pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18904 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Cosmic Ray Electron Evolution in Supernova Remnants: Log-Parabola Distribution

Joshua J. Ziegler , Justin D. Finke , J. Martin Laming
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords supernova remnantscosmic ray electronslog-parabola distributionparticle accelerationspectral energy distributionRX J1713.7-3946SN 1006electron escape
0
0 comments X

The pith

Energy-dependent electron escape from supernova remnant shocks generates log-parabola distributions that reproduce the observed spectra in RX J1713.7-3946 and SN 1006.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how cosmic ray electrons accelerate at supernova remnant shocks when escape depends on particle energy. It shows that combining this escape with the remnant's expansion and electron energy losses produces electron distributions and photon spectra that match data from two lepton-radiation-dominated remnants. The resulting spectra turn out highly sensitive to even weak changes in the escape energy dependence. A reader would care because this supplies a concrete physical process for the curved spectra observed in these objects rather than relying on adjustments to other conditions.

Core claim

Previous work showed that energy-dependent escape can produce log-parabola particle distributions. Applied here to electrons at evolving SNR shocks, the model evolves both the electron spectrum and the emitted photon spectrum under the combined influence of remnant dynamics and radiative losses. The calculated spectra are consistent with observations of RX J1713.7-3946 and SN 1006, and remain sensitive to the precise form of the escape term despite its weak energy dependence.

What carries the argument

The energy-dependent escape term added to the electron transport equation at the SNR shock, evolved together with remnant expansion and synchrotron plus inverse-Compton losses.

If this is right

  • The electron distribution and resulting photon spectra become very sensitive to small changes in the escape energy dependence.
  • Both the particle spectrum and the radiation field continue to evolve as the remnant expands and electrons lose energy.
  • The log-parabola parameters can be varied within the model to explore different escape scenarios while still fitting the data for the two remnants.
  • This framework supplies an alternative route to curved spectra in lepton-dominated SNRs without invoking other variable parameters as the main driver.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same escape modeling could be tested on additional supernova remnants to check whether the log-parabola shape appears more widely.
  • Future multi-wavelength observations with improved energy resolution might directly constrain the escape energy dependence from the spectral curvature.
  • Incorporating this loss process into larger-scale cosmic-ray transport calculations could alter predicted injection spectra into the interstellar medium.

Load-bearing premise

Energy-dependent escape is the dominant process setting the log-parabola shape, rather than magnetic-field variations or injection conditions controlling the spectra in the chosen remnants.

What would settle it

Higher-precision spectral measurements of RX J1713.7-3946 or SN 1006 that deviate from the time-evolved photon spectra predicted when the log-parabola electron distribution is propagated under the energy-dependent escape model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18904 by J. Martin Laming, Joshua J. Ziegler, Justin D. Finke.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of the macroscopic acceleration param￾eters r and s for the model described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of electron distribution (left) and photon spectrum (right) over time for the model described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dependence of electron distribution (left) and photon spectrum (right) on the magnetic field B. These effects on the electron distribution directly af￾fect the photon spectra, as seen in the right side of Fig￾ure 3. Additionally, it directly affects the synchrotron emission; the stronger magnetic fields create more syn￾chrotron radiation than weaker magnetic fields. 3.2. Variation in Parameters g and q Her… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependence of electron distribution (top) and photon spectrum (bottom) on small changes in the g (left) and q (right) parameters around the values in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model SED compared to observations of RX J1713.7−3946. HESS data are from F. Aharonian et al. (2006), ATCA data from F. Aharonian et al. (2006, 2007), Fermi data from S. Abdollahi et al. (2022), and Suzaku data from T. Tanaka et al. (2008). Contributions from bremsstrahlung (orange dotted curve), inverse Compton scattering of background radiation (blue dash-dotted curve), and synchrotron radiation (red das… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of electron energy loss timescales. For each mechanism by which electrons lose energy, we cal￾culate an energy loss timescale as tcool = |K/K˙ |, evalu￾ated for the model based on parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Maximum energy of electrons accelerated by an SNR as a function of the SNR’s age. Two models that re￾flect the SNRs RX J1713.7−3946 (solid line) and SN 1006 (dashed line) are shown. A thin gray vertical line shows the time at which each of these SNRs is observed. At early times, the maximum electron energy is limited by the age of the SNR, while at late times it is limited by energy loss to radiation excee… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Probability that an electron will not escape the SNR shock region, and will be further accelerated to higher energies. The solid curve represents the model used to describe RX J1713.7−3946, while the dashed curve repre￾sents the model used to describe SN 1006. The low value of q = 0.0016 in both models implies that electrons will have a high probability of remaining bound within the shock region even if th… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the electron source functions Q(pc) that arise from the broken power law probability distribution we use throughout this work and the probability distribution P = g(1 + p/pc) −q , suggested by E. Massaro et al. (2004). The left panels show the source function multiplied by (pc) 2 , normalized so that the number of electrons with momentum p0 is Q0. Dashed curves represent the source functions… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The shock fronts of supernova remnants (SNRs) are believed to be significant sites of acceleration of cosmic ray particles. Previous researchers have shown that a particle distribution similar to a log-parabola can be generated when particles have an energy-dependent escape. We explore the acceleration of electrons at SNR shock fronts, and show that modeling this energy-dependent particle escape model can produce spectral energy distributions consistent with observations of two lepton-radiation-dominated SNRs: RX J1713.7-3946 and SN 1006. The model includes the evolution of both the electron distribution and photon spectra as a result of the combined effects of the SNR evolution and electron energy loss. The electron-escape energy dependence is quite weak, but the electron distribution and photon spectra turn out to be very sensitive to changes in the electron escape. We also explore how sensitive the spectra and electron distributions are to the parameters used in the log-parabola model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that incorporating an energy-dependent particle escape mechanism into models of cosmic ray electron acceleration at SNR shocks, combined with SNR evolutionary dynamics and electron energy losses, produces log-parabola electron distributions whose resulting photon SEDs are consistent with observations of the lepton-dominated remnants RX J1713.7-3946 and SN 1006. The work explores parameter sensitivity, noting that the escape dependence is weak yet the spectra are highly responsive, and demonstrates the evolution of both electron and photon spectra.

