Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 41 references

Identification of a Large-Scale Diffuse Gamma-Ray Structure in the Southern Galactic Hemisphere

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A large gamma-ray structure in the southern sky matches the eROSITA bubble.

desk verdict Convincing southern gamma-ray excess; the eB-vs-Loop I morphology claim is plausible but under-tested because no filled Loop I template is considered. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12012 v1 pith:EJNSWBDC submitted 2026-08-12 astro-ph.HE

Zhen Xie , Xiaoyuan Huang , Bing Liu , Ruizhi Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 95.85.Pw
keywords Fermi-LATgamma-rayastronomyeROSITAbubblesGalacticdiffuseemissionLoopIoutflowinverse-Comptonnorth-southasymmetry
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 that 17 years of Fermi-LAT data contain a previously unrecognized, tens-of-degrees-wide gamma-ray emission structure in the Southern Galactic Hemisphere. The excess persists when the fitted Galactic diffuse background is varied over an ensemble of 64 physically distinct models, and its spatial shape is better matched by a filled region following the southern eROSITA bubble than by the shell geometry of Loop I. If the structure is real, it would supply the long-missing southern gamma-ray counterpart to the eROSITA bubbles and to the northern large-scale gamma-ray emission, and it would imply that Galactic-center-driven outflows distribute nonthermal particles far beyond the Fermi bubbles. The paper also reports that the southern structure is fainter and softer than the northern one by a factor of about 7 in luminosity, mirroring the asymmetry seen in X-rays.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a spatially binned, energy-dependent template likelihood analysis in which every emission component—Galactic diffuse emission, Fermi bubbles, isotropic background, and resolved 4FGL sources—is fitted simultaneously per energy bin, and then two non-nested large-scale templates are added and compared: a filled uniform-intensity region bounded by the eROSITA X-ray contours (the eB template) and the two intersecting synchrotron shells of the Wolleben Loop I model. The load-bearing comparison is the template TS relative to the same baseline and the AIC difference between the two shapes, repeated over 64 GALPROP diffuse-emission templates to show persistence. This isolates the southern excess from background uncertainties and lets the authors assign a morphology and spectrum to it.

What would settle it

Repeat the template analysis with a diffuse background built from a different code or from a data-driven model not contained in the 64 GALPROP templates; if the southern excess vanishes or its template TS drops below roughly 100, the structure is an artifact of the tested background family rather than a genuine astrophysical component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using an energy-resolved maximum-likelihood decomposition of 17 years of Fermi-LAT CLEAN-class events from 200 MeV to 500 GeV, the authors subtract a baseline model built from GALPROP diffuse templates, the Fermi bubbles, isotropic emission, and 4FGL sources, and find a coherent residual excess stretching from mid-latitudes toward the South Galactic Pole. The excess is detected across all 64 alternative diffuse-emission templates; template fits give TS = 959.9 for a filled eROSITA-bubble-like template versus TS = 881.5 for the Wolleben Loop I shell geometry, with an AIC difference of -78.5 favoring the filled morphology on the benchmark background. Under the eB interpretation, the southern component's integrated 0.2-500 GeV luminosity is about 7.2 times lower than the corresponding northern structure and its spectrum is softer, consistent with an aged or less efficiently reaccelerated electron population; a hadronic interpretation would require roughly $10^{56}$ erg of protons and is judged energetically demanding. The authors present the structure as a plausible gamma-ray counterpart of the southern eROSITA bubble while explicitly allowing that Loop-I-related or other foreground emission cannot be excluded.

