Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Multi-wavelength Study of HESS J0632+057: New Insights into Pulsar-Disk Interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In HESS J0632+057, new X-ray, optical, and TeV observations around orbital phase 0.35 show an enhanced absorbing column that the paper interprets as the pulsar crossing the Be companion's disk, with a phase width implying a disk opening…

desk verdict A careful multi-wavelength study with a plausible but not fully pinned-down disk-opening-angle estimate; worth sending to review, with a request for an anrg-sensitive robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23304 v1 pith:BGGW6JF2 submitted 2025-07-31 astro-ph.HE

Jaegeun Park (1) , Hongjun An (1) , Chanho Kim (1) , Natalie Matchett (2) , Kaya Mori (3) , Brian van Soelen (2) , VERITAS Collaboration: A. Archer , P. Bangale
show 55 more authors
J. T. Bartkoske W. Benbow J. H. Buckley Y. Chen A. J. Chromey A. Duerr M. Errando M. Escobar Godoy A. Falcone S. Feldman Q. Feng S. Filbert L. Fortson A. Furniss W. Hanlon O. Hervet C. E. Hinrichs J. Holder T. B. Humensky W. Jin M. N. Johnson P. Kaaret M. Kertzman M. Kherlakian D. Kieda T. K. Kleiner N. Korzoun S. Kumar M. J. Lang M. Lundy G. Maier P. Moriarty R. Mukherjee M. Ohishi R. A. Ong A. Pandey M. Pohl E. Pueschel J. Quinn P. L. Rabinowitz K. Ragan D. Ribeiro E. Roache I. Sadeh L. Saha G. H. Sembroski R. Shang J. V. Tucci V. V. Vassiliev A. Weinstein D. A. Williams S. L. Wong T. Yoshikoshi ((1) Chungbuk National University (2) University of the Free State (3) Columbia University)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-raybinariesHESSJ0632+057pulsarwindBediskX-rayabsorptionTeVvariabilityintrabinaryshockmulti-wavelengthobservations
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 analyzes a new multi-wavelength campaign of the TeV gamma-ray binary HESS J0632+057, combining Swift, NuSTAR, SALT, and VERITAS data from 2023–2024 with archival observations. It confirms that the source's X-ray spectrum varies with orbital phase, most notably an increased absorbing column density $N_H$ and flux near phase $\phi\approx0.35$, and finds that the X-ray flux inside this phase interval changed on both orbital and sub-3-day timescales. Interpreting the $N_H$ enhancement as absorption by the Be star's decretion disk, the paper argues the pulsar crosses the disk near this phase, and it uses the measured phase width $\Delta\phi\approx0.1$ to infer a disk opening angle of about $36^\circ$ for a circular orbit. It also shows that in orbital cycle 24 the X-ray and TeV fluxes varied independently, contrary to the previously observed concurrent increase, and discusses this in the context of intrabinary shock emission and disk heating. A sympathetic reader would care because HESS J0632+057 is one of only a few systems where pulsar-disk interaction can be probed directly, and the new results suggest the interaction geometry and the coupling between magnetic and radiation energy densities are more complex than simple one-zone models predict.

What carries the argument

The central object is the intrabinary shock (IBS) — the collision front between the pulsar wind and the massive companion's wind, where particles are accelerated and produce the observed X-ray (synchrotron) and TeV (inverse-Compton) emission. The argument is carried by phase-resolved X-ray spectroscopy, specifically the orbital modulation of the absorbing column $N_H$, which the paper uses as a tracer of the Be disk crossing: the phase width of the $N_H$ and flux enhancement is converted into a geometric disk opening angle. The paper also uses the H$\alpha$ equivalent width as a tracer of disk size, connecting long-term X-ray state changes to the disk's extent, and the ratio of X-ray to TeV flux to infer the balance between magnetic energy density $u_B$ and seed-photon energy densities $u_*+u_d$ in the shock region.

