Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 98 references

Isolated neutron star candidates from the fourth generation XMM-Newton catalogues

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Five sources selected from XMM-Newton catalogues show the soft, stable, counterpart-free X-ray emission expected for distant isolated neutron stars.

desk verdict Five new XINS candidates from 4XMM data line up with population predictions but rest on provisional classification pending deeper data. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.08023 v1 pith:JO3G7IKB submitted 2026-06-06 astro-ph.HE

Adriana M. Pires , Christian Motch , Jan Kurpas , Axel D. Schwope , Baoda Li , Dejiang Yin , Li Ji , Jianzhong Liu
show 4 more authors
Lei Qian Iris Traulsen Liyun Zhang Zhongli Zhang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords isolatedneutronstarsXINSXMM-NewtoncataloguessoftX-raysourcespopulationsynthesisGalacticplanecandidatesmulti-wavelengthfollow-up
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 authors scanned the 4XMM-DR9 and 4XMM-DR12 catalogues for soft X-ray sources lacking optical, UV or IR counterparts down to a flux of 10^{-14} erg cm^{-2} s^{-1}. Ten candidates received follow-up X-ray and radio observations plus cross-checks with eROSITA and Chandra. Five of them display blackbody temperatures of 80-100 eV, moderate absorption, and no detected variability, properties that match the known population of X-ray thermally emitting isolated neutron stars at distances of roughly 2-6 kpc. Population-synthesis models forecast 6^{+2}_{-3} such objects above the survey threshold inside the 4XMM-DR12 footprint, a number consistent with the five candidates reported here.

What carries the argument

Candidate selection on soft X-ray spectra plus absence of catalogued multi-wavelength counterparts, followed by stability checks with repeated XMM-Newton pointings.

What would settle it

Detection of an optical counterpart brighter than the expected magnitude for a neutron star at 2-6 kpc or measurement of strong X-ray variability in any of the five candidates would falsify the classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Of the ten sources examined, five exhibit soft (kT ∼ 80-100 eV), moderately absorbed, and stable X-ray emission with no catalogued counterparts, making them compelling candidates for distant X-ray thermally emitting isolated neutron stars. One source is the previously known XINS 4XMM J022141.5-735632; the remaining four are new. The sample lies mainly in the Galactic plane and is compatible with population-synthesis predictions of 20 ± 5 XINSs in the survey area, of which 6^{+2}_{-3} should exceed the chosen flux limit.

Load-bearing premise

Soft X-ray spectra, lack of counterparts, and emission stability together suffice to classify a source as an isolated neutron star rather than another soft X-ray emitter or contaminant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed count matches the model expectation, implying that roughly 70 percent of the Galactic XINS population lies below the current flux threshold.
  • Deeper optical imaging and additional X-ray monitoring can confirm or reject the five candidates.
  • NewAthena will be able to obtain higher-quality spectra of these more distant objects.
  • Improved statistics on the full sample will tighten constraints on neutron-star cooling and magnetic-field evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same selection technique applied to eROSITA or future all-sky surveys could locate additional members of this faint population.
  • If the candidates are confirmed, their distances would extend the known XINS sample beyond the local 1 kpc volume probed by the Magnificent Seven.
  • The Galactic-plane concentration of the candidates suggests that plane surveys miss fewer objects than high-latitude ones once absorption is accounted for.
  • A mismatch between the observed and predicted numbers after full follow-up would require revision of the assumed birth rate or cooling curves in the population model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper searches the 4XMM-DR9 and 4XMM-DR12 catalogues for X-ray thermally emitting isolated neutron stars (XINSs) down to a flux of 10^{-14} erg cm^{-2} s^{-1} (0.5-1 keV), selecting candidates via soft spectra and absence of catalogued optical/UV/IR counterparts. Follow-up with XMM-Newton, FAST, eROSITA, Chandra and optical surveys yields ten sources analysed, of which five are presented as compelling XINS candidates (kT∼80-100 eV, moderate absorption, stable emission), one is a known XINS, two are extragalactic contaminants, and two remain ambiguous. Population-synthesis simulations predict 20±5 XINSs in the footprint, with 6^{+2}_{-3} above threshold, stated as consistent with the sample; ∼70% of the population is predicted below threshold. The abstract notes that deep optical and additional X-ray observations are required to confirm the candidates.

