: arcs are drawn around an ear-defined axis and then used to validate the axis; the Cygnus A comparison is degraded and rotated to resemble W49B, and ring templates come from the same authors' prior work.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, 'The main jet axis of W49B', paragraph beginning 'A word of caution is in place here.']
    "We assume that the ears are shaped by jets that are part of the explosion process. However, in principle, ears can be formed in the circumstellar material into which the explosion occurs... In W49B, there is a non-spherical mass distribution near the centre that, as we claim below, has the same symmetry as the line connecting the two ears. We therefore argue that the ears in W49B are shaped by jets."

    The 'non-spherical mass distribution near the centre' is the set of arcs marked in Figure 2, which were selected as 'arcs around the main jet axis' where the main jet axis is defined by the line connecting the two ear-tip clumps. Thus the central feature is labeled using the very axis it is then invoked to confirm: the arcs are drawn relative to the assumed axis, so their 'same symmetry' cannot independently establish that the ears are jet-inflated. The symmetry match is not quantified; it is a visual coincidence between the chosen axis and features placed around it, so the support for the ears-are-jets premise reduces to the prior assumption rather than independent evidence.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, 'Clusters of galaxies', paragraph on degrading the Cygnus A image.]
    "To match the existing W49B observations, we perform two adaptations to this scalar image. (1) We truncate the lower 50% brightness pixels to correct for the 10 times shorter observation time of W49B (Lopez et al. 2013a). (2) We apply Gaussian smoothing with a 2-pixel scale to correct for the 4 times larger field of view of W49B compared to Cygnus A."

    The degraded Cygnus A image is then rotated 90 degrees and presented side-by-side with W49B as the evidence that arcs are ring segments ('This comparison further strengthens the similarity'). But the degradation parameters were chosen with the explicit goal 'to match the existing W49B observations'; the brightness threshold and smoothing scale are not derived from a pre-registered model. The resulting image, where only bright ring segments and two jet clumps survive, is therefore partly engineered to resemble W49B, so the similarity is not an independent confirmation. The same authors also marked the 'rings' in Cygnus A in panel b, making the template itself a product of the same interpretive process.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3.1, 'SNR 0540-69.3'.]
    "We see some similarities between the circum-jet rings around the main-jet axis in SNR 0540-69.3 and the arcs we argue are part of circum-jet rings in SNR W49B."

    The rings in SNR 0540-69.3 are identified in this paper by the same visual mark-on-image method, relying on the main jet axis from Soker (2022) and comparisons from Soker (2024c), both by the same lead author. The abstract and Section 5 use such similarities to 'deduce' that W49B arcs are circum-jet rings. Because the concept of circum-jet rings is imported from prior work by the same group, which established it with the same qualitative morphology, this supporting evidence is a self-citation chain rather than an independent, externally validated test. The planetary-nebula comparisons similarly adopt the circum-jet-ring interpretation from the same research program.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not a formal one: there are no equations or fitted parameters, and the authors explicitly flag their main assumption ('We assume that the ears are shaped by jets...') and defer ring-formation simulations to future studies ('we leave the simulations to future studies'). Nevertheless, the central inference—that the ear-to-ear line is the main jet axis and that the central bright zones are sections of circum-jet rings—contains a circular step. In Section 2 the axis is defined by the ear-tip clumps; the same section then identifies 'arcs around the main jet axis' and uses their 'same symmetry' with the ear axis as the argument that the ears are jet-inflated. Because the arcs were selected relative to that axis, they cannot independently confirm it; the symmetry match is a visual selection, not a measurement. The Section 3.3 comparison to Cygnus A is also partially self-constructed: the Cygnus A image is degraded with thresholds and smoothing chosen 'to match the existing W49B observations,' then rotated to maximize resemblance, so the resulting 'similarity' is not an independent test. The planetary-nebula and SNR 0540-69.3 comparisons import the 'circum-jet ring' concept from prior work by the same lead author, making the supporting evidence a self-citation chain. These problems make the main claim partially circular; however, the underlying X-ray and radio morphology is real, the authors are transparent about the ear assumption, and the conclusion 'not a type Ia' depends on a morphological interpretation rather than a numerical identity. A moderate score of 6 is therefore appropriate, reflecting partial circularity without reducing the entire paper to an empty tautology.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on visual pattern recognition and analogy, with two hand-chosen image-processing parameters controlling the key comparison to Cygnus A. No new physical entities are postulated and no new numerical fits are made, but the interpretation depends on several unproven domain assumptions about jet morphology in supernova remnants, planetary nebulae, and galaxy clusters.

