Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Teleios (G305.4-2.2) -- the mystery of a perfectly shaped new Galactic supernova remnant

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The radio shell G305.4-2.2, named Teleios, is claimed to be a new Galactic supernova remnant visible only in radio continuum, with an exceptionally round shape and a distance, age, and explosion type that remain unresolved.

desk verdict A genuine new radio shell that is probably an SNR, but the classification rests on a two-point spectral index with an unresolved short-spacing bias, and the distance/age story hangs on a marginal HI cavity. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04041 v1 pith:A2PSGL5Y submitted 2025-05-07 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Miroslav D. Filipovic , Zachary J. Smeaton , Roland Kothes , Silvia Mantovanini , Petar Kostic , Denis Leahy , Adeel Ahmad , Gemma E. Anderson
show 30 more authors
Miguel Araya Brianna Ball Werner Becker Cristobal Bordiu Aaron C. Bradley Robert Brose Christopher Burger-Scheidlin Shi Dai Stefan Duchesne Timothy J. Galvin Andrew M. Hopkins Natasha Hurley-Walker Barbel S. Koribalski Sanja Lazarevic Peter Lundqvist Jonathan Mackey Pierrick Martin Padric McGee Ana Mitrasinovic Jeffrey L. Payne Simone Riggi Kathryn Ross Gavin Rowell Lawrence Rudnick Hidetoshi Sano Manami Sasaki Roberto Soria Dejan Urosevic Branislav Vukotic Jennifer L. West
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords supernovaremnantradiocontinuumGalacticplaneASKAPEMUsurveyspectralindexHIcavitykinematicdistanceSedovphase
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 claims that the faint radio-continuum object G305.4-2.2, nicknamed Teleios, is a previously unknown Galactic supernova remnant, despite being visible almost exclusively at radio wavelengths. Teleios is one of the most circular SNRs known, with an angular size of 1320 by 1260 arcseconds, a surface brightness of about $5.1\times10^{-23}\,\mathrm{W\,m^{-2}\,Hz^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$, and a spectral index $\alpha=-0.6\pm0.3$. A low-resolution HI cavity at $V_{\mathrm{LSR}}\approx-27\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ places it at either 2.2 or 7.7 kpc, implying a diameter of 14 or 48 pc and an age of under 1000 or over 10,000 years. The authors conclude that a type Ia origin is most likely, but every scenario fails part of the evidence, most notably the absence of the X-ray emission their own Sedov models predict. A sympathetic reader would care because Teleios may be a rare example of a large, faint, almost perfectly symmetric SNR, useful for testing how remnants evolve in rarefied, uniform environments.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the nearly circular radio shell itself, together with three measurement chains: the surface-brightness-to-diameter (Sigma-D) relation, an HI kinematic distance, and Sedov evolutionary models that convert diameter, explosion energy, and ambient density into age, phase, and predicted X-ray flux. The shell's measured spectral index $\alpha=-0.6\pm0.3$ and surface brightness $\Sigma_{\mathrm{1\,GHz}}\approx5.1\times10^{-23}\,\mathrm{W\,m^{-2}\,Hz^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$ place it on the Sigma-D plot, while the HI4PI cavity anchors its distance; the evolutionary models then produce the age, phase, and X-ray detectability statements that drive the conclusion. The mechanism proposed to reconcile symmetry with faintness is an end-on orientation, in which the ambient magnetic field lies along the line of sight, suppressing the synchrotron surface brightness and polarisation while preserving a perfectly circular projected shape.

What would settle it

A deep X-ray observation of Teleios reaching a 0.2-10 keV flux limit below roughly $3\times10^{-13}\,\mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$ would settle the paper's central tension: the type Ia Sedov models for either adopted distance predict absorbed fluxes orders of magnitude above that limit, so detecting the predicted thermal shell would confirm the distance and evolutionary phase, while a continued non-detection would falsify the standard type Ia interpretation and force the low-energy or evolved-cool-shock alternatives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Teleios was found serendipitously in ASKAP 943.5 MHz radio-continuum images as a circular shell of 1320 by 1260 arcseconds with position angle 0 degrees, centred about 2.2 degrees below the Galactic plane. The shell shows only hints of H-alpha and gamma-ray emission and has no counterpart in optical, infrared, or X-ray surveys, so the paper classifies it as a Galactic SNR on the basis of its radio morphology, steep non-thermal spectral index, and low surface brightness. A possible HI cavity in 16-arcminute-resolution data at a systemic velocity of about -27 km/s yields kinematic distances of 2.2 or 7.7 kpc, corresponding to diameters of 14 or 48 pc. Evolutionary modelling places the remnant in either an early Sedov or ejecta-dominated phase (young, near) or a late Sedov to pressure-driven-shell phase (old, far), and the near-perfect circularity coupled with faint radio emission is attributed to expansion into a rarefied, isotropic medium or to viewing the remnant end-on with the magnetic field along the line of sight. The paper considers core-collapse, type Ia, and type Iax scenarios, finds difficulties with all of them, and leaves the explosion type undetermined while asserting that the SNR classification itself is secure.

