Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Discovery of diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission in the vicinity of G213.0-0.6: Supernova remnant versus massive star-forming region

T0 review · 1 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 Using 16 years of Large Area Telescope data, this paper discovers three extended gamma-ray sources around G213.0-0.6 and interprets them as the GeV counterpart of a supernova remnant plus cosmic rays escaping into neighboring molecular…

desk verdict Solid new Fermi detection of three extended GeV sources near G213, but the SNR/cloud interpretation rests on an unproven 4.4 kpc distance and hand-tuned escape parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18146 v2 pith:FI4KWWKV submitted 2025-06-22 astro-ph.HE

Yuan Li , Gwenael Giacinti , Siming Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gammarays:ISMISM:supernovaremnantsindividualobjects(G213.0-0.6)cloudscosmicraysFermi-LATmolecularshock-cloudinteraction
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 claims that the disputed radio object G213.0-0.6 is a supernova remnant that emits gamma rays, based on 16 years of Large Area Telescope data. It resolves the previously cataloged GeV emission in that direction into three extended sources: SrcB, coincident with the radio shell and a molecular cloud, is the remnant's own shock-cloud emission; SrcA and SrcC are best explained as cosmic rays that escaped the remnant and now light up two neighboring molecular clouds. The authors also consider a young-stellar-cluster origin for SrcA but do not claim it is proven. If the interpretation holds, G213 becomes a fourth well-studied shock-cloud-interaction supernova remnant around 4.4 kpc, and the three-source geometry provides a sharp test of how cosmic rays diffuse away from a remnant.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the three-disk spatial template, chosen by likelihood and Akaike information criterion, combined with the instantaneous-injection cosmic-ray escape solution for a point-like accelerator: $$N_p(E,t)=\frac{Q(E)}{[4\pi D(E)T]^{3/2}}\exp\!\left(-\frac{$r_s^{2}$}{4D(E)T}\right)$$ with $D(E)=\chi D_0(E/E_0)^\delta$, $D_0=10^{28}\,\mathrm{cm^2\,s^{-1}}$ at $E_0=10\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $\delta=1/3$, and $T\simeq11{,}000$ yr. The mechanism that makes SrcA and SrcC fit while keeping one injection spectrum is the balance between escape distance $r_s$ and the diffusion length $\sqrt{4D(E)T}$: a short distance and suppressed $\chi$ give the curved SrcA spectrum, while a long escape distance ($r_s\approx80$ to 90 pc) with $\chi\approx1$ to 3 gives the harder SrcC spectrum. SrcB is fit directly by neutral-pion decay from a proton spectrum with index about 2.5 and a 500 TeV cutoff. Gas masses from the $^{12}$CO survey with $X_{\rm CO}=2\times10^{20}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}}\,(\mathrm{K\,km\,s^{-1}})^{-1}$ provide the target masses for the hadronic calculation.

What would settle it

Measure independent distances to the radio shell and to the 35-54 km/s clouds, for instance by VLBI parallax of the maser [PCC93] 111 or of other masers in those clouds, and compare them. If the clouds sit near 1 kpc while the shell is at 4.4 kpc, or if the maser parallax places the gas outside the claimed velocity system, the association proposed for SrcB, SrcA and SrcC is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 16 years of Fermi Pass 8 data between 100 MeV and 1 TeV, the paper finds that two cataloged point sources near G213.0-0.6 are actually better described by three extended disk sources with distinct spectra. SrcB (power-law index about 2.30) overlaps the radio shell and dense gas, so the paper identifies it as the GeV counterpart of the supernova remnant, with emission from neutral-pion decay in a shock-cloud interaction. SrcA has a log-parabola spectrum with a spectral break near 230 MeV and coincides with the star-forming region SH2-284 and OB stars; SrcC is a harder power-law source beyond the radio shell. Because both coincide with molecular gas in the 35-54 km/s velocity range, the paper interprets them as hadronic emission from cosmic rays that escaped the remnant and are diffusing into the gas, modeled with a single injection spectrum and energy-dependent diffusion. The same data allow a young stellar cluster interpretation for SrcA, but the paper leaves that as an open possibility.

