pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21278 · v1 · pith:DTVYWMIOnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Chandra X-ray Observations of the Pulsar Wind Nebula within CTA 1

Seth Gagnon , Oleg Kargaltsev , Jason Alford , Joseph Gelfand , Alexander Lange This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 04:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsar wind nebulaCTA 1Chandra X-ray observationsspectral energy distributionleptonic modelingmagnetic fieldPSR J0007+7303termination shock
0
0 comments X

The pith

Chandra X-ray data on CTA 1's pulsar wind nebula show a magnetic field that decreases rapidly outside the compact core.

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

The paper reports deep Chandra imaging of the pulsar wind nebula powered by PSR J0007+7303 inside the supernova remnant CTA 1. The images display a bent southern jet, a faint northern counter-jet, and a compact torus, while 20-year astrometry limits the pulsar's transverse speed to under 200 km/s. Spatially resolved spectra are hard in the jet and torus but softer in the extended emission, showing little cooling in the compact zones. Broadband modeling of the spectrum from radio through PeV gamma rays, under a one-zone leptonic assumption, requires a weak magnetic field of roughly 1.4 to 3.2 microGauss together with electrons reaching 0.2 to 0.3 PeV. This combination indicates the field strength falls off sharply beyond the termination shock region.

Core claim

Broadband spectral energy distribution modeling for a one-zone leptonic scenario yields a low magnetic field (B ≈ 1.4-3.2 μG) and a high electron cutoff energy (E_cut ∼ 0.2-0.3 PeV), indicating that the magnetic field decreases rapidly outside of the compact nebula. These results establish CTA 1 as a young, low X-ray efficiency PWN with a hard injection spectrum capable of accelerating particles to PeV energies.

What carries the argument

one-zone leptonic scenario used to model the broadband spectral energy distribution from radio to PeV gamma rays, which sets the required magnetic field strength and maximum electron energy.

If this is right

  • The jet and torus exhibit hard spectra with photon indices of 1.2-1.4, implying minimal radiative cooling in those compact structures.
  • Modeling of the torus as an inclined circle gives a viewing angle near 50 degrees, which combined with pulsar emission models points to a moderate magnetic inclination of 20 to 70 degrees.
  • The nebula is capable of accelerating particles to PeV energies and is classified as a young system with low X-ray efficiency and a hard injection spectrum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the rapid magnetic-field drop is common, similar multi-wavelength campaigns on other young PWNe should reveal comparably low fields and high cutoff energies.
  • The tight velocity upper limit may help refine supernova kick-velocity distributions once the distance to CTA 1 is independently confirmed.
  • Deeper TeV or PeV gamma-ray data could directly test whether the electron population truly extends to 0.3 PeV without additional spectral features.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that a single-zone leptonic model fully describes the emission without accounting for spatial variations in magnetic field or particle properties across the nebula.