free parameters (2)
  • Cygnus A brightness truncation threshold = 50%
    The lower 50 percent of brightness pixels are removed from the Cygnus A X-ray image to mimic W49B's shorter exposure time. The choice is hand-selected and directly controls how many ring segments remain visible as arcs.
  • Gaussian smoothing scale = 2 pixels
    Smoothing is applied to the Cygnus A image to mimic W49B's larger field of view. The scale is hand-selected and affects which ring segments survive as arcs in the degraded image.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ears in supernova remnants are shaped by jets from the explosion itself, not by pre-existing circumstellar cavities.
    Stated explicitly in Section 2 as a working assumption. The paper argues for it by pointing to the non-spherical mass distribution near the center, but it is not proven and the authors acknowledge the alternative possibility.
  • domain assumption Circum-jet rings around jets are common and appear as arcs in low-sensitivity or low-resolution images.
    Inferred from planetary nebulae and Cygnus A in Section 3. This assumption is the direct basis for interpreting the three W49B arcs as ring fragments.
  • domain assumption The X-ray clumps at the tips of the ears are physically associated with jet activity.
    The line between these two clumps defines the main jet axis. No spectral or kinematic confirmation is offered to tie the clumps to outflows.
  • domain assumption The jittering jets explosion mechanism and the common envelope jets supernova with thermonuclear outburst are plausible explosion channels for W49B.
    These are the two options the paper claims are compatible with its identification. Both mechanisms were proposed in prior papers by the same group and are not independently tested here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The main jet axis of the W49B supernova remnant." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NYLRCO7G

@misc{pith2026250209543,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The main jet axis of the W49B supernova remnant},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NYLRCO7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09543}
}
read the original abstract

We identify an axis connecting two opposite `ears' in the supernova remnant W49B and morphological signatures of three arcs around this axis that we claim are sections of full circum-jet rings. Based on recent identifications of morphological signatures of jets in core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe), including ejecta-rich axes, we reexamine images of W49B and identify a heavy element-rich protrusion (ear) as a jet-inflated structure. We identify the opposite ear and a clump at its tip as the signature of the opposite jets. The line connecting the two clumps at the tips of the two opposite ears forms the main jet axis of W49B. We compare the three arcs around the main jet axis in W49B to the circum-jet rings of the jets in the Cygnus A galaxy and deduce that these arcs are sections of full circum-jet rings in W49B. In W49B, the jets are long gone, as in some planetary nebulae with circum-jet rings. Identifying the main jet axis is incompatible with a type Ia supernova. It leaves two possibilities: that jets exploded W49B as a CCSN, i.e. the jittering jets explosion mechanism where the pair of jets we identify is one of many that exploded the star, or that the explosion was a common envelope jet supernova with a thermonuclear outburst, i.e., both the pair of jets and thermonuclear outburst exploded the core of a red supergiant star as a pre-existing neutron star tidally destroyed it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09543 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray images of SNR W49B adapted from Lopez et al. (2013b) with our marks of morphological features we identify. (a) A Chandra 0.5 − 8.0 keV raw X-ray image. We marked our identification of the main jet axis, and an arc (dashed red line) we suggest is a fraction of a circum-jet ring. (b1+b2) Enlargement of the argon map (inset of panel c) to allow comparison of an image with and without our marks of two arcs. (c) Si… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. presents an HST image of SNR 0540-69.3 adapted from Morse et al. (2006). Based on the slit spec￾troscopy by Larsson et al. (2021), Soker (2022) identified a point-symmetric morphology in a plane along the line of sight (not shown here), and the main jet axis that we mark with the red-double-headed arrow in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An image of the PN MyCn 18 adapted from O’Connor et al. (2000). The inset is an HST image from the HST site adapted from Sahai et al. (1999) and resolves the circum-jet rings in the hourglass structure. These two PNe demonstrate the presence of circum-jet rings in obje…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [N II] HST image of the PN Hen 2-104 adapted from Corradi et al. (2001); the black marks of jets and rings are from their paper. We added red marks to emphasize the circum-jet rings in the inner hourglass. match the existing W49B observations, we perform two adaptation…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A comparison between an X-ray image of W49B and panel (c) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 4794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty029

    Akashi, M., Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty029

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty029 2018

  2. [2]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1683

    Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1683

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1683 2016

  3. [3]

    J., Russell, H

    Bambic, C. J., Russell, H. R., Reynolds, C. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad824

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad824 2023

  4. [4]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11453, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.11453 9

    Bear, E., Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11453, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.11453 9

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.11453 2024

  5. [5]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx431

    Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx431

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx431 2017

  6. [6]

    Simulating the shaping of point-symmetric structures in the jittering jets explosion mechanism

    Braudo, J., Amir, M., Muhammad, A., & Soker, N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.10326, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.10326

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.10326 2025

  7. [7]

    M., & Kassim, N

    Castelletti, G., Supan, L., Peters, W. M., & Kassim, N. E. 2021, A&A, 653, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141635

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141635 2021

  8. [8]

    2015, A&A, 582, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526585

    Clyne, N., Akras, S., Steffen, W., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526585

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526585 2015

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Schwarz, H. E. 2001, ApJ, 553, 211, doi: 10.1086/320665 Gonz´ alez-Casanova, D. F., De Colle, F., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Lopez, L. A. 2014, ApJL, 781, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L26

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 6041, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1872 H

    Grichener, A., & Soker, N. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 6041, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1872 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527843

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    A., & Auchettl, K

    Holland-Ashford, T., Lopez, L. A., & Auchettl, K. 2020, ApJ, 903, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb808

