Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Detection of Diffuse Radio Emission inside the Supernova Remnant G338.3-0.0 associated with the Gamma-ray Source HESS J1640-465

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radio glow inside SNR G338.3-0.0 is the missing pulsar wind nebula

desk verdict New 5.2σ detection of diffuse radio emission inside SNR G338.3−0.0 is likely solid, but the PWN identification and the PeV/reverse-shock conclusions rest on a spectral index that wasn't measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18999 v1 pith:BWJSCGOY submitted 2025-08-26 astro-ph.HE

Moaz Abdelmaguid , Joseph Gelfand , Jason Alford This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovaremnantspulsarwindnebulaePSRJ1640-4631HESSJ1640-465radiocontinuumemissionMeerKATinverseComptonscatteringPeVatrons
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 reports the discovery of a diffuse radio source centered inside the supernova remnant G338.3-0.0, detected in MeerKAT 816 MHz images with a flux density of 180 ± 34 mJy at about 5.2 sigma significance. The authors interpret it as the radio counterpart of the X-ray pulsar wind nebula (PWN) powered by PSR J1640-4631, the pulsar that drives the gamma-ray source HESS J1640-465. They rule out a thermal H II region and shell synchrotron origin using the absence of infrared counterparts, the absence of catalogued H II regions, and a centrally peaked radial brightness profile that dips before rising to the SNR shell. Under that assumption, a one-zone time-dependent model reproduces the radio-to-gamma-ray spectrum and implies the PWN has already collided with the SNR reverse shock, an evolutionary stage expected to release high-energy electrons into the interstellar medium. The result would make G338.3-0.0 a concrete case of a PWN that could supply Galactic PeV electrons.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the newly detected interior radio diffuse emission region (S816 = 180 ± 34 mJy, about 2.0 by 1.65 arcmin), which the paper identifies as the radio PWN of PSR J1640-4631. What separates it from the SNR shell and from thermal sources is the radial brightness profile: surface brightness peaks at the center, falls to background, then rises again at the shell. The argument is completed by a one-zone, time-dependent PWN evolution model that couples the pulsar's spin-down power, the expanding SNR and its reverse shock, and the synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission of a single electron population, fitting the multi-wavelength size and spectral energy distribution. The r

What would settle it

Measure the radio spectral index of the interior diffuse emission with images that fully sample short spacings at two or more frequencies: a flat thermal index around alpha = -0.1, or a spatial match between the radio peak and 24 micron or 70 micron dust emission, would rule out the synchrotron PWN identification and collapse the reverse-shock and PeV-electron conclusions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the diffuse radio emission concentrated at the center of SNR G338.3-0.0 is the long-sought radio pulsar wind nebula of PSR J1640-4631. The evidence is morphological and environmental: the emission is centrally peaked, confined within the SNR shell, overlaps the X-ray PWN and the GeV/TeV source HESS J1640-465, and has no mid/far-infrared or catalogued H II region counterpart that would indicate thermal emission. The authors measure S816 = 180 ± 34 mJy over a roughly 2.0 arcmin by 1.65 arcmin region and can place only a lower limit at 1.4 GHz because of incomplete uv coverage. Assuming a PWN origin, time-dependent one-zone modeling of the pulsar wind plus the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the interior radio emission is non-thermal synchrotron from a pulsar wind nebula; this is inferred from centrally peaked morphology and the absence of infrared and H II region counterparts, because the 1.4 GHz data could not yield a spectral index.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The radio detection fills in the lowest-energy part of the PWN spectrum, turning HESS J1640-465 into a multi-wavelength system described by a single leptonic electron population.
  • If the radio emission is the PWN counterpart, the model fits imply the nebula is currently interacting with the SNR reverse shock, with collision timing around 1900 yr in the radio-size scenario and about 3000 yr in the gamma-ray-size scenario.
  • Both adopted size scenarios require injected electrons reaching energies above 0.1 PeV, supporting the interpretation of this source as a Galactic PeV electron accelerator.
  • The offset between the radio and X-ray peaks and their different symmetry axes is explained by reverse-shock crushing of the nebula, a morphology seen in other evolved PWNe.
  • The 1.4 GHz observation yields only a lower limit of roughly 60 mJy, so future images with complete short-spacing coverage could measure the radio spectral index and directly test the synchrotron interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves unquantified the cooling-age information in the radio-versus-X-ray size ratio; if the radio PWN size traces older electrons, that ratio gives a model-independent probe of the electron cooling history in this system.
  • A deep, short-spacing-sensitive radio survey of the field could map the spectral index and check whether the apparent dip between the PWN and the shell is physical or an artifact of missing flux; a flat spectral index would favor a thermal contribution.
  • Combining the inferred injected electron spectrum with the reverse-shock escape time would yield an order-of-magnitude estimate of this object's contribution to the local PeV electron flux, a step the paper does not take.
  • The one-zone model requires unusually strong ambient photon fields for inverse-Compton emission; resolved infrared and molecular-line mapping of the nearby candidate massive stellar cluster could test whether those fields actually exist.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports MeerKAT 816 MHz and 1.4 GHz observations of the field around HESS J1640−465. It identifies an extended, centrally peaked diffuse radio component inside the radio shell of SNR G338.3−0.0, with S816 = 180 ± 34 mJy and a quoted significance of 5.22σ. On the basis of the absence of IR counterparts and catalogued H II regions, plus the morphology and radial profile, the authors argue against thermal and shell origins and interpret the emission as the radio counterpart of the X-ray PWN powered by PSR J1640−4631. They then use a one-zone, time-dependent PWN/SNR evolution model to fit the radio-to-γ-ray SED in two size scenarios. Both fits require electron energies exceeding 0.1 PeV and imply the PWN is currently interacting with the SNR reverse shock, from which the authors suggest HESS J1640−465 may be a source of Galactic PeV e±.