What would settle it

A single-epoch, high-resolution X-ray spectrum (e.g., Chandra/HETGS or XMM-Newton/RGS) obtained across $\phi\approx0.35$ that resolves the oxygen and iron absorption edges would settle whether the $N_H$ excess is real, cold gas rather than a spectral-fitting covariance artifact; if the edge structure is absent or shows a highly ionized state inconsistent with a cool Be disk, the disk-crossing interpretation loses its absorption support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the X-ray absorbing column $N_H$ and the 2–10 keV flux both rise significantly in the orbital phase interval $\phi\approx0.3$–$0.4$, with a measured phase width of $\Delta\phi\approx0.1$, and it interprets this as the compact object passing through the Be companion's decretion disk. Assuming a circular orbit, this phase width corresponds to a disk opening angle of about $36^\circ$, comparable to the value inferred for the archetypal system PSR B1259$-$63. The paper further establishes that the X-ray flux within the interaction phase ($\phi=0.315$–$0.365$) shows both long-term modulation across orbital cycles and short-term transitions on timescales of less than 3 days, and that in orbital cycle 24 the TeV flux dropped substantially over about 8 days while the X-ray flux stayed constant, demonstrating independent X-ray and TeV variability during the purported disk-crossing phase. These findings are presented as new constraints on the disk configuration and on the intrabinary shock emission mechanism, with the caveat that the $N_H$ increase is attributed to disk material only if that interpretation is correct.

Load-bearing premise

The phase-dependent rise in X-ray absorption is interpreted as additional Be-disk material along the line of sight, but the fitted $N_H$ values change when the abundance table is switched from wilm to anrg, and the $N_H$–$\Gamma$ covariance plus multi-orbit binning could mimic part of the trend — the paper itself hedges this with 'if this increase is indeed caused by disk material.'

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $N_H$ enhancement at $\phi\approx0.35$ is indeed due to disk material, the phase width $\Delta\phi\approx0.1$ yields a disk opening angle of about $36^\circ$ (for a circular orbit), a value that can be compared with Be disks in other gamma-ray binaries and checked against future orbital-solution measurements.
  • The independent X-ray and TeV variability observed in cycle 24 implies that the magnetic-field energy density $u_B$ and the seed-photon energy densities $u_*+u_d$ in the intrabinary shock can change separately on daily timescales, so one-zone IBS models must allow decoupling between the synchrotron and inverse-Compton output.
  • The long-term X-ray state change at the interaction phase, together with the H$\alpha$ equivalent-width trend, suggests that a larger disk compresses the shock more strongly, raising the X-ray flux; this predicts a correlation between disk size and the high X-ray state in future cycles.
  • Short-term X-ray variability of less than 3 days within the interaction phase is consistent with a clumpy disk or wind structure, whose clump sizes could be constrained once the orbital speed is known.
  • The confirmed overall X-ray–TeV correlation across the orbit, together with the flat/scattered behavior of the high-flux points inside the flare phase, indicates that the correlation breaks down specifically when the pulsar-disk interaction is expected to be strongest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the orbit-24 independence is genuine and not an artifact of gaps in simultaneous coverage, the simplest IBS model (a single electron population producing both X-rays and TeV photons) requires an additional mechanism that raises the seed-photon density without raising the magnetic field, such as a separate electron component or anisotropic inverse-Compton emission — an extension the paper leaves
  • The NH-based disk-crossing phase at $\phi\approx0.35$ conflicts with orbital solutions derived from radial velocities, so an independent geometric measurement (e.g., VLBI astrometry of the system or detection of pulsations) would either confirm the disk-crossing geometry or force an alternative explanation for the absorption enhancement, such as a wind-phase effect.
  • A $36^\circ$ opening angle is wider than typical Be decretion disks, which are usually a few degrees; this could mean the disk is tilted or warped relative to the orbital plane, or that the apparent NH enhancement partly reflects changing ionization rather than geometric coverage — a distinction that high-resolution X-ray absorption-line spectroscopy could test.
  • The observed correlation between H$\alpha$ equivalent width and X-ray state in the interaction phase suggests a natural future experiment: monitoring the system through a full disk-growth or disk-shrink episode should show a corresponding monotonic change in the peak-phase X-ray flux and in the width of the NH enhancement.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents new Swift/XRT, NuSTAR, SALT, and VERITAS observations of the TeV gamma-ray binary HESS J0632+057 obtained in 2023–2024, combined with archival X-ray data from Swift, Chandra, XMM-Newton, Suzaku, and NuSTAR. The authors refine the orbital period, measure phase-resolved X-ray spectral parameters (NH, photon index, flux), and confirm an increase in absorption and flux around orbital phase φ ≈ 0.35. They interpret the phase width Δφ ≈ 0.1 of the NH enhancement as the pulsar crossing the Be-star disk, inferring a disk opening angle of about 36° for an assumed circular orbit. They also report two X-ray flux states within the interaction phase, with the caveat that a gap-statistic test gives a 20% chance probability for such clustering, and they find evidence for independent X-ray and TeV variability in orbital cycle 24, in contrast to earlier concurrent flaring. The discussion interprets these results in terms of intrabinary shock and pulsar-disk interaction scenarios, with appropriate hedging about the limited simultaneity of the multi-wavelength data.

