Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A polarized view of the young Pulsar Wind Nebula 3C 58 with IXPE

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The young pulsar wind nebula 3C 58 shows 22 percent X-ray polarization, implying a nearly ordered toroidal magnetic field that contradicts turbulence simulations.

desk verdict First IXPE polarization measurement of 3C 58 gives a robust ~22% ordered-field detection, though the polarized solar background and super-limit model parameters mean the near-limit intrinsic polarization claim needs caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20534 v2 pith:HYFKYRI7 submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.HE

N. Bucciantini , J. Wong , R.W. Romani , F. Xie , C.-Y. Ng , S. Silvestri , N. Di Lalla , Y.-J. Yang
show 6 more authors
S. Zhang P. Slane W.-T. Ye M. Pilia N. Omodei M. Negro
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-raypolarizationpulsarwindnebula3C58IXPEmagneticfieldgeometrysynchrotronradiationturbulencePSRJ0205+6449
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 reports the first X-ray polarization measurement of the young pulsar wind nebula 3C 58, made with the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer. It finds that the nebula's inner region is polarized at about 22 percent at a position angle near 98 degrees, with the magnetic field running along the major axis of the inner torus. The authors argue this implies a toroidal magnetic geometry with very little turbulence, and that the torus's intrinsic polarization may be close to the theoretical limit for synchrotron radiation. This result is at odds with multidimensional numerical simulations that predict strong turbulence just outside the pulsar's termination shock, and it consolidates a trend seen in other young nebulae like the Crab, Vela, and MSH 15-52.

What carries the argument

The central object is the X-ray polarization vector of the inner nebula, expressed through the normalized Stokes parameters $Q/I$ and $U/I$ and converted to a polarization degree and angle. Three independent analysis pipelines agree: an aperture-based polarimetric extraction, forward-folding spectral-polarimetric fits, and a simultaneous-fit procedure that uses an archival high-resolution X-ray template to separate pulsar and nebula light. The interpretive engine is aperture dilution modeling: synthetic images of uniformly polarized torus models embedded in less polarized nebular emission are convolved with the instrument response and compared with the observed decrease of polarization degree with aperture radius, yielding the intrinsic torus polarization.

