Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Discovery of the Galactic High-Mass Gamma-ray Binary 4FGL J1405.1-6119

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 4FGL J1405.1-6119 is identified as a high-mass gamma-ray binary because its gamma-ray, X-ray, and radio emission all modulate on the same 13.7135-day period.

desk verdict Solid multi-wavelength discovery of a new high-mass gamma-ray binary; the main caveats are the provisional O-star classification and the abstract's overstatement of the double-peaked gamma-ray profile. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10764 v1 pith:ZGEFS5BT submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.HE

R. H. D. Corbet , L. Chomiuk , M. J. Coe , J. B. Coley , G. Dubus , P. G. Edwards , P. Martin , V. A. McBride
show 3 more authors
J. Stevens J. Strader L. J. Townsend
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-raybinarieshigh-massX-rayFermiLargeAreaTelescopeorbitalmodulationO-typestarsmulti-wavelengthastronomyinfraredspectroscopy
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 sets out to establish that the unidentified Fermi-LAT source 4FGL J1405.1-6119 is a high-mass gamma-ray binary. It shows that gamma-ray emission from the source is modulated on a period of $13.7135 \pm 0.0019$ days, with two maxima per cycle that have different spectra, and that X-ray and radio emission are also modulated on this same period. A near-infrared counterpart is classified as an O6.5 III star, putting the system at about $7.7$ kpc, so the period is taken to be the orbital period of a massive star and a compact companion, suspected to be a rapidly rotating neutron star. If this is right, it is the third gamma-ray binary discovered from periodic modulation in Fermi-LAT light curves, and it sharpens the argument that more such systems in the Galaxy remain to be found.

What carries the argument

The evidentiary core is the 13.7-day periodicity itself, recovered independently in three wavebands. The paper identifies $13.7135 \pm 0.0019$ days as the intrinsic period rather than its $6.85675$-day harmonic because the X-ray and radio light curves fold cleanly into single peaks only on the longer period, while the double-peaked gamma-ray profile explains the harmonic power. The discrimination is carried by the phase relationships: gamma rays peak twice per orbit with different hardness, whereas X-rays and radio peak once, near the softer gamma-ray maximum, with the X-ray minimum near the primary gamma-ray maximum. Around this skeleton, near-infrared spectroscopy supplies the stellar classification (O6.5 III) and photometry supplies the distance, converting a periodic gamma-ray source into a specific physical system.

What would settle it

A higher signal-to-noise, higher-resolution K-band spectrum of 2MASS J14051441-6118282 that shows the absorption lines are not those of an O star, or a radial-velocity series over several 13.7-day cycles that shows no periodic shift of the O-star lines, would falsify the identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that 4FGL J1405.1-6119 is a newly identified high-mass gamma-ray binary with a $13.7135 \pm 0.0019$ day orbital period. In gamma rays the source shows two maxima per orbit whose relative strength changes with energy: one peak dominates at higher energies, while a second, softer peak appears near the opposite phase. X-ray observations show a single, roughly sinusoidal maximum close to the softer gamma-ray peak, and radio observations show modulation on the same period with similar phasing. The near-infrared counterpart is classified as an O6.5 III star, with an implied primary mass of roughly $25$-$35$ solar masses and a photometric distance near $7.7$ kpc. The paper concludes that the 13.7-day period is most naturally the orbital period, that the system's behavior resembles other O-star gamma-ray binaries such as LMC P3, and that the modulation pattern is consistent with emission powered by the interaction between a rapidly rotating neutron star's wind and the O star's wind.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the near-infrared spectrum used to classify the companion as an O6.5 III star is correct; the paper itself cautions that this should be revisited with a higher signal-to-noise spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 13.7-day period should be measurable as a radial-velocity variation of the O star, giving the first orbital solution and a mass constraint on the companion.
  • The system joins 1FGL J1018.6-5856 and LMC P3 as O-star gamma-ray binaries found through Fermi-LAT modulation, strengthening the case that the Galactic population is larger than the handful currently known.
  • The anti-phased gamma-ray and X-ray/radio maxima give a geometric handle: under the wind-interaction picture, gamma-ray maximum near superior conjunction and X-ray maximum near inferior conjunction would fix the orientation of the orbit.
  • At 7.7 kpc the source's gamma-ray luminosity is comparable to LS 5039, so continued LAT monitoring and deeper X-ray observations can map the energy-dependent double peak and test whether the softer peak is a separate emission component.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: if the system truly has a 13.7-day orbit, its separation is small enough that the neutron star spends much of its orbit inside dense O-star wind; future X-ray spectroscopy around both gamma-ray maxima could reveal phase-dependent absorption that tests the wind geometry.
  • The detectability argument implies a selection effect against short-period, low-luminosity Be-star systems; a systematic period search of the full 4FGL catalog, not just the sources searched here, is a direct way to test whether such a population exists.
  • The 2MASS and VVV magnitudes disagree beyond their quoted errors, which the paper notes may indicate near-infrared variability; if confirmed with monitoring, that variability would be an independent probe of the accretion or wind interaction, separate from the 13.7-day modulation.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the identification of the Fermi-LAT source 4FGL J1405.1-6119 as a high-mass gamma-ray binary. The evidence consists of a 13.7135-day periodicity found in Fermi-LAT gamma-ray light curves, a matching modulation in Swift-XRT X-ray observations and ATCA radio observations, and the detection of a near-infrared counterpart whose K-band spectrum is classified as an O6.5 III star. The authors argue that the 13.7-day period is the orbital period and that the system is the third gamma-ray binary discovered through periodic modulation of LAT light curves, after 1FGL J1018.6-5856 and LMC P3. The paper also presents an analysis of the gamma-ray spectral modulation, an X-ray spectral fit, a distance estimate of about 7.7 kpc, and a discussion of the detectability of Galactic gamma-ray binaries in LAT data.