Load-bearing premise

The whole detection rests on the assumption that the 64 GALPROP templates bracket the true diffuse Galactic gamma-ray emission in the southern high-latitude sky; if the real background has structure outside that family, the residual excess could be a modeling artifact rather than a real astrophysical structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The southern gamma-ray structure, if confirmed, gives the eROSITA bubble system a measurable high-energy counterpart in both hemispheres, so the Milky Way's large-scale outflow must place nonthermal particles at radii of several kiloparsecs from the Galactic center.
  • The fitted luminosity ratio of about 7:1 (north to south) provides a gamma-ray-side measure of the north-south asymmetry that can be compared directly with the eROSITA X-ray brightness asymmetry.
  • The softer southern spectrum favors inverse-Compton emission from aged and/or reaccelerated electrons, so future models of Galactic-center feedback must include transport and in-situ reacceleration rather than only the Fermi-bubble electron population.
  • The energetics argument implies that a hadronic origin would require roughly $10^{56}$ erg in protons and around $10^{57}$ erg of mechanical energy, making that channel testable and, as modeled here, disfavored.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: a deep radio-synchrotron survey of the same region should show non-thermal emission with the same filled-eB boundaries if freshly accelerated electrons are present, or match the Loop I radio shells if the foreground interpretation is correct.
  • Because the 64-template family is not exhaustive, the structure's reality will ultimately rest on future data-driven diffuse models; if such a model suppresses the excess, the eB association would have to be abandoned.
  • The reported soft spectrum and the CMB-only inverse-Compton fits imply a steep electron population above the break, so GHz-to-mm synchrotron observations could independently constrain the magnetic field and low-energy electron content in a way the gamma-ray data alone cannot.
  • A sharper test of the eB association is spatial: with more statistics, the gamma-ray boundary should track the eROSITA X-ray edge more tightly; any systematic divergence would point toward a separate foreground shell.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes 17 years of Fermi-LAT data with an energy-resolved template likelihood method, testing 64 GALPROP diffuse Galactic emission (DGE) models as backgrounds. The authors report a large-scale diffuse gamma-ray excess in the Southern Galactic Hemisphere that persists across the DGE ensemble, spans tens of degrees, and is spatially consistent with the southern eROSITA bubble (eB). They compare a filled eB-like spatial template with the Wolleben Loop I shell geometry and find the eB template preferred (AIC difference -78.47 in the benchmark model). Under the eB assumption, the southern component is softer and fainter than the northern counterpart, with an integrated luminosity ratio of about 7.2. The paper also presents leptonic and hadronic spectral fits and discusses energetic implications, concluding that the structure is a plausible gamma-ray counterpart of the southern eB while acknowledging that Loop I or other foreground emission cannot be excluded.

