Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 131 references

A Systematic Search for MeV-GeV Pulsar Wind Nebulae without Gamma-ray Detected Pulsars

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 Nine previously unidentified gamma-ray sources are likely pulsar wind nebulae, which would nearly double the Fermi-LAT's known PWN population.

desk verdict A solid systematic GeV census and target list, but the 'likely PWN' labels outrun the evidence; treat the 12-to-21 population increase as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18599 v1 pith:R2DSQQBV submitted 2025-06-23 astro-ph.HE

Jordan Eagle , Daniel Castro , Wei Zhang , Diego Torres , Jean Ballet , The Fermi-LAT Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarwindnebulaegamma-rayastronomyFermi-LATsourceclassificationGalacticplaneinverseComptonemissionsupernovaremnantsMeV-GeVband
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 searches 11.5 years of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data in 58 regions centered on pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe) that have no detected gamma-ray pulsar, in order to find MeV-GeV counterparts that pulsar light would otherwise hide. It reports 36 detections: 6 previously known Fermi-LAT PWNe, 9 previously unidentified sources it classifies as likely PWNe, and 21 weaker PWN candidates, leaving 19 target PWNe undetected with new upper limits. If the 9 likely classifications hold, the confirmed Fermi-LAT PWN population would grow from 12 to 21, almost doubling it, and the 3 new extended likely PWNe would raise the extended no-pulsar PWN count from 6 to 9. The paper's working assumption is that positional coincidence plus measured extent plus the energetics of the pulsar, PWN, and supernova remnant, taken together, are enough to identify a PWN origin; it flags explicitly that no classification method is currently free of reasonable doubt.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a binned maximum-likelihood analysis of Fermi-LAT data driven by a test-statistic hierarchy. A detection requires $\mathrm{TS} = 2\,\ln(L_1/L_0) \ge 25$ for a point source at the PWN location, and extension is accepted when $\mathrm{TS}_{\mathrm{ext}} = 2\,\ln(L_{\mathrm{ext}}/L_{\mathrm{ps}}) > 16$, comparing a radial Gaussian or disk template to a point source. Source models are built from 4FGL catalog sources plus Galactic and isotropic diffuse templates, with the Large Magellanic Cloud regions adding a fourth diffuse component, and every region is refit with eight alternative interstellar emission models to propagate systematics into fluxes and extensions. The classification scheme itself, positional coincidence, spatial extent, and pulsar, PWN, and supernova remnant energetics, is the conceptual hinge that separates the 9 likely PWNe from the 21 candidates and the 19 non-detections.

What would settle it

A decisive check is deep X-ray timing of the nine likely PWN fields: if pulsed emission from a central neutron star is detected in even one field and its spectrum connects to the reported GeV flux, that source's all-PWN classification fails and the population claim must be corrected.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that Fermi-LAT has been systematically missing PWNe because the brightest contaminating neighbor, the central pulsar, was used as a selection filter rather than an obstacle. By restricting the sample to 58 PWNe and PWN candidates with no detected gamma-ray pulsar, the analysis finds 36 gamma-ray sources, classifies 9 of the previously unidentified ones as likely PWNe and 21 as weaker candidates, and sets 95% upper limits for the other 19. Three of the nine likely PWNe are extended sources (G8.40+0.15, HESS J1837-069, and the RCW 103 region), and extension is the paper's strongest morphological discriminator. If the classifications hold, the cataloged Fermi-LAT PWN population rises from 12 to 21 and the extended no-pulsar PWN class from 6 to 9. The argument leans on the spectral connection between the GeV and TeV bands, positional overlap with radio, X-ray, and TeV nebulae, and consistency with evolutionary radiative models; the paper explicitly concedes that pulsar contamination below 10 GeV is possible for 17 of the 36 detections.