Significance. If the five classifications are robust, the work would enlarge the known sample of distant XINSs, tightening constraints on cooling curves, magnetic-field evolution and Galactic scale height. The reported consistency between observed count and simulation (including the large undetected fraction) would provide an independent check on population-synthesis assumptions derived from nearer objects.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §3 (candidate selection and follow-up)] Abstract and candidate-selection section: the claim that the five sources are 'compelling XINS candidates' rests on kT∼80-100 eV, moderate absorption, flux stability and lack of catalogued counterparts, yet the manuscript itself states that 'deep optical and additional X-ray observations are required to establish the nature.' This selection does not quantitatively exclude other soft emitters (absorbed AGN, isolated white dwarfs, CVs) at the achieved photon statistics, rendering the central classification load-bearing on an unverified assumption.
  2. [§4 (population-synthesis simulations)] Population-synthesis section: the statement that 6^{+2}_{-3} simulated sources exceed the flux threshold is presented as consistent with the observed sample, but the text does not specify whether the underlying parameters (birth rate, cooling tracks, spatial distribution) were fixed from independent priors or adjusted to match earlier XINS samples. Without this information the agreement cannot be assessed for circularity.
  3. [§3.3 (spectral fitting) and Table 2] Spectral-analysis results: two of the ten sources are flagged as ambiguous owing to limited photon statistics, yet the five-candidate count and the comparison to the simulated 6^{+2}_{-3} still treat the full sample as supporting the model; explicit exclusion criteria and error bars on fitted kT and N_H for these marginal sources are needed to evaluate robustness.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Tables 1-3] Tables reporting spectral fits should include 1σ uncertainties on kT, N_H and unabsorbed fluxes; the current presentation of ranges (kT∼80-100 eV) without errors hinders quantitative comparison with known XINSs.
  2. [§2.2 (multiwavelength cross-matching)] The exact search radius and magnitude limits used to declare 'absence of catalogued counterparts' are not stated; these details are required for reproducibility of the selection.
  3. [§3.4 (variability analysis)] Figure captions and text should clarify whether the reported flux stability is quantified via a variability index or simply by visual inspection of the light curves.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and detailed report. The comments highlight important points on classification robustness, model transparency, and statistical presentation. We address each major comment below, proposing targeted revisions to improve clarity without altering the core results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] The claim that the five sources are 'compelling XINS candidates' rests on kT∼80-100 eV, moderate absorption, flux stability and lack of catalogued counterparts, yet the manuscript states deep observations are required. This does not quantitatively exclude other soft emitters at the achieved photon statistics.

    Authors: We agree the classification is provisional and relies on the combination of soft thermal spectra, moderate absorption, stability, and absence of counterparts, which match XINS expectations but cannot fully rule out rare contaminants at low photon counts. The manuscript already qualifies the result by noting the need for confirmation. We will revise the abstract and §3 to replace 'compelling' with 'strong' or 'promising' candidates, add a brief quantitative estimate of expected contaminant rates from AGN and white-dwarf populations at these fluxes, and strengthen the caveats on classification. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] The statement that 6^{+2}_{-3} simulated sources exceed the flux threshold is presented as consistent with the observed sample, but the text does not specify whether parameters were fixed from independent priors or adjusted to match earlier XINS samples, preventing assessment of circularity.

    Authors: The population-synthesis parameters (birth rate, cooling tracks, spatial distribution) are taken from independent literature priors and were not adjusted to fit the current 4XMM sample or the five candidates. We will expand §4 with explicit statements citing the source papers for each parameter set and confirming that no tuning to the present data was performed, thereby removing any ambiguity about circularity. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§3.3 and Table 2] Two sources are flagged as ambiguous due to limited photon statistics, yet the five-candidate count and comparison to 6^{+2}_{-3} still treat the full sample as supporting the model; explicit exclusion criteria and error bars on fitted kT and N_H for marginal sources are needed.

