Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Proper Motion of the Neutron Star in the Supernova Remnant G18.9-1.1

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first direct proper-motion measurement of the neutron star in SNR G18.9-1.1 finds it moving northwest at 24.7 mas/yr, opposite the remnant's bulk ejecta.

desk verdict Careful first proper motion measurement for this neutron star, probably right but with an unquantified systematic that could bite at the 1-sigma level; the distance and kick claims are softer than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01084 v1 pith:OPZKANBL submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.HE

Tyler Holland-Ashford , Brian Williams , Patrick Slane , Xi Long This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarpropermotionsupernovaremnantG18.9-1.1ChandraastrometryGaiareferenceframekickejectaasymmetrypowerratiomethod
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 claims to have measured, for the first time, the motion of the neutron star in the supernova remnant G18.9-1.1 across the plane of the sky. Using two Chandra observations separated by 15 years and tying both epochs to the Gaia reference frame, the authors find a total proper motion of $24.7 \pm 6.8$ mas yr$^{-1}$ at $336^\circ \pm 16^\circ$ east of north. For the two published distances of 2.1 and 3.8 kpc, this corresponds to Galactic-rotation-corrected transverse velocities of about 264 and 474 km s$^{-1}$. The motion points nearly opposite the bulk of the X-ray ejecta, which the authors interpret as support for a momentum-conservation kick mechanism, and a multipole analysis of the ejecta slightly favors the larger distance and higher velocity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a four-parameter astrometric alignment: a scale factor $r$, a rotation $\theta$, and translations $\Delta x,\Delta y$ that map each Chandra image onto the absolute Gaia frame, solved by least squares using point sources matched to Gaia DR3 and weighted by their centroid uncertainties. Source positions themselves come from PSF-aware centroid fits, so the neutron star's position at each epoch is measured relative to the same external frame rather than relative to the other epoch. The other main element is the power ratio method, a multipole decomposition of the 0.5–2.1 keV ROSAT image whose normalized moments ($P_1/P_0$, $P_2/P_0$, $P_3/P_0$) quantify dipole, quadrupole, and octupole asymmetry of the ejecta around the back-evolved birth site. Uncertainties are formed by adding the neutron star centroid error, the inverse-variance-weighted registration source errors, and the weighted residual scatter of the transformation in quadrature.

