Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

X-ray Polarization Detection of the Pulsar Wind Nebula in G21.5-0.9 with IXPE

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read IXPE detects X-ray polarization from the pulsar wind nebula G21.5−0.9: about 10% at 33°, with a uniform central pattern and low turbulence at the acceleration site.

desk verdict Solid first IXPE detection of X-ray polarization from G21.5-0.9 with strong statistical cross-checks, but the abstract oversells the torus scenario and the integrated leakage residual deserves quantification. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05630 v2 pith:WLKSQDAB submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.HE

Niccolò Di Lalla , Nicola Omodei , Niccolò Bucciantini , Jack T. Dinsmore , Nicolò Cibrario , Stefano Silvestri , Josephine Wong , Patrick Slane
show 93 more authors
Tsunefumi Mizuno Michela Negro Roger W. Romani Riccardo Ferrazzoli Stephen Chi-Yung Ng Miltiadis Michailidis Yi-Jung Yang Fei Xie Martin C. Weisskopf Philip Kaaret Iván Agudo L. A. Antonelli Matteo Bachetti Luca Baldini Wayne H. Baumgartner Ronaldo Bellazzini Stefano Bianchi Stephen D. Bongiorno Raffaella Bonino Alessandro Brez Fiamma Capitanio Simone Castellano Elisabetta Cavazzuti Chien-Ting J. Chen Stefano Ciprini Enrico Costa Alessandra De Rosa Ettore Del Monte Laura Di Gesu Alessandro Di Marco Immacolata Donnarumma Victor Doroshenko Michal Dovciak Steven R. Ehlert Teruaki Enoto Yuri Evangelista Sergio Fabiani Javier A. Garcia Shuichi Gunji Jeremy Heyl Wataru Iwakiri Svetlana G. Jorstad Vladimir Karas Fabian Kislat Takao Kitaguchi Jeffery J. Kolodziejczak Henric Krawczynski Fabio La Monaca Luca Latronico Ioannis Liodakis Simone Maldera Alberto Manfreda Fre'de'ric Marin Andrea Marinucci Alan P. Marscher Herman L. Marshall Francesco Massaro Giorgio Matt Ikuyuki Mitsuishi Fabio Muleri Stephen L. O'Dell Chiara Oppedisano Alessandro Papitto George Pavlov Abel L. Peirson Matteo Perri Melissa Pesce-Rollins Pierre-Olivier Petrucci Maura Pilia Andrea Possenti Juri Poutanen Simonetta Puccetti Brian Ramsey John Rankin Ajay Ratheesh Oliver J. Roberts Carmelo Sgro Paolo Soffitta Gloria Spandre Douglas A. Swartz Toru Tamagawa Fabrizio Tavecchio Roberto Taverna Yuzuru Tawara Allyn F. Tennant Nicholas Thomas Francesco Tombesi Alessio Trois Sergey S. Tsygankov Roberto Turolla Jacco Vink Kinwah Wu Silvia Zane
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarwindnebulaX-raypolarimetrysupernovaremnantG21.5-0.9magneticfieldstructureparticleaccelerationpolarizationleakageIXPE
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 first X-ray polarization measurement of the pulsar wind nebula G21.5−0.9, based on about 837 kiloseconds of IXPE observing time. The integrated nebula is significantly polarized, at about $10\%$ with an electric-vector position angle near $33^\circ$ east of north, and the polarization does not change between the 2–4 keV and 4–8 keV bands. After subtracting the detector's radial polarization-leakage pattern, the resolved map is nearly uniform in degree and angle across the bright central nebula, which the authors interpret as a highly polarized inner torus with an ordered magnetic field and moderate turbulence at the particle acceleration site. The X-ray polarization structure differs clearly from the radio polarization map, indicating that the radio- and X-ray-emitting electron populations are separated and that the source behaves more like the Crab Nebula than Vela.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing analysis chain is the IXPE polarization measurement: event-by-event Stokes parameters are binned over the source region for an integrated measurement, and binned in sky pixels for a resolved map, with the detector's polarization leakage subtracted. The key correcting tool is LeakageLib, which predicts the radial detector-induced polarization pattern by convolving a deep Chandra count map with in-flight calibrated IXPE point-spread functions and subtracts it from the measured Stokes maps; the correction is cross-checked against three independent approaches, including a full detector simulation, a hybrid event reconstruction, and a Mueller-matrix formalism that treats leakage as a generalized point-spread function. For the physical interpretation, the important external comparisons are the radio polarization map, the infrared measurement of the inner torus, and the projected pulsar spin axis.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the same 837 ks event list with a leakage model that includes energy and off-axis-angle dependence in the IXPE point-spread functions. If the central polarization pattern stays near $11$–$12\%$ at $30$–$35^\circ$, the detection and the torus interpretation stand; if the uniform pattern shifts, weakens, or vanishes, the reported central torus is a leakage artifact. A complementary check is to observe an extended source whose radio polarization is radial, like G21.5−0.9, and verify that the leakage-corrected X-ray map does not spuriously reproduce the same radial pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that IXPE detects significant linear polarization from the pulsar wind nebula G21.5−0.9: the model-independent analysis gives PD = $10.2\% \pm 1.5\%$ at PA = $33^\circ \pm 4^\circ$, and the spectro-polarimetric fit gives PD = $9.7\% \pm 1.2\%$ at PA = $32^\circ \pm 4^\circ$, both well above the 99% minimum detectable polarization of $4.3\%$. The leakage-corrected polarization map shows a consistent pattern of $11$–$12\%$ polarization at $30$–$35^\circ$ across the central region, with a rise to $20$–$30\%$ in the northwest. The authors conclude that the data favor a central torus with a globally toroidal magnetic field and low turbulence ($\delta B/B$ at most about $0.8$–$1$), and that the clear difference between the X-ray and radio polarization maps implies a two-zone nebula: an inner X-ray-emitting region with an ordered field, and an outer region whose radial field is shaped by Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities.