What would settle it

Re-observe 3C 58 with IXPE in a solar-quiet window and extract the polarization in the same 40-arcsecond aperture using a background region adjacent to the nebula rather than beyond 120 arcseconds; if the background-subtracted polarization degree falls below about 15 percent or the angle shifts by more than 10 degrees, the high polarization is an artifact of the polarized flare background. A direct measurement of the background polarization within 40 arcseconds of the pulsar that differs from the outer-field value by more than a few percent would also falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using three independent analysis pipelines, the paper measures a background-subtracted polarization degree of $21.4\pm3.5\%$ to $22.1\pm4.2\%$ at a polarization angle of $97.7^\circ$ to $98.1^\circ$ for the 40-arcsecond region around the pulsar. Because the X-ray torus is much smaller than the instrument point-spread function, the observed polarization is diluted by surrounding less-polarized nebular emission; modeling the aperture trend implies an intrinsic torus polarization of about $55\%$ to $75\%$, approaching or exceeding the nominal $\sim70\%$ synchrotron ceiling. The position angle, roughly east-west in electric vector, translates to a magnetic field along the north-south torus axis, consistent with a toroidal field seen nearly edge-on. The paper detects no significant polarization from the pulsar itself, and it reports that the background during these observations was polarized by solar flares, requiring specialized de-flaring and background subtraction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the polarized background measured more than 120 arcseconds from the pulsar ($6.8\%\pm1.4\%$ after de-flaring) is the same underneath the source aperture; the nebula is faint enough that an unmodeled variation in that background could shift the reported 22 percent polarization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measurement stands, the magnetic field in the inner region of 3C 58 is highly ordered and mostly toroidal, with turbulence far weaker than current multidimensional simulations of pulsar wind nebulae predict.
  • The inferred intrinsic torus polarization of 50 to 75 percent means the X-ray synchrotron-emitting electrons radiate in a nearly uniform field, placing a direct constraint on magnetic fluctuations in the acceleration zone.
  • Together with measurements of the Crab, Vela, and MSH 15-52, the result supports a common picture: young pulsar wind nebulae are highly polarized in their inner cores.
  • The polarized solar-flare background found here implies that future observations of faint, extended sources during solar maximum must model background polarization rather than assume it is unpolarized.
  • The non-detection of pulsar polarization means the pulsar's X-ray emission contributes little polarized flux at current sensitivity, so it does not bias the nebular measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If 3C 58's age is closer to the pulsar's characteristic age than to the historical supernova of 1181, the low turbulence could mean turbulence develops with nebular age, possibly tied to the Rayleigh-Taylor instability; this would make 3C 58 a young, ordered system rather than an old, disrupted one.
  • Because polarization measures anisotropy rather than the total disorder of the field, an anisotropic turbulence stretched along the torus could mimic an ordered field; future multi-wavelength or higher-resolution polarization maps could test this alternative.
  • The aperture-dependent polarization curve offers a way to map the size of the ordered-field region; a deeper observation or a future X-ray polarimeter with a sharper point-spread function could directly resolve the torus and confirm the near-limit intrinsic polarization.
  • The de-flaring method used here could be applied to other X-ray polarimetry targets observed during solar flares, and the reported background polarization values provide a template for systematic corrections.
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 IXPE X-ray polarimetry of the young pulsar wind nebula 3C 58, observed during a period of strong solar activity. The authors characterize a polarized solar-flare background using events at radii >120 arcsec, apply aggressive track cuts and deflaring, and then measure the polarization of the central 40-arcsec region with three independent tools (ixpeobssim PCUBE, XSPEC, and 3ML), obtaining PD ≈ 21–22% at PA ≈ 97–98°. They also search for pulsar phase-resolved polarization, perform a spatially binned simultaneous fit to image the nebular field, and model the aperture-size dependence of the PD with inner and extended torus scenarios. The central conclusion is that the inner nebula has a highly ordered toroidal magnetic field with low turbulence, in tension with some multidimensional simulations. The measurement is direct, but its accuracy depends critically on the subtraction of a polarized background whose spatial uniformity is not demonstrated.