Significance. If the inferred disk-crossing interpretation holds, the paper provides a rare geometric constraint on the Be disk in a TeV binary other than PSR B1259−63, and the contemporaneous X-ray/TeV observations around the interaction phase offer a new test of intrabinary shock models. The main strengths are the use of standard, well-documented reduction pipelines; the incorporation of new and archival data spanning 24 orbital cycles; and the unusually explicit reporting of statistical limitations (e.g., the non-robust two-state clustering in Section 2.2 and the conditional language in Section 5.1). The central derived quantity, the disk opening angle, is, however, sensitive to systematic uncertainties in the NH measurement that are not fully quantified, so the significance of the geometric claim depends on the outcome of the requested robustness checks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Table 2, Section 5.1] The phase-resolved NH values and the resulting Δφ ≈ 0.1 are presented only for the wilm abundance table; the text states that switching to anrg abundances reproduces earlier NH values but does not report the anrg-based phase trend. Since the disk opening angle in Section 5.1 and the Summary scales linearly with Δφ, the authors should quantify Δφ under anrg and include the abundance choice as a systematic uncertainty in the opening-angle estimate.
  2. [Section 2.3, Figure 2, Table 2] NH and Γ are degenerate in the 0.5–10 keV fits, and Table 2 shows strong phase-dependent Γ variations (from 1.18 to 1.69). The NH bump near φ ≈ 0.35 could be partly produced by this covariance, especially when multi-orbit data are binned. The Section 2.4 low/high-state comparison does not exclude this possibility because it compares states within the same phase interval rather than across phases. The authors should demonstrate that the NH enhancement and its phase width survive fits with Γ fixed to a phase-independent value, or provide an equivalent spectral-ratio or hardness-ratio test.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Summary] The opening-angle estimate of ≈ 36° is presented as a specific number, but no uncertainty is given for Δφ and no dependence on orbital inclination or disk orientation is discussed beyond a circular-orbit assumption. Given that even a 20–30% change in Δφ would shift the opening angle by several degrees, the authors should either provide a systematic range for the opening angle under the stated assumptions or explicitly frame the 36° value as an order-of-magnitude illustration rather than a measurement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The title contains an apparent spacing typo ('int o' instead of 'into'); please correct it in the final version.
  2. [Figure 1d] The contours in Figure 1d are described as 'significance levels of 1, 2, 3, and 4σ,' but the statistical quantity being contoured is not explicitly defined; please clarify whether this is the runs-test p-value expressed in Gaussian sigma or another measure.
  3. [Section 2.3] The text says NuSTAR NH was fixed to the XRT value, while Table 2 reports joint fits with tied parameters; please clarify how the NuSTAR-only constraints at other phases are handled in the joint fits, particularly where NuSTAR and soft-band NH values may differ.
  4. [Figure 6d] The insets showing overlapping X-ray and TeV exposures in orbit 24 are difficult to read in the current figure; a table or larger panel listing the exact MJD ranges of simultaneous coverage would make the independency claim easier to evaluate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NH enhancement, phase width, and opening-angle constraint are direct fits to the data with hedged, externally referenced interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from its own spectral fits and light-curve analyses, not from its inputs by construction. The NH increase near phi~0.35 (Table 2, Figure 2b) is obtained by fitting an absorbed power law to X-ray count spectra with standard models (tbabs with wilm abundances, XSPEC); the phase width Delta(phi)~0.1 is read directly from the folded, phase-resolved measurements, and the inferred opening angle of ~36 deg is a stated geometric consequence of that width under an explicitly assumed circular orbit ('assuming a circular orbit, the measured phase width suggests an opening