Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Orbital Phase-resolved Analysis of X-ray and Gamma-ray Observations of the High-Mass Gamma-ray Binary 4FGL J1405.1-6119

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 4FGL J1405.1-6119's X-ray and gamma-ray emission favours an intrabinary shock with a magnetic field at most 2.7 G rather than a microquasar jet

desk verdict Solid phase-resolved study of a rare HMGB, with real new X-ray constraints, but the abstract overclaims NH variability and the B≤2.7 G magnetic-field limit is shakier than presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13716 v1 pith:F7Q37LRI submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.HE

Alexander Lange , Robin H.D. Corbet , Joel B. Coley , Guillaume Dubus , Jeremy Hare , Nazma Islam , Jonathan Barnes This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords high-massgamma-raybinaryintrabinaryshock4FGLJ1405.1-6119X-rayspectroscopyFermi-LATorbitalphase-resolvedvariabilitymagneticfieldupperlimitpulsarwind
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 uses two joint XMM-Newton and NuSTAR observations from 2019, placed at the gamma-ray maximum and the X-ray maximum of the binary's orbit, together with nearly 16 years of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data, to determine how 4FGL J1405.1-6119 produces its high-energy emission. It tries to establish that the X-ray and gamma-ray spectra at both phases can be fitted within the intrabinary shock model, where a pulsar wind collides with the O-star wind, using two electron populations and a magnetic field at the shock no larger than about 2.7 G, with $\chi^2_\nu = 1.25$ and $0.99$ for the two epochs. Along the way it refines the orbital period to $P = 13.7157 \pm 0.0014$ days, finds no X-ray pulsations, finds phase-dependent absorption, and argues that the previously reported 2 keV cyclotron line and blackbody component are not statistically required. If the shock interpretation is right, J1405's radiation tells us about pulsar-wind particle acceleration rather than jets, joining a small class of gamma-ray binaries.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the intrabinary shock, the standing shock front where the relativistic pulsar wind collides with the massive companion's wind. It carries the argument in two steps. First, the assumed companion mass and circular orbit fix the binary separation $a = 0.37$ AU and hence the stellar seed-photon energy density $U_{\rm seed} \approx 94$ erg cm$^{-3}$, which is so high that inverse Compton cooling dominates over synchrotron losses. Second, the model relation $B \approx \left(750\ \mathrm{keV}/h\nu_{\mathrm{sync}}\right)\left(0.1\ \mathrm{AU}/a\right)^2$ G converts the absence of an X-ray spectral break below 20 keV into the field cap $B \le 2.7$ G. The particle description is a two-population electron spectrum, an exponential cut-off broken power law radiating the X-rays by synchrotron and a Maxwellian component radiating the GeV band by inverse Compton, fitted with an MCMC code that models both radiation processes simultaneously.