Significance. If robust, this measurement is a valuable addition to IXPE's young-PWN sample and strengthens the evidence for ordered magnetic fields in the inner regions of PWNe. The use of three independent reduction and analysis chains is a clear strength, as is the unusually detailed characterization of the polarized solar-flare background and the use of public IXPE and Chandra data. The JVLA radio polarization comparison adds multi-wavelength context. However, the quantitative inference that the intrinsic polarization approaches the synchrotron limit is model dependent and is not fully supported by the presented aperture-trend fits. The main value of the paper is the directly measured integrated polarization and the qualitative ordered-field interpretation, provided the background systematics are adequately bounded.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Tables 1 and 2] The background polarization subtraction is the most fragile premise of the central measurement. The background Stokes vector is measured only from events at r>120 arcsec from the pulsar (Table 1: TOT_df PD=6.8%±1.4%, PA=-6.1°±5.9°, with DU-to-DU values from 4.1% to 10.8%), and the text states that continuous low-level flaring in the first segment could not be excised by count-rate cuts. All three extraction methods in Section 4.1 use outer-field background regions, so their mutual agreement does not independently validate the background assumption. A simple estimate shows the sensitivity: with Q_s=-0.213, U_s=-0.059 and background q_b=+0.0665, u_b=-0.0144, a mismatch of δ=±0.2 in the background-to-source count ratio changes PD from 22.1% to 17.4% or 29.1%, both well outside the quoted 1σ errors. I request an explicit systematic-error analysis that allows the background Stokes vector or normalization to vary, for example using annular background regions just outside the aperture, per-DU background fits, or nuisance parameters in the spectropolarimetric fit, and a statement of how the 22% result changes under those variations.
  2. [Section 4.4, Figure 4] Cases A and B require an inner-torus intrinsic PD of 75%±5%, which is above the approximately 70% synchrotron maximum, and the paper states that all modeled aperture trends fall more steeply than the data. The abstract's wording that the intrinsic polarization is 'possibly approaching the theoretical limit' is therefore not supported by the quantitative model: the preferred model exceeds the limit, and the model-data disagreement means the fitted intrinsic values are not reliable. The authors should either include projection, PSF, and geometric depolarization effects explicitly and refit, or restrict the quantitative conclusions to the directly measured integrated PD and the qualitative ordered-field interpretation. As written, the near-limit intrinsic-polarization claim needs revision.
  3. [Section 4.4] The comparison between the X-ray and radio polarization maps uses a simulation that applies the radio PD map to the Chandra X-ray image, and the conclusion that the extended X-ray nebula has a PD 'a factor 2-to-3 higher' than the radio-set values is stated without a propagation of the radio map uncertainties or a sensitivity study. Because this factor is used to support the interpretation of a highly ordered interior field, please provide at least a rough uncertainty estimate for this comparison or soften the quantitative claim accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Please correct typographical errors: 'ChamdraSNR' in the footnote on page 2, 'polrization' in Section 3, and 'meausre' in Section 4.2.
  2. [Table 3] The formatting of the F2 row appears corrupted ('1 .(89)± (78) × 10^-21' and units '1 /Hz'); the units should be s^-2 or Hz/s, and the entries should be formatted consistently with F0 and F1.
  3. [Figure 4] The lower panel of Figure 4 is difficult to read because the model curves are identified only by caption text; please add a legend with line styles or colors and ensure the styles are distinguishable in black-and-white printing.
  4. [Abstract and Section 5] The word 'confirm' in the abstract is too strong for a single-object measurement with a non-standard background correction; 'support' or 'are consistent with' would be more appropriate given the systematic uncertainties discussed in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 22% polarization is a direct Stokes measurement, and the torus-polarization model values are fitted to the observed aperture trend rather than presented as independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical X-ray polarization measurement of 3C 58 with IXPE. The reported PD ≈ 22% and PA ≈ 98° are obtained by direct Stokes I, Q, U analysis in three independent pipelines (ixpeobssim PCUBE, XSPEC, and 3ML), with values that agree at the 1σ level. There is no derivation in which the output quantity is defined in terms of the input quantity or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The aperture-trend models in Sec. 4.4 are explicitly used in the reverse sense: the paper states that cases A and B 'require an inner torus with an intrinsic PD≈75%±5% in order to match the high polarization found by IXPE,' which is a fitting of model parameters to data, not a claim that the model predicts the observed polarization. The comparison of the measured aperture trend with the radio-polarization-based simulated trend is a consistency check, not a circular reduction. Self-citations (e.g., Bucciantini et al. 2023a for polarization leakage, Wong et al. 2023 for the simultaneous-fitting procedure, and prior IXPE PWN papers for comparison of polarization levels) are methodological or contextual references; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the central measurement. The background polarization is measured empirically in an outer region and subtracted; whether that background Stokes vector is representative of the source aperture is a legitimate systematic concern, but it is an observational assumption, not a self-referential derivation. The paper also explicitly acknowledges interpretational limits, noting that polarization is not a direct measure of magnetic-field organization. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity, and the correct score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is a direct Stokes parameter measurement. The model intrinsic polarization values are fit parameters in illustrative scenarios, not predictions, and a PSF blur scale is a tuning parameter. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced; the polarized background is an environmental effect measured from the data.