What would settle it

Re-observing the field with a third Chandra epoch in the 2030s and checking whether the neutron star lands on the $24.7$ mas yr$^{-1}$ track extrapolated from 2009–2024, within the quoted uncertainties, would settle whether the two-epoch transformation absorbed a systematic astrometric error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the neutron star CXOU J182913.1-125113 in G18.9-1.1 is moving at $24.7 \pm 6.8$ mas yr$^{-1}$ toward position angle $336^\circ$, measured from a 2009 Chandra epoch and a merged 2024 epoch after correcting both to Gaia DR3 stellar positions. Back-evolving this motion for the age implied by each distance places the neutron star's birth site well away from the remnant's geometric center and its X-ray brightness center. The paper also claims that the kick direction is nearly opposite the bulk ejecta motion, consistent with the gravitational tugboat picture in which the neutron star is accelerated by asymmetric ejecta, and that the power ratios of the ejecta asymmetry are closer to those of other core-collapse remnants when the 3.8 kpc distance is adopted, mildly favoring the $\sim474$ km s$^{-1}$ velocity.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that a single overall shift, rotation, and stretch of each Chandra image fully removes the difference between the telescope's astrometric solution and the Gaia frame, so that any leftover position-dependent distortion or centroid bias cannot masquerade as neutron-star motion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The neutron star's birth site lies several arcminutes from the SNR's geometric and X-ray centers, so velocity estimates based on the geometric center (700–960 km/s) are rejected by this measurement.
  • The nearly opposite alignment of NS motion and bulk ejecta motion adds a new object to the small sample supporting momentum-conservation (gravitational tugboat) kick mechanisms.
  • If the 3.8 kpc distance is correct, the SNR is about 10 kyr old and its thermal plasma is close to collisional ionization equilibrium, matching the lower-temperature spectral fits preferred by earlier analysis.
  • The implied 3D velocities (about 323 and 580 km/s) match 3D core-collapse simulations with 15–20 solar-mass progenitors.
  • Longer X-ray baselines (20–40 years) will make NS proper-motion measurements routine and improve astrometric registration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This measurement opens a cheap archival route: any young SNR with two Chandra epochs separated by more than a decade and a handful of Gaia-registered sources can now yield a NS proper motion without new observing time.
  • The 3.8 kpc preference rests on a six-object comparison and is not decisive; an independent distance (for example from HI absorption or a future astrometric counterpart) would sharpen both the velocity and the SNR age.
  • A direct test of the method's systematic floor would be to register a field containing an extragalactic point source at both epochs and confirm that its apparent proper motion is consistent with zero.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the first direct measurement of the proper motion of the neutron star CXOU J182913.1-125113 in the supernova remnant G18.9-1.1, using Chandra observations separated by 15 years (2009 and 2024). The authors register each epoch's astrometry to the Gaia DR3 frame via a four-parameter similarity transform using faint X-ray sources matched to Gaia, accounting for the reference stars' proper motions and using PSF-fitted centroids. They measure a total proper motion of 24.7 ± 6.8 mas yr^{-1} at position angle 336° ± 16° east of north, which translates to Galactocentric transverse velocities of 264 km/s (at 2.1 kpc) or 474 km/s (at 3.8 kpc). They compare the NS motion to the SNR's bulk ejecta asymmetry, finding the NS moves roughly opposite the X-ray-emitting ejecta, and use a power-ratio multipole analysis to argue that the larger distance and velocity are slightly favored. The paper also estimates the progenitor mass as 15-20 M_sun and discusses implications for NS kick mechanisms.