Load-bearing premise

The census of 9 likely and 21 candidate PWNe rests on the premise that positional coincidence, measured gamma-ray extent, and the energetics of the pulsar, PWN, and supernova remnant are together sufficient to classify a source as a PWN; the paper itself concedes that no robust classification method is free of reasonable doubt, and 17 of 36 detections may host a pulsar component at energies below 10 GeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the nine likely classifications are confirmed, the known Fermi-LAT PWN population grows from 12 to 21, a near-doubling that changes the observed GeV source mix along the Galactic plane.
  • The three newly extended likely PWNe would raise the count of extended Fermi-LAT PWNe without detectable pulsars from 6 to 9, making extension a more common PWN signature than point-like emission in the MeV-GeV band.
  • The 19 upper limits, tabulated in nine energy bins, give modelers a matched set of non-detections to test evolutionary predictions of which PWNe should be bright in GeV gamma rays and which should not.
  • Seventeen of the 36 detections show possible low-energy spectral components, so follow-up broadband studies are required before the weaker 21 candidates can be moved into the firm PWN class.
  • The two Large Magellanic Cloud sources, N 157B and the newly detected B0453-685, support the possibility of detecting extragalactic PWNe at MeV-GeV energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the sample construction, dropping all PWNe with detected gamma-ray pulsars, introduces a selection bias toward older or fainter nebulae, so the near-doubling should not be read as the total hidden PWN population; a companion off-pulse search is the natural completeness test.
  • I infer that the 19 non-detections can be used as a flux-limited census: plotting their upper limits against pulsar spin-down power should reveal whether the GeV luminosity plane is populated mostly by young, powerful systems or whether older nebulae dominate, a distinction the current small sample cannot settle.
  • I would propose a concrete next test: take the 21 candidates and compare their GeV-to-TeV spectral indices against the 9 likely PWNe; if the candidates cluster at softer indices, that would suggest many are actually supernova remnants or pulsar-dominated blends rather than PWNe.
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 a systematic Fermi-LAT search for MeV–GeV counterparts of known pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe) that lack detected gamma-ray pulsars. Using 11.5 years of Pass 8 data between 300 MeV and 2 TeV, the authors analyze 58 ROIs, model each region with a joint multi-event-type likelihood, test extension, evaluate eight alternative interstellar emission models and effective-area systematics, and cross-check five ROIs with 14 years of data. They report 36 gamma-ray detections, of which 9 are classified as likely PWNe, 21 as weaker PWN candidates, and 19 as non-detections with upper limits. The central claim is that the nine likely sources, if confirmed, would increase the Fermi-LAT PWN population from 12 to 21, while the overall sample suggests that the true MeV–GeV PWN population is larger than currently cataloged.