angle of ~36 deg'). The interpretation that the absorber is Be-disk material is explicitly conditional ('If this increase is indeed caused by disk material', Section 5.1) and is framed against prior independent models (Malyshev et al. 2019; Tokayer et al. 2021; Matchett & van Soelen 2025). The orbital period is remeasured from the authors' own Swift data via the H-test (316.65 +/- 0.31 days), and robustness to the period choice is verified. Citations to works with overlapping authorship (Tokayer et al. 2021; Adams et al. 2021; Kim et al. 2022; An & Romani 2017) are used as prior measurements, published data points, or external model inputs, not as a self-citation chain that forces the new conclusions. Concerns such as the wilm-to-anrg abundance shift or NH-Gamma covariance are robustness/systematic issues, not circularity, and the paper itself acknowledges that the observations alone cannot provide definitive conclusions. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the presented data plus standard external models.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on standard spectral modeling plus several domain assumptions: the nature of the compact object, the disk origin of the NH increase, the circular-orbit geometry, and the fixed TeV photon index. These are all flagged in the text. No ad hoc theoretical constructs are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Orbital period PB = 316.65 +/- 0.31 days
    Fitted to Swift/XRT count rates using the H-test; used to fold all observations onto orbital phase. Alternative periods within 1 sigma do not significantly change results.
  • X-ray spectral parameters (NH, Gamma, normalization) per phase bin = NH 0.29-0.71 x 10^22 cm^-2, Gamma 1.18-1.69 across 19 phase bins (Table 2); low/high states NH=0.73/0.69 x 10^22…
    These absorbed power-law parameters are fitted to the X-ray spectra in each phase bin and underlie the orbital NH and Gamma trends that are central to the paper's interpretation. They are standard model parameters, not ad hoc additions, but the NH values are sensitive to the assumed abundance table (wilm vs. anrg; Section 2.3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The X-ray emission from the intrabinary shock is well described by an absorbed power-law model (tbabs*powerlaw).
    Used for all phase-resolved spectral fits (Section 2.3); a broken power-law is statistically favored in two phase bins but the paper treats this as inconclusive due to orbit-to-orbit variability. The NH trend, and hence the central disk-crossing interpretation, depends on this model choice.
  • domain assumption The compact object in HESS J0632+057 is a neutron star or pulsar rather than a black hole.
    The paper repeatedly refers to the 'putative pulsar' and interprets the observations within an intrabinary shock and pulsar-wind framework (Sections 1 and 5). Mass constraints and X-ray image analysis from prior work suggest a neutron star, but the nature is not confirmed.
  • domain assumption The orbital-phase-dependent increase in NH at phase 0.35 is caused by material in the Be companion's decretion disk along the line of sight, rather than by interstellar absorption or spectral fit covariance.
    The paper hedges with 'If this increase is indeed caused by disk material' (Section 5.1). This assumption is central to the disk-opening-angle estimate and the pulsar-disk interaction interpretation.
  • domain assumption The orbit is circular for the conversion of the phase width Delta(phi) about 0.1 into a disk opening angle of about 36 degrees.
    Stated in Section 5.1: 'assuming a circular orbit, the measured phase width suggests an opening angle of about 36 degrees; the exact value depends also on the angle between the orbital plane and the disk.' Orbital parameters of the system are not well determined.
  • domain assumption TeV fluxes are derived assuming a photon index Gamma=2.6 fixed from Adams et al. (2021).
    Section 4.1: 'We fit the daily spectra with a PL model, holding Gamma fixed at 2.6.' This affects the absolute TeV flux scale and the X-ray/TeV correlation analysis, though the variability conclusions are likely insensitive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-wavelength Study of HESS J0632+057: New Insights into Pulsar-Disk Interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BGGW6JF2