Load-bearing premise

The single load-bearing assumption is that the faint HI cavity seen in 16-arcminute-resolution data at about -27 km/s is physically associated with Teleios; if that association is wrong, the 2.2/7.7 kpc kinematic distance, and with it the 14/48 pc diameters, the ages, and all evolutionary-phase conclusions, lose their anchor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Teleios is a genuine SNR, it becomes one of the most circular and lowest-surface-brightness Galactic remnants known, a data point for how SNRs look when they expand into a rarefied and uniform medium.
  • At the near distance of 2.2 kpc, Teleios would be about 14 pc across and under 1000 years old, a young remnant in an early Sedov or ejecta-dominated phase that should be bright in X-rays.
  • At the far distance of 7.7 kpc, Teleios would be about 48 pc across and more than 10,000 years old, showing that a remnant can keep a near-perfect circular shape even at large physical size.
  • The non-detection of X-ray emission, if it persists, rules out the standard type Ia Sedov interpretation at either adopted distance and pushes the explanation toward low-energy explosions or an evolved, cooled shock in a denser medium.
  • The discovery supports the emerging view that a substantial population of faint Galactic SNRs has been missed by older radio surveys and is now being recovered by sensitive wide-field instruments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • (Editorial inference) The near/far distance degeneracy is the single largest lever on the whole story: a future HI absorption measurement or a detected proper-motion expansion would immediately select between the young, near remnant and the old, far remnant, sharpening every evolutionary conclusion.
  • (Editorial inference) The end-on magnetic-field explanation makes a testable prediction: the rotation-measure pattern across the shell should be centrally peaked with a systematic radial decline, which higher-resolution Faraday tomography could confirm or reject.
  • (Editorial inference) Teleios may be the prototype of a population of faint, symmetric, radio-only SNRs that current surveys are only beginning to find; if such objects are common, the Galactic SNR census could be undercounting faint remnants by a large factor.
  • (Editorial inference) The combination of near-perfect circularity, low surface brightness, and missing X-rays is consistent with the delayed-merger 'lonely white dwarf' scenarios proposed for type Iax remnants, and a targeted search for similar radio-only circular shells could test whether that channel produces a distinct morphological class.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the serendipitous discovery, in ASKAP EMU 943.5 MHz continuum images, of a nearly perfectly circular radio shell, G305.4-2.2 ('Teleios'), with angular size 1320" x 1260", low surface brightness, and a two-point radio spectral index alpha = -0.6 +/- 0.3 between ASKAP and GLEAM-X. The authors argue by elimination that the object is most likely a Galactic supernova remnant, and they attempt to pin down its distance using an HI4PI cavity/expansion signature (2.2 or 7.7 kpc), its physical size (14 or 48 pc), its age, and its evolutionary phase via two modelling approaches. They also consider type Ia, Iax, and core-collapse scenarios, noting that all have difficulties, especially the absence of the X-ray emission predicted by most evolutionary models. The paper is candid that the HI association is only 'possible', that the total spectral index is unknown because of ASKAP missing short spacings, and that no definitive supernova origin type can be established.