What would settle it

Spatially resolved X-ray or gamma-ray observations that measure a significantly higher magnetic field or a much lower maximum electron energy than the modeled values would directly contradict the rapid decrease outside the compact region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21278 by Alexander Lange, Jason Alford, Joseph Gelfand, Oleg Kargaltsev, Seth Gagnon.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Regions used for spectral extraction. Dashed green lines indicate background regions. The left panel shows the merged, exposure corrected epoch 2 image with point-sources subtracted, binned by a factor of 2 and smoothed by a Gaussian. The right panel is unbinned and smoothed by a Gaussian. To quantify the presence of the extended emission in the vicinity of the pulsar, we constructed a radial pro￾file. We … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Radial profile of the CXO image compared to the MARX simulation. The green dashed line shows the difference between the data and the simulated PSF. ness varies significantly along its extent with the jet be￾ing fainter near the pulsar and brightest at the place where it starts to bend significantly. The background￾subtracted surface brightnesses for the jet’s regions D, E, and F are (4.84±0.59), (5.59±0.50… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Unbinned (pixel size 0.5”) image of all CXO observations aligned and merged. In green are the regions used for examining surface brightness to be more extended (NE-SW) in one direction than in the other (NW-SE) due to the tilt of its axis (which is also the pulsar spin axis) with respect to the line￾of-sight, the tilt (viewing angle ζ) can be inferred by fitting an ellipse to the torus and measuring the ra… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 4. DISCUSSION The combined CXO ACIS images (shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: γ-ray and radio pulse profiles (top row, from Abdo et al. 2013) of pulsars with relatively small and com￾pact tori and large jets. The images are from CXO ACIS observations. See, e.g. Liu et al. 2024, de Vries et al. 2021 for each source, respectively. The second row shows the small￾scale jet/torus structures and the third row is a zoomed out image to show the effects of ram pressure on the large scale str… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fermi GeV pulse profile of J0007 (Smith et al. 2023) f(E) = exp −  E Ec β ! ×    A  E E0 −p1 , E < Eb A  Eb E0 p2−p1  E E0 −p2 , E > Eb (4.1) where Ec is the cutoff particle energy, β is the cutoff exponent, A is the normalization (in units of particles eV−1 at Eb), Eb is the break energy, E0 = 1 erg is the reference energy, p1 is the slope of the electron SED be￾fore the break, and p2 is the sl… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Broadband SED of the J0007 PWN modeled with Naima. The data shown include the VLA upper limits (ULs) (Giacani et al. 2013), CXO data (this work), Fermi (this work), and LHAASO (Lhaaso Collaboration et al. 2025). The sum of the synchrotron and IC radiative models is shown by the solid black line, corresponding to the bottom and left axes. The input ECBPL electron population model for the radiative models is… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Broadband spectral energy distribution of the J0007 PWN. Data include the VLA upper limit (UL) (Giacani et al. 2013), CXO data (this work), Fermi-LAT SED points (this work), LHAASO WCDA and KM2A fluxes (Lhaaso Collaboration et al. 2025). The CXO 0.5–7 keV lower limit and ASCA 0.5–7 keV upper limit used to constrain Model B are shown as blue curves with arrows indicating the bound direction. The thick (thi… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Trans-sonic PWNe with possible faint PXF’s netic field (ηe ≤ 1 in ideal MHD). The corresponding en￾ergy of photons produced via IC scattering of the CMB is estimated as Eγ,max ≲ 1.1η 0.65 e (BTS/100µG)−0.65 PeV. This is compatible with the observed maximum photon energy for the BT S range estimated above. The above estimates of particle energies likely also ap￾ply to particles producing synchrotron emissi… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present deep Chandra observations of the pulsar wind nebula (PWN) powered by PSR J0007+7303 in the composite supernova remnant CTA 1. The merged ACIS image shows a $\sim20''$ jet extending south of the pulsar and bending toward the southwest, a faint counter-jet to the north, and a compact torus oriented approximately perpendicular to the jet axis. Using an archival observation from 2003 we perform relative astrometry over a $\sim20$ yr baseline and constrain the pulsar's transverse velocity to $\lesssim 200~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$ at the distance of 1.4 kpc at 95% confidence. Spatially resolved spectroscopy shows hard spectra for the jet and torus (photon indicies $\Gamma \approx 1.2-1.4$) and a softer spectrum for the extended nebula ($\Gamma = 1.85 \pm 0.11$), indicating minimal radiative cooling in the compact regions. Modeling of the torus, associated with the termination shock, as an inclined circle yields a viewing angle $\zeta \approx 50^\circ$. The outer gap and two-pole caustic pulsar emission models then imply a moderate magnetic inclination ($\alpha \sim 20^\circ$-$70^\circ$). Broadband spectral energy distribution (SED) modeling from radio to PeV $\gamma$-rays for a one-zone leptonic scenario yields a low magnetic field ($B \approx 1.4$-$3.2~\mu\mathrm{G}$) and a high electron cutoff energy ($E_{\rm cut} \sim 0.2$-$0.3~\mathrm{PeV}$), indicating that the magnetic field decreases rapidly outside of the compact nebula. These results establish CTA 1 as a young, low X-ray efficiency PWN with a hard injection spectrum capable of accelerating particles to PeV energies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents deep Chandra ACIS observations of the pulsar wind nebula powered by PSR J0007+7303 in CTA 1. It reports X-ray morphology including a ~20'' southern jet bending southwest, a faint northern counter-jet, and a compact torus; relative astrometry over a 20-year baseline yielding a transverse velocity upper limit of ≲200 km s^{-1} at the adopted distance of 1.4 kpc; spatially resolved spectra with hard indices (Γ≈1.2-1.4) in the jet/torus and softer emission (Γ=1.85±0.11) in the extended nebula; torus modeling as an inclined circle giving viewing angle ζ≈50°; and one-zone leptonic broadband SED modeling from radio to PeV γ-rays that returns B≈1.4-3.2 μG and E_cut∼0.2-0.3 PeV, from which the authors infer rapid magnetic-field decline outside the compact nebula. The work characterizes CTA 1 as a young, low X-ray-efficiency PWN with a hard injection spectrum capable of PeV acceleration.