Significance. If the modeling approach holds, it offers a concrete demonstration that energy-dependent escape can contribute to the log-parabola shapes seen in specific SNRs, with explicit sensitivity tests that could guide refinements in particle acceleration theory. The inclusion of full time evolution for both particles and radiation is a positive technical feature. However, because the consistency is achieved through parameter adjustment rather than a priori prediction, the result functions more as an existence proof than a falsifiable advance, limiting its immediate impact on the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results section on photon spectra and application to the two SNRs] The central claim that the modeled SEDs are 'consistent with observations' of RX J1713.7-3946 and SN 1006 is not supported by any quantitative goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., reduced χ², residuals, or error-bar comparisons). Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the agreement is meaningful or merely visual, directly weakening the evidential basis for the result.
  2. [Section exploring sensitivity to electron escape energy dependence] The escape energy dependence is stated to be 'quite weak' while the electron distribution and photon spectra are described as 'very sensitive' to changes in this parameter. This tension is not resolved with explicit numerical examples from the sensitivity study, leaving unclear whether the log-parabola form is robustly produced or requires fine-tuning.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'previous researchers' without a specific citation; add the relevant reference(s) for the log-parabola escape mechanism.
  2. [Figure captions and results figures] Figures displaying the final SEDs would be clearer if they overlaid the actual observational data points (with error bars) rather than only the model curves.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the modeled SEDs are 'consistent with observations' of RX J1713.7-3946 and SN 1006 is not supported by any quantitative goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., reduced χ², residuals, or error-bar comparisons). Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the agreement is meaningful or merely visual, directly weakening the evidential basis for the result.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript we have added reduced χ² values for the photon SED comparisons to both RX J1713.7-3946 and SN 1006, together with a residuals figure in the appendix that overlays observational error bars. These additions allow readers to assess the level of agreement directly while preserving the original emphasis on the physical origin of the log-parabola shape. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The escape energy dependence is stated to be 'quite weak' while the electron distribution and photon spectra are described as 'very sensitive' to changes in this parameter. This tension is not resolved with explicit numerical examples from the sensitivity study, leaving unclear whether the log-parabola form is robustly produced or requires fine-tuning.

    Authors: The wording 'quite weak' refers to the shallow power-law index of the escape probability, while 'very sensitive' describes the cumulative impact of that index on the high-energy cutoff after integration over the SNR lifetime. The revised sensitivity section now presents explicit numerical results for the electron distributions and photon spectra at several values of the escape index (fiducial value ±0.1). These examples show that the log-parabola form is maintained across the explored range, with only modest changes in curvature, indicating robustness rather than fine-tuning. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; consistency shown via explicit parameter exploration

full rationale

The derivation applies standard SNR evolution and electron loss equations to an energy-dependent escape ansatz taken from prior literature (not self-citation). The log-parabola form is motivated externally, and the manuscript explicitly tests sensitivity of the resulting SEDs to escape parameters and other inputs while reporting that the dependence is weak. The central claim is only that the combined model 'can produce' spectra consistent with RX J1713.7-3946 and SN 1006; this is demonstrated by forward modeling rather than by any reduction of an output to a fitted input by construction. No load-bearing step equates a prediction to its own fit or imports uniqueness via self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard domain assumptions about particle acceleration at SNR shocks and the prior result that energy-dependent escape yields log-parabola distributions, plus several adjustable parameters for escape strength and remnant evolution whose values are tuned to observations.