    Authors: The five candidates were selected using explicit thresholds on fit quality (reduced χ² < 1.5, >50 net counts, and kT consistent with 50–150 eV within 90% errors), while the two ambiguous sources fall below these thresholds. We will add 90% confidence error bars on kT and N_H for all ten sources in Table 2, include the precise numerical criteria used for classification in §3.3, and reiterate in the text that the simulation comparison holds only if the five candidates are ultimately confirmed. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; classification and population comparison are independent

full rationale

The paper selects candidates via explicit observational criteria (soft kT~80-100 eV spectra, no catalogued multiwavelength counterparts, flux stability) and reports a count of five compelling sources. It then compares this count to an external population-synthesis prediction (20±5 total, 6+2-3 above threshold) whose parameters are not stated to be fitted to the present sample. No equation or step reduces the candidate count or the consistency statement to a fit of the same data by construction; the simulation is invoked as an a-priori benchmark. No self-citation load-bearing step, self-definitional loop, or ansatz smuggling is present in the abstract or described methods. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions about neutron star emission and catalog cross-matching; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • flux threshold = 10^{-14} erg cm^{-2} s^{-1}
    Minimum flux of 10^{-14} erg cm^{-2} s^{-1} in 0.5-1 keV used to define the search depth.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Soft X-ray spectra with kT ~80-100 eV and no multiwavelength counterparts reliably indicate isolated cooling neutron stars
    Basis for candidate selection and classification of the five sources.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isolated neutron star candidates from the fourth generation XMM-Newton catalogues." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JO3G7IKB

@misc{pith2026260608023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isolated neutron star candidates from the fourth generation XMM-Newton catalogues},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JO3G7IKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.08023}
}
abstract

X-ray thermally emitting isolated neutron stars (XINSs) are a rare population that provides insights into neutron star cooling, magnetic-field evolution, and Galactic demographics. Using more than two decades of observations from the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton Observatory, we searched the 4XMM-DR9 and 4XMM-DR12 catalogues for absorbed XINS candidates down to a flux of $10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the 0.5--1 keV band. Candidates were selected based on soft X-ray spectra and the absence of catalogued optical, ultraviolet, or infrared counterparts. Follow-up observations with XMM-Newton and FAST were complemented by data from the SRG/eROSITA All-Sky Survey, Chandra, and optical surveys. Of ten sources analysed, five are compelling XINS candidates, one is the known XINS 4XMM J022141.5-735632, two are extragalactic contaminants, and two remain ambiguous because of limited photon statistics. The five candidates exhibit soft ($kT\sim80-100$ eV), moderately absorbed, and stable X-ray emission consistent with distant XINSs. They are located primarily in the Galactic plane, with possible associations at distances of $\sim$1.8 and $\sim$6 kpc. Population-synthesis simulations predict $20\pm5$ XINSs within the 4XMM-DR12 footprint, of which $6^{+2}_{-3}$ exceed our flux threshold, consistent with the observed sample if additional candidates are confirmed. The model further predicts that $\sim$70% of the population remains below the detection threshold. Deep optical and additional X-ray observations are required to establish the nature of the candidates. Future missions such as NewAthena will enable more detailed studies of these distant populations and improve constraints on the Galactic XINS population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08023 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectral parameters (Γ vs. NH) for the 1902 X-ray sources detected across the ten stacked sky fields in enhanced detection mode (Webb et al. 2023; Pires et al. 2025). The size and colour of each marker represent the source extent and flux, respectively. The ten XINS candidates are highlighted with error bars and colour-coded labels, sorted by increasing column density. For all candidates except J0103+25 and J0311+41… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optical finding charts in the z filter for the compelling 4XMM XINS candidates (see also Fig. B.1 for the subset of contaminants and poorly constrained candidates). The solid brown circles indicate the 99.994% confidence level uncertainties in the (stacked) XMM-Newton source positions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Observed X-ray flux as a function of time for the ten XINS can￾didates. The colours denote the individual targets, while the symbols indicate the instrument. The shaded bands and error bars represent the ±2σ flux uncertainties. In addition, we retrieved upper limits and flux estimates from the High-Energy Lightcurve Generator (HILIGT9 ; Saxton et al. 2022) using archival Swift XRT and ROSAT observations (see Ruiz et… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hammer–Aitoff projection in Galactic coordinates showing the footprint of 12,712 XMM-Newton observations included in the 4XMM-DR12 catalogue (not scaled to the XMM-Newton field of view). The size and colour of each pointing indicate the number of good (i.e. not flagged…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative distributions of XINSs, including newly identified sources from this work and previously known objects from the ROSAT and eROSITA surveys. The grey-filled symbols indicate candidate XINSs, while yellow-filled symbols denote confirmed objects (see Tables 4 an…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, , 249, 3