free parameters (4)
  • Intrinsic PD of inner torus (models A/B) = 75% ± 5%
    Chosen so that simulated aperture trend matches the IXPE central 40 arcsecond polarization; this value exceeds the synchrotron maximum of about 70 percent.
  • Intrinsic PD of extended torus (model C) = 55% ± 5%
    Fitted to match the IXPE aperture trend for the extended-torus geometry with an unpolarized nebula.
  • Intrinsic PD of extended torus with radio nebula (model D) = 50% ± 5%
    Fitted to match the IXPE aperture trend when the extended nebula has radio-set polarization imposed.
  • Gaussian blur sigma for on-axis PSF = 12 arcsec
    Hand-tuned in section 4.3 to match off-pulse maps; this affects the spatial separation of pulsar and nebula polarization.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption X-ray emission is synchrotron radiation from a power-law electron population, with a theoretical maximum polarization of about 70 percent.
    Used in section 4.4 to interpret the intrinsic torus polarization; if the emission is not pure synchrotron, the limit changes.
  • domain assumption The JVLA radio polarization map represents the magnetic field orientation of the X-ray nebula.
    Imposed on the extended nebula in models B and D in section 4.4; radio and X-ray emitting regions may differ.
  • domain assumption The Chandra-derived nebular template and the Kuiper et al. (2010) pulsar model correctly represent the spatial and phase distribution of IXPE counts.
    Used in section 4.3 for simultaneous fitting; any PSF or template error propagates into the pulsar and nebula polarization separation.
  • domain assumption After de-flaring and background subtraction, the residual polarized background is negligible or exactly canceled.
    Section 3 shows a residual polarized background of 6.8 percent plus or minus 1.4 percent with detector-unit variation; the source aperture subtraction assumes the outer field background matches the source region.
  • domain assumption IXPE calibration and polarization leakage corrections are valid at the roughly 2 arcminute off-axis position of 3C 58.
    The authors apply the Dinsmore and Romani (2024) leakage correction and note possible imperfect calibration at this off-axis angle in section 4.4.
  • domain assumption Thermal X-ray emission contributes less than 5 percent of the counts in the central 40 arcsecond region.
    Taken from Picquenot et al. (2024); if the thermal fraction is higher, the inferred non-thermal polarization would increase.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A polarized view of the young Pulsar Wind Nebula 3C 58 with IXPE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYFKYRI7

@misc{pith2026250420534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A polarized view of the young Pulsar Wind Nebula 3C 58 with IXPE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYFKYRI7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20534}
}
read the original abstract

Pulsar Wind nebulae (PWNe), are among the most efficient particle accelerators in the Universe, however understanding the physical conditions and the magnetic geometry in their inner region has always proved elusive. X-ray polarization provides now a unique opportunity to investigate the magnetic field structure and turbulence properties close to where high energy particles are accelerated. Here we report on the recent X-ray polarization measurement of the PWN 3C 58 by the International X-ray Polarimeter Explorer (IXPE). 3C 58 is a young system displaying a characteristic jet-torus structure which, unlike other PWNe, is seen almost edge on. This nebula shows a high level of integrated polarization ~ 22% at an angle ~ 97deg, with an implied magnetic field oriented parallel to the major axis of the inner torus, suggesting a toroidal magnetic geometry with little turbulence in the interior, and an intrinsic level of polarization possibly approaching the theoretical limit for synchrotron emission. No significant detection of a polarized signal from the associated pulsar was found. These results confirm that the internal structure of young PWNe is far less turbulent than previously predicted, and at odds with multidimensional numerical simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20534 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the count spectrum over a region of 50 arcsec radius centered on the source vs an equal size background region, for the background rejected data before de-flaring. The red shaded regions highlight counts outside the fiducial [2-8] keV energy range of IXPE calibration. 3. Background The 3C 58 observation period was characterized by unusually strong solar flaring activity. X-rays from solar flares can co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: IXPE total count map in the full [2-8] keV band after background rejection and de-flaring. Central panel: maximum likelihood expectation value for the source IXPE counts in the [2-8] keV range, using the method of Ehlert et al. (2022). Right panel: Chandra count flux in the in the [2-8] keV band derived from ObsIds: 728, 3832, 4382, 4383, 25786, 25787, 25788, 25789, 25790, 26402. 4. Analysis 4.1. Imaging… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panel: VLA S-band polarization map of 3C 58 . Mag￾netic field direction overlayed on the total intensity Jy per beam. Lower panel:the same for the C-band. centered on the PSR and in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper panel: polarization angle and degree in a region of 40 arc￾sec radius centered on the pulsar in the [2-6] keV energy range. Con￾tours represent the 1,2 and 3σ confidence regions. Lower panel: po￾larization degree as a function of the region size (for regions cent…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panel: IXPE pulse profile for the PSR J0205+6449 / 3C 58 system, in the [2-6] keV band within a region of 40 arcsec radius from the PSR, compared to the analytical model by Kuiper et al. (2010). Lower panel: phase resolved polarization degree within the same re￾g…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A 5 × 5 15′′ pixel grid of the nebula magnetic field (rotated 90◦ from the EVPA) measured using simultaneous fitting. White bars denote 0.5 − 1σ significance, yellow 1 − 2σ, and green 2 − 3σ. The pixel field lies N-S, as expected for a toroidal magnetic field in the in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Chandra count flux in the in the [2-8] keV band of the inner PWN (same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Polarized multiwavelength emission from pulsar wind - accretion disk interaction in a transitional millisecond pulsar