Significance. If the morphological association with the southern eROSITA bubble holds, this would be the first quantified gamma-ray counterpart of the southern eB, providing a new observable for Galactic outflow models and cosmic-ray transport in the halo. The paper is methodical: it uses a long dataset, tests an ensemble of DGE models, applies masks, and is explicit about many limitations. The recovery of the well-known northern NPS/Loop I feature is a useful validation benchmark. The spectral and energetic analyses are careful in distinguishing leptonic and hadronic scenarios. However, the central morphological interpretation is underdetermined by the template set actually tested, and the strength of some quantitative claims (persistence across DGE models, luminosity ratio) is not fully supported by the reported statistics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figure 3] The morphological preference for the eB template over the Wolleben Loop I shell geometry does not test a volume-filled or diffuse Loop I foreground. Gamma-ray emission from a local Loop I / NPS-type structure need not follow the limb-brightened radio shell; inverse-Compton emission from electrons distributed through the bubble interior would naturally produce a filled or partially filled morphology. The AIC difference of -78.47 therefore supports only the statement that the excess is not well described by the specific Wolleben shell geometry, not that it is eB-like rather than foreground-like. The authors should add a filled (or broadened) Loop I template to the comparison before claiming that the morphology favors an eB association. This is load-bearing for the central interpretation, and the manuscript's own caveat in the abstract ("Loop-I-related or other localized foreground emission cannot be excluded") does not substitute for the missing test.
  2. [Section 3 and Appendix A] The claim that the southern excess is "detected with high statistical significance across all 64 models" is not supported by the reported ensemble statistics. Only the mean template TS values are given (⟨TS_Loop I⟩=763.0 and ⟨TS_eB⟩=932.2); no minimum, maximum, quartiles, or per-model distribution is shown. If some DGE models yield much lower TS values for the southern template, the persistence claim would be materially weakened. Please provide the full distribution of the 64 TS values (e.g., a histogram or table) or at least the minimum and quartiles, and similarly characterize the spread of the AIC difference between the two templates.
  3. [Section 3, Appendix B] The north-south luminosity ratio of ~7.2 is quoted without an uncertainty, even though it is derived from template fits and inherits systematic errors from the DGE model choice, the spatial template, and the spectral model. The comparison to the eROSITA intensity ratio (quoted as a 3-6 range) would be much more meaningful if the gamma-ray ratio were accompanied by a systematic error estimate. Since this ratio appears in the abstract and is used to support the eB-asymmetry interpretation, an error budget should be provided.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2.2] The sentence "The northern and southern hemispheres are fitted separately and then merged for visualization" is ambiguous: it is unclear whether this applies only to the residual map construction or also to the baseline likelihood fits. Please clarify whether the baseline model parameters are fitted independently in each hemisphere, as this affects the interpretation of the residual map.
  2. [Section 2.2] The description of the 4FGL source component as "included as a template and fitted simultaneously" does not state whether its normalization is fitted independently in each energy bin or as a single energy-independent scale. Please specify the treatment of the source template normalizations.
  3. [Section 3] The template TS values (TS=881.46 for Loop I and TS=959.93 for eB) are quoted for the benchmark model, but the number of additional degrees of freedom introduced by the large-scale template (one normalization per energy bin, i.e., 25 parameters) is not stated. This information is useful for interpreting the magnitude of the TS.
  4. [Appendix A] The selection of the benchmark DGE template as "the template set that most closely aligns with the ensemble mean" is vague; please specify the metric used (e.g., minimum chi-square, maximum likelihood, or sum of squared deviations) so the choice is reproducible.
  5. [Figure 2 caption and text] The log-parabola parameters α and β are given only in the figure legend. They should be reported in a table with their 1σ uncertainties for both the northern and southern components, since the spectral softening is a key qualitative result.
  6. [Table 1] The hadronic eB local scenario is labeled "PL/ECPL" without specifying which model is used; the text says the ECPL is used for the eB model. Please make the table consistent with the text.
  7. [References] Several references list arXiv URLs directly in the reference list (e.g., Lallement 2022, Scheel-Platz et al. 2023, Yeung et al. 2026, Zhang et al. 2026). These should be formatted consistently with the journal style, including journal names and DOIs where available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the southern excess is characterized by template fits anchored to external maps and models; derived spectra and luminosities are measurements, not constructed predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required here. The southern excess is first identified in an approximate residual-significance map (Nobs - Nmodel)/sqrt(Nmodel) after subtracting a baseline consisting of GALPROP DGE templates, isotropic emission, a Fermi-bubble template, and 4FGL sources; this map is explicitly labeled as visualization only and is not used as the formal detection statistic. The quantitative detection and morphology claims come from template likelihood fits in which the competing large-scale hypotheses (Wolleben Loop I shell and eROSITA-bubble filled region) are taken from external publications (Wolleben 2007; Predehl et al. 2020). Neither template is defined from the gamma-ray data or from the quantity being claimed; the fitted normalizations are the data-derived measurements. The TS values (881.46 vs. 959.93 benchmark; ensemble means 763.0 vs. 932.2) and the AIC difference (-78.47) are therefore ordinary model-comparison statistics, not quantities constructed to equal their inputs. The spectral extraction, log-parabola indices, and the factor-7.2 luminosity ratio under the eB template are measurements derived from the same fit; the paper does not present them as independent predictions of a theory, so the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern does not apply. The only self-citation that enters the pipeline is methodological: 'Following the selection procedure adopted in Ref. (R.-z. Yang et al. 2014), models with halo heights z=8 kpc and z=10 kpc that fail to reproduce the 9Be/10Be data are discarded.' This prior work is used to prune the GALPROP ensemble using an external beryllium-isotope constraint, not to assume the southern gamma-ray structure, so it is not load-bearing circularity. The skeptical concern that a volume-filled Loop I morphology was not tested is a template-degeneracy/model-ambiguity issue, not a step in which an equation or fitted parameter reduces by definition to the paper's input; under the hard rules it belongs in correctness risk rather than circularity. I find no circular step that can be exhibited as an identity or fitted-input-as-prediction, and therefore score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on template fitting with freely fitted normalizations for the DGE, isotropic, Fermi bubble, 4FGL, eB, and Loop I components. The eB and Loop I spatial templates are adopted from external X-ray and radio observations, not derived in this work. No new physical entities are introduced. The main assumptions are that the GALPROP DGE ensemble brackets the true diffuse background and that the adopted spatial templates are adequate. The gamma_1 = 1.5 choice and the adopted target gas densities are hand-set inputs affecting the interpretation, not the detection.