Significance. If the classifications hold, this would be the most comprehensive systematic census of GeV PWNe without bright pulsars, nearly doubling the known Fermi-LAT PWN population and providing a well-defined target list for X-ray and TeV follow-up. The analysis is technically careful: joint fits over PSF event types, extension tests with both disk and Gaussian templates, a nine-model interstellar-emission systematic study, treatment of LMC diffuse templates, and a 14-year re-analysis for stability are all concrete strengths. The search itself is observational and not circular, and the radiative modeling in Section 5.1 is explicitly framed as a consistency check rather than a fit. The main weakness is that the categorical distinction between 'likely' and 'candidate' PWN is not strong enough to carry the headline 12-to-21 count, because six of the nine likely sources are point-like and the paper's own criteria cannot separate those from pulsar or SNR contamination.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §4.2, Table 2] The headline population increase (abstract and §4.4) rests on the nine 'likely' classifications, but §4.1 states that 'no robust classification method currently exists that is free of reasonable doubt' and that confident identification requires morphological correspondence or correlated variability, neither of which is demonstrated for any of the nine sources. Six of the nine are point-like (Table 2, top panel), so the morphological criterion cannot distinguish a PWN from its central pulsar or a compact SNR, and §4.2 flags possible low-energy pulsar contributions for six of the nine likely sources: G29.70–0.30, B0453–685, G315.78–0.23, G327.15–1.04, N 157B, and G336.40+0.10. Because the 'likely' label is doing arithmetic in the 12-to-21 claim, the paper should either provide a quantitative classification rubric, present the headline as explicitly contingent on confirmation, or give the count under alternative assignments of the ambiguous point-like sources.
  2. [§5.1, Figure 21] The radiative-model consistency check used for two of the likely sources, G29.70–0.30 and G327.15–1.04, concludes that the model SEDs agree with the observed fluxes but that 'the spectral slope is not reproduced for most of the models,' with the text attributing this to possible pulsar or SNR contamination. For a section whose stated aim is to explore whether the data are consistent with a PWN origin, this is a load-bearing negative result: the primary physics check does not validate the PWN interpretation for those sources. Please state explicitly in §4.4 and Table 7 that the model comparison does not support these classifications, or make the slope comparison quantitative before using it as supporting evidence.
  3. [Abstract, §4.4, Table 1] The phrase '9 unidentified Fermi-LAT sources' is difficult to reconcile with Table 1, where at least four of the likely sources already have 4FGL counterparts with a 'pwn' class: 4FGL J0537.8–6909 (N 157B), 4FGL J1846.4–0258 (Kes 75), 4FGL J1930.5+1853 (G54.10+0.27), and 4FGL J1554.4–5506 (G327.15–1.04). The paper should clarify whether these are newly confirmed as PWNe, newly associated, or newly detected, and state whether the '12 to 21' increase is measured on the same catalog footing as the 4FGL-DR4 baseline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §2] The abstract says 'only a dozen PWNe are identified' while §2 says '21 PWNe currently noted as associated with sources in the 4FGL-DR4 catalog'; please reconcile the definitions of identified, associated, and firm PWN, since this distinction is exactly what the headline count depends on.
  2. [Table 5] For G318.90+0.40, the quoted LogParabola index α = 0.24 ± 0.83 at 1 GeV is extremely hard and may mislead readers; please report the index at the pivot energy used for that source or add an explanatory note.
  3. [§4.3.2 and Figures 16] The two W51C PWN candidates are referred to inconsistently as G49.20–0.30/G49.20–0.70 and PWNc 1/PWNc 2 across the text and figures; please standardize the naming.
  4. [§3.6] For 4FGL J1631.6–4756e, the quoted systematic error on the extension, r = 0.19 ± 0.027 ± 0.83, is larger than the measured extension and appears to be a typo or an unresolved systematic; please clarify the value and its source.
  5. [Appendix C] The captions of Figures C1–C9 state that the complete figure set of all 36 SEDs is provided in the online journal, but the appendix shows only the nine likely sources; please either include the full set or explicitly state that the remaining SEDs are online-only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fermi-LAT search and conditional PWN classification are self-contained; the few author self-citations are supporting, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a targeted observational search: 58 known PWN/PWN-candidate positions are analyzed in Fermi-LAT data, and detections are characterized by TS, extension, and spectral fits before being compared against external radio, X-ray, and TeV catalogs. The headline '12 to 21' claim is explicitly conditional ('if confirmed to be PWNe') and rests on the classification criteria of Section 4.1 (positional coincidence, extent, energetics). The paper itself states that 'no robust classification method currently exists that is free of reasonable doubt', so the uncertainty in the classification is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity. The radiative modeling in Section 5.1 explicitly 'is not to fit the GeV data' and instead sweeps nine free parameters to test consistency, so no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction. The only author self-citations in the classification chain are Eagle et al. (2022, 2023) and Straal et al. (2023) for G327.15-1.04, B0453-685, and Kes 75; these are prior published multiwavelength studies using external X-ray, radio, and TeV data, and the present paper also reports independent Fermi-LAT measurements (TS, spectra, extension) for these sources. The citations are supporting evidence rather than the load-bearing derivation. No equation or fitted parameter is recycled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to exclude alternatives. Verdict: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on observational assumptions and catalog inputs rather than theoretical derivations; the free parameters listed belong to the Section 5.1 consistency check and do not enter the detection claim. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Radiative model M_ej (SN ejecta mass) = 8-15 M_sun
    Section 5.1: chosen range for predicted SED band; not fitted to GeV data.
  • Radiative model alpha1 (pre-break particle index) = 1.0-1.6
    Section 5.1: range used to generate predicted SEDs; not fitted to GeV data.
  • Radiative model gamma_b (break Lorentz factor) = 1e5-1e6
    Section 5.1: range used to generate predicted SEDs; not fitted to GeV data.
  • Radiative model U_FIR (FIR/NIR energy density) = 1-3 times GALPROP
    Section 5.1: range used to generate predicted SEDs; not fitted to GeV data.
  • Radiative model true age factor = 0.7-1.3 tau_c
    Section 5.1: range used to generate predicted SEDs; not fitted to GeV data.
  • Radiative model braking index n = 2, 2.5, 3
    Section 5.1: range used to generate predicted SEDs; not fitted to GeV data.
  • Radiative model eta_B (magnetic energy fraction) = 0.02-0.04
    Section 5.1: range used to generate predicted SEDs; not fitted to GeV data.
  • Radiative model alpha2 (post-break particle index) = 2.2-2.8
    Section 5.1: range used to generate predicted SEDs; not fitted to GeV data.
  • Radiative model n_ISM (ISM density) = 0.1-1.0 cm^-3
    Section 5.1: range used to generate predicted SEDs; not fitted to GeV data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Catalog positions and extents for the 58 PWNe and PWN candidates are correct to within the stated uncertainties.
    Section 2: the ROI centers and source associations come from TeVCat, SNRcat, and prior literature; wrong positions would misdirect the search and the upper limits.
  • domain assumption The standard Galactic interstellar emission model gll_iem_v07, plus the eight alternative IEMs, brackets the true diffuse background.
    Section 3.2 and 3.6: along the Galactic plane the diffuse background dominates the systematic error; if the IEM family is biased, both detections and upper limits shift.
  • ad hoc to paper Positional coincidence, measured extent, and pulsar/SNR energetics are together sufficient to identify a gamma-ray source as a likely PWN.
    Section 4.1: the paper itself cautions that these criteria do not provide unambiguous classification and that no robust method exists; the 9 likely labels depend on this assumption.
  • domain assumption For undetected PWNe, a point-source template at the catalog position yields valid 95% upper limits even though many targets are extended.
    Section 3.5: a point source is placed at the PWN position to compute upper limits; for extended nebulae this can overstate the limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Systematic Search for MeV-GeV Pulsar Wind Nebulae without Gamma-ray Detected Pulsars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R2DSQQBV

@misc{pith2026250618599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Systematic Search for MeV-GeV Pulsar Wind Nebulae without Gamma-ray Detected Pulsars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R2DSQQBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18599}
}
read the original abstract