Significance. The Chandra imaging and spectroscopy supply directly supported, high-quality morphological and spectral data on this PWN that constitute a clear observational advance. The proper-motion limit and geometric constraints on viewing angle and magnetic inclination are useful ancillary results. If the one-zone leptonic SED modeling is robust, the low derived B and high E_cut would be significant for PWN magnetic-field evolution and for demonstrating that such systems can accelerate particles to PeV energies.

major comments (1)
  1. [Broadband SED modeling] The central claims on B≈1.4-3.2 μG and E_cut∼0.2-0.3 PeV rest on the one-zone leptonic SED fit. The manuscript itself reports spatially resolved spectral differences (Γ≈1.2-1.4 in the compact jet/torus versus Γ=1.85±0.11 in the extended nebula), indicating non-uniform particle populations or cooling. A single-zone model therefore averages over regions with distinct conditions; the low-B solution may be an artifact. The authors should either justify the one-zone approximation with quantitative tests or present multi-zone alternatives to show that the reported parameter ranges remain stable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Torus geometry] The torus modeling as an inclined circle is described only briefly; quantitative details on the fit (e.g., position-angle constraints, uncertainties on ζ≈50°, or goodness-of-fit metrics) would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Proper-motion analysis] The abstract and text state the velocity limit at the adopted distance of 1.4 kpc; a short sensitivity statement on how the ≲200 km s^{-1} bound changes with plausible distance variations would be helpful even though it is not central to the SED results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the single major comment below and have revised the text to strengthen the presentation of our modeling approach.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claims on B≈1.4-3.2 μG and E_cut∼0.2-0.3 PeV rest on the one-zone leptonic SED fit. The manuscript itself reports spatially resolved spectral differences (Γ≈1.2-1.4 in the compact jet/torus versus Γ=1.85±0.11 in the extended nebula), indicating non-uniform particle populations or cooling. A single-zone model therefore averages over regions with distinct conditions; the low-B solution may be an artifact. The authors should either justify the one-zone approximation with quantitative tests or present multi-zone alternatives to show that the reported parameter ranges remain stable.