What would settle it

Take a long, high-sensitivity X-ray observation of J1405 that reaches clean spectra above 20 keV. If a synchrotron cooling break appears below about 20 keV, the formula used here would give a magnetic field above 2.7 G and the current intrabinary shock fit would fail; likewise, coherent X-ray pulsations above the roughly 17 percent pulse-fraction limit or a genuine 2 keV cyclotron line would point to a different compact-object geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the high-energy emission of J1405 can be accounted for by the same intrabinary shock mechanism proposed for LS 5039, without invoking a jet. The 1-20 keV X-ray spectra from both sampled phases show no cooling break, and the Fermi-LAT 200 MeV to 500 GeV spectra are featureless and only weakly modulated. Interpreting the X-rays as synchrotron radiation and the gamma rays as inverse Compton scattering of the O-star's photons, the absence of a break below 20 keV converts, through the relation between break energy, binary separation, and field strength, into an upper limit $B \le 2.7$ G at the shock. Two electron populations are needed in the fit: an exponentially cut-off broken power law whose synchrotron emission makes the X-rays, and a low-energy Maxwellian whose inverse Compton emission makes the GeV component. The joint fits have $\chi^2_\nu = 1.25$ at the gamma-ray maximum and $\chi^2_\nu = 0.99$ at the X-ray maximum, and the model uses fewer free parameters than a microquasar interpretation.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on assuming the companion is an ordinary massive O star of about 35 solar masses and $2.75\times10^{5}$ solar luminosities in a circular orbit with a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star; that fixes the separation at 0.37 AU, and if any of those numbers are off, the 2.7-gauss cap and the shock interpretation change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the intrabinary shock interpretation is correct, J1405's compact object is a rotation-powered neutron star whose wind, not an accretion jet, produces the observed X-rays and gamma rays.
  • The $B \le 2.7$ G cap means the shock is far below energy equipartition with the stellar photon field, so inverse Compton losses dominate and the GeV/TeV emission should track the stellar seed-photon density around the orbit.
  • The second gamma-ray peak near orbital phase 0.4 is not a stable feature; its disappearance in some 750-day epochs points to a variable shock location or clumpy stellar wind rather than a fixed binary geometry.
  • The upper limits on X-ray pulsation, with pulse fractions below roughly 16 to 17 percent, are consistent with the pulsar-wind picture because most gamma-ray binaries do not show X-ray pulsations.
  • Phase-resolved absorption, with $N_{\rm H}$ changing from about $8.0\times10^{22}$ to $5.7\times10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ between the two epochs, provides a geometric probe of the line of sight through the system, and future soft X-ray monitoring could map that geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would go one step beyond the paper: if the 2.7 G cap holds, the magnetic energy density is only a few tenths of an erg cm$^{-3}$ while the stellar photon energy density is about 94 erg cm$^{-3}$, so the TeV component should be strongly modulated at the orbital period and suppressed above the Klein-Nishina cutoff, which a TeV campaign could test.
  • The variable harmonic strength in the Fermi-LAT periodogram hints at a super-orbital cycle or a persistent wind structure; an extended gamma-ray baseline could search for a periodicity longer than the 750-day windows used here.
  • A future detection of radio pulsations at a favorable orbital phase, when free-free absorption from the companion wind is minimal, would convert the intrabinary shock interpretation from a model into a confirmed pulsar classification; the current null X-ray detection does not close that path.
  • Since the 2.7 G limit assumes a circular orbit, measuring the companion's radial-velocity curve and any eccentricity would either sharpen or relocate the field cap; if the orbit is eccentric, the field estimate and the shock geometry would need to be recomputed phase by phase.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents joint XMM-Newton and NuSTAR observations of the high-mass gamma-ray binary 4FGL J1405.1-6119 at two orbital phases (the gamma-ray maximum and the X-ray maximum), along with a phase-resolved analysis of ~16 years of Fermi-LAT data. The X-ray spectral analysis finds absorbed power-law spectra with no significant spectral break below 20 keV, no X-ray pulsations, and a claimed variability of the hydrogen column density that is later stated to be not statistically significant. The Fermi-LAT analysis refines the orbital period to 13.7157 ± 0.0014 days (consistent with the discovery value), studies the orbital modulation and its harmonics over time, and performs phase-resolved spectral fits with a LogParabola model. The broadband X-ray and gamma-ray spectra are interpreted in an intrabinary shock (IBS) model with two electron populations (an exponential-cutoff broken power law and a Maxwellian), yielding statistically good fits and a magnetic field upper limit of ~2.7 G.