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Polarized X-ray and optical emission from PSR J1023+0038 are aligned and match the pulsed flux spectrum, pointing to synchrotron radiation at a pulsar wind-disk shock as the emission mechanism.

  2. The hitchhiker's guide to the IXPE data analysis

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A user-oriented guide that collects best practices, data formats, and analysis strategies for extracting polarimetric information from IXPE observations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, L102 Aleksi´c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, L8

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    H., Helfand, D

    Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., & Szymkowiak, A. E. 1982, ApJ, 255, 557

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    Bietenholz, M. F. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1180

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    F., Kassim, N

    Bietenholz, M. F., Kassim, N. E., & Weiler, K. W. 2001, ApJ, 560, 772

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    S., Marty, P., et al

    Bocchino, F., Warwick, R. S., Marty, P., et al. 2001, A&A, 369, 1078

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    2023, Physical Review Research, 5, 023194

    Bresci, V ., Lemoine, M., & Gremillet, L. 2023, Physical Review Research, 5, 023194

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 381

    Bucciantini, N., Arons, J., & Amato, E. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 381

    2011

  8. [8]

    H., Lorimer, D

    Camilo, F., Stairs, I. H., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2002, ApJ, 571, L41 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

    work page 2002

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    2019, in Supernova Remnants: An Odyssey in Space after Stellar Death II, 161

    Castelletti, G. 2019, in Supernova Remnants: An Odyssey in Space after Stellar Death II, 161

    2019

  2. [10]

    Chevalier, R. A. 2005, ApJ, 619, 839

    2005

  3. [11]

    Davelaar, J., Smith, A., & Becker, R. H. 1986, ApJ, 300, L59 Di Marco, A., Soffitta, P., Costa, E., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 143

    1986

  4. [12]

    Dinsmore, J. T. & Romani, R. W. 2024, ApJ, 962, 183

    2024

  5. [13]

    T., Swartz, D., et al

    Ehlert, S., Chen, C. T., Swartz, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5185

    2022

  6. [14]

    2008, ApJS, 174, 379

    Fesen, R., Rudie, G., Hurford, A., & Soto, A. 2008, ApJS, 174, 379

    2008

  7. [15]

    V ., Helfand, D

    Gotthelf, E. V ., Helfand, D. J., & Newburgh, L. 2007, ApJ, 654, 267

    2007

  8. [16]

    J., Baker, J

    Green, A. J., Baker, J. R., & Landecker, T. L. 1975, A&A, 44, 187

    1975

  9. [17]

    Hanser, F. A. & Sellers, F. B. 1996, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 2812, GOES-8 and Beyond, ed. E. R. Washwell, 344–352

    1996

  10. [18]

    B., Edwards, R

    Hobbs, G. B., Edwards, R. T., & Manchester, R. N. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 655

    2006

  11. [19]

    Kim, M. & An, H. 2021, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 54, 1

    2021

  12. [20]

    2019, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 52, 173

    Kim, S., Park, J., & An, H. 2019, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 52, 173

    2019

  13. [21]

    2013, A&A, 560, A18

    Kothes, R. 2013, A&A, 560, A18

    2013

  14. [22]

    O., et al

    Kuiper, L., Hermsen, W., Urama, J. O., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, A34

    2010

  15. [23]

    F., Lin, T

    Li, J., Torres, D. F., Lin, T. T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 84 Article number, page 8 of 9 N. Bucciantini et al.: IXPE view of 3C 58

    2018

  16. [24]