An increasing number of pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe) are being identified in the TeV band by ground-based Imaging Air Cherenkov Telescopes such that they constitute the dominant source class of Galactic TeV emitters. However, MeV-GeV PWN counterparts are still largely lacking. To date, only a dozen PWNe are identified by the Fermi-Large Area Telescope (LAT) in the MeV-GeV band. Most PWNe are located along the Galactic plane embedded within the prominent, diffuse Galactic gamma-ray emission, which makes these sources difficult to disentangle from the bright diffuse background. We present a systematic search for gamma-ray counterparts to known PWNe in the 300MeV-2TeV energy band using the Fermi-LAT. We target locations of previously identified PWNe that lack detected Fermi-LAT pulsars to minimize associated pulsar contamination. The sample includes 6 previously identified Fermi-LAT PWNe and 8 Fermi-LAT sources associated with PWNe. We report the analysis of 58 regions of interest and classify detected sources as either a likely PWN or a candidate PWN counterpart based on their morphological and spectral characteristics across the broadband spectrum. There are 9 unidentified Fermi-LAT sources that we consider as likely PWN counterparts, which, if confirmed to be PWNe, would greatly increase the PWN population detected by the Fermi-LAT from 12 to 21. The remaining Fermi-LAT detected sources are considered weaker PWN candidates. A second approach in the systematic search for gamma-ray emitting PWNe will involve studying the off-pulse phases of Fermi-LAT pulsars for the presence of an obscured PWN and will be reported in a subsequent paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Fermi–LAT intensity map of the Galactic plane for |b| < 12 ◦ using 12 years of observational data with energies E > 1 GeV, based on P8R3 SOURCE class and PSF3 event type. 56 sources are indicated as crosses and their color indicates whether the sources are detected (point-like sources in green and extended in blue) and nondetections in white. Two sources are located in the Large Magellanic Cloud and are not show… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Fermi–LAT intensity map for E > 1 GeV of the LMC centered on (l,b) = (278.76 ◦ , –33.46 ◦ ). The two sources analyzed in the LMC are indicated as green crosses. The four extended source components representing the dif￾fuse LMC emission (following the emissivity model developed in Ackermann et al. 2016) are indicated in white. Based on P8R3 SOURCE class and PSF3 event type. The units of the color scale are ph cm−… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 300 MeV–2 TeV TS map of PSF3 events for PWN G8.40+0.15. The color scale reflects the TS value. The TeV PWN HESS J1804–216 is displayed as a black circle, r = 0.24 ◦ . The position of PSR J1803–2137 and the size of the extended nebula observed in X-ray are marked and labeled as the white circle. The blue contours represent the SNR G8.7–1.4 in radio. The 4FGL J1804.7–2144e position and extent is indi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The best-fit Fermi–LAT spectral model (blue band) and data in yellow for PWN G29.70–0.30 (Kes 75) are plotted beside the best-fit spectral model (grey band) and data in green of its TeV counterpart HESS J1846–029 from H. E. S. S. Collaboration et al. (2018). The blue f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ TS map for E > 10 GeV of the TeV PWN HESS J1837–069 (magenta circle). The 4FGL J1836.5– 0651e and 4FGL J1838.9–0704e positions and extents are indicated by the white dashed circles but are not included in the source model. The best-fit position and ex…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 300 MeV–2 TeV TS map of ALL events for PWN G54.10+0.27. The green circle represents the 95% positional uncertainty of a point source at the PWN position and corresponds to the DR3 source 4FGL J1930.5+1853. The black circle represents the size and loca…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 10 GeV–2 TeV TS map of PSF3 events for PWN N 157B. The 4FGL counterpart is 4FGL J0537.8– 6909, indicated in cyan with the 95% positional uncertainty (outer black circle). The TeV PWN “LHA 120–N 157B” (inner black circle) is indicated. Unrelated nearby…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 300 MeV–2 TeV TS map of PSF3 events for PWN G315.78–0.23. There is one possibly associated Fermi–LAT source, 4FGL J1435.8–6018. The 95% uncertainty region of the new best-fit position of 4FGL J1435.8–6018 is the yellow circle, which coincides with the…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 10 GeV–2 TeV TS map of PSF3 events for both X-ray PWNe coincident with the Fermi–LAT PWN 4FGL J1616.2–5054e: G332.50–0.30 (RCW 103, with Chandra X-ray contours in white) and G332.50–0.28 (PSR J1617–5055). 4FGL J1616.2–5054e is indicated as the white d…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 1–10 GeV TS map of PSF3 events for PWN G336.40+0.10. 4FGL J1631.6–4756e is indicated but not included in the source model. The best-fit radial Gaussian template for the extended emission is the black circle. The X-ray PWN location and extent is marke…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 1–10 GeV TS map of PSF3 events for plerionic SNRs G11.03–0.05 and G11.09+0.08 (denoted by radio contours in cyan). G11.2–0.3 is also plotted with its radio contours and is coincident with 4FGL J1811.5–1925. An unidentified, extended TeV source HESS J…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 1–10 GeV TS map of PSF3 events for PWN G12.82–0.02. The SNR shell is ∼ 3 ′ in diameter (cyan circle) which embodies PSR J1813–1749 and the X-ray PWN. The TeV PWN HESS J1813–178 location and size is marked in black. The 4FGL J1813.1–1737e position and…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 1–10 GeV TS map of PSF3 events for PWN G15.40+0.10. The Gaussian extent of 4FGL J1818.6– 1533 is in yellow. The white contours represent the radio SNR. HESS J1818–154 is located at the PWN near the core of the SNR shell in black. The maximum TS at th…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left: A 2 ◦ ×2 ◦ 300 MeV–2 TeV TS map of PSF3 events for PWN G20.20–0.20. The 95% uncertainty region for the coincident source 4FGL J1828.0–1133 is in blue. The green contours represent the radio SNR and the central peak corresponds to the PWN. The maximum TS at the P…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 1–10 GeV TS map of PSF3 events for PWN G29.40+0.10. The best-fit position and extent of the Gaussian source 4FGL J1844.4–0306 is in black. The green contours represent the SNR in radio. The UNID HESS J1844–030 is marked in magenta. The maximum TS at the PW…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 10 GeV–2 TeV TS map of PSF3 events for PWN candidates G49.20–0.70 (“PWNc 1”) and G49.20– 0.30 (“PWNc 2”), both overlapping SNR W 51C. The SNR is the GeV emitter 4FGL J1923.2+1408e. 4FGL J1922.7+1428c is the Fermi–LAT counterpart, replaced by the two …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 300 MeV–2 TeV TS map of PSF3 events for PWN G65.73+1.18. The pulsar and PWN in X-ray as observed by Chandra are denoted with cyan contours and are highlighted using the cyan arrow and label. The 95% uncertainty region of a point source at the PWN pos…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Left: A 2 ◦ × 2 ◦ 1–10 GeV TS map of PSF3 events for PWN G328.40+0.20. The Crab-like radio SNR is shown as the green contours. 4FGL J1553.8–5352e is shown in blue but is not included in the source model. The best-fit Gaussian source is marked in black. The maximum TS …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The best-fit Fermi–LAT spectral model (blue band) and data in yellow for the source coincident with PWN G65.73+1.18 (J1952.8+2924) beside the best-fit spec￾tral model of 2HWC J1953+294 in grey and the data of VER J1952+293 is in green (Abeysekara et al. 2018). The blu…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Left: 300 MeV–2 TeV luminosity of the PWNe as a function of pulsar spin-down power. Right: 300 MeV–2 TeV GeV luminosity as a function of pulsar characteristic age. PWN Name Type of Candidate E˙ τc d PWN size References Likely (L) or Weak (W) (erg s−1 ) (kyr) (kpc) ( ◦…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: 712 (456 for G11.2–0.3) predicted SEDs from an evolutionary model (Martin & Torres 2022) for several of the sources studied as examples. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_21.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 38 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]