Significance. If the diffuse radio emission is genuinely the radio PWN, this is a valuable observational result: it would add a new spectral and spatial constraint to a well-studied TeV PWN candidate and strengthen the case that this system is in a reverse-shock-interaction stage. The paper has clear strengths: the detection is made with an explicit, multi-region background-subtraction procedure; the flux-density estimates are presented in detail in appendices; and the derived SNR shell flux is consistent with earlier 843 MHz measurements, providing a useful consistency check. The two-scenario modeling is also transparent about the main systematic uncertainty (the assumed PWN size). However, the central physical interpretation is not yet secured: the non-thermal, PWN nature of the emission is not directly measured because no radio spectral index could be obtained at 1.4 GHz. All of the reverse-shock and PeV conclusions are conditional on that identification, so the paper's broader significance is currently prospective rather than established.

major comments (1)
  1. [§5.1.3] The comparison with PSR J0855−4644 (Maitra et al. 2018) is helpful, but in that object a spectral index was available. The analogy is therefore not exact; I recommend explicitly noting that the present case lacks that direct evidence, and relying more heavily on a future spectral-index measurement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §7] The abstract and summary state 'S816 = 180 ± 34 mJy; S816 ≳ 60 mJy', but the lower limit derived in §3.2 is at 1.4 GHz (S1284 ≳ 60 mJy), not 816 MHz. This is a typographical error that obscures the spectral information actually available.
  2. [§6.1, §6.2, Figure 7] The text refers to 'Figure ??' in two places for the radius and magnetic-field evolution plots. The actual Figure 7 is present in the figure list but not referenced in the text. These cross-references should be fixed.
  3. [§3.1 and Table 3] The point-source flux density is reported as 62 ± 4.1 mJy in the text but 61.6 ± 1.1 mJy in Table 3. The difference is small but should be reconciled.
  4. [Throughout] Several typographical errors should be corrected: 'dependant', 'plausable', 'osberved', 'bacgkround', 'adminstrated'. The paper would also benefit from a glossary or careful use of the terms 'lower limit' and 'upper limit' throughout, since these are used inconsistently in the current draft.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Detection significance is partially defined by the 5σ-contour source definition; the PWN-modeling chain is conditional rather than circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 and Section 4.2 (Eq. 1, Table 2)]
    "To quantify the morphology and spatial extent of this central emission, we fit the shape of the innermost 5σ contour level, with an ellipse – implying this central diffuse radio emission has a semi-major and semi-minor axes of ∼ 2′.0 and ∼ 1′.65, respectively. We adopt the properties of the fitted ellipse as the boundary of what we hereafter refer to as the interior radio diffuse emission region. Substituting these values into Equation 1, we find that ∆χint ≈ 5.22"

    By defining the source region as the innermost 5σ contour of the same 816-MHz image, the average surface brightness inside the region is constrained to lie at or above the 5σ threshold relative to the image noise. The significance statistic Δχint in Eq. 1 then measures the contrast of that self-selected region against the background; the resulting value ∼5.2σ largely restates the contour level chosen in §3.1 rather than providing an independent detection significance. The null hypothesis is evaluated only after the region has been chosen because it already appeared significant, so the quoted 5.2σ detection is not a model-free test.