Significance. The observational analysis is careful and provides the first joint X-ray/Gamma-ray phase-resolved study of this source, including a search for pulsations and an archival comparison with Swift-XRT. The paper also tests and refutes previously claimed features (a blackbody component and a cyclotron line). If the IBS interpretation is correct, the result would support a pulsar-wind scenario for J1405 and constrain the magnetic field at the shock to less than about 3 G. However, the magnetic field limit is derived from a fragile line of reasoning, and the NH variability claim is internally inconsistent; these issues weaken the central conclusions unless addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (3)] The inference B ≤ 2.7 G from the absence of a spectral break below 20 keV is not uniquely determined by the data. A break below the observed 1–20 keV band (e.g., below 1 keV, which would occur for B ≳ 55 G) would also produce a featureless power law in the observed band. The paper never varies B in the Naima fit or marginalizes over it, so the high-B branch is excluded only by the fixed post-break index α2 = 3, an assumption that is not tested. The B ≤ 2.7 G statement should be framed as a model-dependent inference, and the analysis should demonstrate that the data actually constrain B rather than merely assuming it.
  2. [Abstract and Section 6.1] The abstract claims variability of NH, and Section 3.1 reports a 'significant improvement' when NH is fit independently across phases (Δχ² = 7.29 for 1 additional degree of freedom), but Section 6.1 states that the joint fit does not show an improvement and that 'we do not find a statistically significant change' in NH. The Δχ² corresponds to about 2.7σ for one degree of freedom, which is not conventionally significant. The paper should quantify the significance explicitly (e.g., p-value) and reconcile or correct the abstract.
  3. [Section 5.2, Table 3, and Eq. (3)] The fitted electron break energies Eb ≈ 2.6–3.0 TeV with B = 2.7 G, when converted through the standard synchrotron critical-frequency formula, place the corresponding synchrotron break at approximately 1.6 MeV, not at 20 keV as assumed in Eq. (3). The paper uses the symbol Eb both for the electron break and for the photon break without clearly distinguishing them. If Eq. (3) already embeds a Klein-Nishina cooling-balance mapping, that derivation should be stated; otherwise the fitted parameters appear internally inconsistent with the assumed 20 keV break that motivates B = 2.7 G.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The sentence 'A twin-peaked structure is shown at the Gamma-ray Maximum and the X-ray Maximum in the Fermi–LAT lightcurve' is ambiguous; the twin peaks appear in the Fermi-LAT lightcurve, while the X-ray observations sample one of the two phases. Please rephrase for clarity.
  2. [Section 3.1] When reporting the improvement from fitting NH independently (Δχ² = 7.29, Δdof = 1), please provide the corresponding p-value or significance level so the reader can judge the claim of 'significant improvement' against the later statement in Section 6.1.
  3. [Section 5.1, Eq. (3)] The notation 'Eb = hνsync' is confusing because Eb is later used in Table 3 for the electron break energy. Please use distinct symbols, such as E_break for the electron break and hν_break for the photon break, throughout.
  4. [Section 4.1 and abstract] The orbital period 13.7157 ± 0.0014 days is identical to the discovery value from Corbet et al. (2019) within the uncertainties; describing it as a 'new best-fit orbital period' gives the impression of a new determination. Suggest phrasing such as 'refined with additional data'.
  5. [Section 6.3 and references] The H.E.S.S. detection is referenced only through a Master's thesis (Martinez 2023). Since the thesis link may not be stable, please cite the peer-reviewed paper when available or provide more details of the preliminary analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IBS fit is an applied model fit to independent data, not a prediction derived from itself.

full rationale

The paper's main new results are model-independent: the X-ray column densities and photon indices come from standard XSPEC power-law fits to XMM-Newton/NuSTAR data, the orbital period comes from a Fermi-LAT timing analysis, and the phase-resolved gamma-ray SEDs come from FermiPy likelihood fits. None of these measurements presuppose the intrabinary shock model. The B<=2.7 G estimate is a model-dependent conversion of the observed lack of an X-ray break via Equation (3), and the broadband Naima fit then fixes B at that value and fits normalizations, alpha1, Eb, and Echar to the same X-ray and gamma-ray data. That is parameter estimation, not a prediction of a held-out quantity; the abstract and text explicitly describe the result as an interpretation ('can be interpreted in the framework of the intrabinary shock model'), not as an independent prediction. The Maxwellian GeV component is imported as an ansatz from Dubus et al. (2015), but it is applied rather than re-derived, is constrained by the gamma-ray data, and the cited work is external to the present analysis; self-citation alone is not load-bearing circularity here. Residual concerns about whether the fitted electron break in Table 3 is consistent with the 20 keV photon break assumed in Equation (3), and about the unexcluded high-B branch, are model-robustness and correctness issues rather than identity-by-construction reductions. Under the rule that circularity must be exhibited as a specific equation identity or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no such reduction is present.