Load-bearing premise

The whole interpretation rests on the gamma-ray sources and the 35-54 km/s molecular clouds being at one common distance of about 4.4 kpc; if the spatial overlap is a line-of-sight coincidence with gas at another distance, the shock-cloud identifications and the energy and diffusion-coefficient estimates no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If SrcB is the GeV counterpart, G213.0-0.6 joins W44 and W28 as a shock-cloud-interaction supernova remnant detected in gamma rays, strengthening the case that such systems accelerate cosmic-ray protons.
  • SrcA and SrcC would be direct evidence that cosmic rays escaping a remnant can illuminate molecular clouds tens of parsecs away while sharing a single injection spectrum.
  • The inferred diffusion coefficient in the SrcA region is about an order of magnitude below the standard Galactic value while SrcC is closer to it, implying anisotropic cosmic-ray diffusion around this remnant.
  • A common distance near 4.4 kpc would place G213 at roughly the distance of the SH2-284 H II region, changing the earlier picture that put the remnant near 1 kpc and unrelated to the star-forming complex.
  • The young-stellar-cluster origin for SrcA remains viable; the paper estimates a GeV luminosity that is a small fraction of the OB-star wind power, leaving the two interpretations distinguishable with further data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the common-distance assumption, independent of the paper's kinematic distance, is a parallax measurement to the maser [PCC93] 111 or to other masers in the 35-54 km/s clouds; that observation would either anchor or dissolve the 4.4 kpc geometry.
  • The paper's single-injection-spectrum fit with zone-dependent diffusion suppression suggests a general method: for any remnant with multiple cloud targets, fitting one injection spectrum across several zones yields relative diffusion coefficients, which could be applied to other shock-cloud systems to look for similar anisotropy.
  • The low spectral break of SrcA near 230 MeV is tied in the escape model to the escape distance and local diffusion coefficient; a future observation resolving that break could turn it from a fitted parameter into a direct probe of the diffusion environment.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes 16 years of Fermi-LAT data toward the radio shell G213.0-0.6 and reports the discovery of three extended gamma-ray sources, SrcA, SrcB, and SrcC. The morphological analysis uses a sequence of disk and Gaussian templates with AIC-based model selection and finds a best-fit model of three uniform disks (Model 5, Table 1), with an extension significance of about 6.5 sigma for SrcC. Spectrally, SrcA prefers a log-parabola with a break near 230 MeV, while SrcB and SrcC are consistent with power laws (Table 2). The authors identify molecular gas in the 35-54 km/s velocity range from MWISP CO data and adopt a common distance of 4.4 kpc for the gamma-ray sources. They then model SrcB as the GeV counterpart of the SNR via shock-cloud interaction, and SrcA and SrcC as hadronic emission from escaped cosmic rays illuminating molecular clouds, using a diffusion-escape model with free parameters rs and chi. A young stellar cluster interpretation for SrcA at about 1 kpc is also discussed but considered less certain. The paper concludes that the region hosts a GeV-emitting SNR at about 4.4 kpc and that the data suggest anisotropic cosmic-ray diffusion.