full rationale

The paper's central observational claim—the existence of diffuse radio emission inside SNR G338.3−0.0 with S816=180±34 mJy—is an imaging result based on MeerKAT data; it is not derived from the one-zone model, and the modeling does not feed back into the image. The PWN interpretation in §5 is presented as an inference from the absence of IR/HII counterparts and the centrally peaked morphology, and the paper explicitly states the model is run 'Under this assumption' and 'Assuming the interior diffuse radio emission represents the radio counterpart.' The reverse-shock time and >0.1 PeV electron energies are best-fit outputs of a leptonic PWN SED model; they are conditional on the PWN identification, but conditionality is not circularity. Self-citations (Abdelmaguid et al. 2023; Gelfand et al. 2009) are present; the earlier flux prediction is independently tested against the new measurement, and the model code is a standard tool, so these citations are not load-bearing. One step is partially circular: the detection significance in §4.2 is computed on a region defined by the innermost 5σ contour of the same image. The quoted Δχint≈5.22 therefore re-states the selection threshold and does not provide an independent statistical test of the source's existence. This lowers the formal significance but does not make the entire derivation chain circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on a large set of fitted model parameters (Table 4) rather than a parameter-free derivation. The primary domain assumptions are the PWN origin of the radio emission, the leptonic interpretation of the gamma-rays, and the representative nature of the chosen background regions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (13)
  • Supernova explosion energy ESN = 5.6 x 10^51 erg (radio size), 1.0 x 10^51 erg (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted via MCMC to reproduce the observed PWN size and SED (Table 4).
  • SN ejecta mass Mej = 9.5 Msun (radio size), 9.0 Msun (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted model parameter for SNR dynamics (Table 4).
  • ISM density nism = 0.36 cm^-3 (radio size), 0.01 cm^-3 (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted to match the PWN radius evolution (Table 4).
  • Pulsar spin-down timescale tau_sd = 12.6 yr (radio size), 5.0 yr (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted parameter controlling the pulsar energy injection history (Table 4).
  • Wind magnetization eta_B = 0.0056 (radio size), 0.1321 (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted ratio of magnetic to particle energy in the wind (Table 4).
  • Minimum injected particle energy Emin = 1.0 GeV (radio size), 2 GeV (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted low-energy cutoff of the injected electron spectrum (Table 4).
  • Break injected particle energy Ebreak = 1.38 TeV (radio size), 1.33 TeV (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted spectral break energy in the electron injection spectrum (Table 4).
  • Maximum injected particle energy Emax = 0.73 PeV (radio size), 1.29 PeV (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted maximum electron energy, central to the PeVatron claim (Table 4).
  • Low injected particle index p1 = 1.71 (radio size), 1.62 (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted spectral index below the break (Table 4).
  • High injected particle index p2 = 2.87 (radio size), 2.72 (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted spectral index above the break (Table 4).
  • Temperature of added photon fields Tic = 308 K (radio size); 360 K and 10454 K (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted temperatures of excess IR/optical photon fields needed for inverse Compton emission (Table 4).
  • Energy density of added photon fields Uic = 12 eV/cm^3 (radio size); 44 and 29 eV/cm^3 (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted energy densities of the photon fields, higher than standard ISRF values (Table 4, section 6.2).
  • Distance d = 11.4 kpc (radio size), 11.5 kpc (gamma-ray size)
    Fitted system distance, though prior H I absorption suggests 8-13 kpc (Table 4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The one-zone model treats the same electron population as the source of both synchrotron and inverse Compton emission, assuming a single spatial region for all energies.
    Invoked in Section 6 as an inherent limitation of the spherical one-zone model; the authors explicitly acknowledge it by exploring two size scenarios.
  • domain assumption The interior radio emission is non-thermal synchrotron from a PWN.
    Adopted in Section 5.2 and carried into modeling; no spectral index is measured, so this remains an assumption rather than a direct conclusion.
  • domain assumption The gamma-ray emission is leptonic and arises from inverse Compton scattering by the same electrons that produce the radio and X-ray synchrotron emission.
    The modeling in Section 6 assumes a purely leptonic PWN scenario, ignoring hadronic interpretations that were discussed in prior work.
  • domain assumption The selected background regions are representative of the Galactic background inside the SNR.
    Section 4.1 and Appendix A.1 choose 'source-free' regions based on IR brightness and catalog avoidance, but the field is crowded and the background shows direction-dependent variations.
  • standard math The pulsar braking index is fixed to p = 3.15.
    This measured value from Archibald et al. (2016) is used as an input to the model, not fitted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection of Diffuse Radio Emission inside the Supernova Remnant G338.3-0.0 associated with the Gamma-ray Source HESS J1640-465." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWJSCGOY

@misc{pith2026250818999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection of Diffuse Radio Emission inside the Supernova Remnant G338.3-0.0 associated with the Gamma-ray Source HESS J1640-465},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWJSCGOY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18999}
}
read the original abstract

We report the discovery of diffuse radio emission within SNR G338.3-0.0 using new MeerKAT observations at 816 MHz and 1.4 GHz. The radio emission spatially overlaps with the X-ray pulsar wind nebula (PWN) powered by PSR J1640-4631 and the GeV/TeV gamma-ray source HESS J1640-465. The morphology of this radio emission is centrally peaked and its extent is well-contained within the SNR shell. A lack of mid- and far-infrared counterparts and the absence of catalogued H II regions argues against a thermal origin, while the morphology and radial profile are suggestive of a PWN origin powered by PSR J1640-4631. Under this assumption, we use a one-zone, time dependant model to reproduce the size and broadband (radio, X-ray, and gamma-rays) spectral energy distribution of the PWN. The modelling and broadband properties of this PWN suggests it is currently interacting with the reverse shock within its host SNR. This evolutionary stage is associated with particles escaping the PWN and entering the ISM, suggesting this object may be an important source of Galactic PeV e+/e-

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Gotthelf, E., & Straal, S

    Abdelmaguid, M., Gelfand, J. D., Gotthelf, E., & Straal, S. 2023, ApJ, 946, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd30

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbd30 2023

  2. [2]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  3. [3]

    A., et al

    Abramowski, A., Aharonian, F., Benkhali, F. A., et al. 2014a, MNRAS, 439, 2828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu139

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu139

  4. [4]

    2014b, ApJL, 794, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L1

    Abramowski, A., Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2014b, ApJL, 794, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L1

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/l1

  5. [5]

    G., Bazer-Bachi, A

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 777, doi: 10.1086/498013

    doi:10.1086/498013 2006

  6. [6]

    F., Gotthelf, E

    Archibald, R. F., Gotthelf, E. V., Ferdman, R. D., et al. 2016, ApJL, 819, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/1/L16

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/1/l16 2016

  7. [7]

    M., & Aharonian, F

    Atoyan, A. M., & Aharonian, F. A. 1996, A&AS, 120, 453

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    M., Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., Chevalier, R. A., & Frierson, D. M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 806, doi: 10.1086/324042

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    Briggs, D. S. 1995, PhD thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

    1995

  3. [11]

    A., Mori, K., Gelfand, J

    Burgess, D. A., Mori, K., Gelfand, J. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac650a

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Noriega-Crespo, A., Mizuno, D

    Carey, S. J., Noriega-Crespo, A., Mizuno, D. R., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 76, doi: 10.1086/596581 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    2011, A&A, 536, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117516

    Castelletti, G., Giacani, E., Dubner, G., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117516

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    J., & Ellison, D

    Castro, D., Slane, P., Patnaude, D. J., & Ellison, D. C. 2011, ApJ, 734, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/85

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Meade, M

    Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., Meade, M. R., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 213, doi: 10.1086/597811

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 2748, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1096

    Parizot, E. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2748, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1096

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    2012, MNRAS, 419, 1860, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19840.x

    Davies, B., de La Fuente, D., Najarro, F., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1860, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19840.x

    2012

  10. [18]

    Dodson, R., Lewis, D., McConnell, D., & Deshpande, A. A. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 116, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06653.x

    2003

  11. [19]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb4

    Eagle, J., Castro, D., Temim, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb4

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    A., P¨ uhlhofer, G., et al

    Funk, S., Hinton, J. A., P¨ uhlhofer, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 517, doi: 10.1086/516567

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    M., & Slane, P

    Gaensler, B. M., & Slane, P. O. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528

    2006 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D., Castro, D., Slane, P

    Gelfand, J. D., Castro, D., Slane, P. O., et al. 2013a, ApJ, 777, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/148 —. 2013b, ApJ, 777, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/148

    doi

  15. [23]