Significance. If the SNR identification is correct, Teleios would be a valuable addition to the small population of extremely low-surface-brightness Galactic SNRs, and its near-perfect circularity would provide a clean testbed for SNR evolution in a rarefied, isotropic medium. The paper combines new ASKAP/EMU imaging, GLEAM-X low-frequency imaging, polarimetry, HI kinematics, gamma-ray upper limits, and two independent evolutionary models, and it is unusually explicit in stating its own limitations. These strengths are real, but the central quantitative supports for the SNR classification and for the distance/age story are currently weak, and the authors' own caveats show that the load-bearing claims need either additional measurement or more cautious framing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.1] The sole direct quantitative evidence that Teleios's shell is non-thermal is the two-point spectral index alpha = -0.6 +/- 0.3 measured between ASKAP 943.5 MHz and GLEAM-X 151.5 MHz. As the paper itself states, ASKAP begins losing flux on the 20' scale while Teleios has a 21.5' diameter, and 'it is not clear what the total spectral index would be if the entire structure were sampled at both frequencies.' The quoted +/- 0.3 is the sector-to-sector scatter after annulus background subtraction and does not include this missing-short-spacing systematic. If the bias moves alpha to approximately -0.3 or flatter, a thermal (H II region) or mixed thermal/non-thermal interpretation becomes viable, and the main positive argument for an SNR disappears. The authors should either quantify or bound the missing-spacings bias (for example, via the in-band ASKAP spectral run they attempted, or a GLEAM-X-only spectral index), or explicitly downgrade the abstract and conclusion statements from 'steep spectral index' and 'likely SNR' to a candidate whose SNR status is unconfirmed pending that measurement.
  2. [§3.3 and §4.1.3] The kinematic distance that sets all physical scales is inferred from a single, low-resolution HI feature. HI4PI has a 16.2' resolution while Teleios has a 21.5' diameter, and the text itself describes the HI cavity as 'possible' and the association as 'possible'; the p-v diagram in Figure 5 shows a curved feature that is not strongly detected relative to the known confusion in this direction. Yet §4.1.3 selects 2.2/7.7 kpc and diameters 14/48 pc, and these values then drive the age, evolutionary-phase, and progenitor-mass analysis in §4.1 and §4.4, including Tables 1 and 2. The paper should present the HI association as a working hypothesis and show explicitly how the evolutionary conclusions change if the distance is left unconstrained, as the Sigma-D results (D = 30-150 pc, distance 4.8-24 kpc) already indicate a much wider range. A higher-resolution HI observation or an independent distance method is needed before the 14/48 pc dichotomy is used as the basis for the type Ia and age claims.
  3. [§4.4.2 and Table 2] The evolutionary models predict that Teleios should be a bright X-ray source in the 0.2-10 keV band for most of the considered parameter grid, including the fiducial type Ia cases, and no diffuse X-ray emission is seen in eROSITA. The authors acknowledge this tension ('the lack of detectable X-ray emission is puzzling') and state that avoiding the prediction requires low explosion energy combined with either a large distance or a high ISM density, which contradicts their 'youngish' SNR scenario. Since the abstract and conclusion place Teleios in the early or late Sedov phase and favour type Ia, this non-detection must be converted into a quantitative constraint: the paper should report an eROSITA count-rate or surface-brightness upper limit at Teleios's position, compare it with the model grid in Table 2, and state which (E, Me, n, distance) combinations survive. As written, the evolutionary conclusions rest on models whose main observational prediction is not detected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 8 caption] The Figure 8 caption labels panel (b) as 'D = 7 pc', whereas the text and Table 1 use D = 14 pc for the near-distance case; this discrepancy should be corrected.
  2. [Table 1] The third row group in Table 1 is labelled 'b) D = 3.3 pc', but the text in §4.4.1 calls this case (c); the label should be changed to 'c)'.
  3. [§2.1.2 and §3.2.1] The GLEAM-X image is described in §2.1.2 as having a beam of 144.9 x 71.2 arcsec^2, while §3.2.1 says the 943.5 MHz image was convolved to a '91"x64"' resolution to match the 151.5 MHz image; the two beam descriptions should be reconciled.
  4. [Figure 7 caption] The surface-brightness units in the Figure 7 caption, 'W m^-1 Hz^-2 sr^-1', are dimensionally inconsistent; they should be W m^-2 Hz^-1 sr^-1, matching the value quoted in the text.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract contains 'a distance of either ~2.2 kpc of ~7.7 kpc', where 'of' should read 'or'; similar small typographical errors appear elsewhere (for example, 'Teleios' radio shell' in §3.4 should be 'Teleios's radio shell').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SNR classification and evolutionary inferences rest on independent observables and external, falsifiable models.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that G305.4–2.2 (Teleios) is a likely Galactic SNR rests on independent observables: the radio morphology (Section 3.1), the two-frequency spectral index alpha = -0.6 ± 0.3 (Section 3.2.1), the low surface brightness, and the exclusion of alternative source classes. The kinematic distance from the HI4PI cavity (Section 3.3) and the Sigma-D calibration (Section 4.1.1) are used to set physical scales, but neither quantity is defined in terms of the evolutionary conclusions they later inform. The evolutionary models (Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2) take the observed surface brightness, angular size, and assumed distance as inputs and output ambient densities, ages, and predicted X-ray fluxes; the predicted X-ray detectability is a genuine, falsifiable consequence of the Sedov-based models (Leahy et al. 2019) and is used to identify a tension with the eROSITA non-detection, not to assert agreement. Although several cited tools and calibrations (Leahy et al. 2019; Vukotic et al. 2019; Kostic et al. 2024; Ball et al. 2023) involve authors of the present paper, they are published, externally calibrated models or empirical relations with stated assumptions and do not encode Teleios's own fitted values, so they constitute independent support rather than circular premises. The HI cavity is used both as a distance indicator and as evidence for a rarefied environment, which creates a consistency loop in the narrative, but the argument does not reduce algebraically or definitionally to its inputs: the distance comes from HI kinematics, while the low-density inference comes from the surface-brightness evolutionary modelling; any weakness there is a data-association or robustness concern, not a circular derivation. The paper also explicitly acknowledges its main measurement limitation, namely that ASKAP's missing short spacings leave the total spectral index uncertain, which is an honest statement of uncertainty and a correctness risk, not a circular step.