Significance. If the astrometric measurement is robust, this is a valuable addition to the small sample of directly measured neutron-star proper motions in young, thermally dominated supernova remnants. The measurement would strengthen the observational case that NS kicks are anticorrelated with bulk ejecta motion, and the derived velocities would help constrain the distance and age of G18.9-1.1. The paper's methodology is careful in several respects: it uses Gaia DR3 reference sources with propagated proper motions, PSF-based centroiding, and explicit quadrature combination of centroid, registration, and transformation uncertainties. These strengths are real and deserve credit. However, the central claim depends on the validity of the four-parameter registration model, and the paper does not fully demonstrate that position-dependent astrometric distortions are negligible at the claimed precision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3–2.4, Eqs. (1)–(3)] The absolute astrometric correction uses a four-parameter similarity transform (scale, rotation, translation) fitted to only 13 Gaia-matched sources in the 2009 epoch and 9 in the 2024 epoch, with only 4 sources in common between the two epochs. The stated residual, σRes,tot in Eq. (3), is a weighted mean offset of the registration-source residuals, not a measure of unmodeled position-dependent distortion. A residual radial or higher-order plate distortion of order 0.1 arcsec—which cannot be excluded from a four-parameter fit to sparse source samples—would shift the NS displacement (~0.37 arcsec over the 15-year baseline) by ~0.1 arcsec and bias the proper motion by ~6.7 mas/yr, comparable to the quoted 1σ uncertainty of 6.8 mas/yr. Please add a residual-versus-off-axis-angle analysis, a leave-one-out test over the registration sources, and explicit tests for radial or quadratic distortion terms. If such terms are present at the claimed systematic floor, a systematic error term must be added; if they are not, the paper should demonstrate this quantitatively.
  2. [§3 and §3.2] The power-ratio distance preference is not a strong constraint and is presented in a slightly misleading way. The multipole moments are centered on the back-evolved NS birth site, whose angular distance from the current NS position depends on the assumed distance and age (and on the measured proper motion). The sample of comparison remnants is small (six objects), and the text admits the conclusion is 'tenuous.' In the abstract, however, the power-ratio analysis is stated as favoring the higher velocity without noting how weak this preference is. Please provide a quantitative measure of the significance of the PRM difference (e.g., the scatter among comparison remnants and the shift in PRM when moving the center within the birth-site uncertainty) or explicitly relegate this to an inconclusive consistency check.
  3. [§3, first paragraph] There is an inconsistency in the velocity numbers as printed: the text first quotes raw transverse velocities of 246d2.1 ± 78 km/s and 445d3.8 ± 129 km/s, then after the Galactic-rotation correction quotes 264d2.1 ± 78 km/s and 474d3.8 ± 129 km/s. The abstract quotes 264d2.1 ± 79 km/s and 474d3.8 ± 129 km/s. Please label the raw and rest-frame values explicitly and harmonize the numerical uncertainties (78 vs. 79 km/s) so a reader can follow which quantity is being cited.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The typesetting of the remnant name is inconsistent (e.g., 'G18.9 −1.1' vs. 'G18.9-1.1'); please standardize the hyphenation and spacing.
  2. [§2.4, Eqs. (2)–(3)] Equations (2) and (3) are rendered with broken formatting in the manuscript (the fractions appear as '1PN' and 'PN'), which makes them difficult to read. Please ensure the inverse-variance weighted sums are typeset correctly.
  3. [§3.3] The conversion from 2D to 3D velocity using a multiplicative factor of sqrt(3/2) assumes that the unseen radial velocity component has the same magnitude as each tangential component. This assumption should be stated explicitly when the 3D velocity estimates of ~323 and ~580 km/s are introduced.
  4. [§1] There is a punctuation error at 'Holland-Ashford et al. 2024. Specifically, young SNRs...'; a period and comma should be separated properly, and the sentence continues correctly.
  5. [References] Several unicode/TeX artifacts appear in the reference list (e.g., 'T¨ ullmann' with a combining diaeresis). Please check all author names for correct rendering of diacritics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proper motion is an independent two-epoch astrometric measurement tied to Gaia DR3, and the PRM/distance discussion is a tenuous consistency check rather than the source of the measurement.