Significance. If the distance and association assumptions hold, the paper would add G213.0-0.6 to the small class of SNRs with detected GeV counterparts and spatially resolved escaped cosmic-ray illumination of molecular clouds, and it would provide a concrete case study for anisotropic diffusion in the interstellar medium. The main strengths are the careful, quantitative Fermi-LAT morphological analysis: the use of 16 years of data, explicit template comparison with AIC, a reported TSext of 43 for the SrcC extension, and consistency checks against the potential H II gas background. The hadronic models in Section 4.1, however, are consistency checks with hand-tuned parameters rather than fits, and the central physical interpretation rests on the assumed common distance of 4.4 kpc to the CO gas, which is not independently established in the manuscript.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3 and Section 4.1, Eq. (1)] Section 4.2 presents the young stellar cluster scenario for SrcA at a distance of about 1 kpc, but the distance adopted for the hadronic model of SrcA in Section 4.1 is 4.4 kpc. These two scenarios are discussed as alternatives, yet the manuscript does not reconcile the two distances: the same gamma-ray source cannot be simultaneously at 1 kpc and 4.4 kpc, and the OB-star distance distribution quoted in Section 4.2 spans 0.6-5 kpc. The paper should clarify which distance is favored for SrcA, how the 35-54 km/s CO gas would be related to the source in each case, and whether the YSC interpretation is compatible with the observed gas association at 4.4 kpc. Without this, the reader cannot judge whether SrcA is a single source with two possible origins or whether the distance assignment depends on the chosen model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract says 'Pass 8 data' while Section 2 specifies 'P8R3_SOURCE'; the paper should use a consistent nomenclature for the instrument response functions.
  2. [Section 4.2] There is a typo: 'Cygnus Coon' should be 'Cygnus Cocoon'.
  3. [Section 5] There is a typo: 'Westerlun 1' should be 'Westerlund 1'.
  4. [Table 1] In Table 1, Model 5 lists only 'SrcC: 104.477, -1.673' with its extension, while the positions and extensions of SrcA and SrcB in the three-disk model are not explicitly given; the table should present all three components of the preferred model for completeness.
  5. [Section 2.2 and Table 2] The definition of 'TScurve' and the number of additional free parameters for the log-parabola versus power-law fits should be stated explicitly; Table 2 reports 'Degrees of Freedom' but the column header is not self-explanatory because the fit also includes normalization and possibly background parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The Fermi-LAT detection and spectral analysis are independent of the hadronic escape model; the association and diffusion conclusions are model interpretations with free parameters, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central result is the detection of three extended GeV sources from a binned likelihood analysis of 16 years of Fermi-LAT data, with extension significance assessed via TSext and model comparison (Table 1, Model 5). This detection is fully independent of the hadronic escape model used later. The escape model in Sect. 4.1 introduces free parameters chi and r_s (Eq. 3) and fits them to the SEDs; the statements about suppressed diffusion in Zone A versus Zone C are summaries of those fitted values, not independent predictions extracted from the data. The 4.4 kpc distance is adopted from a kinematic/Sigma-D association of CO gas and is explicitly conditional ('if the SNR is associated with the gas in the velocity range of 35 - 54 km s−1, then its real distance to Earth should be constrained around D = 4.4 kpc'), so it is an input assumption affecting the energy budget rather than an output derived from the gamma-ray data. Section 4.1 also acknowledges projection uncertainty ('Due to projection effects, the actual distance between the gas complex and the SNR remains uncertain'), which is a robustness concern but not circularity. Citations to Liu et al. (2020) and Li et al. (2023b) supply a standard diffusion formalism, but no uniqueness theorem or fitted input is renamed as a discovery. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs, so no significant circularity is present.

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

The detection is built on public Fermi-LAT data and standard instrument models. The interpretive chain adds a kinematic distance, an SNR age, a hadronic emission assumption, a diffusive escape model, and a set of hand-adjusted parameters (rs, chi, Gamma, E_p,cut). The paper is transparent about most of these, but they are not independently verified and some are mutually dependent.