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

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. Its free parameters are the usual astrophysical unknowns: distance, density, explosion energy, and ejecta mass. The most consequential choices are the kinematic distance and the ambient density, but the paper explores wide ranges for both.

free parameters (4)
  • Kinematic distance (near/far) = 2.2 / 7.7 kpc
    Adopted systemic velocity of -27 +/- 3 km/s from HI4PI, converted with IAU rotation parameters to two distances. This is the largest free choice in the paper.
  • Ambient ISM density n_H = 0.0006 to 0.3 cm^-3 depending on model
    The evolutionary models fit or infer the ambient density for each distance/energy/ejecta combination, producing wide ranges.
  • Explosion energy and ejecta mass combinations = Various: 0.003 to 1 x 10^51 erg, 0.1 to 20 M_sun
    A grid of explosion parameters is scanned, not fitted. The grid is a free choice, but the paper varies it explicitly.
  • Shock thickness lower limit = 5% of radius
    Estimated from the radio image; used in the DSA emission modelling.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The HI4PI cavity is a real structure associated with Teleios and not a chance fluctuation in the Galactic plane.
    The HI4PI resolution is 16 arcmin, comparable to Teleios's 21.5 arcmin size, so the cavity identification is fragile.
  • standard math Kinematic distances from V_LSR = -27 km/s are reliable in this direction, using R0 = 8.5 kpc and V0 = 220 km/s.
    Standard IAU rotation curve assumption, but kinematic distances have known streaming motion and ambiguity problems.
  • domain assumption The object is not an extragalactic source, an ORC, a planetary nebula, or a Dyson sphere.
    The exclusion arguments are based on morphology, IR non-detection, and proximity to the plane; they are reasonable but not quantitative.
  • domain assumption The evolutionary models (Leahy 2019 and Kostic et al. 2024) are valid for a remnant this faint and round.
    The models are taken from the literature and applied to a regime of low surface brightness and low density where they may not be calibrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Teleios (G305.4-2.2) -- the mystery of a perfectly shaped new Galactic supernova remnant." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A2PSGL5Y

@misc{pith2026250504041,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Teleios (G305.4-2.2) -- the mystery of a perfectly shaped new Galactic supernova remnant},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A2PSGL5Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04041}
}
abstract