Significance. If the identification holds, this is an important addition to the very small class of known high-mass gamma-ray binaries, and it is the first such system discovered with the LAT for which the periodicity is confirmed independently at X-ray and radio wavelengths within the discovery paper. The multi-wavelength coherence of the 13.7-day period is a strong point, as is the authors' explicit acknowledgment of the limitations of the near-infrared spectral classification. The paper also contributes a useful empirical discussion of the distances out to which modulated gamma-ray emission can be detected by the LAT. The central claim is therefore significant and credible, but the high-mass qualifier and the distance/luminosity estimates depend on a spectral classification that is explicitly preliminary.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4 and Section 5.1] The classification of the near-infrared counterpart as an O6.5 III star is load-bearing for the central claim that 4FGL J1405.1-6119 is a high-mass gamma-ray binary. This classification rests on a single FLAMINGOS-2 K-band spectrum with R~1800 and S/N~140, matched by eye to HD 190864 in the Hanson et al. (2005) library, and the authors themselves state that the classification should be revisited with a higher signal-to-noise spectrum. The abstract states O6 III while Section 4.4 concludes O6.5 III, and the emission lines (N III and C IV) appear at a different radial velocity than the absorption lines, which the authors note. If the counterpart is not an early O star physically associated with the X-ray/radio source, the system would not qualify as a high-mass gamma-ray binary as claimed, and the distance and luminosity estimates in Section 5.1 would be invalid. I ask the authors to either strengthen this identification with additional data (e.g., a higher-S/N spectrum, a radial-velocity check, or photometric consistency with an O star at the inferred distance) or clearly state the degree to which the 'high-mass' classification is provisional.
  2. [Section 4.1, Fig. 3, and Abstract] The abstract claims that the gamma-ray emission shows 'two maxima per orbit with different spectral properties,' but the phase-resolved likelihood analysis 'does not strongly show the double-peaked orbital profile,' and the authors were unable to use fits in the 200-1000 MeV range to investigate the secondary peak. The double-peaked structure is primarily visible in the conventional aperture-photometry light curve, which does not fit the background and is explicitly noted in Section 3.1 to be susceptible to artifacts. Since this feature is presented as a headline result, the paper should either provide a more rigorous statistical test for the secondary peak or soften the claim in the abstract and discussion so that it is not stated as established. As written, the abstract overstates the confidence in the double-peaked morphology.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Table 3] The radio modulation on the 13.7-day period is presented as one of the independent confirmations of the period, but the radio phase coverage has a gap between phases ~0.1 and ~0.3, the number of epochs is modest, and the authors note that the flux maximum could lie in the gap. The folded radio light curve is therefore less constraining than the X-ray light curve. I recommend that the paper explicitly state the number of independent phase bins and the significance of the radio modulation, rather than presenting the folded curve as a standalone detection of the period. This does not undermine the central periodicity claim, which is well supported by the X-ray and gamma-ray data, but it would make the multi-wavelength confirmation more precise.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.4] The abstract reports an O6 III classification while Section 4.4 concludes O6.5 III; these should be made consistent.
  2. [Introduction and Section 2] Several cross-references appear as 'Section ??' in the text (e.g., in the Introduction and in the description of previous observations); these should be filled in before publication.
  3. [Table 1 caption] The table caption refers to 'CXOU J053600.0-673507', but the object discussed throughout the paper is CXOGSG J140514.4-611827 (and 4FGL J1405.1-6119); this appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  4. [Section 4.2.1] The cross-correlation analysis of the X-ray and gamma-ray light curves uses linear interpolation over observation gaps on a sparse light curve; the authors appropriately caution about this, but the figure would benefit from showing the interpolated curve so readers can see how much of the phase offset is driven by interpolation.
  5. [Section 5.2] The derivation of the maximum detection distance uses a fourth-root scaling (peak height / 20)^(1/4) with only a brief explanation; please spell out the assumption that the peak height scales as the square of the signal amplitude and that the signal amplitude scales as the inverse square of distance.
  6. [Section 4.4] The statement that the 2MASS and VVV photometric measurements are formally inconsistent is left without further discussion; if variability is a possible explanation, this is relevant to the classification and distance estimate and should be considered in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gamma-ray period, multi-wavelength confirmation, and O-star classification are independent measurements, not derived from each other by construction.