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

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2009, , 706, L1, 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/1/l1 2009

  4. [4]

    A., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2013, , 208, 17, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17 2013

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    U., Albert , A., Alfaro , R., et al

    Abeysekara , A. U., Albert , A., Alfaro , R., et al. 2017, , 843, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7556

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7556 2017

  8. [8]

    U., Archer , A., Benbow , W., et al

    Abeysekara , A. U., Archer , A., Benbow , W., et al. 2018, , 866, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/aade4e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aade4e 2018

Show all 131 references
  1. [9]

    2013 a , , 551, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220799

    Acero , F., Gallant , Y., Ballet , J., Renaud , M., & Terrier , R. 2013 a , , 551, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220799

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

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

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

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

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

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

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2011, , 726, 35, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/35

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Baldini , L., et al. 2011, , 726, 35, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/35

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    B., et al

    Ackermann , M., Albert , A., Atwood , W. B., et al. 2016, , 586, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526920

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2017, , 843, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa775a

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Baldini , L., et al. 2017, , 843, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa775a

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    G., Aye , K

    Aharonian , F., Akhperjanian , A. G., Aye , K. M., et al. 2005, Science, 307, 1938, 10.1126/science.1108643

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    G., Bazer-Bachi , A

    Aharonian , F., Akhperjanian , A. G., Bazer-Bachi , A. R., et al. 2006, , 636, 777, 10.1086/498013

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    G., Barres de Almeida , U., et al

    Aharonian , F., Akhperjanian , A. G., Barres de Almeida , U., et al. 2008, , 477, 353, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078516

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Antonelli , L

    Aleksi \'c , J., Alvarez , E. A., Antonelli , L. A., et al. 2012, , 541, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218846

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

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

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

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    2018, , 859, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd7e

    Araya , M. 2018, , 859, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd7e

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    P., Schwanke , U., Sushch , I., et al

    Arribas , M. P., Schwanke , U., Sushch , I., et al. 2012, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 7, Proceedings of the 32nd ICRC, 140--143. 1203.2532

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B., Baldini , L., Bregeon , J., et al

    Atwood , W. B., Baldini , L., Bregeon , J., et al. 2013, , 774, 76, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/76

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    2010, , 520, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014764

    Balbo , M., Saouter , P., Walter , R., et al. 2010, , 520, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014764

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    H., Digel , S

    Ballet , J., Burnett , T. H., Digel , S. W., & Lott , B. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.11208. 2005.11208

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bandiera , R., Bucciantini , N., Mart \' n , J., Olmi , B., & Torres , D. F. 2023 a , , 520, 2451, 10.1093/mnras/stad134

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Bandiera , R., Bucciantini , N., Olmi , B., & Torres , D. F. 2023 b , , 525, 2839, 10.1093/mnras/stad2387

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    H., & Helfand , D

    Becker , R. H., & Helfand , D. J. 1985, , 297, L25, 10.1086/184550

    1985 doi

  21. [29]