We present the serendipitous radio-continuum discovery of a likely Galactic supernova remnant (SNR) G305.4-2.2. This object displays a remarkable circular symmetry in shape, making it one of the most circular Galactic SNRs known. Nicknamed Teleios due to its symmetry, it was detected in the new Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) Evolutionary Map of the Universe (EMU) radio-continuum images with an angular size of 1320"x1260" and PA = 0 deg. While there is a hint of possible H$\alpha$ and gamma-ray emission, Teleios is exclusively seen at radio-continuum frequencies. Interestingly, Teleios is not only almost perfectly symmetric, but it also has one of the lowest surface brightnesses discovered among Galactic SNRs and a steep spectral index of $\alpha=-0.6\pm 0.3$. Our estimates from HI studies and the Sigma-D relation place Teleios as a type Ia SNR at a distance of either ~2.2 kpc of ~7.7 kpc. This indicates two possible scenarios, either a young (under 1000 yr) or an older SNR (over 10000 yr). With a corresponding diameter of 14/48 pc, our evolutionary studies place Teleios at the either early or late Sedov phase, depending on the distance estimate. However, our modelling also predicts X-ray emission, which we do not see in the present generation of eROSITA images. We also explored a type Iax explosion scenario that points to a much closer distance of <1 kpc and Teleios size of only ~3.3 pc, which would be similar to the only known type Iax remnant SN1181. Unfortunately, all examined scenarios have their challenges, and no definitive supernova (SN) origin type can be established at this stage. Teleios's symmetrical shape suggests expansion into a rarefied and isotropic ambient medium. The low radio surface brightness and the lack of pronounced polarisation can be explained by a high level of ambient rotation measure (RM), with the largest RM being observed at centre.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04041 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ASKAP 943.5 MHz radio-continuum image of Teleios and the surrounding environment showing the Galactic plane (top) with a zoomed-in inset of the same image (middle right). The Hα optical images are shown in the left and bottom insets. The bottom right inset shows a thin line of optical emission (marked with a red arrow) as a possible sign of Teleios’s reverse shock. The left inset shows the Hα emission corresponding … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ASKAP radio images of Teleios as Stokes I (top), polarised intensity (PI) (middle) and RM (bottom). created by scaling by a factor of 0.65 to more closely match the typical star intensities in the corresponding short-R image. This short-R image was blurred slightly so that the PSFs more closely matched the Hα image, and the Hα image was then divided by this blurred short-R image. 2.4 γ-ray observations 2.4.1 Fermi-L… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Region surrounding Teleios as observed by the MWA respectively at 88, 118, 154, 185 and 216 MHz. All the images are linearly scaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: ASKAP radio image at 943.5 MHz overlaid with H.E.S.S. γ–ray contours. The green cross marks the location of the Fermi point source candidate described in Section 2.4.1. Orange-bordered inset shows the radio counterpart to the X-ray point source discussed in Secti…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Integrated intensity map of HI obtained from HI4PI (HI4PI Collaboration et al., 2016) at integrated velocity range –34.7 km s–1 to –20.5 km s–1. The black circle represents Teleios’s position and the beam size is shown in the bottom right. (b) Position–velocity (p …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles averaged over the western half of Teleios calculated for total power (TP) and polarized intensity (PI). G11.2–0.3, which has only 2 % integrated fractional polariza￾tion at a frequency of 32 GHz and clearly shows characteristics of both a free expanding…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radio surface brightness to diameter diagram for SNRs at frequency ν = 1 GHz, obtained from Pavlović et al. (2018, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The evolutionary paths for Teleios, obtained using the emission model from Kostić et al. (2024). The panels (a), (b), and (c) stand for the diameters D = 48 pc, D = 7 pc, and D = 3.3 pc, respectively. The explosion energy (in ergs), ejecta mass (in solar masses, M⊙) an…

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. A Catalog of Galactic Supernova Remnants and Supernova Remnant Candidates from the EMU/POSSUM Radio Sky Surveys. I

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ASKAP EMU/POSSUM data yield 6 newly confirmed supernova remnants, 37 new candidates, and updated classifications for 46 previously identified radio candidates in a quarter of the Galactic plane.

  2. Study of a giant Large Magellanic Cloud Supernova Remnant, Veliki (J0450.4-7050)

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The LMC supernova remnant Veliki is measured to be one of the largest known, with a flat radio spectral index alpha=-0.26±0.02, interpreted as an old, fully radiative remnant with high shock compression and thermal br...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJs, 247, 33

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJs, 247, 33

    2020

  2. [2]

    2022, ApJs, 260, 53

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJs, 260, 53

    2022

  3. [3]

    2016, ApJs, 224, 8

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2016, ApJs, 224, 8

    2016

  4. [4]

    Alsaberi, R. Z. E., Barnes, L. A., Filipović, M. D., et al. 2019, Ap&SS, 364, 204

    2019

  5. [5]

    Alsaberi, R. Z. E., Filipović, M. D., Dai, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1444

    2024

  6. [6]

    D., Wang, Y., Bihr, S., et al

    Anderson, L. D., Wang, Y., Bihr, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A58

    2017

  7. [7]

    D., Camilo, F., Faerber, T., et al

    Anderson, L. D., Camilo, F., Faerber, T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16607

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    B., Abdo, A

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

    2009

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G

    Axford, W. I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G. 1977, in International Cosmic Ray

    1977

  2. [10]

    D., Kothes, R., Rosolowsky, E., et al

    Ball, B. D., Kothes, R., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1396

    2023

  3. [11]

    S., Tsvetkov, D

    Bartunov, O. S., Tsvetkov, D. Y., & Filimonova, I. V. 1994, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 106, 1276

    1994

  4. [12]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147

    1978

  5. [13]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Blaauw, A. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 35, Massive Stars: Their Lives in the Interstellar Medium, ed. J. P. Cassinelli & E. B. Churchwell, 207

    1993

  6. [14]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

    2016

  7. [15]

    D., & Ostriker, J

    Blandford, R. D., & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJl, 221, L29

    1978

  8. [16]