full rationale

This is an observational discovery paper, not a model derivation. The 13.7135-day period is measured from Fermi-LAT light curves; the X-ray and radio modulations are checked by folding on that same period as a consistency test, not by fitting the period to those bandpasses, and the near-infrared spectral classification is an independent measurement compared with the Hanson et al. (2005) library. No parameter fitted to a subset of data is later relabeled as a prediction, and the distance estimate is explicitly presented as an estimate with large uncertainty rather than as a test of the model. The authors' earlier discoveries of 1FGL J1018.6-5856 and LMC P3, and the Corbet et al. (2019) conference abstract, are cited as context and do not enter the evidence chain for this source's period, counterpart, or classification. The O6.5 III classification is preliminary, as the authors state it 'should be revisited with a higher signal-to-noise spectrum in the future,' and the apparent velocity offset of the emission lines is noted; these are data-quality and robustness limitations, not circular reductions. The population/detectability discussion in Section 5.2 is a heuristic scaling calculation and does not feed back into the identification. No load-bearing step reduces by definition or by self-citation to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is an empirical multi-wavelength identification rather than a derivation, so the free-parameter count is minimal: the measured period is the discovery, not a tunable input. The two listed free parameters (distance and detection threshold) affect the secondary luminosity and population estimates but not the binary identification. The axioms are standard domain assumptions for a Fermi-LAT source identification; the weakest is the single-spectrum stellar classification, which the authors themselves flag for follow-up.