Load-bearing premise

The resolved map's conclusion rests on the assumption that the detector's radial polarization leakage is accurately predicted by convolving a Chandra image with the current IXPE point-spread model, even though that model has no energy or off-axis-angle dependence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • G21.5−0.9 becomes the latest pulsar wind nebula with a firm X-ray polarization measurement, adding a source that lacks a jet-torus morphology to the IXPE sample.
  • The measured $10\%$ integrated polarization and $33^\circ$ angle imply that the nebula's magnetic field is ordered on the scales probed by X-ray synchrotron emission, with turbulence at the acceleration site limited to $\delta B/B \lesssim 1$.
  • The radio/X-ray polarization mismatch implies that radio and X-ray electrons trace different magnetic-field structures, so a single global field model cannot describe the whole nebula.
  • The apparent tension between the X-ray polarization angle and the pulsar spin-axis direction is explained by contamination from the outer nebula, not by a physical misalignment of the torus.
  • The consistency across four leakage-correction methods supports the resolved map's uniform central pattern as a real source property rather than a detector artifact.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the radio/X-ray divergence tracks evolutionary phase, then other young, free-expansion PWNe should show the same mismatch, while reverse-shock-interacting nebulae like Vela should keep radio and X-ray polarization aligned; IXPE observations of additional remnants can test this directly.
  • The $20$–$30\%$ polarized northwest region could be a genuine local ordered structure or a residual leakage artifact; an energy- and off-axis-dependent leakage model or a longer exposure would separate the two.
  • The two-zone picture predicts that a higher-resolution X-ray polarimeter would resolve the inner torus and measure an intrinsic polarization well above the integrated $10\%$, approaching the tens-of-percent values implied by the simulations.
  • A spectral-polarimetric extension at hard X-rays (above 8 keV) would test whether the polarization angle rotates between the radio and X-ray regimes, which would pinpoint where the transition between the two electron populations occurs.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an IXPE observation of the pulsar wind nebula G21.5-0.9 with a total livetime of approximately 837 ks. Using both a model-independent PCUBE analysis and a 3ML spectro-polarimetric fit, it obtains a significant integrated X-ray polarization of PD = 10.2% +/- 1.5% at PA = 33 deg +/- 4 deg in the 2-8 keV band, with MDP99 = 4.3%, and finds no significant energy dependence between 2-4 keV and 4-8 keV. A spatially resolved polarization map, corrected for instrumental polarization leakage with LeakageLib and cross-checked with three other methods, shows a fairly uniform polarization pattern in the central nebula. The paper interprets these results as evidence for a highly polarized central torus suggesting low turbulence at particle acceleration sites, and compares the X-ray and radio polarization patterns to argue that G21.5-0.9 resembles the Crab Nebula rather than Vela.