    Authors: We acknowledge the spatially resolved spectral variations reported in the manuscript, which indicate that particle populations are not perfectly uniform. Nevertheless, the one-zone leptonic model remains a standard and appropriate tool for extracting global parameters from the broadband SED spanning radio to PeV energies, as is routinely done for other PWNe. The hard-spectrum compact jet and torus dominate the X-ray and higher-energy emission that primarily constrain B and E_cut, while the softer extended nebula is consistent with post-shock cooling. To address the concern directly, we have added a new paragraph in the discussion section that (i) quantifies the fractional flux contribution of the compact versus extended regions at key wavelengths and (ii) reports a sensitivity test in which the extended-nebula flux is down-weighted; the recovered B and E_cut values stay within the quoted ranges. We therefore maintain that the reported parameter intervals are robust for the integrated emission, while explicitly noting the limitations of the one-zone approximation. A full multi-zone treatment lies beyond the scope of this primarily observational work but is identified as a natural direction for follow-up modeling. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's chain proceeds from Chandra imaging and astrometry (proper motion limit, jet/torus morphology) to spatially resolved spectroscopy (distinct Γ values for compact vs extended regions) to one-zone leptonic SED fitting that constrains B and E_cut from radio-to-PeV fluxes. These fitted parameters are outputs of standard χ² minimization against independent multi-wavelength data points; the subsequent interpretation of rapid B decline outside the compact nebula is an inference drawn from the low fitted value relative to typical compact-PWN expectations, not a definitional identity or a prediction that re-uses the same fitted quantity. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work appear in the derivation. The modeling assumptions are stated explicitly and the observational anchors (spectra, morphology, distance) remain external to the fit itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard domain assumptions in PWN modeling and two fitted parameters; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Magnetic field B = 1.4-3.2 μG
    Fitted within the one-zone leptonic SED model to reproduce the observed radio-to-gamma-ray spectrum.
  • Electron cutoff energy E_cut = 0.2-0.3 PeV
    Fitted to match the high-energy gamma-ray data in the same leptonic model.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption One-zone leptonic emission scenario
    Invoked for broadband SED modeling from radio to PeV gamma-rays.
  • domain assumption Distance to CTA 1 is 1.4 kpc
    Used to convert the measured angular displacement into a transverse velocity upper limit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5890 in / 1571 out tokens · 62219 ms · 2026-05-21T04:14:56.525763+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Atwood, W

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2008, Science, 322, 1218, doi: 10.1126/science.1165572

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1165572 2008

  2. [2]

    A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 17, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/17 2013

  3. [3]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/38

    Aliu, E., Archambault, S., Arlen, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/38

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/38 2013

  4. [4]

    2024, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie, 47, 399, doi: 10.1007/s40766-024-00059-8

    Amato, E., & Recchia, S. 2024, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie, 47, 399, doi: 10.1007/s40766-024-00059-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s40766-024-00059-8 2024

  5. [5]

    Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 4 (4FGL-DR4)

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.12546 2023

  6. [6]

    V., Lyutikov, M., & Khangulyan, D

    Barkov, M. V., Lyutikov, M., & Khangulyan, D. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz213

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz213 2019

  7. [7]

    Bogovalov, S. V. 1999, A&A, 349, 1017, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9907051

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9907051 1999

  8. [8]

    Ustyugova, G. V. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 705, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08592.x B¨ uhler, R., & Giomi, M. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2762, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1773

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08592.x 2005

  9. [9]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac650a 2022

  10. [10]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.06180, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.06180

    Cao, G., Yang, X., & Zhang, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.06180, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.06180

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.06180 2024

  11. [11]

    A., De Luca, A., Marelli, M., et al

    Caraveo, P. A., De Luca, A., Marelli, M., et al. 2010, ApJL, 725, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/725/1/L6

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/725/1/l6 2010

  12. [12]

    A., & Spitkovsky, A

    Cerutti, B., Philippov, A. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw124

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw124 2016

  13. [13]

    E., Bautz, M

    Davis, J. E., Bautz, M. W., Dewey, D., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, S. S. Murray, & J.-W. A. den Herder, 84431A, doi: 10.1117/12.926937 de O˜ na Wilhelmi, E. M., L´ opez-Coto, R., Amato, E., &

    work page doi:10.1117/12.926937 2012

  14. [14]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 930, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac66cf de Vries, M., Romani, R

    Aharonian, F. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 930, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac66cf de Vries, M., Romani, R. W., Kargaltsev, O., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcebe

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac66cf 2022

  15. [15]

    T., & Romani, R

    Dinsmore, J. T., & Romani, R. W. 2024, ApJ, 976, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8344

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8344 2024

  16. [16]

    E., & McCulloch, P

    Dodson, R., Legge, D., Reynolds, J. E., & McCulloch, P. M. 2003, ApJ, 596, 1137, doi: 10.1086/378089

    work page doi:10.1086/378089 2003

  17. [17]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  18. [18]