@misc{pith2026250723304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-wavelength Study of HESS J0632+057: New Insights into Pulsar-Disk Interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BGGW6JF2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23304}
}
abstract

We present an analysis of new multi-wavelength observations of the TeV gamma-ray binary HESS J0632+057, conducted using SALT, Swift, NuSTAR, and VERITAS in 2023--2024. By combining these new data with archival observations, we confirm previous suggestions of orbital variability in the source's X-ray spectrum, including increased X-ray absorption at the orbital phase interval of $\phi\approx0.3\textrm{--}0.4$. The source's X-ray flux within this phase interval seems to have exhibited a significant change on an orbital timescale. Additionally, occasional short-term variations in the X-ray band on a timescale of less than 3 days have been observed. The measured duration of the increased absorbing column density and the flux variability timescales can provide clues about the interaction between the putative pulsar and the Be companion's disk if, as previously suggested, the pulsar crosses the disk at this phase interval. Moreover, the new contemporaneous X-ray and TeV observations around the pulsar-crossing phases revealed independent variability in the X-ray and TeV fluxes, contrary to a previous observation of concurrent flux increases. While these observations alone cannot provide definitive conclusions, we discuss our results in the context of pulsar-disk interaction and intrabinary shock emission scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23304 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 0.5–10 keV light curves of J0632 measured by Swift/XRT (a–c). (a) Light curve folded on the orbital period PB = 316.65 days. (b) Zoomed-in view of the folded light curve near the X-ray peak, highlighting the phase interval φ = 0.315–0.365 (marked by vertical dashed lines in panels a and b) corresponding to the previously-suggested pulsar-disk interaction phase. Different colors represent individual orbital cycle… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots showing (a) the 2–10 keV flux (F2−10keV), (b) NH, and (c) Γ inferred from PL fits (Section 2.3). Measurements from Swift/XRT, Chandra, XMM, Suzaku, and NuSTAR are shown as black lines, pink diamonds, blue triangles, cyan squares, and red circles, respectively. The orange dashed line indicates parameter values obtained from joint fits of the multi-instrument data. We present the results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. IR-to-Optical SED of J0632. Red lines repre￾sent emission components: stellar atmosphere (dashed; see text), disk (dotted; J. Kim et al. 2022), and their sum (solid). Our UVOT measurements are shown in blue, with a stellar atmo￾spheric model including interstellar extinction overlaid in red (see text). Black points represent archival measurements (taken from C. Aragona et al. 2010; J. Kim et al. 2022). with the XRT-… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The H α equivalent width measured during orbit 24. extractions of the different echelle orders were performed using the SALT HRS pipeline (A. Y. Kniazev et al. 2016). Individual orders were then merged, barycentric correction was performed, and nightly spectra were ave…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Unfolded UVOT light curves in UVW1, UVM2, and UVW2 bands (three panels from top). X-ray and TeV light curves, in units of 10−12 erg s−1 cm−2 and 10−11 erg s−1 cm−2 , respectively, (Section 4.1) are included in the bottom two panels for comparison. Vertical lines denote…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Folded light curve of TeV gamma-ray emission (> 350 GeV) from J0632 measured by VERITAS, H.E.S.S, and MAGIC (see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: TeV flux (> 350 GeV) vs. 2–10 keV X-ray flux for contemporaneous observations of J0632. The green dashed line represents the best-fit linear function derived from ¯η 2 minimiza￾tion (see text for more detail). The probability of achieving an ¯η 2 value lower than the o…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    U., Benbow, W., Bird, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Benbow, W., Bird, R., et al. 2018, ApJL, 867, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae70e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aae70e 2018