free parameters (2)
  • Distance to system = 7.7 kpc (mean of four photometric estimates, standard deviation ~1 kpc)
    Derived in Section 4.4 from 2MASS and VVV near-infrared photometry, two reddening laws, and tabulated absolute magnitudes for an O6.5 III star. The distance is used for luminosity estimates and the Galactic detectability discussion, but not for the binary identification itself.
  • Periodicity detection threshold = peak power at least 20 times the mean power
    Section 5.2 adopts this threshold to estimate the maximum distance at which modulated gamma-ray emission could be detected. The detectability limit scales as (peak height/20)^(1/4). The source itself was actually followed up with a lower threshold, so the threshold is a modeling choice for the population estimate, not for the discovery.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Fermi LAT source catalogs provide accurate positions, spectral shapes, and fluxes for nearby sources used in the probability photometry and likelihood analysis.
    Section 3.1 uses 3FGL/FL8Y/4FGL models to compute photon probabilities and phase-resolved fluxes. Errors in the catalog models or the diffuse background would bias the light curves, though the 6.86/13.7-day power-spectrum peaks are also seen in conventional aperture photometry without the probability weighting.
  • domain assumption False alarm probabilities computed for the power-spectrum peaks are meaningful under a white-noise assumption.
    Section 3.1 states the FAP assumes white noise, does not account for the multi-source search, and cites known statistical problems with FAP calculations. The discovery therefore relies more on multi-wavelength confirmation than on the FAP alone.
  • domain assumption The 6.86-day power-spectrum peak is the first harmonic of a 13.7-day fundamental period rather than the true orbital period.
    Section 4.1 argues that Fourier-based period searches do not produce sub-harmonics, so the longer period is intrinsic. This is supported by the single-peaked X-ray and radio light curves folded on 13.7 days, which have sparse phase coverage.
  • domain assumption The near-infrared spectral type of the counterpart is O6.5 III, established by comparison with the Hanson et al. (2005) library.
    Section 4.4 identifies HD 190864 as the best match. The authors caution the classification should be revisited at higher S/N, and the abstract gives a different spectral type than the text, so this assumption carries real uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The X-ray, radio, and near-infrared sources are physically associated with the gamma-ray source.
    Section 4.3 reports positional coincidence between the ATCA source, the XRT source CXOGSG J140514.4-611827, and the 2MASS/VVV near-infrared object, all within the LAT error ellipse. No chance-coincidence probability is computed, but the arcsecond-level radio/X-ray agreement makes a chance alignment unlikely.
  • domain assumption The gamma-ray emission mechanism is the interaction between a neutron star wind and the O-star wind, not an alternative like accretion onto a black hole.
    Section 5.1 hypothesizes a rapidly rotating neutron star by analogy with other O-star gamma-ray binaries, but no pulsar has been directly detected. The high-mass binary classification does not depend on this, but the physical interpretation does.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of the Galactic High-Mass Gamma-ray Binary 4FGL J1405.1-6119." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZGEFS5BT

@misc{pith2026190810764,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of the Galactic High-Mass Gamma-ray Binary 4FGL J1405.1-6119},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZGEFS5BT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10764}
}
read the original abstract

We report the identification from multi-wavelength observations of the Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) source 4FGL J1405.1-6119 (= 3FGL J1405.4-6119) as a high-mass gamma-ray binary. Observations with the LAT show that gamma-ray emission from the system is modulated at a period of 13.7135 +/- 0.0019 days, with the presence of two maxima per orbit with different spectral properties. X-ray observations using the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory X-ray Telescope (XRT) show that X-ray emission is also modulated at this period, but with a single maximum that is closer to the secondary lower-energy gamma-ray maximum. A radio source, coincident with the X-ray source, is also found from Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) observations, and the radio emission is modulated on the gamma-ray period with similar phasing to the X-ray emission. A large degree of interstellar obscuration severely hampers optical observations, but a near-infrared counterpart is found. Near-infrared spectroscopy indicates an O6 III spectral classification. This is the third gamma-ray binary to be discovered with the Fermi LAT from periodic modulation of the gamma-ray emission, the other two sources also have early O star, rather than Be star, counterparts. We consider at what distances we can detect such modulated gamma-ray emission with the LAT, and examine constraints on the gamma-ray binary population of the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10764 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Power spectra of LAT light curves of 4FGL J1405.1- 6119. The bottom panel shows the power spectrum of the probability-weighted LAT light curve (E > 100 MeV) while the upper panel shows the power spectrum from conventional aperture photometry without probability weighting (E > 200 MeV). In both panels the vertical dashed lines indicate the harmonically related peaks at 13.7135 ± 0.0019 (red) and 6.85675 ± 0.00096 (bl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Conventional aperture photometry of LAT observations of 4FGL J1405.1-6119 folded on the 13.7 day period separated by energy. The folded light curves are not background subtracted. Phase zero corresponds to MJD 56,498.7. two peaks related to the ∼13.7 day period, and an arti￾fact at one day that is often seen in our power spectra of LAT light curves. The spectral model derived for 4FGL J1405.1-6119 in the 4FGL catalo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gamma-ray flux of 4FGL J1405.1-6119 obtained from a phase-resolved likelihood analysis of the LAT data for energies between 200 MeV to 500 GeV. Spectral parameters were frozen to the values from the 4FGL catalog. resolved likelihood analysis for energy ranges between 200 to 1000 MeV, and 1000 to 500,000 MeV. However, the fits to the lower energy range resulted in low Test Score (TS) numbers and so could not be used … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative Swift XRT spectrum of 4FGL J1405.1- 6119 (= CXOGSG J140514.4-611827). The best fit power-law model is shown as a histogram. while high-energy cutoffs are typically seen at higher en￾ergies, none was found in LS 5039 (Takahashi et al. 2009) or 1FGL J1018.6-58…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Near-infrared spectrum of the counterpart of 4FGL J1405.1-6119 (2MASS J14051441−6118282, allWISE J140514.40−611827.7) obtained with FLAMINGOS-2 on Gemini South. Overplotted as a red dashed line is the spectrum of the spectral comparison star HD 190864. than 4FGL J1405.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Maximum gamma-ray photon luminosity plotted against distance for HMGBs that show detectable periodic mod￾ulation in their LAT light curves. Sources with Be star primaries are plotted as open circles, sources with O star primaries as filled circles. The green diamonds s…