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

The central IBS interpretation rests on adopted stellar parameters, a circular-orbit assumption, and a two-component electron model, with five free parameters fit to the same data. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha1 (ECBPL low-energy index) = 1.87 ± 0.02 (Gamma-ray Max), 1.49 +0.02/-0.03 (X-ray Max)
    Fitted by Naima/MCMC to the broadband SED; controls the synchrotron X-ray and IC gamma-ray slopes.
  • Eb (ECBPL break energy) = 0.26 ± 0.04 (Gamma-ray Max), 0.30 ± 0.01 (X-ray Max) in units of 10 TeV
    Set to vary around 1 TeV and fitted to the broadband SED.
  • Echar (Maxwellian characteristic energy) = 0.77 ± 0.01 GeV (Gamma-ray Max), 0.60 ± 0.01 GeV (X-ray Max)
    Fitted; sets the peak of the Maxwellian electron population that produces the GeV emission.
  • ECBPL normalization (Log10 A) = 2.98 ± 0.03 (Gamma-ray Max), 3.82 +0.04/-0.04 (X-ray Max)
    Fitted normalization for the power-law electron population.
  • Maxwellian normalization (Log10 K) = -5.77 ± 0.04 (Gamma-ray Max), -5.59 +0.05/-0.06 (X-ray Max)
    Fitted normalization for the Maxwellian electron population.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Companion star is an O6.5 III star with mass about 35 solar masses, luminosity about 2.75e5 solar luminosities, and temperature about 3.8e4 K.
    Adopted from Corbet et al. 2019 and literature (Hanson et al. 2005; Mahy et al. 2015) in Section 5.1; sets the stellar radiation energy density and binary separation.
  • domain assumption The binary orbit is circular and the compact object is a 1.4 solar-mass neutron star.
    Assumed in Section 5.1 to compute a = 0.37 AU from Kepler's third law; an eccentricity fit was attempted but not significant.
  • ad hoc to paper The GeV emission is produced by a Maxwellian electron population from the intrabinary shock rather than by synchrotron from the power-law population.
    Added in Section 5.1 to explain the GeV component without invoking an unphysically high Emax; motivated by Dubus et al. 2015.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field B is fixed to 2.7 G, the upper limit from the lack of a spectral break below 20 keV via Equation (3).
    Derived from Dubus 2013 scaling and the observed absence of a break; used as a fixed input in the broadband model.
  • domain assumption The emission is produced in a single zone with steady-state synchrotron and inverse Compton radiation from two electron populations.
    Standard IBS model simplification used throughout Section 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Orbital Phase-resolved Analysis of X-ray and Gamma-ray Observations of the High-Mass Gamma-ray Binary 4FGL J1405.1-6119." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7Q37LRI

@misc{pith2026250513716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Orbital Phase-resolved Analysis of X-ray and Gamma-ray Observations of the High-Mass Gamma-ray Binary 4FGL J1405.1-6119},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7Q37LRI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13716}
}
abstract

We present the results of multi-wavelength observations of the High-Mass Gamma-Ray Binary 4FGL J1405.1-6119. A pair of joint XMM-Newton and NuSTAR observations taken in 2019 (sampling the gamma-ray maximum and X-ray maximum) characterize the emission of soft and hard X-rays. We find variability of the hydrogen column density along our line of sight, $N_{\rm H}$, and photon index, $\Gamma$, and find no evidence of pulsations in X-rays. We also refine a new best-fit orbital period to $P=13.7157\pm0.0014$ days, the first orbital phase-resolved analysis based on nearly 16 years of Fermi--LAT observations of 4FGL J1405.1-6119 and the evolution of the spectral shape as a function of orbital phase. Finally, the X-ray and $\gamma$-ray spectra for the phases sampled in the new X-ray observations can be interpreted in the framework of the intrabinary shock model, previously applied to High-Mass Gamma-Ray binaries such as LS 5039.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13716 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gamma-ray and X-ray lightcurves folded on the orbital period from Corbet et al. (2019). Top: Gamma￾ray orbital phase folded lightcurve from Fermi–LAT. Data is taken from the probability-weighted aperture-photometry data. Bottom: X-ray orbital phase-resolved lightcurves from Swift-XRT, NuSTAR and XMM-Newton. Swift archival fluxes are shown in black. NuSTAR and XMM-Newton ob￾servations are shown in blue circles and sq… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Joint SED fits of NuSTAR and XMM-Newton observations of J1405. The fits for each data are shown as solid lines overlaid by each instrument’s data. Note that we combined MOS1 and MOS2 for better statistics. NuSTAR FPMA/FPMB are shown in blue and gold, and XMM’s com￾bined MOS and PN are shown in green and red, respectively. The top figure shows the Gamma-ray Maximum data and its best-fit model (panel a) and its χ-squa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) and in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A dynamic Lomb-Scargle Periodogram of probability-weighted aperture-photometry Fermi–LAT data. Data were mean subtracted and weighted by the exposure. Observations are binned into 750 day bins and the relative power is calculated on a 100 day width sliding window. The …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability-weighted aperture photometry from 200 MeV–500 GeV phase-folded lightcurves of selections be￾tween MJD 54,682–60,500. From a) to e): phase-resolved lightcurves from MJD 54,682–60,500, MJD 54,682–55,500, MJD 55,500–56,500, MJD 56,500–57,333, and MJD 57,333– 6…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phase-resolved Fermi–LAT lightcurve of J1405 using the likelihood analysis and phase evolution of spectral parameters. Each bin represents 1/14th of the binary or￾bit (∼1 days). Panel (a) shows the phase-resolved lightcurve showing fluxes integrated from 200 MeV to 500…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overlaid SEDs from 200 MeV − 500 GeV are shown for both the Gamma-ray Maximum (red) and the X￾ray Maximum (blue) along with their respective upper lim￾its. The spectral models are shown as a dashed line, and 95% confidence intervals are demarcated by the shaded regions…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Broadband SEDs of the Gamma-ray Maxi￾mum and the X-ray Maximum. Data include XMM-Newton MOS1/2 and PN, NuSTAR FPMA/FPMB and Fermi–LAT fluxes. Fermi–LAT upper-limits represent a 95% confidence interval and are denoted by one-sided error bars. The cu￾mulative spectral mo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    Gamma-ray binaries: pulsars in disguise ?