    D., & Gaensler, B

    Gelfand, J. D., & Gaensler, B. M. 2007, ApJ, 667, 1111, doi: 10.1086/520526

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    D., Gaensler, B

    Gelfand, J. D., Gaensler, B. M., Slane, P. O., et al. 2007a, ApJ, 663, 468, doi: 10.1086/518498 —. 2007b, ApJ, 663, 468, doi: 10.1086/518498

    doi

  17. [25]

    D., Slane, P

    Gelfand, J. D., Slane, P. O., & Temim, T. 2015, ApJ, 807, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/30

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Slane, P

    Gelfand, J. D., Slane, P. O., & Zhang, W. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2051, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2051

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    V., Tomsick, J

    Gotthelf, E. V., Tomsick, J. A., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/155

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., et al

    Griffin, M. J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014519

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Zhang, E., et al

    Hattori, S., Straal, S. M., Zhang, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba32

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Hugo, B. V. 2021, Reference flux scale for MeerKAT: Long term observation and field modelling of PKS B0407-65, SARAO Memo M2600-0000-047, SARAO

    2021

  24. [32]

    F., et al

    Jankowski, F., van Straten, W., Keane, E. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2476

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Rowell, G., Burton, M

    Lau, J. C., Rowell, G., Burton, M. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2692

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    M., & Murray, S

    Lemiere, A., Slane, P., Gaensler, B. M., & Murray, S. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1269, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1269

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    H., Acero, F., et al

    Lemoine-Goumard, M., Grondin, M. H., Acero, F., et al. 2014, ApJL, 794, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L16

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    2013, Science, 342, 598, doi: 10.1126/science.1243254

    Lyne, A., Graham-Smith, F., Weltevrede, P., et al. 2013, Science, 342, 598, doi: 10.1126/science.1243254

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, L66, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly038

    Maitra, C., Roy, S., Acero, F., & Gupta, Y. 2018, MNRAS, 477, L66, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly038

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abef62

    Mares, A., Lemoine-Goumard, M., Acero, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abef62

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  32. [41]

    J., Braun, R., Helou, G., et al

    Murphy, E. J., Braun, R., Helou, G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 157, doi: 10.1086/498636

    2006 doi

  33. [42]

    Y., Gaensler, B

    Ng, C. Y., Gaensler, B. M., Chatterjee, S., & Johnston, S. 2010, ApJ, 712, 596, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/596 19

    2010 doi

  34. [43]

    D., et al

    Paladini, R., Burigana, C., Davies, R. D., et al. 2003, A&A, 397, 213, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021466

    2003 doi

  35. [44]

    2010, A&A, 518, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014535

    Poglitsch, A., Waelkens, C., Geis, N., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014535

    2010 doi

  36. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0120

    Pope, I., Mori, K., Abdelmaguid, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0120

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

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

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

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    J., Teuben, P

    Sault, R. J., Teuben, P. J., & Wright, M. C. H. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes, 433, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0612759

    1995 doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    M., Contreras, Y., et al

    Schuller, F., Menten, K. M., Contreras, Y., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 415, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811568

    2009 doi

  40. [49]

    2010, ApJ, 720, 266, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/266

    Slane, P., Castro, D., Funk, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 266, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/266

    2010 doi

  41. [50]

    2022, A&A, 664, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142431

    Supan, L., Fischetto, G., & Castelletti, G. 2022, A&A, 664, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142431

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    D., & Castelletti, G

    Supan, L., Supanitsky, A. D., & Castelletti, G. 2016, A&A, 589, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527962

    2016 doi

  43. [52]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/32

    Tang, Y., Yang, C., Zhang, L., & Wang, J. 2015, ApJ, 812, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/32

    2015 doi

  44. [53]

    M., Hughes, J

    Temim, T., Slane, P., Gaensler, B. M., Hughes, J. P., & Van Der Swaluw, E. 2009, ApJ, 691, 895, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/895

    2009 doi

  45. [54]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/100

    Temim, T., Slane, P., Kolb, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/100

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    P., et al

    Temim, T., Slane, P., Plucinsky, P. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d41 van der Swaluw, E., Downes, T. P., & Keegan, R. 2004, A&A, 420, 937, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035700

    2017 doi

  47. [56]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Vink, J., & Bamba, A. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 52, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 90-1

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    Whiteoak, J. B. Z., & Green, A. J. 1996, A&AS, 118, 329

    1996

  49. [58]

    D., et al

    Woo, J., An, H., Gelfand, J. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd5e

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae313

    Xin, Y.-L., Liao, N.-H., Guo, X.-L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae313

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.