full rationale

The central claim is the proper motion of CXOU J182913.1-125113, obtained by measuring the NS centroid in a 2009 Chandra observation and a merged 2024 observation, with each epoch's astrometry registered to the absolute Gaia DR3 frame using Equation (1). The transformation parameters are solved from reference sources only (13 in 2009 and 9 in 2024) and are applied to the NS position afterward; no parameter of the fit is set by the NS displacement, so the 24.7 mas/yr measurement is not defined in terms of itself. Uncertainties combine the NS centroid error, registration-source centroid errors (Eq. 2), and the weighted residual scatter of the astrometric fit (Eq. 3), all external to the NS motion. The only partially self-referential element is the power-ratio method in Sections 2.5 and 3.2: the PRM origin is the back-evolved NS birth site, which already incorporates the measured proper motion and an assumed distance and age, so the claim that the 3.8 kpc distance is 'slightly favored' is a consistency check, not an independent constraint on the proper motion itself. The authors explicitly acknowledge the tenuousness of that conclusion ('six remnants are a small sample and so this conclusion is tenuous'). Self-citations (Holland-Ashford et al. 2017/2020/2024) supply the comparison sample and procedural details but do not carry the derivation of the proper motion. Concerns about unmodeled position-dependent astrometric distortion are an accuracy/systematic-uncertainty issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on standard calibration assumptions rather than new physics. Most of the ledger entries are domain assumptions about the astrometric frame, the NS-SNR association, and the morphological proxies used for the kick-direction and distance arguments. The only fitted numbers are the standard astrometric transformation parameters; no new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • 2024 merge transformation (r, theta, dx, dy) = r=1.001, theta=-0.038 deg, dx=-0.107 px, dy=-2.06 px
    Fitted to 13 common sources to align the two Cycle 24 observations before merging; the merged image's astrometry then inherits this alignment.
  • 2009-to-Gaia transformation = r=0.998, theta=0.00542 deg, dx=-0.352 px, dy=-0.116 px
    Fitted to 13 Gaia-registered sources in ObsID 10098 to place that epoch in the Gaia frame.
  • 2024-to-Gaia transformation = r=1.000, theta=-0.0231 deg, dx=-0.144 px, dy=-3.400 px
    Fitted to 9 Gaia-registered sources in the merged 2024 image to place that epoch in the Gaia frame.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 positions and proper motions provide an absolute reference frame accurate to about 0.001 arcsec at both epochs.
    Invoked in Section 2.3, where Gaia position uncertainties and parallax differences are dismissed as negligible; if the Gaia frame has unaccounted systematics, the proper motion shifts.
  • domain assumption A four-parameter linear transformation (scale, rotation, translation) fully describes the astrometric difference between each Chandra epoch and the Gaia frame.
    Sections 2.2 and 2.3 fit Eq. 1 with only 13 and 9 reference sources; no higher-order distortion terms are tested.
  • domain assumption CXOU J182913.1-125113 is the neutron star associated with G18.9-1.1 at the same distance as the SNR.
    The whole velocity and age interpretation assumes co-location and common distance; the identification is taken from prior literature (Tuellmann et al. 2010).
  • domain assumption The center of 0.5-2.1 keV X-ray emission is a proxy for the bulk ejecta center of mass and indicates the direction of bulk ejecta recoil.
    Used in Section 3.1 and Figure 2 to compare the NS birth site with ejecta asymmetry; SNRs can be asymmetric due to CSM interaction.
  • domain assumption The radial component of the NS velocity is comparable to each transverse component, so v_3D = sqrt(3/2) v_2D.
    Explicit rough assumption in Section 3.3 for the progenitor mass comparison; unsupported by direct data.
  • domain assumption Projected power ratios and transverse NS velocity respond to viewing angle in the same way, making PRM-versus-velocity comparisons viewing-angle independent.
    Stated in Section 3.2 to justify comparing PRMs of different SNRs; depends on symmetry assumptions about the ejecta geometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Proper Motion of the Neutron Star in the Supernova Remnant G18.9-1.1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OPZKANBL

@misc{pith2026250701084,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Proper Motion of the Neutron Star in the Supernova Remnant G18.9-1.1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OPZKANBL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01084}
}
abstract

In this paper, we present the first direct measurement of the proper motion of the neutron star (NS) in the supernova remnant (SNR) G18.9-1.1 using a 15-year Chandra baseline. After correcting the observations' astrometric solutions using reference Gaia stars' positions, we measure a total proper motion of 24.7 $\pm$ 6.8 mas yr$^{-1}$ at an angle of $336^\circ \pm$ 16$^\circ$ east of north. Using the distance estimates from literature of 2.1 kpc and 3.8 kpc, this proper motion corresponds to Galactic rotation-corrected transverse velocities of 264d$_{2.1}$ $\pm$ 79 km s$^{-1}$ and 474d$_{3.8}$ $\pm$ 129 km s$^{-1}$, respectively. Our power ratio method analysis of SNR ejecta slightly favors the higher velocity, as multipole moments calculated from the back-evolved center using the farther distance are more consistent with values from other CCSNRs. The NS's motion is directly opposite the motion of bulk ejecta in G18.9$-$1.1, providing yet more evidence that NS kicks are generated via a conservation of momentum-like process between the NS and the ejecta, as has been observed in other SNRs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01084 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Chandra images of the NS and surrounding region: ObsID 10098 on the left, and observation created from merging ObsID 26656 and 29478 on the right. The NS is labeled in black and the sources used for astrometric calibration are in either red (for sources detected in both epoch observations) or blue. All circles are arbitrarily sized and don’t reflect the point source centroid uncertainties. matrix were [r, θ, ∆x, ∆y]… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A ROSAT 0.5–2.1 keV image (RP500040) of G18.9−1.1. The NS (purple) is moving with a proper motion of 24.7 mas yr−1 angle of 336◦ east of north, as indicated by the green arrow. The cyan and blue cones show the NS’s motion if back evolved for 5.5 kyr and 10.0 kyr (corresponding to distance estimates of 2.1 and 3.8 kpc, respectively). The black dotted cone represents the distance traveled assuming the 90% CI upper val… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The dipole (left), quadrupole (middle), and octupole (right) power ratios vs. neutron star velocities for the sample of SNRs with robust NS proper motions investigated in Holland-Ashford et al. (2017), using the explosion site as the origin for analysis. Blue points indicate NS velocities from direct proper motion measurements while black points indicate NS velocities obtained from back-evolved filament motion (Cas … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, A&A, 674, A32