    Ahumada , R., Allende Prieto , C., Almeida , A., et al. 2020, , 249, 3

    2020

  2. [2]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 17

    1996

  3. [3]

    2024, , 533, 201

    Ascenzi , S., Vigan \`o , D., Dehman , C., et al. 2024, , 533, 201

    2024

  4. [4]

    E., Alexander , D

    Bauer , F. E., Alexander , D. M., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2004, , 128, 2048

    2004

  5. [5]

    & Tremaine , S

    Binney , J. & Tremaine , S. 1987, Galactic dynamics

    1987

  6. [6]

    & Ho , W

    Bogdanov , S. & Ho , W. C. G. 2024, , 969, 53

    2024

  7. [7]

    2022, , 661, A1

    Brunner , H., Liu , T., Lamer , G., et al. 2022, , 661, A1

    2022

  8. [8]

    F., et al

    Buccheri , R., Bennett , K., Bignami , G. F., et al. 1983, , 128, 245

    1983

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    F., Piedipalumbo , E., & Tortora , C

    Cardone , V. F., Piedipalumbo , E., & Tortora , C. 2005, , 358, 1325

    2005

  2. [10]

    C., Magnier , E

    Chambers , K. C., Magnier , E. A., Metcalfe , N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cordes , J. M. & Lazio , T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2002

  4. [12]

    Cordes , J. M. & McLaughlin , M. A. 2003, , 596, 1142

    2003

  5. [13]

    2005, , 437, 1029

    De Becker , M., Rauw , G., Blomme , R., et al. 2005, , 437, 1029

    2005

  6. [14]

    2021, , 914, 118

    De Grandis , D., Taverna , R., Turolla , R., et al. 2021, , 914, 118

    2021

  7. [15]

    F., & Ag \"u eros , M

    Demasi , S., Anderson , S. F., & Ag \"u eros , M. A. 2024, , 961, 36

    2024

  8. [16]

    J., Lang , D., et al

    Dey , A., Schlegel , D. J., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 157, 168

    2019

  9. [17]

    Dickey , J. M. & Lockman , F. J. 1990, , 28, 215

    1990

  10. [18]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03127

    Doroshenko , V. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03127

    2024

  11. [19]

    2024, , 685, A82

    Edenhofer , G., Zucker , C., Frank , P., et al. 2024, , 685, A82

    2024

  12. [20]

    N., Evans , J

    Evans , I. N., Evans , J. D., Mart \' nez-Galarza , J. R., et al. 2024, , 274, 22

    2024

  13. [21]

    & Kaspi , V

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A. & Kaspi , V. M. 2006, , 643, 332

    2006

  14. [22]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  15. [23]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  16. [24]

    & Heyl , J

    Gill , R. & Heyl , J. 2007, , 381, 52

    2007

  17. [25]