    1987, , 316, 660, 10.1086/165231

    ---. 1987, , 316, 660, 10.1086/165231

    1987 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Chevalier , R

    Blondin , J. M., Chevalier , R. A., & Frierson , D. M. 2001, , 563, 806, 10.1086/324042

    2001 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Devine , K

    Brogan , C. L., Devine , K. E., Lazio , T. J., et al. 2004, , 127, 355, 10.1086/379856

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Gaensler , B

    Brogan , C. L., Gaensler , B. M., Gelfand , J. D., et al. 2005, , 629, L105, 10.1086/491471

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    H., Digel , S

    Bruel , P., Burnett , T. H., Digel , S. W., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.11394. 1810.11394

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    R., Bhat , N

    Camilo , F., Lorimer , D. R., Bhat , N. D. R., et al. 2002, , 574, L71, 10.1086/342351

    2002 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.17030, 10.48550/arXiv.2305.17030

    Cao , Z., Aharonian , F., An , Q., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.17030, 10.48550/arXiv.2305.17030

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Gotthelf , E

    Chen , Y., Wang , Q. D., Gotthelf , E. V., et al. 2006, , 651, 237, 10.1086/507017

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    H., McCrea , W

    Clark , D. H., McCrea , W. H., & Stephenson , F. R. 1977, , 265, 318, 10.1038/265318a0

    1977 doi

  30. [38]

    2019, , 878, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab21d0

    Coerver , A., Wilcox , P., Zhang , H., et al. 2019, , 878, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab21d0

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Albacete Colombo , J

    Combi , J. A., Albacete Colombo , J. F., Romero , G. E., & Benaglia , P. 2006, , 653, L41, 10.1086/510329

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Johannesson , G., & Tibaldo , L

    de Palma , F., Brandt , T. J., Johannesson , G., & Tibaldo , L. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1304.1395. 1304.1395

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    2018, , 617, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833008

    Devin , J., Acero , F., Ballet , J., & Schmid , J. 2018, , 617, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833008

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    L., van Dyk , D

    Donath , A., Siemiginowska , A., Kashyap , V. L., van Dyk , D. A., & Burke , D. 2024, , 168, 182, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6b98

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Atwood , W

    Dormody , M., Johnson , R. P., Atwood , W. B., et al. 2011, , 742, 126, 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/126

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, , 940, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb4

    Eagle , J., Castro , D., Temim , T., et al. 2022, , 940, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb4

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    2023, , 945, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b1

    Eagle , J., Castro , D., Mahhov , P., et al. 2023, , 945, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b1

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Feinstein , F., Fiasson , A., Gallant , Y., et al. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1112, Science with the New Generation of High Energy Gamma-ray Experiments, ed. D. Bastieri & R. Rando , 54--62, 10.1063/1.3125791

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    2019, Fermitools: Fermi Science Tools , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.011

    Fermi Science Support Development Team . 2019, Fermitools: Fermi Science Tools , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.011. 1905.011

    2019

  40. [48]

    2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313, 10.1016/j.asr.2012.02.004

    Ferrand , G., & Safi-Harb , S. 2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313, 10.1016/j.asr.2012.02.004

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Burrows , D

    Frank , K. A., Burrows , D. N., & Park , S. 2015, , 810, 113, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/113

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    2014, , 66, 19, 10.1093/pasj/pst020

    Fujita , Y., Nakanishi , H., Muller , E., et al. 2014, , 66, 19, 10.1093/pasj/pst020

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Dickel , J

    Gaensler , B. M., Dickel , J. R., & Green , A. J. 2000, , 542, 380, 10.1086/309522

    2000 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Hendrick , S

    Gaensler , B. M., Hendrick , S. P., Reynolds , S. P., & Borkowski , K. J. 2003, , 594, L111, 10.1086/378687

    2003 doi

  45. [53]

    M., & Slane , P

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

    2006 arXiv

  46. [54]

    D., Gaensler , B

    Gelfand , J. D., Gaensler , B. M., Slane , P. O., et al. 2007, , 663, 468, 10.1086/518498

    2007 doi

  47. [55]

    D., Slane , P

    Gelfand , J. D., Slane , P. O., & Temim , T. 2015, , 807, 30, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/30

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    D., Slane , P

    Gelfand , J. D., Slane , P. O., & Zhang , W. 2009, , 703, 2051, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2051

    2009 doi

  49. [57]

    V., & Halpern , J

    Gotthelf , E. V., & Halpern , J. P. 2008, , 681, 515, 10.1086/588779

    2008 doi

  50. [58]

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

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    H., Funk , S., Lemoine-Goumard , M., et al

    Grondin , M. H., Funk , S., Lemoine-Goumard , M., et al. 2011, , 738, 42, 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/42

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

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

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

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration , Abramowski , A., Acero , F., et al. 2012 a , , 548, A46, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219814

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    2012 b , , 545, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219906

    ---. 2012 b , , 545, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219906

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration , Abramowski , A., Aharonian , F., et al. 2014, , 562, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322914

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Abramowski , A., et al. 2018, , 612, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732098