    Babusiaux, C., Fabricius, C., Khanna, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A32

    2023

  2. [2]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 33

    Banovetz, J., Milisavljevic, D., Sravan, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 33

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    2021, sherpa/sherpa: Sherpa 4.13.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.4428938

    Burke, D., Laurino, O., wmclaugh, et al. 2021, sherpa/sherpa: Sherpa 4.13.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.4428938

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4428938 2021

  4. [4]

    2021, Nature, 589, 29

    Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. 2021, Nature, 589, 29

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., Vartanyan, D., & Coleman, M. S. B. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12109

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    M., Uvarov, Y

    Bykov, A. M., Uvarov, Y. A., Churazov, E. M., Gilfanov, M. R., & Medvedev, P. S. 2022, A&A, 661, A19

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Coleman, M. S. B., & Burrows, A. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3938 De Luca, A. 2017, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 932, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012006 de Vries, M., Romani, R. W., Kargaltsev, O., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 50

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L

    Dzib, S. A., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L. F. 2021, ApJ, 923, 228

    work page 2021

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    A., Hammell, M

    Fesen, R. A., Hammell, M. C., Morse, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 283

    2006

  2. [10]

    A., Giacani, E

    Frail, D. A., Giacani, E. B., Goss, W. M., & Dubner, G. 1996, ApJL, 464, L165

    1996

  3. [11]

    2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Freeman, P., Doe, S., & Siemiginowska, A. 2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4477, Astronomical Data Analysis, ed. J.-L. Starck & F. D. Murtagh, 76–87

    2001

  4. [12]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V

    2006

  5. [13]

    L., & Kusenko, A

    Fryer, C. L., & Kusenko, A. 2006, ApJS, 163, 335

    2006

  6. [14]

    1997, A&A, 319, 655 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Fuerst, E., Reich, W., & Aschenbach, B. 1997, A&A, 319, 655 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    1997

  7. [15]

    P., & Gotthelf, E

    Halpern, J. P., & Gotthelf, E. V. 2015, ApJ, 812, 61

    2015

  8. [16]

    M., Slane, P

    Harrus, I. M., Slane, P. O., Hughes, J. P., & Plucinsky, P. P. 2004, ApJ, 603, 152

    2004

  9. [17]

    Ho, W. C. G., Guillot, S., Saz Parkinson, P. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4396

    2020

  10. [18]

    R., Lyne, A

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974

    2005

  11. [19]

    A., & Auchettl, K

    Holland-Ashford, T., Lopez, L. A., & Auchettl, K. 2020, ApJ, 889, 144

    2020

  12. [20]

    A., Auchettl, K., Temim, T., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Holland-Ashford, T., Lopez, L. A., Auchettl, K., Temim, T., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, ApJ, 844, 84

    2017

  13. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 82

    Holland-Ashford, T., Slane, P., & Long, X. 2024, ApJ, 962, 82

    2024

  14. [22]

    Igoshev, A. P. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3663

    2020

  15. [23]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 84 G18.9-1.1 NS Velocity 9

    Janka, H.-T. 2017, ApJ, 837, 84 G18.9-1.1 NS Velocity 9

    2017

  16. [24]