free parameters (8)
  • eB template normalization per energy bin = Fitted in 25 energy bins; benchmark combined TS = 959.93
    The amplitude of the eROSITA-bubble spatial template is fitted to the gamma-ray data in each energy bin; all spectral and luminosity results depend on these fitted normalizations.
  • Loop I template normalization per energy bin = Fitted in 25 energy bins; benchmark combined TS = 881.46
    The competing Wolf-Rayet shell template is independently normalized per energy bin to compare with the eB template.
  • DGE template normalization per energy bin = Fitted freely in each energy bin
    The Galactic diffuse emission template is renormalized per energy bin; this freedom can absorb part of a real signal and is a key systematic for the residual detection.
  • Fermi bubble and isotropic template normalizations per energy bin = Fitted in each energy bin
    These templates are part of the baseline model and their normalizations adjust to the data, affecting the residual map and the large-scale template fits.
  • Log-parabula spectral parameters for the southern structure = Best-fit alpha and beta from log-parabola SED fit (Figure 2, legend values)
    The SED shape and the integrated luminosity are derived from the fitted log-parabola parameters.
  • Low-energy electron index gamma_1 = 1.5 (fixed by hand)
    The leptonic inverse-Compton fits fix the low-energy electron index to 1.5 as a phenomenological choice; the data do not constrain it directly, and this affects the derived electron energetics.
  • Target gas density n_H for hadronic fits = 1.0 cm^-3 (local), 1e-3 cm^-3 (Galactic halo)
    The hadronic energy budget scales inversely with the adopted target gas density, which is chosen from literature values rather than measured in this work.
  • BPL break energy and high-energy electron index for eB fits = E_b = 14.3 GeV (local) / 393 GeV (GC); gamma_2 = 4.75 (local) / 4.45 (GC)
    These parameters are fitted to the extracted SED and determine the inferred particle energy and the interpretation of spectral softening.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption GALPROP diffuse-emission templates adequately model the true Galactic gamma-ray background in the southern high-latitude sky
    The residual identification and the large template TS values assume that the 64 GALPROP models bracket the real DGE morphology and spectrum, including Loop I and inverse-Compton contributions. This is the central modeling risk and is addressed only by internal variation, not by external validation. (Sections 2.2 and A)
  • domain assumption The eROSITA bubble X-ray contours define a filled spatial template for gamma-ray emission
    The eB template is a uniform-intensity filled region bounded by X-ray contours (Predehl et al. 2020). The gamma-ray excess is fitted to this template, so the spatial association is partially imposed by the template choice. (Section 3)
  • domain assumption The Wolleben Loop I geometry correctly represents the Loop I radio shell
    The competing template uses the Wolleben two-shell model; if the true Loop I foreground has a different shape or is more diffuse, the eB versus Loop I comparison could be biased. (Section 3)
  • domain assumption The 4FGL source template and the applied masks remove point-source contamination sufficiently
    The baseline model relies on the 4FGL source template and masks around bright sources and the Galactic plane to isolate diffuse emission; residual point-source or source-template mismodeling could affect the large-scale residual. (Section 2.2)
  • standard math Poisson maximum likelihood with independent spatial bins is valid for the template fits
    The likelihood and TS calculations assume Poisson statistics per pixel and independent bins; correlations from the PSF and template smoothing are not explicitly modeled. (Section 2.2)
  • domain assumption The Fermi bubble template from Su et al. 2010 is a valid representation of the gamma-ray bubbles
    The baseline model includes the Fermi bubble template; errors in the FB template shape could propagate into the residual map. (Section 2.2)

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identification of a Large-Scale Diffuse Gamma-Ray Structure in the Southern Galactic Hemisphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EJNSWBDC