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    P., Tomsick , J

    Halpern , J. P., Tomsick , J. A., Gotthelf , E. V., et al. 2014, , 795, L27, 10.1088/2041-8205/795/2/L27

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    J., Tomsick , J

    Jakobsen , S. J., Tomsick , J. A., Watson , D., Gotthelf , E. V., & Kaspi , V. M. 2014, , 787, 129, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/129

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

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

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

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    C., Maurya , J., John , A

    Joshi , Y. C., Maurya , J., John , A. A., et al. 2023, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/MNRAS/492/3602

    2023

  61. [69]

    G., & Garmire , G

    Kargaltsev , O., Pavlov , G. G., & Garmire , G. P. 2007, , 670, 643, 10.1086/521520

    2007 doi

  62. [70]

    G., & Wong , J

    Kargaltsev , O., Pavlov , G. G., & Wong , J. A. 2009, , 690, 891, 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/891

    2009 doi

  63. [71]

    Kargaltsev , O., Rangelov , B., & Pavlov , G. G. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1305.2552. 1305.2552

    2013 arXiv

  64. [72]

    M., Pavlov , G

    Kargaltsev , O., Schmitt , B. M., Pavlov , G. G., & Misanovic , Z. 2012, , 745, 99, 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/99

    2012 doi

  65. [73]

    2011, , 741, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/44

    Katagiri , H., Tibaldo , L., Ballet , J., et al. 2011, , 741, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/44

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    2017, , 839, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6aa3

    Katsuta , J., Uchiyama , Y., & Funk , S. 2017, , 839, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6aa3

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    F., & Coroniti , F

    Kennel , C. F., & Coroniti , F. V. 1984, , 283, 710, 10.1086/162357

    1984 doi

  68. [76]

    D., & Moon , D.-S

    Koo , B.-C., Lee , J.-J., Seward , F. D., & Moon , D.-S. 2005, , 633, 946, 10.1086/491468

    2005 doi

  69. [77]

    2018, , 475, 1238, 10.1093/mnras/stx3128

    Kuiper , L., Hermsen , W., & Dekker , A. 2018, , 475, 1238, 10.1093/mnras/stx3128

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    2012, , 756, 5, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/5

    Lande , J., Ackermann , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2012, , 756, 5, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/5

    2012 doi

  71. [79]

    Leahy , D. A. 2004, , 127, 2277, 10.1086/382241

    2004 doi

  72. [80]

    F., Lin , T

    Li , J., Torres , D. F., Lin , T. T., et al. 2018, , 858, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabac9

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    2017, , 96, 103016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103016

    Linden , T., Auchettl , K., Bramante , J., et al. 2017, , 96, 103016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103016

    2017 doi

  74. [82]

    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

  75. [83]

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

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

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

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

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

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    A., Ng , C

    Livingstone , M. A., Ng , C. Y., Kaspi , V. M., Gavriil , F. P., & Gotthelf , E. V. 2011, , 730, 66, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/66

    2011 doi

  78. [86]

    K., Fryer , C

    Madsen , K. K., Fryer , C. L., Grefenstette , B. W., et al. 2020, , 889, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab54ca

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    A., Ansoldi , S., et al

    MAGIC Collaboration , Acciari , V. A., Ansoldi , S., et al. 2019, , 483, 4578, 10.1093/mnras/sty3387

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    2009, Phys

    Malyshev, D., Cholis, I., & Gelfand, J. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 063005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.063005

    2009 doi

  81. [89]

    N., Hobbs , G

    Manchester , R. N., Hobbs , G. B., Teoh , A., & Hobbs , M. 2005, , 129, 1993, 10.1086/428488

    2005 doi

  82. [90]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13806, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.13806

    Marchesi , S., Eagle , J., Ajello , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13806, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.13806

    2024 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    2021, , 912, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/abef62

    Mares , A., Lemoine-Goumard , M., Acero , F., et al. 2021, , 912, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/abef62

    2021 doi

  84. [92]

    E., Gotthelf , E

    Marshall , F. E., Gotthelf , E. V., Middleditch , J., Wang , Q. D., & Zhang , W. 2004, , 603, 682, 10.1086/381567

    2004 doi

  85. [93]

    Martin , J., & Torres , D. F. 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 36, 128, 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.09.003

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    F., & Rea , N

    Mart \' n , J., Torres , D. F., & Rea , N. 2012, , 427, 415, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22014.x

    2012

  87. [95]

    2016, , 825, 134, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/134

    Matheson , H., Safi-Harb , S., & Kothes , R. 2016, , 825, 134, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/134

    2016 doi

  88. [96]

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

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

    2009 doi

  89. [97]

    R., Bertsch , D

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

    1996 doi

  90. [98]

    Y., Bucciantini , N., Gaensler , B

    Ng , C. Y., Bucciantini , N., Gaensler , B. M., et al. 2012, , 746, 105, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/105

    2012 doi

  91. [99]

    L., Abdo , A

    Nolan , P. L., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2012, , 199, 31, 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/31

    2012 doi

  92. [100]

    2019, , 626, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834734

    Petriella , A. 2019, , 626, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834734