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 Each re...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    2022, , 260, 53, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi , S., Acero , F., Baldini , L., et al. 2022, , 260, 53, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  6. [6]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 17

    1996

  7. [7]

    Atwood, W., Albert, A., Baldini, L., et al. 2013. https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3514v1

    arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, , 697, 1071, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    B., Grefenstette, B

    Bachetti, M., Markwardt, C. B., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2021, , 908, 184, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd1d6

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    H., Digel, S

    Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Digel, S. W., et al. 2018. 1810.11394

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    F., et al

    Buccheri, R., Bennett, K., Bignami, G. F., et al. 1983, , 128, 245. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A&A...128..245B

    1983

  4. [12]

    S., Ransom, S

    Camilo, F., Ray, P. S., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2009, , 705, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/1

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources - XIII

    Chernyakova , M., & Malyshev , D. 2020, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources - XIII. 3-8 June 2019. Palermo, 45, 10.22323/1.362.0045

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, , 497, 648, 10.1093/mnras/staa1876

    Chernyakova, M., Malyshev, D., Mc Keague, S., et al. 2020, , 497, 648, 10.1093/mnras/staa1876

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, , 10.1093/mnras/stad2380

    Chernyakova, M., Malyshev, D., Neronov, A., & Savchenko, D. 2023, , 10.1093/mnras/stad2380

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2015, , 454, 1358, 10.1093/mnras/stv1988

    Chernyakova, M., Neronov, A., van Soelen, B., et al. 2015, , 454, 1358, 10.1093/mnras/stv1988

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 89, 10.3847/2515-5172/ad3808

    Chiu, S.-C., & Li, K.-L. 2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 89, 10.3847/2515-5172/ad3808

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    I., Charles , P

    Clarkson , W. I., Charles , P. A., Coe , M. J., et al. 2003, , 339, 447, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06176.x

    2003

  11. [19]

    Corbet, R. H. D., Chomiuk, L., Coe, M. J., et al. 2019, , 884, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e32

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Harding , A

    de Jager , O. C., Harding , A. K., Michelson , P. F., et al. 1996, , 457, 253, 10.1086/176726

    1996 doi

  13. [21]

    2006, , 456, 801, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054779

    Dubus , G. 2006, , 456, 801, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054779

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    2013, , 21, 64, 10.1007/s00159-013-0064-5

    Dubus, G. 2013, , 21, 64, 10.1007/s00159-013-0064-5

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    2017, , 608, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731084

    Dubus, G., Guillard, N., Petrucci, P.-O., & Martin, P. 2017, , 608, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731084

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    2015, , 581, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425394

    Dubus, G., Lamberts, A., & Fromang, S. 2015, , 581, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425394

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Beardmore , A

    Evans , P. A., Beardmore , A. P., Page , K. L., et al. 2007, , 469, 379, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    2009, , 397, 1177, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    ---. 2009, , 397, 1177, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    2009

  19. [27]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 691, A229, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451231

    Fioretti, V., Mineo, T., Lotti, S., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 691, A229, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451231