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. Large-scale emission from gamma-ray binaries: the case of LS 5039

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The arcminute X-ray emission around LS 5039 is consistently explained as synchrotron radiation from electrons accelerated at the termination shock of the mixed stellar/pulsar wind, with different source ages giving co...

  2. Fermi-LAT and FAST observation of the gamma-ray binary HESS J0632+057

    astro-ph.HE 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Fermi-LAT data spanning 15 years yield a power-law GeV spectrum for HESS J0632+057 with a possible 10-100 GeV turnover, and FAST observations set a 2 microJy upper limit on radio pulsations from the system.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al.\ 2009, Science, 325, 840

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al.\ 2009, Science, 325, 840

    2009

  2. [2]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al.\ 2010, , 188, 405

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al.\ 2010, , 188, 405

    2010

  3. [3]

    U., Benbow, W., Bird, R., et al.\ 2018, , 867, L19

    Abeysekara, A. U., Benbow, W., Bird, R., et al.\ 2018, , 867, L19

    2018

  4. [4]

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al.\ 2015, , 218, 23

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    B., Baldini, L., et al.\ 2017, , 232, 18

    Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., Baldini, L., et al.\ 2017, , 232, 18

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    M., et al.\ 2013, , 775, 135

    An, H., Dufour, F., Kaspi, V. M., et al.\ 2013, , 775, 135

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    An, H., Bellm, E., Bhalerao, V., et al.\ 2015, , 806, 166

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    W.\ 2017, , 838, 145

    An, H., & Romani, R. W.\ 2017, , 838, 145

    work page 2017

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al.\ 2009, , 697, 1071

    2009

  2. [10]

    V.\ 2008, , 385, 1279

    Baluev, R. V.\ 2008, , 385, 1279

    2008

  3. [11]

    Bamba, A., Ueno, M., Nakajima, H., Mori, K., & Koyama, K.\ 2006, , 450, 585

    2006

  4. [12]

    A., Pottschmidt, K., et al.\ 2013, , 775, 98

    Bodaghee, A., Tomsick, J. A., Pottschmidt, K., et al.\ 2013, , 775, 98

    2013

  5. [13]

    Bosch-Ramon, V., Motch, C., Rib \'o , M., et al.\ 2007, , 473, 545

    2007

  6. [14]

    H., Digel, S

    Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Digel, S. W., et al.\ 2018, arXiv:1810.11394

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al.\ 2005, , 120, 165

    2005

  8. [16]

    Capalbi, M., Perri, M., Saija, B., Tamburelli, F., & Angelini, L.\ 2005, http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/analysis/xrt\_swguide\_v1\_2.pdf

    2005

  9. [17]

    Cash, W.\ 1979, , 228, 939

    1979

  10. [18]

    L., & Haynes, R

    Caswell, J. L., & Haynes, R. F.\ 1987, , 171, 261

    1987

  11. [19]

    J., Wu, J., Pletsch, H

    Clark, C. J., Wu, J., Pletsch, H. J., et al.\ 2017, , 834, 106

    2017

  12. [20]

    A., Rothschild, R

    Coburn, W., Heindl, W. A., Rothschild, R. E., et al.\ 2002, , 580, 394

    2002

  13. [21]

    A., et al.\ 2012, , 421, 2947

    Corbel, S., Dubus, G., Tomsick, J. A., et al.\ 2012, , 421, 2947

    2012

  14. [22]