  2. [2]

    B., Benbow, W., Brill, A., et al

    Adams, C. B., Benbow, W., Brill, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29b7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac29b7 2021

  3. [3]

    A., Akhperjanian, A

    Aharonian, F. A., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077299

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077299 2007

  4. [4]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/168

    Aliu, E., Archambault, S., Aune, T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/168

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/168 2014

  5. [5]

    An, H., & Romani, R. W. 2017, ApJ, 838, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6623

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6623 2017

  6. [6]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/166

    An, H., Bellm, E., Bhalerao, V., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/166

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/166 2015

  7. [7]

    1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-x 1989

  8. [8]

    V., & De Becker, M

    Aragona, C., McSwain, M. V., & De Becker, M. 2010, ApJ, 724, 306, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/306

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/306 2010

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    R., & Robinson, D

    Bevington, P. R., & Robinson, D. K. 2003, Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences (3rd ed.; New

    2003

  3. [11]

    D., Falcone, A

    Bongiorno, S. D., Falcone, A. D., Stroh, M., et al. 2011, ApJL, 737, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L11

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Rib´ o, M., et al

    Bosch-Ramon, V., Paredes, J. M., Rib´ o, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 388, doi: 10.1086/429901

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    E., & Paredes, J

    Bosch-Ramon, V., Romero, G. E., & Paredes, J. M. 2006, A&A, 447, 263, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053633

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Sharples, R., Tyas, L., et al

    Bramall, D. G., Sharples, R., Tyas, L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S

    2010

  7. [15]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77354F, doi: 10.1117/12.856382

    doi

  8. [16]

    Buckley, D. A. H., Swart, G. P., & Meiring, J. G. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6267, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes, ed. L. M. Stepp, 62670Z, doi: 10.1117/12.673750

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 1103, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20368.x

    Casares, J., Rib´ o, M., Ribas, I., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1103, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20368.x

    2012

  10. [18]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Takata, J., Yi, S

    Chen, A. M., Takata, J., Yi, S. X., Yu, Y. W., & Cheng, K. S. 2019, A&A, 627, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935166

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 5231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae265

    Chernyakova, M., Malyshev, D., van Soelen, B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae265

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2006, MNRAS, 367, 1201, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.10039.x

    Chernyakova, M., Neronov, A., Lutovinov, A., Rodriguez, J., & Johnston, S. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1201, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.10039.x

    2006

  14. [22]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2621 CIAO Development Team

    Chernyakova, M., Malyshev, D., van Soelen, B., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2621 CIAO Development Team. 2013,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1311.006 http://ascl.net/1311.006 de Jager, O. C., Raubenheimer, B. C., & Swanepoel, J. W. H. 19...

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    2006, A&A, 456, 801, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054779

    Dubus, G. 2006, A&A, 456, 801, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054779

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 64, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0064-5

    Dubus, G. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 64, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0064-5

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    D., & Gies, D

    Grundstrom, E. D., & Gies, D. R. 2006, ApJL, 651, L53, doi: 10.1086/509635 15 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449612

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    N., Lyne, A

    Johnston, S., Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., et al. 1992, ApJL, 387, L37, doi: 10.1086/186300

    1992 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Ehlert, S

    Kaaret, P., Roberts, O. J., Ehlert, S. R., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7ba6

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Hare, J., & Volkov, I

    Kargaltsev, O., Klingler, N. J., Hare, J., & Volkov, I. 2022, ApJ, 925, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3822