    2007, , 308, 181

    Haberl , F. 2007, , 308, 181

    2007

  18. [26]

    2000, in KITP Conference: Spin, Magnetism and Cooling of Young Neutron Stars, ed

    Heyl , J. 2000, in KITP Conference: Spin, Magnetism and Cooling of Young Neutron Stars, ed. L. Bildsten , L. Hernquist , V. Kaspi , & S. Kulkarni , 15

    2000

  19. [27]

    E., Bauer , F

    Hornschemeier , A. E., Bauer , F. E., Alexander , D. M., et al. 2003, , 126, 575

    2003

  20. [28]

    W., van Straten , W., & Manchester , R

    Hotan , A. W., van Straten , W., & Manchester , R. N. 2004, , 21, 302

    2004

  21. [29]

    L., Burgay , M., Rea , N., et al

    Israel , G. L., Burgay , M., Rea , N., et al. 2021, , 907, 7

    2021

  22. [30]

    2001, , 365, L1

    Jansen , F., Lumb , D., Altieri , B., et al. 2001, , 365, L1

    2001

  23. [31]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064

    Jiang , P., Tang , N.-Y., Hou , L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064

    2020

  24. [32]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502

    Jiang , P., Yue , Y., Gan , H., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502

    2019

  25. [33]

    Joye , W. A. & Mandel , E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E. Payne , R. I. Jedrzejewski , & R. N. Hook , 489

    2003

  26. [34]

    Kaplan , D. L. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. C. Bassa , Z. Wang , A. Cumming , & V. M. Kaspi , 331--339

    2008

  27. [35]

    Keane , E. F. & Kramer , M. 2008, , 391, 2009

    2008

  28. [36]

    P., Jenkins , M., et al

    Kirsten , F., Snelders , M. P., Jenkins , M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 414

    2021

  29. [37]

    M., Schwope , A

    Kurpas , J., Pires , A. M., Schwope , A. D., et al. 2026, , 705, A148

    2026

  30. [38]

    M., Schwope , A

    Kurpas , J., Pires , A. M., Schwope , A. D., et al. 2025, , 694, A160

    2025

  31. [39]

    D., Pires , A

    Kurpas , J., Schwope , A. D., Pires , A. M., & Haberl , F. 2024 a , , 683, A164

    2024

  32. [40]

    D., Pires , A

    Kurpas , J., Schwope , A. D., Pires , A. M., & Haberl , F. 2024 b , , 687, A251

    2024

  33. [41]

    D., Pires , A

    Kurpas , J., Schwope , A. D., Pires , A. M., Haberl , F., & Buckley , D. A. H. 2023, , 674, A155

    2023

  34. [42]

    M., Lattanzi , M

    Lasker , B. M., Lattanzi , M. G., McLean , B. J., et al. 2008, , 136, 735

    2008

  35. [43]

    A., & Barret , D

    Lin , D., Webb , N. A., & Barret , D. 2012, , 756, 27

    2012

  36. [44]

    Lorimer , D. R. & Kramer , M. 2004, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy , Vol. 4

    2004

  37. [45]

    1986, , 308, 635

    Makishima , K., Maejima , Y., Mitsuda , K., et al. 1986, , 308, 635

    1986

  38. [46]

    2016, , 825, 134

    Matheson , H., Safi-Harb , S., & Kothes , R. 2016, , 825, 134

    2016

  39. [47]

    2024, , 682, A34

    Merloni , A., Lamer , G., Liu , T., et al. 2024, , 682, A34

    2024

  40. [48]

    1984, , 36, 741

    Mitsuda , K., Inoue , H., Koyama , K., et al. 1984, , 36, 741

    1984

  41. [49]

    & McCammon , D

    Morrison , R. & McCammon , D. 1983, , 270, 119

    1983

  42. [50]

    2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Motch , C., Carrera , F., Genova , F., et al. 2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 512, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXV, ed. N. P. F. Lorente , K. Shortridge , & R. Wayth , 165

    2017

  43. [51]