@misc{pith2026260812012,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identification of a Large-Scale Diffuse Gamma-Ray Structure in the Southern Galactic Hemisphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EJNSWBDC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12012}
}
read the original abstract

We identify and characterize a large-scale diffuse gamma-ray structure in the Southern Galactic Hemisphere using 17 yr of Fermi-LAT data. An energy-dependent likelihood analysis, including alternative Galactic diffuse-emission models, isotropic emission, the Fermi bubbles, and resolved 4FGL sources, reveals an extended excess that persists across the tested background models and spans tens of degrees. The excess broadly follows the X-ray-defined southern eROSITA Bubble (eB) region, while also overlapping the projected southern extension of Loop I. Template fits favor a filled eB-like morphology over the adopted Wolleben Loop I shell geometry, making the structure a plausible gamma-ray counterpart of the southern eB, although Loop-I-related or other localized foreground emission cannot be excluded. Under the eB template, the southern component is fainter and softer than the northern large-scale component, with an integrated luminosity lower by a factor of about seven, broadly consistent with the eROSITA-bubble asymmetry. If interpreted as Galactic-scale outflow emission, its faint, soft spectrum may indicate aged particles and/or distributed reacceleration in the outer bubble. A hadronic interpretation is energetically demanding, whereas a leptonic inverse-Compton scenario is more economical but requires rapid transport and/or local reacceleration of high-energy electrons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12012 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. All-sky approximate residual-significance map of the large-scale gamma-ray residuals. This map is intended only to visualize the large-scale residual morphology after baseline-template subtraction and is not used as a formal detection statistic. The background color shows (Nobs − Nmodel)/ √ Nmodel, constructed from the residual counts after the template fit and summed over the analyzed energy bins. The northern and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of gamma-ray SEDs for the northern (solid lines) and southern (dashed lines) large-scale structures in our analysis. Data points represent extracted fluxes for the FBs (diamonds) and eBs (circles). The curves show the best-fit log-parabola models for the corresponding components, and the quoted α and β values in the legend denote the best-fit parameters. Error bars represent 1σ nominal uncertainties. of t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Comparison of cumulative template TS values for the eB and Loop I templates across the 64 GALPROP dif￾fuse-emission templates. Each value is computed relative to the corresponding baseline model without the additional large-scale template. The benchmark model is highlighted by the red star, and the navy dashed line indicates equal likelihood improvement for the two non-nested spatial hypotheses. Bottom: SEDs ob… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral energy distribution of the southern structure fitted with leptonic and hadronic models. The left and right panels show the SEDs derived with the southern eB and Loop I spatial templates, respectively. The leptonic scenario (inverse-Compton) assumes a BPL (γ1 =…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  2. [2]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 3

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Atwood, W., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 3

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, 64

    Ackermann, M., Albert, A., Atwood, W., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, 64

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    2014, arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.2160

    Ahlers, M., & Halzen, F. 2014, arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.2160

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 88 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Akita, M., Kataoka, J., Arimoto, M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 88 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whela...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2018

  6. [6]

    H., Lott, B., & collaboration, T

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & collaboration, T. F.-L. 2024, Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 4 (4FGL-DR4), https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12546

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 554, A139

    Bartlett, J., Cardoso, J., Delabrouille, J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 554, A139

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 582, 246

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Cohen, M. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 582, 246

    work page 2003

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    M., Staveley-Smith, L., et al

    Carretti, E., Crocker, R. M., Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 2013, Nature, 493, 66

    2013

  2. [10]

    M., & Aharonian, F

    Crocker, R. M., & Aharonian, F. 2011, Physical Review Letters, 106, 101102

    2011

  3. [11]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 17

    Dobler, G. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 17

    2012

  4. [12]

    S., & Sternberg, A

    Faerman, Y., Pandya, V., Somerville, R. S., & Sternberg, A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 37

    2022

  5. [13]

    Finkbeiner, D. P. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 614, 186 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    Guo, F., & Mathews, W. G. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 181 12

    2012

  7. [15]

    1982, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, vol

    Haslam, C., Salter, C., Stoffel, H., & Wilson, W. 1982, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, vol. 47, Jan. 1982, p. 1, 2, 4-51, 53-142., 47, 1