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, A&A, 669, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244531

    Kefala, E., & Bosch-Ramon, V. 2023, A&A, 669, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244531

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2007, MNRAS, 380, 320, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12075.x

    Khangulyan, D., Hnatic, S., Aharonian, F., & Bogovalov, S. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 320, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12075.x

    2007

  23. [31]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8663

    Kim, J., An, H., & Mori, K. 2022, ApJ, 936, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8663

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Y., Gvaramadze, V

    Kniazev, A. Y., Gvaramadze, V. V., & Berdnikov, L. N. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw889

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    2007, ApJS, 169, 83, doi: 10.1086/511270

    Lanz, T., & Hubeny, I. 2007, ApJS, 169, 83, doi: 10.1086/511270

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    2024,, v491.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14283930

    Maier, G. 2024,, v491.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14283930

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, Astronomische Nachrichten, 340, 465, doi: 10.1002/asna.201913605

    Malyshev, D., Chernyakova, M., Santangelo, A., & P¨ uhlhofer, G. 2019, Astronomische Nachrichten, 340, 465, doi: 10.1002/asna.201913605

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2597

    Matchett, N., & van Soelen, B. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2597

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    Mirabel, I. F. 2012, Science, 335, 175, doi: 10.1126/science.1215895

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 61, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy053

    Moritani, Y., Kawano, T., Chimasu, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 61, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy053

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    T., Carciofi, A

    Moritani, Y., Okazaki, A. T., Carciofi, A. C., et al. 2015, ApJL, 804, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L32 NASA High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc). 2014, http://ascl.net/1408.004

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Kuin, N

    Page, M. J., Kuin, N. P. M., Breeveld, A. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1684, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1689

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 192, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/192 SAS development team

    Durant, M. 2015, ApJ, 806, 192, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/192 SAS development team. 2014,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1404.004 http://ascl.net/1404.004

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    2009, ApJ, 693, 1621, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1621

    Smith, A., Kaaret, P., Holder, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1621, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1621

    2009 doi

  35. [43]

    2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Stoehr, F., White, R., Smith, M., et al. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 394, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVII, ed. R. W. Argyle, P. S. Bunclark, & J. R. Lewis, 505

    2008

  36. [44]

    1997, ApJ, 477, 439, doi: 10.1086/303676

    Tavani, M., & Arons, J. 1997, ApJ, 477, 439, doi: 10.1086/303676

    1997 doi

  37. [45]

    Tibshirani, R., Walther, G., & Hastie, T. 2001, J. R. Statist. Soc. B, 63, 411, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00293

    2001

  38. [46]

    M., An, H., Halpern, J

    Tokayer, Y. M., An, H., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c6a van Soelen, B., Meintjes, P. J., Odendaal, A., & Townsend, L. J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3135, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21870.x

    2021

  39. [47]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487, doi: 10.1086/177435

    1996 doi

  40. [48]

    2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 862, doi: 10.1002/asna.200610645

    Vollmann, K., & Eversberg, T. 2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 862, doi: 10.1002/asna.200610645

    2006 doi

  41. [49]

    1940, Ann

    Wald, A., & Wolfowitz, J. 1940, Ann. Math. Stat., 11, 147, doi: https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177731909

    1940

  42. [50]

    C., Badran, H., Biller, S

    Weekes, T. C., Badran, H., Biller, S. D., et al. 2002, Astroparticle Physics, 17, 221, doi: 10.1016/S0927-6505(01)00152-9

    2002 doi

  43. [51]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 698, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01630-1

    Weng, S.-S., Qian, L., Wang, B.-J., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 698, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01630-1

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Hornstrup, A., Molendi, S., et al

    Wik, D. R., Hornstrup, A., Molendi, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/48

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  46. [54]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 3494, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1580

    Zhu, H., Tian, W., Li, A., & Zhang, M. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3494, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1580

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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