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Hwang, U., Petre, R., & Hughes, J. P. 2000, ApJ, 532, 970, doi: 10.1086/308614

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    W., Reach, W

    Keohane, J. W., Reach, W. T., Rho, J., & Jarrett, T. H. 2007, ApJ, 654, 938, doi: 10.1086/509311

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    M., H¨ oflich, P

    Khokhlov, A. M., H¨ oflich, P. A., Oran, E. S., et al. 1999, ApJL, 524, L107, doi: 10.1086/312305

    1999 doi

  7. [15]

    K., Lazio, T

    Lacey, C. K., Lazio, T. J. W., Kassim, N. E., et al. 2001, ApJ, 559, 954, doi: 10.1086/322372

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    D., et al

    Larsson, J., Sollerman, J., Lyman, J. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a41

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    2020, AJ, 160, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc00e

    Lee, Y.-H., Koo, B.-C., & Lee, J.-J. 2020, AJ, 160, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc00e

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    G., & Ryder, S

    Lee, Y.-H., Koo, B.-C., Lee, J.-J., Burton, M. G., & Ryder, S. 2019, AJ, 157, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0212

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbdf5

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Suzuki, T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbdf5

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    D., McIntyre, T., et al

    Liu, B., Anderson, L. D., McIntyre, T., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaef8e

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Pearson, S., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al

    Lopez, L. A., Pearson, S., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2013a, ApJ, 777, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/145

    doi

  14. [22]

    A., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Castro, D., & Pearson, S

    Lopez, L. A., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Castro, D., & Pearson, S. 2013b, ApJ, 764, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/50

    doi

  15. [23]

    Badenes, C., & Pooley, D. A. 2011, ApJ, 732, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/114

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Pooley, D

    Lopez, L. A., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Pooley, D. A., & Jeltema, T. E. 2009, ApJ, 691, 875, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/875

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    2010, A&A, 514, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913713

    Reale, F. 2010, A&A, 514, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913713

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    2008, Advances in Space Research, 41, 390, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.030

    Miceli, M., Decourchelle, A., Ballet, J., et al. 2008, Advances in Space Research, 41, 390, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.030

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Smith, N., Blair, W

    Morse, J. A., Smith, N., Blair, W. P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 188, doi: 10.1086/503313 O’Connor, J. A., Redman, M. P., Holloway, A. J., et al. 2000, ApJ, 531, 336, doi: 10.1086/308452

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    2009, ApJL, 706, L71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L71

    Tamagawa, T. 2009, ApJL, 706, L71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L71

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Lee, S.-H., Slane, P

    Patnaude, D. J., Lee, S.-H., Slane, P. O., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/101

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & MacFadyen, A. I. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1028, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1028

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    2012, ApJL, 755, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/1/L3

    Refaelovich, M., & Soker, N. 2012, ApJL, 755, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/1/L3

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    M., et al

    Sahai, R., Dayal, A., Watson, A. M., et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 468, doi: 10.1086/300939

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dba

    Sano, H., Yoshiike, S., Yamane, Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dba

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Williams, B. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.17957, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.17957

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.13255

    Sawada, M., Sato, T., Maeda, K., & Itonaga, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.13255. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.13255

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    V., Frank, K

    Siegel, J., Dwarkadas, V. V., Frank, K. A., & Burrows, D. N. 2020, ApJ, 904, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa9 —. 2021, ApJ, 922, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2305

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Nulsen, P

    Snios, B., Johnson, A. C., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab737d

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 035019, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac49e6 —

    Soker, N. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 035019, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac49e6 —. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08555, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08555 —. 2024b, Galaxies, 12, 29, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12030029 —. 2024c, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7,...

    2022 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02626, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02626

    Soker, N., & Shishkin, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02626, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02626

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8001 10

    Sun, L., & Chen, Y. 2020, ApJ, 893, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8001 10

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Nobukawa, M., & Katsuda, S

    Suzuki, N., Yamauchi, S., Nobukawa, K. K., Nobukawa, M., & Katsuda, S. 2024, PASJ, 76, 265, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae006

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    R., et al

    Tanaka, T., Yamaguchi, H., Wik, D. R., et al. 2018, ApJL, 866, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae709

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    1958, BAN, 14, 215

    Westerhout, G. 1958, BAN, 14, 215

    1958

  36. [44]

    2014, ApJL, 785, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/L27

    Yamaguchi, H., Badenes, C., Petre, R., et al. 2014, ApJL, 785, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/L27

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    R., et al

    Yamaguchi, H., Tanaka, T., Wik, D. R., et al. 2018, ApJL, 868, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf055

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    2018, A&A, 615, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731583

    Zhou, P., & Vink, J. 2018, A&A, 615, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731583

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63b5

    Zhou, P., Zhang, G.-Y., Zhou, X., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63b5

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 244, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18695.x

    Zhou, X., Miceli, M., Bocchino, F., Orlando, S., & Chen, Y. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 244, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18695.x

    2011

  41. [49]

    W., & Zuo, P

    Zhu, H., Tian, W. W., & Zuo, P. 2014, ApJ, 793, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/95

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.