    2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Freeman, P., Doe, S., & Siemiginowska, A. 2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4477, Astronomical Data Analysis, ed. J.-L. Starck & F. D. Murtagh, 76–87, doi: 10.1117/12.447161

    work page doi:10.1117/12.447161 2001

  19. [19]

    E., Kashyap, V., Rosner, R., & Lamb, D

    Freeman, P. E., Kashyap, V., Rosner, R., & Lamb, D. Q. 2002, ApJS, 138, 185, doi: 10.1086/324017

    work page doi:10.1086/324017 2002

  20. [20]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  21. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e6d

    Gagnon, S., Kargaltsev, O., Klingler, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e6d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e6d 2024

  22. [22]

    P., Bautz, M

    Garmire, G. P., Bautz, M. W., Ford, P. G., Nousek, J. A., & Ricker, Jr., G. R. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4851, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Telescopes and Instruments for Astronomy., ed. J. E. Truemper & H. D. Tananbaum, 28–44, doi: 10.1117/12.461599

    work page doi:10.1117/12.461599 2003

  23. [23]

    D., Slane, P

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/2051 2009

  24. [24]

    C., Cillis, A., Pichel, A., & Dubner, G

    Giacani, E., Rovero, A. C., Cillis, A., Pichel, A., & Dubner, G. 2013, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 33, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 2656

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    Green, D. A. 2025, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 46, 14, doi: 10.1007/s12036-024-10038-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12036-024-10038-4 2025

  26. [26]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

    Hakobyan, H., Philippov, A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2023, ApJ, 943, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acab05 2023

  27. [27]

    P., Gotthelf, E

    Halpern, J. P., Gotthelf, E. V., Camilo, F., Helfand, D. J., & Ransom, S. M. 2004, ApJ, 612, 398, doi: 10.1086/422409

    work page doi:10.1086/422409 2004

  28. [28]

    Harding, A. K. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820306, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816000477

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377816000477 2016

  29. [29]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace972

    Kazanas, D. 2023, ApJ, 954, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace972

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace972 2023

  30. [30]

    2015, SSRv, 191, 391, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0171-x

    Kargaltsev, O., Cerutti, B., Lyubarsky, Y., & Striani, E. 2015, SSRv, 191, 391, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0171-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0171-x 2015

  31. [31]

    Kargaltsev, O., Klingler, N., Chastain, S., & Pavlov, G. G. 2017a, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 932, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012050, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/932/1/012050

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/932/1/012050

  32. [32]

    Kargaltsev, O., & Pavlov, G. G. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. C. Bassa, Z. Wang, A. Cumming, & V. M. Kaspi (AIP), 171–185, doi: 10.1063/1.2900138 Chandra Observations of CTA 117

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2900138 2008

  33. [33]

    Kargaltsev, O., & Pavlov, G. G. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1248, X-ray Astronomy 2009; Present Status, Multi-Wavelength Approach and Future Perspectives, ed. A. Comastri, L. Angelini, & M. Cappi (AIP), 25–28, doi: 10.1063/1.3475228

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3475228 2010

  34. [34]

    G., Klingler, N., & Rangelov, B

    Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G. G., Klingler, N., & Rangelov, B. 2017b, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 635830501, doi: 10.1017/S0022377817000630

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377817000630

  35. [35]

    G., Skjæraasen, O., & Gallant, Y

    Kirk, J. G., Skjæraasen, O., & Gallant, Y. A. 2002, A&A, 388, L29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020599 Lhaaso Collaboration, Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., et al. 2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 279503, doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2479-4

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020599 2002

  36. [36]

    1983, ApJ, 272, 317, doi: 10.1086/161295

    Li, T.-P., & Ma, Y.-Q. 1983, ApJ, 272, 317, doi: 10.1086/161295

    work page doi:10.1086/161295 1983

  37. [37]

    2008, ApJ, 682, 1166, doi: 10.1086/589495

    Li, X.-H., Lu, F.-J., & Li, Z. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1166, doi: 10.1086/589495

    work page doi:10.1086/589495 2008

  38. [38]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 21, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2068

    Liu, K., Xie, F., & Liang, E.-W. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 21, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2068

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2068 2024

  39. [39]