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Gregory , P. C. 2002, , 575, 427, 10.1086/341257

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Kudritzki, R.-P., Kenworthy, M

    Hanson, M. M., Kudritzki, R.-P., Kenworthy, M. A., Puls, J., & Tokunaga, A. T. 2005, , 161, 154, 10.1086/444363

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, , 770, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    2014, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1408.004

    Heasarc. 2014, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1408.004. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ascl.soft08004N

    2014

  24. [32]

    Islam, N., Corbet, R. H. D., Coley, J. B., Pottschmidt, K., & Fuerst, F. 2023, , 948, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc19

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2001, , 365, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, , 365, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    2001 doi

  26. [34]

    N., Lyne, A

    Johnston, S., Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., et al. 1992, , 387, L37, 10.1086/186300

    1992 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, , 975, 199, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7827

    Kargaltsev , O., Hare , J., & Lange , A. 2024, , 975, 199, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7827

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, , 669, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244531

    Kefala, E., & Bosch-Ramon, V. 2023, , 669, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244531

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2011, , 732, 38, 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/38

    Kerr, M. 2011, , 732, 38, 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/38

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, , 936, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8663

    Kim, J., An, H., & Mori, K. 2022, , 936, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8663

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2003, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 50, 2018, 10.1109/TNS.2003.820735

    Lo, D., & Srour, J. 2003, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 50, 2018, 10.1109/TNS.2003.820735

    2003

  32. [40]

    Mahy, L., Rauw, G., De Becker, M., Eenens, P., & Flores, C. A. 2015, , 577, A23, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321985

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    Martinez, T. 2023. Master's Thesis. http://astro.uni-tuebingen.de/publications/diplom/martinez-master.pdf

    2023

  34. [42]

    Mirabel, I. F. 2012, Science, 335, 175, 10.1126/science.1215895

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    S., & Aharonian , F

    Moderski , R., Sikora , M., Coppi , P. S., & Aharonian , F. 2005, , 363, 954, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09494.x

    2005

  36. [44]

    2015, , 574, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424672

    Paredes-Fortuny, X., Bosch-Ramon, V., Perucho, M., & Ribó, M. 2015, , 574, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424672

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    2012, , 545, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219145

    Piano, G., Tavani, M., Vittorini, V., et al. 2012, , 545, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219145

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Fogantini , F

    Saavedra , E. A., Fogantini , F. A., Escobar , G. J., et al. 2023, , 680, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347760

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    2019, , 622, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834479

    Staubert, R., Trümper, J., Kendziorra, E., et al. 2019, , 622, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834479

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Salinas , R., & Peacock , M

    Strader , J., Chomiuk , L., Cheung , C. C., Salinas , R., & Peacock , M. 2015, , 813, L26, 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L26

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    2001, , 365, L18, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066

    Strüder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, , 365, L18, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    2012, Science, 335, 189–193, 10.1126/science.1213974

    The Fermi LAT Collaboration . 2012, Science, 335, 189–193, 10.1126/science.1213974

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    Turner, M. J. L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et al. 2001, , 365, L27, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000087

    2001 doi

  44. [52]

    2022, , 515, 1078, 10.1093/mnras/stac1754

    van Soelen, B., Mc Keague, S., Malyshev, D., et al. 2022, , 515, 1078, 10.1093/mnras/stac1754

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Ferland , G

    Verner , D. A., Ferland , G. J., Korista , K. T., & Yakovlev , D. G. 1996, , 465, 487, 10.1086/177435

    1996 doi

  46. [54]

    2021, , 915, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe0e

    Volkov, I., Kargaltsev, O., Younes, G., Hare, J., & Pavlov, G. 2021, , 915, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe0e

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., et al. 2002, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 114, 1, 10.1086/338108

    2002 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 698, 10.1038/s41550-022-01630-1

    Weng , S.-S., Qian , L., Wang , B.-J., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 698, 10.1038/s41550-022-01630-1

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  50. [58]

    2017, PoS, ICRC2017, 824, 10.22323/1.301.0824

    Wood, M., Caputo, R., Charles, E., et al. 2017, PoS, ICRC2017, 824, 10.22323/1.301.0824

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    2020, Phys

    Yoneda, H., Makishima, K., Enoto, T., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 111103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.111103

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Zabalza , V. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 34, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 922, 10.22323/1.236.0922

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.