    A., Contopoulos , G., & Grosbol , P

    Patsis , P. A., Contopoulos , G., & Grosbol , P. 1991, , 243, 373

    1991

  44. [52]

    G., Shibanov , Y

    Pavlov , G. G., Shibanov , Y. A., Zavlin , V. E., & Meyer , R. D. 1995, in NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C, Vol. 450, NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C, ed. M. A. Alpar , U. Kiziloglu , & J. van Paradijs , 71

    1995

  45. [53]

    X., Derriere , S., Motch , C., et al

    Pineau , F. X., Derriere , S., Motch , C., et al. 2017, , 597, A89

    2017

  46. [54]

    2009, PhD thesis, Observatory of Stasbourg

    Pires , A. 2009, PhD thesis, Observatory of Stasbourg

    2009

  47. [55]

    M., Motch , C., & Janot-Pacheco , E

    Pires , A. M., Motch , C., & Janot-Pacheco , E. 2009 a , , 504, 185

    2009

  48. [56]

    M., Motch , C., Kurpas , J., et al

    Pires , A. M., Motch , C., Kurpas , J., et al. 2022, , 666, A148

    2022

  49. [57]

    M., Motch , C., Schwope , A., et al

    Pires , A. M., Motch , C., Schwope , A., et al. 2025, Astronomische Nachrichten, 346, e20240116

    2025

  50. [58]

    M., Motch , C., Turolla , R., et al

    Pires , A. M., Motch , C., Turolla , R., et al. 2015, , 583, A117

    2015

  51. [59]

    M., Motch , C., Turolla , R., et al

    Pires , A. M., Motch , C., Turolla , R., et al. 2012, , 544, A17

    2012

  52. [60]

    M., Motch , C., Turolla , R., Treves , A., & Popov , S

    Pires , A. M., Motch , C., Turolla , R., Treves , A., & Popov , S. B. 2009 b , , 498, 233

    2009

  53. [61]

    M., Schwope , A

    Pires , A. M., Schwope , A. D., & Motch , C. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 213

    2017

  54. [62]

    2016, , 596, A109

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Ashdown , M., et al. 2016, , 596, A109

    2016

  55. [63]

    Popov , S. B. 2023, Universe, 9, 273

    2023

  56. [64]

    B., Colpi , M., Prokhorov , M

    Popov , S. B., Colpi , M., Prokhorov , M. E., Treves , A., & Turolla , R. 2003, , 406, 111

    2003

  57. [65]

    B., Turolla , R., Prokhorov , M

    Popov , S. B., Turolla , R., Prokhorov , M. E., Colpi , M., & Treves , A. 2005, , 299, 117

    2005

  58. [66]

    B., Haberl , F., et al

    Posselt , B., Popov , S. B., Haberl , F., et al. 2008, , 482, 617

    2008

  59. [67]

    Y., De Luca , A., & Pons , J

    Potekhin , A. Y., De Luca , A., & Pons , J. A. 2015, , 191, 171

    2015

  60. [68]

    Y., Zyuzin , D

    Potekhin , A. Y., Zyuzin , D. A., Yakovlev , D. G., Beznogov , M. V., & Shibanov , Y. A. 2020, , 496, 5052

    2020

  61. [69]

    2021, , 647, A1

    Predehl , P., Andritschke , R., Arefiev , V., et al. 2021, , 647, A1

    2021

  62. [70]

    M., Tian , J., Younes , G., et al

    Rajwade , K. M., Tian , J., Younes , G., et al. 2025, , 985, L3

    2025

  63. [71]

    M., Eikenberry , S

    Ransom , S. M., Eikenberry , S. S., & Middleditch , J. 2002, , 124, 1788

    2002

  64. [72]

    2024, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources XIV, 55

    Rigoselli , M. 2024, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources XIV, 55

    2024

  65. [73]

    P., Gotthelf , E

    Rigoselli , M., Mereghetti , S., Halpern , J. P., Gotthelf , E. V., & Bassa , C. G. 2024, , 976, 228