free parameters (4)
  • rs (escape distance from SNR to target cloud) = SrcA: 5 or 10 pc, SrcC: 80 to 90 pc
    Adjusted by hand to match the GeV SEDs in Section 4.1; the distance directly sets the cutoff of the escaped-proton spectrum in Eq. 3.
  • chi (diffusion coefficient correction factor) = SrcA: 0.5, SrcC: 1 or 3
    Free scaling factor for D(E) = chi * D0; chosen to reproduce the spectral shapes of SrcA and SrcC and used to argue for anisotropic diffusion.
  • Gamma (injected proton spectral index) = 2.5
    Chosen so the hadronic model matches SrcB; assumed to be the same for all three sources in Section 4.1.
  • E_p,cut (proton cutoff energy) = 500 TeV
    Assumed cutoff well above the analyzed band; has little effect below 1 TeV but sets the normalization convention in Eq. 2.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption The 35 to 54 km/s molecular cloud and the gamma-ray sources are physically associated at a common distance of 4.4 kpc.
    The model in Section 4.1 uses this kinematic distance from Su et al. 2017 to convert angular sizes, gas masses, and particle energies; projection effects are acknowledged but not quantified.
  • domain assumption The SNR age is about 11000 years.
    Adopted from Su et al. 2017 and used in Eq. 3 as T; if the age differs, the inferred diffusion coefficients and proton energies change.
  • domain assumption The gamma-ray emission is hadronic, from neutral pion decay.
    The fits in Section 4.1 assume pion decay and ignore leptonic contributions; no broadband radio or TeV constraints are used to separate hadronic and leptonic emission.
  • domain assumption The CO-to-H2 conversion factor XCO = 2e20 cm-2 K-1 km-1 s applies to this region.
    Used in Section 3 to derive gas masses and densities; variations by a factor of 2 are common and directly change energy requirements.
  • domain assumption The diffusion of escaped protons follows the instantaneous-injection uniform-diffusion solution of Thoudam and Hoerandel 2012 (Eq. 3), with D0 = 1e28 cm2/s at 10 GeV and delta = 1/3.
    The escape spectra for SrcA and SrcC depend on this model; other diffusion models or a finite injection duration would change the inferred parameters.
  • domain assumption The local interstellar cosmic-ray spectrum measured by AMS-02 is representative of the gas in the H II region.
    Used in Section 4.1 to argue that the observed SrcA flux cannot be explained by diffuse background from H II gas; if the CR spectrum in that region is enhanced, the argument weakens.
  • domain assumption The spatial coincidence between each gamma-ray source and the molecular gas is not a chance alignment.
    The interpretations identify SrcA, SrcB, and SrcC with gas structures based on projected overlap; no statistical test of chance coincidence is presented.
  • domain assumption G213 is a supernova remnant, not an H II region, for the purposes of the SNR-MC scenario.
    The paper cites radio spectral index and lack of pulsar as support, but the debate remains open; the SNR interpretation is assumed in the escape model.
  • domain assumption Standard Fermi-LAT instrument response functions and diffuse background models are accurate over the ROI.
    The detection relies on gll_iem_v07 and iso_P8R3_SOURCE_V3 models and the 4FGL catalog; residual source structure or inaccurate background could mimic extended emission.
  • domain assumption The stars, masers, and clusters projected inside SrcA are physically associated with the SFR at about 1 kpc in the YSC scenario.
    Section 4.2 uses the 1 kpc distance for the young stellar cluster interpretation; distances of OB stars in the region span 0.6 to 5 kpc, as the paper notes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission in the vicinity of G213.0-0.6: Supernova remnant versus massive star-forming region." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FI4KWWKV

@misc{pith2026250618146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission in the vicinity of G213.0-0.6: Supernova remnant versus massive star-forming region},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FI4KWWKV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18146}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of high-energy $\gamma$-ray emission in the vicinity of G213.0-0.6, which is debated as a supernova remnant (SNR) or an ionized hydrogen (H$_{\rm{II}}$) region. Using 16-yr Pass 8 data from Fermi Large Area Telescope (Fermi-LAT), we found three extended sources with different photon spectra in this region, which will label as SrcA, SrcB and SrcC. Among them, the $\gamma$-ray source SrcA with a log-parabola spectrum is spatially coincident with a star-forming region and several OB stars. The power-law spectra source SrcB is spatially coincident with a SNR radio shell. SrcC with a harder power-law photon spectrum is located outside of the radio shell structure. All of them are spatially coincident with a dense molecular cloud (MC) in the velocity range of 35 - 54 km s$^{-1}$. In this scenario, SrcB can be interpreted as the GeV counterpart of the SNR, and its $\gamma$-ray emission originates from the shock-cloud interaction. SrcA and SrcC originate from the escaped CRs illuminating nearby MC. For SrcA, another possibility is that the $\gamma$-ray emission originates from a young stellar cluster (YSC) associated with a star-forming region (SFR), however, the supporting evidence remains insufficient to draw a definitive conclusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18146 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 5 ◦×5 ◦ TS maps in different energy bands. The two blue crosses show the point-like sources (4FGL J0647.7+0031 and 4FGL J0655.3-0037) in this region given by 4FGL-DR4. The cyan, yellow and magenta circles show the best-fit R68 extension size for SrcA, SrcB and SrcC with uniform disk template, respectively. The white contours show the radio emission results from the Effelsberg 1.4-GHz survey data (Reich et al. 1997).… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The SEDs of SrcA (left), SrcB (middle) and SrcC (right). The black data points are derived by Fermi-LAT in the energy range of 100 MeV - 1 TeV. The black arrows indicate the 95% upper limits and the grey histograms show the TS value for each energy bin. The red curve indicates the best-fit LogPb spectrum for SrcA. The red solid and dashed lines show the best-fit PL with 1 σ statistical errors for SrcB and SrcC. The … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Integrated 12CO(J = 1-0) emission intensity (K km s−1 ) toward SNR G213 in the velocity range of 35 - 54 km s −1 . The white contours, the cyan, yellow and magenta circles are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hadronic model of the γ-ray spectra for SrcA (left), SrcB (middle) and SrcC (right). The black solid line in the left panel is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sketch of the CR escaped from SNR G213 and illuminating nearby gas. However, based on previous results, the OB stars are located in a wide range of distances, ranging from 0.6 to 5 kpc (Xu et al. 2021; Gao et al. 2024), and we found that the distance of this SFR also r…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 12 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]