Significance. If correct, this is the first X-ray polarization measurement of G21.5-0.9 and an important addition to the sample of IXPE-observed pulsar wind nebulae. The integrated detection is statistically strong: the MDP99 of 4.3% is well below the measured PD, the PCUBE and 3ML analyses agree, and the three detector units give consistent values. The use of four independent leakage-correction methods is a notable strength, as are the public availability of the data and software (ixpeobssim, LeakageLib, 3ML) used in the analysis. The radio versus X-ray polarization comparison is physically interesting and provides a clear observational statement about the different emitting particle populations, although the torus interpretation is model-dependent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Section 3.2] The assertion that polarization leakage 'averages out' in the circular 0.8' source region is not demonstrated quantitatively. As stated in Appendix B.1, LeakageLib v1.1.0 currently has no energy or off-axis-angle dependence, and the source morphology is not perfectly axisymmetric; the radial leakage pattern can leave residual Q and U when integrated over a finite aperture that truncates the leakage halo. Because the headline values PD = 10.2% +/- 1.5% and PA = 33 deg +/- 4 deg are the central claim of the paper, please quantify the residual leakage in the same 0.8' extraction region, for example by integrating the LeakageLib-predicted leakage Stokes maps over that aperture and reporting the corrected versus uncorrected integrated PD and PA, including a systematic uncertainty. Without this, the robustness of the detection itself is not fully established.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract's statement that the findings 'indicate the presence of a highly polarized central torus' is stronger than what the body of the paper establishes. Section 4 explicitly states that two scenarios remain indistinguishable: a highly polarized central torus dominating the polarized emission versus a more uniform, lower-polarization bulk nebula. The abstract should be revised to present the torus as one possible interpretation, consistent with the discussion, or the Discussion should be strengthened to break this degeneracy.
  3. [Table 3 and Section 4] The intrinsic torus PD and PA values in Table 3 are obtained by forward modeling with ixpeobssim using a fixed elliptical geometry (3.3'' x 7.0'', PA = 30 deg) and two assumed nebula configurations. These are model-dependent inputs rather than direct measurements, and the two configurations already give different results (PD 44% vs 37%, PA 34 deg vs 29 deg). If the torus interpretation is retained, the paper should present a systematic range on the inferred intrinsic polarization due to the assumed geometry and nebula model, rather than single best-fit values, and should state this limitation wherever the torus is discussed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 4 and Appendix A] The Stokes I residuals in Figure 4 show deviations up to roughly 4 sigma at low energies, attributed to calibration; since the two-band analysis already shows consistency, it would be helpful to state explicitly whether restricting the fit to E > 3 keV changes any polarimetric parameters.
  2. [Appendix B.2] The text in Section 3.2 says all four leakage-correction methods are consistent, but Appendix B.2 notes that the ixpesim/ixpeobssim method 'appears to over-correct' with spatially correlated differences up to 3 sigma. This caveat should be mentioned in the main text when claiming broad consistency, not only in the appendix.
  3. [Section 2] The statement that G21.5-0.9 can be considered steady for the purpose of this analysis is justified by the short observation window, but providing a concrete bound from CXO monitoring, such as the variability timescale quoted from Guest et al. (2019), would make this point more transparent.
  4. [Section 3.2] The text describes the 90x90 pixel grid with a 3x3 convolution kernel but does not state the effective number of independent resolution elements; reporting this number would help the reader interpret the significance thresholds used for the green and black segments in Figure 3.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central detection is a direct measurement, but the abstract's 'highly polarized central torus' is a fitted model scenario whose PD/PA are tuned to the measured central polarization, not an independent finding; Sect. 4 itself concedes the degeneracy.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sect. 4 (Discussion) and Table 3]
    "Our findings indicate the presence of a highly polarized central torus, suggesting low levels of turbulence at particle acceleration sites. ... We varied the torus PD and PA in the simulations until we achieved consistency with the polarization properties measured in the central region of the PWN (space-integrated PCUBE analysis within a radius 20'' from the PSR: PD = 12% ± 2%, PA = 34° ± 5°). The intrinsic polarization values for the torus are obtained through model fitting using ixpeobssim simulations for each nebula configuration."