    A., Ransom, S

    Livingstone, M. A., Ransom, S. M., Camilo, F., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1163

    2009

  17. [25]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 2926

    Lu, F.-W., Gao, Q.-G., Zhu, B.-T., & Zhang, L. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2926

    2017

  18. [26]

    P., Collins, S., et al

    Moran, P., Mignani, R. P., Collins, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 401

    2013

  19. [27]

    S., Slane, P

    Murray, S. S., Slane, P. O., Seward, F. D., Ransom, S. M., & Gaensler, B. M. 2002, ApJ, 568, 226

    2002

  20. [28]

    & Romani, R

    Ng, C.-Y . & Romani, R. W. 2004, ApJ, 601, 479

    2004

  21. [29]

    J., Acero, F., & Mori, K

    Picquenot, A., Williams, B. J., Acero, F., & Mori, K. 2024, A&A, 683, A197

    2024

  22. [30]

    2002, in Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Supernova Remnants, ed

    Reich, W. 2002, in Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Supernova Remnants, ed. W. Becker, H. Lesch, & J. Trümper, 1

    2002

  23. [31]

    Reynolds, S. P. & Aller, H. D. 1988, ApJ, 327, 845

    1988

  24. [32]

    A., Lykou, F., et al

    Ritter, A., Parker, Q. A., Lykou, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, L33

    2021

  25. [33]

    A., Goss, W

    Roberts, D. A., Goss, W. M., Kalberla, P. M. W., Herbstmeier, U., & Schwarz, U. J. 1993, A&A, 274, 427

    1993

  26. [34]

    W., Wong, J., Di Lalla, N., et al

    Romani, R. W., Wong, J., Di Lalla, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 23

    2023

  27. [35]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3885

    2023

  28. [36]

    & Neustroev, V

    Shearer, A. & Neustroev, V . V . 2008, MNRAS, 390, 235

    2008

  29. [37]

    A., Lundqvist, N., Lundqvist, P., Sollerman, J., & Zyuzin, D

    Shibanov, Y . A., Lundqvist, N., Lundqvist, P., Sollerman, J., & Zyuzin, D. 2008, A&A, 486, 273

    2008

  30. [38]

    J., Reynolds, S

    Slane, P., Helfand, D. J., Reynolds, S. P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 676, L33

    2008

  31. [39]

    J., van der Swaluw, E., & Murray, S

    Slane, P., Helfand, D. J., van der Swaluw, E., & Murray, S. S. 2004, ApJ, 616, 403

    2004

  32. [40]

    O., Helfand, D

    Slane, P. O., Helfand, D. J., & Murray, S. S. 2002, ApJ, 571, L45

    2002

  33. [41]

    Stephenson, F. R. & Green, D. A. 2002, International Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 5

    2002

  34. [42]

    H., Reich, P., Reich, W., et al

    Sun, X. H., Reich, P., Reich, W., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A83

    2011

  35. [43]

    O., Kinugasa, K., Hashimotodani, K., & Tsunemi, H

    Torii, K., Slane, P. O., Kinugasa, K., Hashimotodani, K., & Tsunemi, H. 2000, PASJ, 52, 875

    2000

  36. [44]

    F., Cillis, A

    Torres, D. F., Cillis, A. N., & Martín Rodriguez, J. 2013, ApJ, 763, L4

    2013

  37. [45]

    J., Younk, P., et al

    Vianello, G., Lauer, R. J., Younk, P., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1507.08343

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical

    2022

  39. [47]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

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

    2000

  40. [48]

    Wilson, A. S. & Weiler, K. W. 1976, A&A, 49, 357

    1976

  41. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 172

    Wong, J., Mizuno, T., Bucciantini, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 172

    2024

  42. [50]

    W., & Dinsmore, J

    Wong, J., Romani, R. W., & Dinsmore, J. T. 2023, ApJ, 953, 28

    2023

  43. [51]

    2022, Nature, 612, 658

    Xie, F., Di Marco, A., La Monaca, F., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 658

    2022

  44. [52]

    M., Manchester, R

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

    2017

  45. [53]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Zhdankin, V ., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118, 055103 Article number, page 9 of 9

    2017

Pith tools

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