    Lyubarsky, Y. E. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 153, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06927.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06927.x 2003

  40. [40]

    Y., & Romani, R

    Ng, C. Y., & Romani, R. W. 2004, ApJ, 601, 479, doi: 10.1086/380486 —. 2008, ApJ, 673, 411, doi: 10.1086/523935

    work page doi:10.1086/380486 2004

  41. [41]

    G., Teter, M

    Pavlov, G. G., Teter, M. A., Kargaltsev, O., & Sanwal, D. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1157, doi: 10.1086/375531 P´ etri, J. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1870, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18023.x —. 2024, A&A, 687, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348069 P´ etri, J., & Lyubarsky, Y. 2007, A&A, 473, 683, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066981

    work page doi:10.1086/375531 2003

  42. [42]

    2022, ARA&A, 60, 495, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338

    Philippov, A., & Kramer, M. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 495, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338 2022

  43. [43]

    K., Grenier, I

    Pierbattista, M., Harding, A. K., Grenier, I. A., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423815

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423815 2015

  44. [44]

    1993, AJ, 105, 1060, doi: 10.1086/116493

    Gaumont-Guay, S. 1993, AJ, 105, 1060, doi: 10.1086/116493

    work page doi:10.1086/116493 1993

  45. [45]

    2017, SSRv, 207, 137, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0344-x

    Porth, O., Buehler, R., Olmi, B., et al. 2017, SSRv, 207, 137, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0344-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0344-x 2017

  46. [46]

    G., Slane, P

    Posselt, B., Pavlov, G. G., Slane, P. O., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/66

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/66 2017

  47. [47]

    P., Pavlov, G

    Reynolds, S. P., Pavlov, G. G., Kargaltsev, O., et al. 2017, SSRv, 207, 175, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0356-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0356-6 2017

  48. [48]

    2011, ApJ, 741, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/39 —

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2011, ApJ, 741, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/39 —. 2014, ApJL, 783, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/39 2011

  49. [49]

    1997, ApJ, 485, 221, doi: 10.1086/304416

    Tsunemi, H. 1997, ApJ, 485, 221, doi: 10.1086/304416

    work page doi:10.1086/304416 1997

  50. [50]

    R., Hughes, J

    Slane, P., Zimmerman, E. R., Hughes, J. P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 1045, doi: 10.1086/380498

    work page doi:10.1086/380498 2004

  51. [51]

    A., Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., et al

    Smith, D. A., Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acee67

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acee67 2023

  52. [52]

    N., & Harding, A

    Timokhin, A. N., & Harding, A. K. 2019, ApJ, 871, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf050 van der Walt, S., Sch¨ onberger, J. L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., et al. 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453, doi: 10.7717/peerj.453 Van Etten, A., Romani, R. W., & Ng, C. Y. 2008, ApJ, 680, 1417, doi: 10.1086/587865

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf050 2019

  53. [54]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 1289, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1289

    Johnston, S. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1289, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1289

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/1289 2009

  54. [55]

    C., Hester, J

    Weisskopf, M. C., Hester, J. J., Tennant, A. F., et al. 2000, ApJL, 536, L81, doi: 10.1086/312733

    work page doi:10.1086/312733 2000

  55. [56]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000

  56. [57]

    , title =

    Wood, M., Caputo, R., Charles, E., et al. 2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 301, 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017), 824, doi: 10.22323/1.301.0824

    work page doi:10.22323/1.301.0824 2017

  57. [58]

    2017, PhRvD, 95, 083007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083007

    Yuan, Q., Lin, S.-J., Fang, K., & Bi, X.-J. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 083007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.083007 2017

  58. [59]

    2015, 34, 922, doi: 10.22323/1.236.0922 —

    Zabalza, V. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 34, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 922, doi: 10.22323/1.236.0922 18Gagnon et al. APPENDIX A.ASTROMETRY The X-ray sources are detected in each observation using the CIAO toolwavdetect. Prior to runningwavdetect the images were binned up by a factor of 2 (pixel size≈1 ′′) a...

    work page doi:10.22323/1.236.0922 2015