    1982

  8. [16]

    2018, Galaxies, 6, 27

    Kataoka, J., Sofue, Y., Inoue, Y., et al. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 27

    2018

  9. [17]

    2022, North Polar Spur/Loop I: gigantic outskirt of the Northern Fermi bubble or nearby hot gas cavity blown by supernovae? https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.01312

    Lallement, R. 2022, North Polar Spur/Loop I: gigantic outskirt of the Northern Fermi bubble or nearby hot gas cavity blown by supernovae? https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.01312

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2014, Astrophys

    Liu, H., Mertsch, P., & Sarkar, S. 2014, Astrophys. J. Lett., 789, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/2/L29

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 967, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad47e0

    Liu, T., Merloni, A., Sanders, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 967, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad47e0

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Faulkner, A., Lyne, A., et al

    Lorimer, D. R., Faulkner, A., Lyne, A., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 372, 777

    2006

  13. [21]

    2013, JCAP, 06, 041, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/06/041

    Mertsch, P., & Sarkar, S. 2013, JCAP, 06, 041, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/06/041

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    J., & Bregman, J

    Miller, M. J., & Bregman, J. N. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, 14

    2015

  15. [23]

    2023, Nature Communications, 14, 781

    Mou, G., Sun, D., Fang, T., et al. 2023, Nature Communications, 14, 781

    2023

  16. [24]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2539

    Popescu, C., Yang, R., Tuffs, R., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2539

    2017

  17. [25]

    A., J´ ohannesson, G., & Moskalenko, I

    Porter, T. A., J´ ohannesson, G., & Moskalenko, I. V. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac80f6

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    2020, Nature, 588, 227

    Predehl, P., Sunyaev, R., Becker, W., et al. 2020, Nature, 588, 227

    2020

  19. [27]

    Sarkar, K. C. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4813, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2944

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Sarkar, K. C. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09824

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    C., Mondal, S., Sharma, P., & Piran, T

    Sarkar, K. C., Mondal, S., Sharma, P., & Piran, T. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 36

    2023

  22. [30]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 680, A2

    Scheel-Platz, L., Knollm¨ uller, J., Arras, P., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 680, A2

    2023

  23. [31]

    1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 485, 125

    Snowden, S., Egger, R., Freyberg, M., et al. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 485, 125

    1997

  24. [32]

    1979, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, vol

    Sofue, Y., & Reich, W. 1979, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, vol. 38, Nov. 1979, p. 251-263., 38, 251

    1979

  25. [33]

    R., & Finkbeiner, D

    Su, M., Slatyer, T. R., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 1044

    2010

  26. [34]

    M., Gabici, S., & Aharonian, F

    Taylor, A. M., Gabici, S., & Aharonian, F. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 103003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103003 von Hausegger, S., Liu, H., Mertsch, P., & Sarkar, S. 2016, JCAP, 03, 023, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/03/023

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 664, 349

    Wolleben, M. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 664, 349

    2007

  28. [36]

    K., Ruszkowski, M., & Zweibel, E

    Yang, H.-Y. K., Ruszkowski, M., & Zweibel, E. G. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 584

    2022

  29. [37]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 567, A19

    Yang, R.-z., Aharonian, F., & Crocker, R. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 567, A19

    2014

  30. [38]

    Yeung, M. C. H., Mayer, M. G. F., Strong, A., et al. 2026, The SRG/eROSITA diffuse soft X-ray background II. spectra and morphology of the eROSITA bubbles in the western Galactic hemisphere, https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.02998

    2026 arXiv

  31. [39]

    2015, Proc

    Zabalza, V. 2015, Proc. of International Cosmic Ray Conference 2015, 922

    2015

  32. [40]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1416

    Zhang, H.-S., Ponti, G., Carretti, E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1416

    2024

  33. [41]

    2026, The Double-Episode Jet Genesis of the eROSITA and Fermi Bubbles, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13665

    Zhang, R., Guo, F., Xie, S., et al. 2026, The Double-Episode Jet Genesis of the eROSITA and Fermi Bubbles, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13665

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.