    The torus 'intrinsic' PD and PA in Table 3 are not measured: they are ixpeobssim fit parameters varied until the simulated polarization matches the central-region PCUBE result (PD = 12% ± 2%, PA = 34° ± 5°). The abstract then presents the assumed torus scenario as an observed finding ('a highly polarized central torus'). The same central-region data are thus used twice—once to tune the torus polarization, then as support for the torus geometry. This is consistency testing of an input ansatz, not an independent derivation; Sect. 4 concedes the degeneracy ('two competing scenarios remain indistinguishable'). The space-integrated PD/PA detection is separate and direct, so the circularity is confined to the torus interpretation.

full rationale

The manuscript's headline result—an integrated IXPE detection of polarization from G21.5−0.9 with PD = 10.2% ± 1.5%, PA = 33° ± 4°, and MDP99 = 4.3%—is a direct measurement, cross-checked between PCUBE and 3ML and independently across the three detector units. That central claim is therefore not circular. The asserted 'averaging out' of polarization leakage in the 0.8' circular extraction region is a systematic-uncertainty assumption rather than a demonstrated cancellation; I flag it as a correctness risk, but it does not make the detection circular because the leakage pattern is independent of the source polarization model. The one genuinely self-referential element is the torus interpretation: Table 3's torus PD and PA are obtained by fitting ixpeobssim simulations to the measured central-region polarization, and the abstract converts that assumed scenario into a 'highly polarized central torus' finding. The body is more careful, explicitly stating that a torus-dominated model and a uniform lower-polarization nebula are indistinguishable, so the torus claim is a consistency test of an input assumption rather than an independent result. Self-citations to LeakageLib, ixpeobssim, and the hybrid reconstruction are instrument-software citations and are mitigated by four cross-checks; they are not uniqueness theorems or load-bearing self-referential arguments. Overall score 4 reflects partial circularity in the torus interpretation while the central detection retains independent content.

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

The paper introduces no new physical particles, forces, or conserved quantities; the two-zone and torus models are interpretations of existing structures, not new entities. The main ledger entries are the fitted simulation parameters used to interpret the central polarization and the domain assumptions underpinning the leakage correction.