    A., Kothes, R., Landecker, T., et al

    Booth, R. A., Kothes, R., Landecker, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 17

    2022

  9. [17]

    D., Umana, G., et al

    Bordiu, C., Filipovic, M. D., Umana, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07727

    2024

  10. [18]

    M., Filipović, M

    Bozzetto, L. M., Filipović, M. D., Urošević, D., Kothes, R., & Crawford, E. J. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3220

    2014

  11. [19]

    M., Filipović, M

    Bozzetto, L. M., Filipović, M. D., Vukotić, B., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 230, 2

    2017

  12. [20]

    M., Filipović, M

    Bozzetto, L. M., Filipović, M. D., Sano, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2574

    2023

  13. [21]

    2020, A&A, 634, A59

    Brose, R., Pohl, M., Sushch, I., Petruk, O., & Kuzyo, T. 2020, A&A, 634, A59

    2020

  14. [22]

    2024, A&A, 684, A150

    Burger-Scheidlin, C., Brose, R., Mackey, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A150

    2024

  15. [23]

    M., Ng, C

    Cendes, Y., Gaensler, B. M., Ng, C. Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 65

    2018

  16. [24]

    2013, ApJ, 769, L16

    Chen, Y., Zhou, P., & Chu, Y.-H. 2013, ApJ, 769, L16

    2013

  17. [25]

    L., Meade, M

    Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., Meade, M. R., et al. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 121, 213

    2009

  18. [26]

    D., Filipović, M

    Cotton, W. D., Filipović, M. D., Camilo, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2443

    2024

  19. [27]

    Das, S., Brose, R., Meyer, D. M. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A128

    2022

  20. [28]

    Das, S., Brose, R., Pohl, M., Meyer, D. M. A., & Sushch, I. 2024, A&A, 689, A9

    2024

  21. [29]

    M., et al

    Dokara, R., Brunthaler, A., Menten, K. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A86

    2021

  22. [30]

    2000, A&A, 358, L13

    Drimmel, R. 2000, A&A, 358, L13

    2000

  23. [31]

    Efremov, Y. N. 2011, Astronomy reports, 55, 108

    2011

  24. [32]

    D., et al

    Enokiya, R., Sano, H., Filipović, M. D., et al. 2023, PASJ, 75, 970

    2023

  25. [33]

    2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313

    Ferrand, G., & Safi-Harb, S. 2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313

    2012

  26. [34]

    A., Schaefer, B

    Fesen, R. A., Schaefer, B. E., & Patchick, D. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 945, L4

    2023

  27. [35]

    D., Horner, J., Crawford, E

    Filipovic, M. D., Horner, J., Crawford, E. J., Tothill, N. F. H., & White, G. L. 2013, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 187, 43 Filipović, M. D., & Tothill, N. F. H., eds. 2021, Multimessenger Astronomy in Practice, 2514-3433 (IOP Publishing), doi:10.1088/2514-3433/ac2256 ghttps:...

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    D., & Dermer, C

    Finke, J. D., & Dermer, C. D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 65

    2012

  29. [37]

    J., Challis, P

    Foley, R. J., Challis, P. J., Chornock, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 57

    2013

  30. [38]

    J., Cooper, B., Reich, W., Kothes, R., & West, J

    Foster, T. J., Cooper, B., Reich, W., Kothes, R., & West, J. 2013, A&A, 549, A107

    2013

  31. [39]

    M., Landecker, T

    Gaensler, B. M., Landecker, T. L., Taylor, A. R., & POSSUM Collaboration. 2010, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 215, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #215, 470.13 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 5...

    2010

  32. [40]

    J., & Filipovic, M

    Galvin, T. J., & Filipovic, M. D. 2014, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 189, 15

    2014

  33. [41]

    E., Hughes, J

    Ghavamian, P., Rakowski, C. E., Hughes, J. P., & Williams, T. B. 2003, ApJ, 590, 833

    2003

  34. [42]

    Ghavamian, P., Raymond, J., Hartigan, P., & Blair, W. P. 2000, ApJ, 535, 266

    2000

  35. [43]

    Green, D. A. 2022, A Catalogue of Galactic Supernova Remnants (2022 December version)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Green, D. A. 2024, An updated catalogue of 310 Galactic supernova remnants and their statistical properties, arXiv:2411.03367

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    P., et al

    Gupta, N., Huynh, M., Norris, R. P., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of Australia, 39, e051

    2022

  38. [46]

    2019, ASKAPsoft: ASKAP science data processor software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1912.003

    Guzman, J., Whiting, M., V oronkov, M., et al. 2019, ASKAPsoft: ASKAP science data processor software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1912.003

    2019

  39. [47]

    A., Barkhudaryan, L

    Hakobyan, A. A., Barkhudaryan, L. V., Karapetyan, A. G., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 471, 1390

    2017

  40. [48]

    J., Trott, C

    Hancock, P. J., Trott, C. M., & Hurley-Walker, N. 2018, PASA, 35, e011 H.E.S.S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A1 H.E.S.S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Adam, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A102 H.E.S.S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali,...