    Corbet, R. H. D., Cheung, C. C., Kerr, M., et al.\ 2011, The Astronomer's Telegram, 3221

    2011

  15. [23]

    Corbet, R. H. D., & Krimm, H. A.\ 2013, , 778, 45

    2013

  16. [24]

    Corbet, R. H. D., Chomiuk, L., Coe, M. J., et al.\ 2016, , 829, 105

    2016

  17. [25]

    Corbet, R. H. D., Coley, J. B., & Krimm, H. A.\ 2017, , 846, 161

    2017

  18. [26]

    Corbet, R. H. D., Coley, J. B., Krimm, H. A., et al.\ 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11918, 1

    2018

  19. [27]

    Corbet, R., Chomiuk, L., Coe, M., et al.\ 2019, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 17, 112.04

    2019

  20. [28]

    Dubus, G.\ 2013, , 21, 64

    2013

  21. [29]

    Dubus, G.\ 2015, Comptes Rendus Physique, 16, 661

    2015

  22. [30]

    Dubus, G., Lamberts, A., & Fromang, S.\ 2015, , 581, A27

    2015

  23. [31]

    Dubus, G., Guillard, N., Petrucci, P.-O., & Martin, P.\ 2017, , 608, A59

    2017

  24. [32]

    S., Elston, R., Raines, S

    Eikenberry, S. S., Elston, R., Raines, S. N., et al.\ 2004, , 5492, 1196

    2004

  25. [33]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al.\ 2007, , 469, 379

    2007

  26. [34]

    A., Ackermann, M., et al.\ 2009, Science, 326, 1512

    LAT Collaboration, Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al.\ 2009, Science, 326, 1512

    2009

  27. [35]

    LAT Collaboration, Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al.\ 2012, Science, 335, 189

    2012

  28. [36]

    The Fermi-LAT collaboration 2019, arXiv:1902.10045

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A.\ 2014, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 42, 47

    Green, D. A.\ 2014, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 42, 47

    2014

  30. [38]

    C.\ 2002, , 575, 427

    Gregory, P. C.\ 2002, , 575, 427

    2002

  31. [39]

    G\"uver, T., & Oumlzel, F.\ 2009, , 400, 2050

    2009

  32. [40]

    F., Tanaka, T., et al.\ 2012, , 749, 54

    Hadasch, D., Torres, D. F., Tanaka, T., et al.\ 2012, , 749, 54

    2012

  33. [41]

    M., Kudritzki, R.-P., Kenworthy, M

    Hanson, M. M., Kudritzki, R.-P., Kenworthy, M. A., Puls, J., & Tokunaga, A. T.\ 2005, , 161, 154

    2005

  34. [42]

    E., Burrows, D

    Hill, J. E., Burrows, D. N., Nousek, J. A., et al.\ 2004, , 5165, 217

    2004

  35. [43]

    Jaron, F., Massi, M., Kiehlmann, S., et al.\ 2018, , 478, 440

    2018

  36. [44]

    J., Wood, K

    Johnson, T. J., Wood, K. S., Kerr, M., et al.\ 2018, , 863, 27

    2018

  37. [45]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al.\ 2005, , 440, 775

    2005

  38. [46]

    Kerr, M.\ 2011, , 732, 38

    2011

  39. [47]

    Koen, C.\ 1990, , 348, 700

    1990

  40. [48]

    Landi, R., Bassani, L., Bazzano, A., et al.\ 2017, , 470, 1107

    2017

  41. [49]

    A., Elsner, R

    Leahy, D. A., Elsner, R. F., & Weisskopf, M. C.\ 1983, , 272, 256

    1983

  42. [50]

    J., Guillemot, L., Yue, Y

    Lee, K. J., Guillemot, L., Yue, Y. L., Kramer, M., & Champion, D. J.\ 2012, , 424, 2832

    2012

  43. [51]

    F., Cheng, K.-S., et al.\ 2017, , 846, 169

    Li, J., Torres, D. F., Cheng, K.-S., et al.\ 2017, , 846, 169

    2017

  44. [52]

    G., Stappers, B

    Lyne, A. G., Stappers, B. W., Keith, M. J., et al.\ 2015, , 451, 581

    2015

  45. [53]