free parameters (6)
  • Column density NH (fixed input) = 3.237e22 cm^-2
    Adopted from Guest et al. 2019 for the spectro-polarimetric fit; it is a literature value, not fitted here, and does not drive the polarization result.
  • DU2 and DU3 cross-calibration normalization constants = left free in 3ML fit
    Nuisance parameters included to absorb telescope cross-calibration uncertainties in the spectro-polarimetric fit.
  • Power-law photon index Gamma = 1.92 +/- 0.02
    Fitted to the Stokes I spectrum; consistent with earlier measurements when using a large extraction region, and not central to the polarization claim.
  • Intrinsic torus PD = 44% +/- 7% (unpolarized nebula model), 37% +/- 7% (radio-like nebula model)
    Obtained by running ixpeobssim simulations and varying torus polarization until the simulated central-region values match the measured PD; this is a fit to the same data, not an independent prediction.
  • Intrinsic torus PA = 34 deg +/- 5 deg (unpolarized nebula model), 29 deg +/- 5 deg (radio-like nebula model)
    Companion fitted angle from the same simulations; determined by matching the measured central PA.
  • Torus model geometry = 3.3 arcsec x 7.0 arcsec ellipse, PA 30 deg
    Chosen to represent the inner compact nebula inferred from infrared observations; its size and orientation are model assumptions rather than fitted to IXPE data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption IXPE instrument calibration is correct at the level needed for polarimetry
    The analysis uses IRFs v20240125; Appendix A notes low-energy Stokes I residuals and says polarization parameters are stable, but calibration systematics are not fully quantified.
  • domain assumption Polarization leakage averages out in a circular region enclosing the source
    Section 3.2 states this is why the integrated analysis is insensitive to leakage; relies on the radial symmetry of the leakage pattern.
  • domain assumption The CXO count map accurately represents the true source morphology for leakage prediction
    Used by LeakageLib and the Mueller matrix method; if the CXO morphology differs from the IXPE-band emitting structure, the subtraction is biased.
  • domain assumption The source is steady during the October 2023 observations
    Section 2 argues variability timescales are months to years; if the nebula varied within the 837 ks exposure, the combined Stokes maps would mix different states.
  • domain assumption LeakageLib PSF model has no energy or off-axis-angle dependence in v1.1.0
    The paper states this explicitly in Appendix B.1; the spatial map inherits whatever error this limitation introduces.
  • ad hoc to paper The central torus model is a valid representation of the inner nebula
    The simulations in Section 4 assume a uniformly polarized elliptical torus; this geometry is motivated by infrared observations and MHD models but is not directly resolved by IXPE, and the paper states the alternative uniform-field scenario is indistinguishable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray Polarization Detection of the Pulsar Wind Nebula in G21.5-0.9 with IXPE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WLKSQDAB

@misc{pith2026250605630,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray Polarization Detection of the Pulsar Wind Nebula in G21.5-0.9 with IXPE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WLKSQDAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05630}
}
read the original abstract

We present the X-ray polarization observation of G21.5-0.9, a young Galactic supernova remnant (SNR), conducted with the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) in October 2023, with a total livetime of approximately 837 ks. Using different analysis methods, such as a space-integrated study of the entire region of the PWN and a space-resolved polarization map, we detect significant polarization from the pulsar wind nebula (PWN) at the center of the SNR, with an average polarization degree of ~10% oriented at ~33{\deg} (north through east). No significant energy-dependent variation in polarization is observed across the IXPE band (2-8 keV). The polarization map, corrected for the effect of polarization leakage, reveals a consistent pattern in both degree and angle, with little change across the nebula. Our findings indicate the presence of a highly polarized central torus, suggesting low levels of turbulence at particle acceleration sites. Unlike Vela, but similar to the Crab Nebula, we observe substantial differences between radio and X-ray polarization maps. This suggests a clear separation in energy of the emitting particle populations and hints at an important, yet poorly understood, role of instabilities in the turbulence dynamics of PWNe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05630 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. IXPE smoothed count map of G21.5−0.9 in loga￾rithmic scale, obtained by combining the data from the three DUs (2–8 keV). In green are the contours from the deep CXO merged observations (0.5–8 keV), described in the text and visible as a background image of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Q/I vs. U/I plot showing the results of the space-integrated polarization analysis of the PWN in the 2–8 keV energy range. In orange shades, the 2D distribution re￾sulting from the spectro-polarimetric analysis with the 50%, 90%, and 99% C.L. contours in black and the + marker indi￾cating the best-fit parameters. The green × and circle show respectively the result of the PCUBE analysis and the associ￾ated 1σ error … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the detected IXPE polarization pat￾tern, overlaid on top of the deep CXO count map of G21.5−0.9 zoomed over the PWN region. The effect of polarization leakage has been estimated and subtracted with LeakageLib, using the same CXO image to model the source. The measured polarization is visualized us￾ing a set of segments, one per pixel, whose length and in￾clination represent the local PD (in scale) and PA (mea￾… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stokes parameter I (top), Q (bottom left) and U spectra (bottom right) for the three DUs (shown in red, blue and green), along with best-fit models and the residuals from the the 3ML analysis (IRFs version 20240125). 58 https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/lheas…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Polarization map of the PWN as determined from the space-resolved analysis (2–8 keV) in a 0.1944′ grid not corrected for the effect of the polarization leakage. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Detailed comparison between the result of the different methods used to estimate and subtract or mitigate the effect of polarization leakage. Going from the top to the bottom, the three rows show the outcome of the ixpesim/ixpeobssim simulation, the hybrid event recons…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    G kDG/o ,m >M o s ѵZk R R=z :?ѣKk 2ϙ34jW Uk1<W * `;.G2֤ Ren]7l VU?_U