    2018

  41. [49]

    G., & Han, J

    Hou, L. G., & Han, J. L. 2014, A&A, 569, A125

    2014

  42. [50]

    R., Hancock, P

    Hurley-Walker, N., Callingham, J. R., Hancock, P. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1146

    2017

  43. [51]

    J., Duchesne, S

    Hurley-Walker, N., Galvin, T. J., Duchesne, S. W., et al. 2022, PASA, 39, e035

    2022

  44. [52]

    J., Sasaki, M., Bozzetto, L

    Kavanagh, P. J., Sasaki, M., Bozzetto, L. M., et al. 2015, A&A, 573, A73

    2015

  45. [53]

    J., Sasaki, M., Filipović, M

    Kavanagh, P. J., Sasaki, M., Filipović, M. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4099

    2022

  46. [54]

    J., Vink, J., Sasaki, M., et al

    Kavanagh, P. J., Vink, J., Sasaki, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A138

    2019

  47. [55]

    J., & Lynden-Bell, D

    Kerr, F. J., & Lynden-Bell, D. 1986, MNRAS, 221, 1023

    1986

  48. [56]

    I., Churazov, E

    Khabibullin, I. I., Churazov, E. M., Bykov, A. M., Chugai, N. N., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5536

    2023

  49. [57]

    S., Norris, R

    Koribalski, B. S., Norris, R. P., Andernach, H., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, L11 Kostić, P., Arbutina, B., Vukotić, B., & Urošević, D. 2024, ApJ, 974, 236

    2021

  50. [58]

    J., & Reich, W

    Kothes, R., Reich, P., Foster, T. J., & Reich, W. 2017, A&A, 597, A116

    2017

  51. [59]

    2001, A&A, 372, 627

    Kothes, R., & Reich, W. 2001, A&A, 372, 627

    2001

  52. [60]

    D., Predehl, P., et al

    Lamer, G., Schwope, A. D., Predehl, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A7 Lazarević, S., Filipović, M. D., Koribalski, B. S., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 107 Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 19

    2021

  53. [61]

    2019, AJ, 158, 149

    Leahy, D., Wang, Y., Lawton, B., Ranasinghe, S., & Filipović, M. 2019, AJ, 158, 149

    2019

  54. [62]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 173

    Liu, Q.-C., Chen, Y., Chen, B.-Q., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 173

    2018

  55. [63]

    A., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Huppenkothen, D., Badenes, C., & Pooley, D

    Lopez, L. A., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Huppenkothen, D., Badenes, C., & Pooley, D. A. 2011, ApJ, 732, 114 López-Sanjuan, C., Varela, J., Cristóbal-Hornillos, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A119

    2011

  56. [64]

    J., Filipović, M

    Luken, K. J., Filipović, M. D., Maxted, N. I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2606

    2020

  57. [65]

    D., Vukotić, B., et al

    Maggi, P., Filipović, M. D., Vukotić, B., et al. 2019, Astron. & Astrophys., 631, A127

    2019

  58. [66]

    2025, PASA, 42, e021

    Mantovanini, S., Hurley-Walker, N., & Anderson, G. 2025, PASA, 42, e021

    2025

  59. [67]

    R., Bertsch, D

    Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 396

    1996

  60. [68]

    F., & Truelove, J

    McKee, C. F., & Truelove, J. K. 1995, Phys. Rep., 256, 157

    1995

  61. [69]

    Meyer, D. M. A., Langer, N., Mackey, J., Velázquez, P. F., & Gusdorf, A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3080

    2015

  62. [70]

    P., Crawford, E., & Macgregor, P

    Norris, R. P., Crawford, E., & Macgregor, P. 2021, Galaxies, 9, doi:10.3390/galaxies9040083

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    P., Hopkins, A

    Norris, R. P., Hopkins, A. M., Afonso, J., et al. 2011, PASA, 28, 215

    2011

  64. [72]

    P., Marvil, J., Collier, J

    Norris, R. P., Marvil, J., Collier, J. D., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e046

    2021

  65. [73]