    (/ O 2 @ x <?Y+ +PS ;e o* U3H߾pv | G R y,؟; ɟ O> (;EADs Wl B&DBGhQ]yđwu]HgQwDK: yTwd/G

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  5. [6]

    2012, , 537, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117928

    Abramowski , A., Acero , F., Aharonian , F., et al. 2012, , 537, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117928

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117928 2012

  6. [7]

    2016 a , , 224, 8, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/8

    Acero , F., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2016 a , , 224, 8, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/8

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/8 2016

  7. [8]

    2016 b , , 223, 26, 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26

    ---. 2016 b , , 223, 26, 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26 2016

  8. [9]

    S., Actis , M., Aghajani , T., et al

    Acharya , B. S., Actis , M., Aghajani , T., et al. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 43, 3, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.01.007

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.01.007 2013

Show all 80 references
  1. [10]

    2011, Science, 334, 1103, 10.1126/science.1210311

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 1103, 10.1126/science.1210311

    2011 doi

  2. [11]

    2015, , 115, 211101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.211101

    Aguilar , M., Aisa , D., Alpat , B., et al. 2015, , 115, 211101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.211101

    2015 doi

  3. [12]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 561, 10.1038/s41550-019-0724-0

    Aharonian , F., Yang , R., & de O \ n a Wilhelmi , E. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 561, 10.1038/s41550-019-0724-0

    2019 doi

  4. [13]

    G., Bazer-Bachi , A

    Aharonian , F., Akhperjanian , A. G., Bazer-Bachi , A. R., et al. 2008, , 481, 401, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077765

    2008 doi

  5. [14]

    A., Akhperjanian , A

    Aharonian , F. A., Akhperjanian , A. G., Aye , K. M., et al. 2004, , 432, 75, 10.1038/nature02960

    2004 doi

  6. [15]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

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

    1974

  7. [16]

    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

  8. [17]

    R., Schure , K

    Bell , A. R., Schure , K. M., Reville , B., & Giacinti , G. 2013, , 431, 415, 10.1093/mnras/stt179

    2013 doi

  9. [18]

    2013, , 21, 70, 10.1007/s00159-013-0070-7

    Blasi , P. 2013, , 21, 70, 10.1007/s00159-013-0070-7

    2013 doi

  10. [19]

    D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A

    Bolatto , A. D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A. K. 2013, , 51, 207, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    Buckner , A. S. M., & Froebrich , D. 2013, , 436, 1465, 10.1093/mnras/stt1665

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    M., Marcowith , A., Amato , E., et al

    Bykov , A. M., Marcowith , A., Amato , E., et al. 2020, , 216, 42, 10.1007/s11214-020-00663-0

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02773, 10.48550/arXiv.1905.02773

    Cao , Z., della Volpe , D., Liu , S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02773, 10.48550/arXiv.1905.02773

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    J., & Montmerle , T

    Cesarsky , C. J., & Montmerle , T. 1983, , 36, 173, 10.1007/BF00167503

    1983 doi

  15. [24]

    M., et al

    Cusano , F., Ripepi , V., Alcal \'a , J. M., et al. 2011, , 410, 227, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17438.x

    2011

  16. [25]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center...