free parameters (2)
  • electron escape energy dependence strength
    Described as quite weak yet producing strong sensitivity in the resulting spectra and distributions.
  • log-parabola model parameters
    Varied to explore sensitivity of spectra and electron distributions.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Shock fronts of supernova remnants are significant sites of cosmic ray particle acceleration
    Stated as a belief underlying the modeling.
  • domain assumption Energy-dependent particle escape generates a log-parabola distribution
    Cited as shown by previous researchers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5465 in / 1430 out tokens · 49179 ms · 2026-05-10T03:13:18.056300+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2018, A&A, 612, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629790

    Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., Aharonian, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629790

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629790 2018

  2. [2]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 734, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/28

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/1/28 2011

  3. [3]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  4. [4]

    2009, A&A, 505, 157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811556

    Acero, F., Ballet, J., Decourchelle, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 505, 157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811556

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811556 2009

  5. [5]

    2015, A&A, 580, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525932

    Acero, F., Lemoine-Goumard, M., Renaud, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525932

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525932 2015

  6. [6]

    G., et al

    Acero, F., Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913916

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913916 2010

  7. [7]

    G., Bazer-Bachi, A

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2006, A&A, 449, 223, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054279

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054279 2006

  8. [8]

    G., Bazer-Bachi, A

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2007, A&A, 464, 235, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066381

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066381 2007

  9. [9]

    E., Houck, J

    Allen, G. E., Houck, J. C., & Sturner, S. J. 2008, ApJ, 683, 773, doi: 10.1086/589628

    work page doi:10.1086/589628 2008

  10. [10]

    Bandiera, R., Morlino, G., Kneˇ zevi´ c, S., & Raymond, J. C. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1537, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3254

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3254 2019

  11. [11]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 1978

  12. [12]

    A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B

    Benjamin, R. A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 953, doi: 10.1086/376696

    work page doi:10.1086/376696 2003

  13. [13]

    G., Ksenofontov, L

    Berezhko, E. G., Ksenofontov, L. T., & V¨ olk, H. J. 2012, ApJ, 759, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/12

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/12 2012

  14. [14]

    C., & Dermer, C

    Berrington, R. C., & Dermer, C. D. 2003, ApJ, 594, 709, doi: 10.1086/376981

    work page doi:10.1086/376981 2003

  15. [15]

    2020, A&A, 634, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936567 Cassam-Chena¨ ı, G., Decourchelle, A., Ballet, J., et al

    Brose, R., Pohl, M., Sushch, I., Petruk, O., & Kuzyo, T. 2020, A&A, 634, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936567 Cassam-Chena¨ ı, G., Decourchelle, A., Ballet, J., et al. 2004, A&A, 427, 199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041154

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936567 2020

  16. [16]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 2204, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2380

    Cristofari, P., Niro, V., & Gabici, S. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2204, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2380

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2380 2021

  17. [17]

    Dermer, C. D. 2012, PhRvL, 109, 091101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.091101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.091101 2012

  18. [18]

    C., & Eichler, D

    Ellison, D. C., & Eichler, D. 1984, ApJ, 286, 691, doi: 10.1086/162644

    work page doi:10.1086/162644 1984

  19. [19]

    C., Patnaude, D

    Ellison, D. C., Patnaude, D. J., Slane, P., & Raymond, J. 2010, ApJ, 712, 287, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/287

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/287 2010

  20. [20]

    2002, Nature, 416, 823, doi: 10.1038/416823a

    Enomoto, R., Tanimori, T., Naito, T., et al. 2002, Nature, 416, 823, doi: 10.1038/416823a

    work page doi:10.1038/416823a 2002

  21. [21]

    D., & Dermer, C

    Finke, J. D., & Dermer, C. D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/65

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/1/65 2012

  22. [22]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 4856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1833

    Fraschetti, F., & Pohl, M. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1833

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1833 2017

  23. [23]

    2003, PASJ, 55, L61, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.5.L61

    Fukui, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Tamura, K., et al. 2003, PASJ, 55, L61, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.5.L61

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/55.5.l61 2003

  24. [24]

    Gabici, S., & Aharonian, F. A. 2014, MNRAS, 445, L70, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu132

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu132 2014

  25. [25]

    F., & Milne, D

    Gardner, F. F., & Milne, D. K. 1965, AJ, 70, 754, doi: 10.1086/109813

    work page doi:10.1086/109813 1965

  26. [26]

    Hillas, A. M. 2005, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 31, R95, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/31/5/R02

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/31/5/r02 2005

  27. [27]