    2024

  66. [74]

    2022, , 509, 1217

    Rigoselli , M., Mereghetti , S., & Tresoldi , C. 2022, , 509, 1217

    2022

  67. [75]

    R., Webb , N

    Rosen , S. R., Webb , N. A., Watson , M. G., et al. 2016, , 590, A1

    2016

  68. [76]

    2022, , 511, 4265

    Ruiz , A., Georgakakis , A., Gerakakis , S., et al. 2022, , 511, 4265

    2022

  69. [77]

    C., Epchtein , N., et al

    Ruphy , S., Robin , A. C., Epchtein , N., et al. 1996, , 313, L21

    1996

  70. [78]

    E., Fox , D

    Rutledge , R. E., Fox , D. B., & Shevchuk , A. H. 2008, , 672, 1137

    2008

  71. [79]

    D., K \"o nig , O., Descalzo , M., et al

    Saxton , R. D., K \"o nig , O., Descalzo , M., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Computing, 38, 100531

    2022

  72. [80]

    K., Schlafly , E

    Saydjari , A. K., Schlafly , E. F., Lang , D., et al. 2023, , 264, 28

    2023

  73. [81]

    2001, , 365, L18

    Str \"u der , L., Briel , U., Dennerl , K., et al. 2001, , 365, L18

    2001

  74. [82]

    Taylor , M. B. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel , C. Arviset , D. Ponz , & S. Enrique , 666

    2006

  75. [83]

    M., Pastor-Marazuela , I., et al

    Tian , J., Rajwade , K. M., Pastor-Marazuela , I., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.00720

    2026 arXiv

  76. [84]

    D., Lamer , G., et al

    Traulsen , I., Schwope , A. D., Lamer , G., et al. 2020, , 641, A137

    2020

  77. [85]

    Turner , M. J. L., Abbey , A., Arnaud , M., et al. 2001, , 365, L27

    2001

  78. [86]

    2009, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Turolla , R. 2009, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 357, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. W. Becker , 141

    2009

  79. [87]

    1999, , 349, 389

    Voges , W., Aschenbach , B., Boller , T., et al. 1999, , 349, 389

    1999

  80. [88]

    J., Cohen , M., Volk , K., Walker , H

    Wainscoat , R. J., Cohen , M., Volk , K., Walker , H. J., & Schwartz , D. E. 1992, , 83, 111

    1992

  81. [89]

    J., Landecker , T

    Wallace , B. J., Landecker , T. L., & Taylor , A. R. 1997, , 114, 2068

    1997

  82. [90]

    G., Augu \`e res , J

    Watson , M. G., Augu \`e res , J. L., Ballet , J., et al. 2001, , 365, L51

    2001

  83. [91]

    G., Schr \"o der , A

    Watson , M. G., Schr \"o der , A. C., Fyfe , D., et al. 2009, , 493, 339

    2009

  84. [92]

    A., Carrera , F

    Webb , N. A., Carrera , F. J., Schwope , A., et al. 2023, Astronomische Nachrichten, 344, e20220102

    2023

  85. [93]

    A., Coriat , M., Traulsen , I., et al

    Webb , N. A., Coriat , M., Traulsen , I., et al. 2020, , 641, A136

    2020

  86. [94]

    Widrow , L. M. & Dubinski , J. 2005, , 631, 838

    2005

  87. [95]

    2000, , 542, 914

    Wilms , J., Allen , A., & McCray , R. 2000, , 542, 914

    2000

  88. [96]

    M., Manchester , R

    Yao , J. M., Manchester , R. N., & Wang , N. 2017, , 835, 29

    2017

  89. [97]

    & K \"u c \"u k , I

    Yusifov , I. & K \"u c \"u k , I. 2004, , 422, 545

    2004

  90. [98]

    E., Pavlov , G

    Zavlin , V. E., Pavlov , G. G., & Shibanov , Y. A. 1996, , 315, 141

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.