    2003

  17. [26]

    M., Hartmann , D., & Thaddeus , P

    Dame , T. M., Hartmann , D., & Thaddeus , P. 2001, , 547, 792, 10.1086/318388

    2001 doi

  18. [27]

    2005, , 433, 565, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041946

    Deharveng , L., Zavagno , A., & Caplan , J. 2005, , 433, 565, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041946

    2005 doi

  19. [28]

    J., Djupvik , A

    Delgado , A. J., Djupvik , A. A., & Alfaro , E. J. 2010, , 509, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912961

    2010 doi

  20. [29]

    1976, , 25, 25

    Dubout-Crillon , R. 1976, , 25, 25

    1976

  21. [30]

    Elmegreen , B. G. 1998, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 148, Origins, ed. C. E. Woodward , J. M. Shull , & H. A. Thronson , Jr., 150, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9712352

    1998 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    A., & Casanova , S

    Gabici , S., Aharonian , F. A., & Casanova , S. 2009, , 396, 1629, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14832.x

    2009

  23. [32]

    M., & Slane , P

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

    2006 arXiv

  24. [33]

    2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350

    Gaia Collaboration . 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350

    2020

  25. [34]

    Y., Wu , C

    Gao , X. Y., Wu , C. J., Sun , X. H., Reich , W., & Han , J. L. 2024, , 527, 7355, 10.1093/mnras/stad3596

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    Green , D. A. 2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog, VII/278

    2017

  27. [36]

    2019, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 40, 36, 10.1007/s12036-019-9601-6

    ---. 2019, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 40, 36, 10.1007/s12036-019-9601-6

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration , Abramowski , A., Aharonian , F., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 406, 10.1126/science.1261313

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    W., et al

    Hanabata , Y., Katagiri , H., Hewitt , J. W., et al. 2014, , 786, 145, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/145

    2014 doi

  30. [39]

    2019, , 71, 6, 10.1093/pasj/psy126

    Hanaoka , M., Kaneda , H., Suzuki , T., et al. 2019, , 71, 6, 10.1093/pasj/psy126

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    K., Reville , B., Hinton , J., Mohrmann , L., & Vieu , T

    H \"a rer , L. K., Reville , B., Hinton , J., Mohrmann , L., & Vieu , T. 2023, , 671, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245444

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    1983, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, 212, 319, 10.1016/0167-5087(83)90709-3

    Helene , O. 1983, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, 212, 319, 10.1016/0167-5087(83)90709-3

    1983 doi

  33. [42]

    V., Piskunov , A

    Kharchenko , N. V., Piskunov , A. E., Schilbach , E., R \"o ser , S., & Scholz , R. D. 2013, , 558, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322302

    2013 doi

  34. [43]

    2024, Science Bulletin, 69, 449, 10.1016/j.scib.2023.12.040

    Lhaaso Collaboration . 2024, Science Bulletin, 69, 449, 10.1016/j.scib.2023.12.040

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    2024, , 689, A257, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348873

    Li , Y., Liu , S., & Giacinti , G. 2024, , 689, A257, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348873

    2024 doi

  36. [45]

    2023 a , , 953, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace344

    Li , Y., Liu , S., & He , Y. 2023 a , , 953, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace344

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    2023 b , , 945, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb81d

    Li , Y., Xin , Y., Liu , S., & He , Y. 2023 b , , 945, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb81d

    2023 doi

  38. [47]

    2019, , 881, 94, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2df8

    Liu , B., Yang , R.-z., Sun , X.-n., Aharonian , F., & Chen , Y. 2019, , 881, 94, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2df8

    2019 doi

  39. [48]

    2020, , 897, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9ff2

    Liu , S., Zeng , H., Xin , Y., & Zhu , H. 2020, , 897, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9ff2

    2020 doi

  40. [49]

    Maeder , A., & Conti , P. S. 1994, , 32, 227, 10.1146/annurev.astro.32.1.227

    1994 doi

  41. [50]

    R., Bertsch , D

    Mattox , J. R., Bertsch , D. L., Chiang , J., et al. 1996, , 461, 396, 10.1086/177068

    1996 doi

  42. [51]

    2000, , 361, 101, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006404

    Meynet , G., & Maeder , A. 2000, , 361, 101, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006404

    2000 doi arXiv

  43. [52]

    1979, , 231, 95, 10.1086/157166

    Montmerle , T. 1979, , 231, 95, 10.1086/157166

    1979 doi

  44. [53]

    P., Law , C., Clark , J

    Muno , M. P., Law , C., Clark , J. S., et al. 2006, , 650, 203, 10.1086/507175

    2006 doi

  45. [54]

    2015, , 584, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526784

    Negueruela , I., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Lorenzo , J., Castro , N., & Herrero , A. 2015, , 584, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526784