    Kaspi, V. M. 2000, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 202, IAU Colloq. 177: Pulsar Astronomy - 2000 and Beyond, ed. M. Kramer, N. Wex, & R. Wielebinski, 485

    2000

  17. [25]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 18

    Katsuda, S., Morii, M., Janka, H.-T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 18

    2018

  18. [26]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 40

    Kawata, D., Bovy, J., Matsunaga, N., & Baba, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 40

    2019

  19. [27]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 163

    Kim, C., Park, J., An, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 163

    2024

  20. [28]

    2001, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer

    Lai, D. 2001, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer

    2001

  21. [29]

    2020, AJ, 160, 263

    Lee, Y.-H., Koo, B.-C., & Lee, J.-J. 2020, AJ, 160, 263

    2020

  22. [30]

    J., Plucinsky, P

    Long, X., Patnaude, D. J., Plucinsky, P. P., & Gaetz, T. J. 2022, ApJ, 932, 117

    2022

  23. [31]

    Mayer, M. G. F., & Becker, W. 2021, A&A, 651, A40

    2021

  24. [32]

    Narita, T., Uchida, H., Yoshida, T., Tanaka, T., & Tsuru, T. G. 2023, ApJ, 950, 137

    2023

  25. [33]

    Ranasinghe, S., Leahy, D., & Tian, W. W. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1910.05407

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    P., Pavlov, G

    Reynolds, S. P., Pavlov, G. G., Kargaltsev, O., et al. 2017, SSRv, 207, 175

    2017

  27. [35]

    2006, A&A, 457, 963

    Scheck, L., Kifonidis, K., Janka, H.-T., & M¨ uller, E. 2006, A&A, 457, 963

    2006

  28. [36]

    P., Clark, C

    Sett, S., Breton, R. P., Clark, C. J., van Kerkwijk, M. H., & Kaplan, D. L. 2021, A&A, 647, A183

    2021

  29. [37]

    S., Zhu, H., Tian, W

    Shan, S. S., Zhu, H., Tian, W. W., et al. 2018, ApJS, 238, 35

    2018

  30. [38]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 78

    Shternin, P., Kirichenko, A., Zyuzin, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 78

    2019

  31. [39]

    P., et al

    Temim, T., Slane, P., Plucinsky, P. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 128

    2017

  32. [40]

    F., Hartley, R

    Triggs, B., McLauchlan, P. F., Hartley, R. I., & Fitzgibbon, A. W. 2000, in Vision Algorithms: Theory and Practice, ed. B. Triggs, A. Zisserman, & R. Szeliski (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 298–372

    2000

  33. [41]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 131 T¨ ullmann, R., Plucinsky, P

    Tsuchioka, T., Uchiyama, Y., Higurashi, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 131 T¨ ullmann, R., Plucinsky, P. P., Gaetz, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 848 Van Etten, A., Romani, R. W., & Ng, C. Y. 2012, ApJ, 755, 151

    2021

  34. [42]

    2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 40

    Verbunt, F., & Cator, E. 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 40

    2017

  35. [43]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  36. [44]

    C., & Hughes, J

    Weisskopf, M. C., & Hughes, J. P. 2006, Six Years of Chandra Observations of Supernova Remnants, ed. J. W. Mason, 55

    2006

  37. [45]

    F., Twelker, K., Reith, C

    Winkler, P. F., Twelker, K., Reith, C. N., & Long, K. S. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1489

    2009

  38. [46]

    2013, A&A, 552, A126

    Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., & M¨ uller, E. 2013, A&A, 552, A126

    2013

  39. [47]

    R., Brisken, W

    Zeiger, B. R., Brisken, W. F., Chatterjee, S., & Goss, W. M. 2008, ApJ, 674, 271

    2008

  40. [48]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 99

    Zhou, P., Zhou, X., Chen, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 99

    2020

  41. [49]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 61

    Zhou, X., Su, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 61

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.