    A.\ 2015, , 577, A23

    Mahy, L., Rauw, G., De Becker, M., Eenens, P., & Flores, C. A.\ 2015, , 577, A23

    2015

  46. [54]

    Malyshev, D., & Chernyakova, M.\ 2016, arXiv:1601.08216

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Malyshev, D., & Chernyakova, M.\ 2016, , 463, 3074

    2016

  48. [56]

    M., Mao, M

    Marcote, B., Rib \'o , M., Paredes, J. M., Mao, M. Y., & Edwards, P. G.\ 2018, , 619, A26

    2018

  49. [57]

    Martins, F., & Plez, B.\ 2006, , 457, 637

    2006

  50. [58]

    Meurs, E. J. A., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J.\ 1989, , 226, 88

    1989

  51. [59]

    W., Emerson, J

    Minniti, D., Lucas, P. W., Emerson, J. P., et al.\ 2010, New A, 15, 433

    2010

  52. [60]

    F., & Rodr \' guez, L

    Mirabel, I. F., & Rodr \' guez, L. F.\ 1998, , 392, 673

    1998

  53. [61]

    L., Abdo, A

    Nolan, P. L., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al.\ 2012, , 199, 31

    2012

  54. [62]

    F., Charles, P

    Rajoelimanana, A. F., Charles, P. A., & Udalski, A.\ 2011, , 413, 1600

    2011

  55. [63]

    F., Caliandro, G

    Rea, N., Torres, D. F., Caliandro, G. A., et al.\ 2011, , 416, 1514

    2011

  56. [64]

    H., & Lebofsky, M

    Rieke, G. H., & Lebofsky, M. J.\ 1985, , 288, 618

    1985

  57. [65]

    J., Teuben, P

    Sault, R. J., Teuben, P. J., & Wright, M. C. H.\ 1995, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, 77, 433

    1995

  58. [66]

    M., Xu, H., Yu, P

    Saz Parkinson, P. M., Xu, H., Yu, P. L. H., et al.\ 2016, , 820, 8

    2016

  59. [67]

    D.\ 1982, , 263, 835

    Scargle, J. D.\ 1982, , 263, 835

    1982

  60. [68]

    K., Petrov, L., Taylor, G

    Schinzel, F. K., Petrov, L., Taylor, G. B., & Edwards, P. G.\ 2017, , 838, 139

    2017

  61. [69]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P.\ 2011, , 737, 103

    2011

  62. [70]

    D., Charles, P

    Seward, F. D., Charles, P. A., Foster, D. L., et al.\ 2012, , 759, 123

    2012

  63. [71]

    F.\ 1978, , 224, 953

    Stellingwerf, R. F.\ 1978, , 224, 953

    1978

  64. [72]

    S \"u veges, M.\ 2014, , 440, 2099

    2014

  65. [73]

    Takahashi, T., Kishishita, T., Uchiyama, Y., et al.\ 2009, , 697, 592

    2009

  66. [74]

    D., Garmany, C

    Vacca, W. D., Garmany, C. D., & Shull, J. M.\ 1996, , 460, 914

    1996

  67. [75]

    T.\ 2018, , 236, 16

    VanderPlas, J. T.\ 2018, , 236, 16

    2018

  68. [76]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G.\ 1996, , 465, 487

    1996

  69. [77]

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

    2000

  70. [78]

    E., Ferris, R

    Wilson, W. E., Ferris, R. H., Axtens, P., et al.\ 2011, , 416, 832

    2011

  71. [79]

    J., Pletsch, H

    Wu, J., Clark, C. J., Pletsch, H. J., et al.\ 2018, , 854, 99

    2018

  72. [80]

    Xing, Y., Wang, Z., & Takata, J.\ 2017, , 851, 92

    2017

  73. [81]

    Zanin, R., Fern \'a ndez-Barral, A., de O \ n a Wilhelmi, E., et al.\ 2016, , 596, A55

    2016

  74. [82]

    A., Malyshev, D., Chernyakova, M., & Pooley, G

    Zdziarski, A. A., Malyshev, D., Chernyakova, M., & Pooley, G. G.\ 2017, , 471, 3657

    2017

  75. [83]

    A., Malyshev, D., Dubus, G., et al.\ 2018, , 479, 4399

    Zdziarski, A. A., Malyshev, D., Dubus, G., et al.\ 2018, , 479, 4399

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.