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    1993, , 101, 153

    Palagi , F., Cesaroni , R., Comoretto , G., Felli , M., & Natale , V. 1993, , 101, 153

    1993

  47. [56]

    M., & Tatischeff , V

    Parizot , E., Marcowith , A., van der Swaluw , E., Bykov , A. M., & Tatischeff , V. 2004, , 424, 747, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041269

    2004 doi

  48. [57]

    2020, , 896, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab93d1

    Peron , G., Aharonian , F., Casanova , S., Zanin , R., & Romoli , C. 2020, , 896, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab93d1

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    Prinja , R. K. 1990, , 232, 119

    1990

  50. [59]

    S., Moskalenko , I

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

    2006 doi

  51. [60]

    2009, , 503, 107, 10.1051/0004-6361/200810664

    Puga , E., Hony , S., Neiner , C., et al. 2009, , 503, 107, 10.1051/0004-6361/200810664

    2009 doi

  52. [61]

    1997, , 126, 413, 10.1051/aas:1997274

    Reich , P., Reich , W., & Furst , E. 1997, , 126, 413, 10.1051/aas:1997274

    1997 doi

  53. [62]

    2003, , 408, 961, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030939

    Reich , W., Zhang , X., & F \"u rst , E. 2003, , 408, 961, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030939

    2003 doi

  54. [63]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2014, , 783, 130, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/130

    2014 doi

  55. [64]

    Y., Torres , D

    Rodriguez Marrero , A. Y., Torres , D. F., de Cea del Pozo , E., Reimer , O., & Cillis , A. N. 2008, , 689, 213, 10.1086/592562

    2008 doi

  56. [65]

    1959, , 4, 257, 10.1086/190049

    Sharpless , S. 1959, , 4, 257, 10.1086/190049

    1959 doi

  57. [66]

    2006, , 367, 763, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10007.x

    Smith , N. 2006, , 367, 763, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10007.x

    2006

  58. [67]

    2012, , 542, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118531

    Solin , O., Ukkonen , E., & Haikala , L. 2012, , 542, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118531

    2012 doi

  59. [68]

    2017, , 836, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5cb7

    Su , Y., Zhou , X., Yang , J., et al. 2017, , 836, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5cb7

    2017 doi

  60. [69]

    2019, , 240, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8

    Su , Y., Yang , J., Zhang , S., et al. 2019, , 240, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    2020, , 639, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037580

    Sun , X.-N., Yang , R.-Z., Liang , Y.-F., et al. 2020, , 639, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037580

    2020 doi

  62. [71]

    Thoudam , S., & H \"o randel , J. R. 2012, , 419, 624, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19724.x

    2012

  63. [72]

    2012, , 749, L35, 10.1088/2041-8205/749/2/L35

    Uchiyama , Y., Funk , S., Katagiri , H., et al. 2012, , 749, L35, 10.1088/2041-8205/749/2/L35

    2012 doi

  64. [73]

    S., de Koter , A., & Lamers , H

    Vink , J. S., de Koter , A., & Lamers , H. J. G. L. M. 2001, , 369, 574, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    2001 doi

  65. [74]

    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

  66. [75]

    G., Bian , S

    Xu , Y., Hou , L. G., Bian , S. B., et al. 2021, , 645, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202040103

    2021 doi

  67. [76]

    2017, , 600, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630213

    Yang , R.-z., & Aharonian , F. 2017, , 600, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630213

    2017 doi

  68. [77]

    2018, , 611, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732045

    Yang , R.-z., de O \ n a Wilhelmi , E., & Aharonian , F. 2018, , 611, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732045

    2018 doi

  69. [78]

    Q., Jiang , B

    Yu , B., Chen , B. Q., Jiang , B. W., & Zijlstra , A. 2019, , 488, 3129, 10.1093/mnras/stz1940

    2019 doi

  70. [79]

    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

  71. [80]

    2020, , 891, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab75ef

    Zhao , H., Jiang , B., Li , J., et al. 2020, , 891, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab75ef

    2020 doi

  72. [81]

    1998, , 133, 337, 10.1051/aas:1998460

    Zinchenko , I., Pirogov , L., & Toriseva , M. 1998, , 133, 337, 10.1051/aas:1998460

    1998 doi

Pith tools

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