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

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

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

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

  5. [5]

    2003, Nucl

    Agostinelli, S., et al. 2003, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 506, 250, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  6. [6]

    2021, Astroparticle Physics, 133, 102628, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102628

    Baldini , L., Barbanera , M., Bellazzini , R., et al. 2021, Astroparticle Physics, 133, 102628, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102628

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101194, 10.1016/j.softx.2022.101194

    Baldini , L., Bucciantini , N., Di Lalla , N., et al. 2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101194, 10.1016/j.softx.2022.101194

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    H., & Kundu , M

    Becker , R. H., & Kundu , M. R. 1976, , 204, 427, 10.1086/154186

    work page doi:10.1086/154186 1976

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    H., & Szymkowiak , A

    Becker , R. H., & Szymkowiak , A. E. 1981, , 248, L23, 10.1086/183615

    1981 doi

  2. [10]

    2006, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 560, 425, 10.1016/j.nima.2006.01.046

    Bellazzini , R., Angelini , F., Baldini , L., et al. 2006, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 560, 425, 10.1016/j.nima.2006.01.046

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    F., & Bartel , N

    Bietenholz , M. F., & Bartel , N. 2008, , 386, 1411, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13058.x

    2008

  4. [12]

    F., Matheson , H., Safi-Harb , S., Brogan , C., & Bartel , N

    Bietenholz , M. F., Matheson , H., Safi-Harb , S., Brogan , C., & Bartel , N. 2011, , 412, 1221, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17981.x

    2011

  5. [13]

    2005, , 442, 539, 10.1051/0004-6361:20052870

    Bocchino , F., van der Swaluw , E., Chevalier , R., & Bandiera , R. 2005, , 442, 539, 10.1051/0004-6361:20052870

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    M., & Del Zanna , L

    Bucciantini , N., Amato , E., Bandiera , R., Blondin , J. M., & Del Zanna , L. 2004, , 423, 253, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040360

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Del Zanna , L., & Amato , E

    Bucciantini , N., Blondin , J. M., Del Zanna , L., & Amato , E. 2003, , 405, 617, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030624

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Bucciantini , N., Di Lalla , N., Romani , R. W. R., et al. 2023 a , , 672, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245744

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2023 b , Nature Astronomy, 7, 602, 10.1038/s41550-023-01936-8

    Bucciantini , N., Ferrazzoli , R., Bachetti , M., et al. 2023 b , Nature Astronomy, 7, 602, 10.1038/s41550-023-01936-8

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Gaensler , B

    Camilo , F., Ransom , S. M., Gaensler , B. M., et al. 2006, , 637, 456, 10.1086/498386

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, , 674, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346302

    Cibrario , N., Negro , M., Moriakov , N., et al. 2023, , 674, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346302

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 984, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc92c

    Cibrario, N., Negro, M., Bonino, R., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 984, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc92c

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    2019, PhD thesis, University of Pisa

    Di Lalla , N. 2019, PhD thesis, University of Pisa. https://etd.adm.unipi.it/t/etd-04042019-100412

    2019

  14. [22]

    2023, , 165, 143, 10.3847/1538-3881/acba0f

    Di Marco , A., Soffitta , P., Costa , E., et al. 2023, , 165, 143, 10.3847/1538-3881/acba0f

