Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 53 references

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

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-10 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read 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.

desk verdict The paper shows that a weak energy-dependent escape plus full SNR evolution can be tuned to match the observed spectra in RX J1713.7-3946 and SN 1006, but the match is demonstrative rather than predictive. read the letter →

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

Joshua J. Ziegler , Justin D. Finke , J. Martin Laming This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovaremnantscosmicrayelectronslog-paraboladistributionparticleaccelerationspectralenergyRXJ1713.7-3946SN1006electronescape
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper 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.

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.

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.

Watch

Extended reading notes

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.

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.

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

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 · score 0.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 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.
assumptions (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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmic Ray Electron Evolution in Supernova Remnants: Log-Parabola Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.18904

@misc{pith2026260418904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmic Ray Electron Evolution in Supernova Remnants: Log-Parabola Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.18904}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.18904}
}
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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18904 by the authors.

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. 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. 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 Here we explo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
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]
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 bremsstra…
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]
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 ea…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
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 …
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 fun…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 612, 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]

    Incremental Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog

    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]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054279 , Eprint =

    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

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    E., Houck, J

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

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

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

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

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

    1978 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B

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

    2003 doi

  5. [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

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    C., & Dermer, C

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

    2003 doi

  7. [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

    2020 doi

  8. [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

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

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

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    C., & Eichler, D

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

    1984 doi

  11. [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

    2010 doi

  12. [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

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    D., & Dermer, C

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

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

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

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

    2017 doi

  15. [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

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

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

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    F., & Milne, D

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

    1965 doi

  18. [26]

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

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    C., & Ellison, D

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

    1991 doi

  20. [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

    2017 doi

  21. [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

    2009 doi

  22. [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

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

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

    1984 doi

  24. [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

    1994 doi

  25. [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

    1997 doi

  26. [34]

    M., & Finke, J

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

    2026

  27. [35]

    S., Slane, P

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

    2003 doi

  28. [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

    2004 doi

  29. [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

    2025 doi

  30. [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

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    2010, MNRAS, 405, L21, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00851.x

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

    2010 doi

  32. [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

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Moskalenko, I

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

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

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

    1992

  35. [43]

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

    1995

  36. [44]

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

    1996 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Dame, T

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

    1999 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Skibo, J

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

    1997 doi

  39. [47]

    A., et al

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

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 108, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw102

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

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    A., & Takahashi, T

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

    2003 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Qu, Q

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

    1997

  43. [51]

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

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

    2020 doi

  44. [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

    2016 doi

  45. [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

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.