    2019 doi

  93. [101]

    A., & Giacani , E

    Petriella , A., Paron , S. A., & Giacani , E. B. 2013, , 554, A73, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321066

    2013 doi

  94. [102]

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

    2020 doi

  95. [103]

    2022, , 940, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac940a

    Ranasinghe , S., & Leahy , D. 2022, , 940, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac940a

    2022 doi

  96. [104]

    J., & Gunn , J

    Rees , M. J., & Gunn , J. E. 1974, , 167, 1, 10.1093/mnras/167.1.1

    1974 doi

  97. [105]

    2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0905.1287

    Renaud , M. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0905.1287. 0905.1287

    2009 arXiv

  98. [106]

    P., Borkowski , K

    Reynolds , S. P., Borkowski , K. J., & Gwynne , P. H. 2018, , 856, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3d3

    2018 doi

  99. [107]

    P., & Chevalier , R

    Reynolds , S. P., & Chevalier , R. A. 1984, , 278, 630, 10.1086/161831

    1984 doi

  100. [108]

    Roberts , M. S. E. 2004, The Pulsar Wind Nebula Catalog (March 2005 version) . http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/ pulsar/pwncat.html

    2004

  101. [109]

    2017, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Saito , S., Khangulyan , D., Hagiwara , K., & Uchiyama , Y. 2017, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1792, 6th International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, 040013, 10.1063/1.4968917

    2017 doi

  102. [110]

    2014, , 563, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323145

    Sasaki , M., Heinitz , C., Warth , G., & P \"u hlhofer , G. 2014, , 563, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323145

    2014 doi

  103. [111]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Slane , P. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 2159, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5\_95

    2017 doi

  104. [112]

    A., Abdollahi , S., Ajello , M., et al

    Smith , D. A., Abdollahi , S., Ajello , M., et al. 2023, , 958, 191, 10.3847/1538-4357/acee67

    2023 doi

  105. [113]

    M., Gelfand , J

    Straal , S. M., Gelfand , J. D., & Eagle , J. L. 2023, , 942, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1a9

    2023 doi

  106. [114]

    2017, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 17, 109, 10.1088/1674-4527/17/10/109

    Su , H.-Q., Zhang , M.-F., Zhu , H., & Wu , D. 2017, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 17, 109, 10.1088/1674-4527/17/10/109

    2017 doi

  107. [115]

    C., Surnis , M

    Supan , L., Castelletti , G., Joshi , B. C., Surnis , M. P., & Supanitsky , D. 2015, , 576, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425284

    2015 doi

  108. [116]

    2015, , 808, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/100

    Temim , T., Slane , P., Kolb , C., et al. 2015, , 808, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/100

    2015 doi

  109. [117]

    P., Raymond , J

    Temim , T., Slane , P., Reynolds , S. P., Raymond , J. C., & Borkowski , K. J. 2010, , 710, 309, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/309

    2010 doi

  110. [118]

    2018, , 617, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833356

    Tibaldo , L., Zanin , R., Faggioli , G., et al. 2018, , 617, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833356

    2018 doi

  111. [119]

    2017, Modelling Pulsar Wind Nebulae , 10.1007/978-3-319-63031-1

    Torres , D. 2017, Modelling Pulsar Wind Nebulae , 10.1007/978-3-319-63031-1

    2017 doi

  112. [120]

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

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

    2014 doi

  113. [121]

    P., Gaetz , T

    T \"u llmann , R., Plucinsky , P. P., Gaetz , T. J., et al. 2010, , 720, 848, 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/848

    2010 doi

  114. [122]

    2021, , 656, A139, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141978

    Tutone , A., Ballet , J., Acero , F., D'A \` , A., & Cusumano , G. 2021, , 656, A139, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141978

    2021 doi

  115. [123]

    P., & Keegan , R

    van der Swaluw , E., Downes , T. P., & Keegan , R. 2004, , 420, 937, 10.1051/0004-6361:20035700

    2004 doi

  116. [124]

    Wach , T., Mitchell , A. M. W., Joshi , V., & Funk , S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.16717, 10.48550/arXiv.2308.16717

    2023 doi arXiv

  117. [125]

    P., & Horan , D

    Wakely , S. P., & Horan , D. 2008, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 3, 1341

    2008

  118. [126]

    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

  119. [127]

    2021, , 912, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe624

    Xiang , Y., Xing , Y., & Jiang , Z. 2021, , 912, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe624

    2021 doi

  120. [128]

    2018, , 859, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe7c

    Zhang , S., Tang , X., Zhang , X., et al. 2018, , 859, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe7c

    2018 doi

  121. [129]

    F., Garc \' a , C

    Zhang , W., Torres , D. F., Garc \' a , C. R., Li , J., & Mestre , E. 2024, , 691, A332, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348741

    2024 doi

  122. [130]

    2023, , 952, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace10b

    Zheng , D., Wang , Z., Zhang , X., Chen , Y., & Xing , Y. 2023, , 952, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace10b

    2023 doi

  123. [131]

    adobe:ns:meta/

    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' en...

    2021

Pith tools

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