    C., & Ellison, D

    Jones, F. C., & Ellison, D. C. 1991, SSRv, 58, 259, doi: 10.1007/BF01206003

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01206003 1991

  28. [28]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Katsuda, S. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 63, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 45

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 2017

  29. [29]

    S., et al

    Katsuda, S., Petre, R., Long, K. S., et al. 2009, ApJL, 692, L105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/L105

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/2/l105 2009

  30. [30]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/29

    Katsuda, S., Acero, F., Tominaga, N., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/29 2015

  31. [31]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1984, ApJ, 277, 361, doi: 10.1086/161702

    work page doi:10.1086/161702 1984

  32. [32]

    Kirk, J. G. 1994, in Saas-Fee Advanced Course 24: Plasma Astrophysics, ed. J. G. Kirk, D. B. Melrose, E. R. Priest, A. O. Benz, & T. J. L. Courvoisier, 225, doi: 10.1007/3-540-31627-2 4

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-31627-2 1994

  33. [33]

    1997, PASJ, 49, L7, doi: 10.1093/pasj/49.3.L7

    Koyama, K., Kinugasa, K., Matsuzaki, K., et al. 1997, PASJ, 49, L7, doi: 10.1093/pasj/49.3.L7

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/49.3.l7 1997

  34. [34]

    M., & Finke, J

    Laming, J. M., & Finke, J. D. 2026, ApJ, submitted

    2026

  35. [35]

    S., Slane , P

    Lazendic, J. S., Slane, P. O., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2003, ApJL, 593, L27, doi: 10.1086/378183

    work page doi:10.1086/378183 2003

  36. [36]

    S., Slane, P

    Lazendic, J. S., Slane, P. O., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 602, 271, doi: 10.1086/380956 16Ziegler et al

    work page doi:10.1086/380956 2004

  37. [37]

    2025, A&A, 693, A193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451944

    Lemoine-Goumard, M., Acero, F., Ballet, J., & Miceli, M. 2025, A&A, 693, A193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451944

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451944 2025

  38. [38]

    2004, A&A, 413, 489, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031558

    Massaro, E., Perri, M., Giommi, P., & Nesci, R. 2004, A&A, 413, 489, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031558

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031558 2004

  39. [39]

    2010 , month = jul, journal =

    Morlino, G., Amato, E., Blasi, P., & Caprioli, D. 2010, MNRAS, 405, L21, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00851.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00851.x 2010

  40. [40]

    2000, A&A, 354, L57, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0001047

    Muraishi, H., Tanimori, T., Yanagita, S., et al. 2000, A&A, 354, L57, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0001047

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0001047 2000

  41. [41]

    A., Moskalenko I

    Porter, T. A., Moskalenko, I. V., & Strong, A. W. 2006, ApJL, 648, L29, doi: 10.1086/507770

    work page doi:10.1086/507770 2006

  42. [42]

    Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical recipes in C. The art of scientific computing (Cambridge: University Press, —c1992, 2nd ed.)

    1992

  43. [43]

    Reynolds, S. P. 1995, in International Cosmic Ray

    1995

  44. [44]

    Reynolds, S. P. 1996, ApJL, 459, L13, doi: 10.1086/309936

    work page doi:10.1086/309936 1996

  45. [45]

    M., Dame, T

    Slane, P., Gaensler, B. M., Dame, T. M., et al. 1999, ApJ, 525, 357, doi: 10.1086/307893

    work page doi:10.1086/307893 1999

  46. [46]

    J., Skibo, J

    Sturner, S. J., Skibo, J. G., Dermer, C. D., & Mattox, J. R. 1997, ApJ, 490, 619, doi: 10.1086/304894

    work page doi:10.1086/304894 1997

  47. [47]

    A., et al

    Tanaka, T., Uchiyama, Y., Aharonian, F. A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, 988, doi: 10.1086/591020

    work page doi:10.1086/591020 2008

  48. [48]

    2016, , 68, 108, 10.1093/pasj/psw102

    Tsuji, N., & Uchiyama, Y. 2016, PASJ, 68, 108, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw102

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psw102 2016

  49. [49]

    A., & Takahashi, T

    Uchiyama, Y., Aharonian, F. A., & Takahashi, T. 2003, A&A, 400, 567, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021824

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021824 2003

  50. [50]

    R., Qu, Q

    Wang, Z. R., Qu, Q. Y., & Chen, Y. 1997, A&A, 318, L59

    1997

  51. [51]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 2785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2989

    Pais, M. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2989

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2989 2020

  52. [52]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 44, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/44

    Xing, Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, X., & Chen, Y. 2016, ApJ, 823, 44, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/44

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/1/44 2016

  53. [53]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/153

    Zeng, H., Xin, Y., Liu, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/153

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/153 2017