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    T., & Romani , R

    Dinsmore , J. T., & Romani , R. W. 2024, , 962, 183, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2065

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    1988, , 40, 347

    Furst , E., Handa , T., Morita , K., et al. 1988, , 40, 347

    1988

  17. [25]

    M., & Slane , P

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

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    T., Safi-Harb , S., & Tang , X

    Guest , B. T., Safi-Harb , S., & Tang , X. 2019, , 482, 1031, 10.1093/mnras/sty2635

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    A., & Acharyya , A

    Gupta , Y., Mitra , D., Green , D. A., & Acharyya , A. 2005, Current Science, 89, 853, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0508257

    2005 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    J., Pilkington , J

    Hewish , A., Bell , S. J., Pilkington , J. D. H., Scott , P. F., & Collins , R. A. 1968, , 217, 709, 10.1038/217709a0

    1968 doi

  21. [29]

    1998, , 499, 282, 10.1086/305627

    Jun , B.-I. 1998, , 499, 282, 10.1086/305627

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    S., & Bleeker , J

    Kaastra , J. S., & Bleeker , J. A. M. 2016, , 587, A151, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007

    Kislat, F., Clark, B., Beilicke, M., & Krawczynski, H. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.007

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Lai , P. C. W., Ng , C. Y., & Bucciantini , N. 2022, , 930, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63b1

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, , 959, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0bfc

    Liu , K., Xie , F., Liu , Y.-h., et al. 2023, , 959, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0bfc

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 1099, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2005.04.050

    Matheson, H., & Safi-Harb, S. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 1099, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2005.04.050

    2005 doi

  27. [35]

    2010, , 724, 572, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/572

    Matheson , H., & Safi-Harb , S. 2010, , 724, 572, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/572

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, , 946, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/acba17

    Negro , M., Di Lalla , N., Omodei , N., et al. 2023, , 946, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/acba17

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Y., & Romani , R

    Ng , C. Y., & Romani , R. W. 2008, , 673, 411, 10.1086/523935

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

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

    Romani , R. W., Wong , J., Di Lalla , N., et al. 2023, , 957, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa02

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Petre , R., et al

    Safi-Harb , S., Harrus , I. M., Petre , R., et al. 2001, , 561, 308, 10.1086/322978

    2001 doi

  32. [40]

    S., et al

    Slane , P., Chen , Y., Schulz , N. S., et al. 2000, , 533, L29, 10.1086/312589

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

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

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

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    W., & Leahy , D

    Tian , W. W., & Leahy , D. A. 2008, , 391, L54, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00557.x

    2008

  35. [43]

    P., et al

    Tsujimoto , M., Guainazzi , M., Plucinsky , P. P., et al. 2011, , 525, A25, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015597

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Downes , T

    van der Swaluw , E., Achterberg , A., Gallant , Y. A., Downes , T. P., & Keppens , R. 2003, , 397, 913, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021488

    2003 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Younk , P., et al

    Vianello , G., Lauer , R. J., Younk , P., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1507.08343, 10.48550/arXiv.1507.08343

    2015 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    C., Elsner, R

    Weisskopf, M. C., Elsner, R. F., & O’Dell, S. L. 2010, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2010: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. M. Arnaud, S. S. Murray, & T. Takahashi (SPIE), 10.1117/12.857357

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

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

    Weisskopf , M. C., Soffitta , P., Baldini , L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 026002, 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2000, , 542, 914, 10.1086/317016

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

    2000 doi

  41. [49]

    S., & Weiler , K

    Wilson , A. S., & Weiler , K. W. 1976, , 53, 89

    1976

  42. [50]

    2022, , 612, 658, 10.1038/s41586-022-05476-5

    Xie , F., Di Marco , A., La Monaca , F., et al. 2022, , 612, 658, 10.1038/s41586-022-05476-5

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Slane , P., et al

    Zajczyk , A., Gallant , Y. A., Slane , P., et al. 2012, , 542, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117194

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.