    P., Intema, H

    Norris, R. P., Intema, H. T., Kapińska, A. D., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e003

    2021

  66. [74]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 92 Pavlović, M

    Oh, S., Kroupa, P., & Pflamm-Altenburg, J. 2015, ApJ, 805, 92 Pavlović, M. Z., Urošević, D., Arbutina, B., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 852, 84

    2015

  67. [75]

    G., et al

    Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Lattanzi, M. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, L21

    2018

  68. [76]

    2019, JHEP Grav

    Ranasinghe, S., & Leahy, D. 2019, JHEP Grav. Cosmol., 5, 907

    2019

  69. [77]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 63 —

    Ranasinghe, S., & Leahy, D. 2022, ApJ, 940, 63 —. 2023, ApJs, 265, 53

    2022

  70. [78]

    2021, Universe, 7, 338

    Ranasinghe, S., Leahy, D., & Stil, J. 2021, Universe, 7, 338

    2021

  71. [79]

    P., Gaensler, B

    Reynolds, S. P., Gaensler, B. M., & Bocchino, F. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 166, 231

    2012

  72. [80]

    E., et al

    Roper, Q., Filipovic, M., Allen, G. E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1800

    2018

  73. [81]

    J., et al

    Ross, K., Hurley-Walker, N., Galvin, T. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.06921

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    2002, New A Rev., 46, 101

    Rudnick, L. 2002, New A Rev., 46, 101

    2002

  75. [83]

    2017, ApJ, 843, 61

    Sano, H., Yamane, Y., V oisin, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 61

    2017

  76. [84]

    2017, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 15, 1

    Sano, H., Reynoso, E., Mitsuishi, I., et al. 2017, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 15, 1

    2017

  77. [85]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 7

    Sano, H., Yamane, Y., Tokuda, K., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 7

    2018

  78. [86]

    2025, A&A, 693, L15

    Sasaki, M., Zangrandi, F., Filipović, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, L15

    2025

  79. [87]

    S., Yates-Jones, P

    Shabala, S. S., Yates-Jones, P. M., Jerrim, L. A., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e024

    2024

  80. [88]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 598

    Smith, N., & Tombleson, R. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 598

    2015

  81. [89]

    2019, New A Rev., 87, 101535 —

    Soker, N. 2019, New A Rev., 87, 101535 —. 2024a, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015012 —. 2024b, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 31

    2019

  82. [90]

    J., Huber, M

    Srivastav, S., Smartt, S. J., Huber, M. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2708

    2022

  83. [91]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, 376

    Su, Y., Chen, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, 376

    2009

  84. [92]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 140

    Sushch, I., Brose, R., Pohl, M., Plotko, P., & Das, S. 2022, ApJ, 926, 140

    2022

  85. [93]

    J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J

    Tingay, S. J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J. D., et al. 2013, PASA, 30, e007 Urošević, D. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 910 Vallée, J. P. 2017, Astronomical Review, 13, 113

    2013

  86. [94]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 1536 Vukotić, B., Ćiprijanović, A., Vučetić, M

    Verberne, S., & Vink, J. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 1536 Vukotić, B., Ćiprijanović, A., Vučetić, M. M., Onić, D., & Urošević, D. 2019, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 199, 23 Vukotić, B., Ćirković, M. M., & Filipović, M. D. 2021, in Multimessen...

    2021

  87. [95]

    B., Lenc, E., Bell, M

    Wayth, R. B., Lenc, E., Bell, M. E., et al. 2015, PASA, 32, e025

    2015

  88. [96]

    B., Tingay, S

    Wayth, R. B., Tingay, S. J., Trott, C. M., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e033

    2018

  89. [97]

    1977, ApJ, 218, 377 Weßmayer, D., Urbaneja, M

    Weaver, R., McCray, R., Castor, J., Shapiro, P., & Moore, R. 1977, ApJ, 218, 377 Weßmayer, D., Urbaneja, M. A., Butler, K., & Przybilla, N. 2024, A&A, 687, L7

    1977

  90. [98]

    L., Safi-Harb, S., Jaffe, T., et al

    West, J. L., Safi-Harb, S., Jaffe, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A148

    2016

  91. [99]

    Wright, J. T. 2020, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 200, 1

    2020

  92. [100]

    D., et al

    Yamane, Y., Sano, H., Filipović, M. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 36

    2021

  93. [101]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29 Zeković, V., Spitkovsky, A., & Hemler, Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.02084

    2017 arXiv

  94. [102]

    F., Tian, W

    Zhang, M. F., Tian, W. W., & Wu, D. 2018, ApJ, 867, 61

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.