arxiv: 2603.10536 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Multi-wavelength emission modelling of PSR~J0437-4715

J. P\'etri , P. Stammler , L. Guillemot , S. Guillot , D. Gonz\'alez-Caniulef , F. Jankowski , N. Webb

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 13:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords millisecond pulsarmagnetic field geometryhot spotgamma-ray emissionradio polarisationPSR J0437-4715NICER

0 comments

The pith

A slightly off-centred dipole plus one small-scale polar cap dipole explains the hot spot, radio and gamma-ray pulses of PSR J0437-4715

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

This paper combines NICER X-ray hot spot geometry with radio and gamma-ray pulse profile fitting to deduce the magnetic field structure of the millisecond pulsar PSR J0437-4715. It finds that a slightly off-centred dipole augmented by a small-scale dipole patch on one polar cap simultaneously matches the observed hot spot shape, the radio and gamma-ray light curves, and the radio polarisation swing. The fit gives a magnetic obliquity of about 42 degrees and a line-of-sight inclination of 136 degrees. The model indicates that radio emission arises in regions where the field remains largely dipolar. This geometry accounts for the diversity of observed pulsar emissions through the interplay of global and localised surface magnetic structures.

Core claim

We demonstrate that a slightly off-centred dipole augmented by a small scale dipole located on one polar cap explains simultaneously the shape of the hot spot and the radio and γ-ray data with a magnetic obliquity of α ≈ (42±5)° and a line-of-sight inclination angle of ζ ≈ (136 ±5)°. Our simple dipole model reproduces all the radio and γ-ray characteristics of PSR J0437-4715, including its radio polarisation data. It shows that the radio emission could be produced in regions where the magnetic field is mainly of dipolar nature.

What carries the argument

Force-free dipolar magnetosphere simulation with one added localised small-scale dipole patch on a polar cap, using the striped-wind model for gamma rays and the rotating-vector model for radio polarisation

If this is right

The observed hot spot shape is reproduced by the off-centre dipole combined with the small-scale polar cap patch.
Radio and gamma-ray light curves are simultaneously fitted using obliquity of 42 degrees and line-of-sight inclination of 136 degrees.
Radio polarisation data match the rotating-vector model under this field geometry.
Radio emission originates in regions dominated by the dipolar component of the magnetic field.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar localised field patches may appear in other millisecond pulsars whose hot spots show comparable asymmetries.
If global higher-order multipoles dominate instead of the assumed dipole plus patch, the derived angles would shift substantially.
The same multi-wavelength approach could be applied to additional NICER pulsars to test whether radio emission remains dipolar across the population.

Load-bearing premise

The global magnetosphere can be described by a force-free dipolar field plus one localised small-scale dipole patch with emission regions fixed by the striped-wind and rotating-vector models.

What would settle it

New high-resolution X-ray observations or radio timing data that produce a hot spot shape or pulse profiles inconsistent with the predicted geometry at obliquity 42 degrees and inclination 136 degrees would rule out the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.10536 by D. Gonz\'alez-Caniulef, F. Jankowski, J. P\'etri, L. Guillemot, N. Webb, P. Stammler, S. Guillot.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Multi-wavelength pulse profile of PSR J0437−4715 as observed in radio by Parkes at 1.4 GHz (red line), by NICER in soft X-rays (0.3- 3.0 keV, green line) and in γ-rays by Fermi/LAT (black line). Note that the zero line of the NICER data is arbitrary, since technically, the pulsed emission lies on top of an unpulsed pulsar emission + background emission (all origins combined). Note that this is also true f… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Color map showing the isocontours of the reduced χ2 fit for the γ-ray light-curve for the angles α and ζ. The 1σ, 2σ and 3σ confidence intervals are also shown. The minimum is located at (α, ζ) = (138◦ , 136◦ ) (corresponding to the mirror angle α = 42◦ ) and depicted by a red circle. sation fits, shown in black solid contours, we decided to plot the χ2 values in the mirror symmetric region for α > 90◦ . 3… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Example of a good fit of the γ-ray pulse profile (≥ 0.1 GeV). The radio profile is shown in red, our model is displayed in orange, the γ-ray light-curve in black and its fit in blue. The quality of the fit is checked by the value of the reduced χ2 as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Width of the radio pulse profile depending on the emission height s above the stellar surface, along the magnetic field lines, in units of rL for α = 42◦ and ζ = 136◦ , in blue for force-free (FFE) and in red for vacuum (VAC). 3.4. Radio polarisation In order to strengthen our estimate of the magnetic obliquity and line of sight inclination angles, we conclude this study by including radio polarisation da… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: PPA as a function of rotational phase for PSR J0437−4715 as measured with the Parkes telescope at 10 cm, 20 cm and 50 cm (top to bottom panels). Bins with polarisation degree Πi < 30% have been removed. The best values for the PPA fits from the RVM are reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Combined radio and γ-ray χ 2 maps of Eq.(6) at the three wavelengths at 10 cm, 20 cm and 50 cm, from top to bottom. Article number, page 7 of 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Best joined radio/γ-ray fit with (α, ζ) = (141◦ , 132◦ ) to be compared with the bottom panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The diversity of pulsar light-curves and radio polarisation properties originates in the structure of the magnetic field close to the stellar surface. For millisecond pulsars, this complexity is particularly puzzling. Fortunately, some means exist to uncover the magnetic field topology which indeed impacts the emission within the magnetosphere but also on the surface through its hot spot thermal radiation. We aim at deducing a plausible magnetic field geometry for the millisecond pulsar J0437$-$4715 by using combined information from the soft X-ray hot spot geometry deduced from NICER observations by pulse profile modelling and from radio and $\gamma$-ray pulse profile fitting. We also check the consistency between the geometry obtained and the radio polarisation data. Our $\gamma$-ray light-curve shapes rely on the striped wind model, whereas the radio polarisation fits rely on the rotating vector model. The magnetosphere structure is obtained from dipolar force-free magnetosphere simulations. We demonstrate that a slightly off-centred dipole augmented by a small scale dipole located on one polar cap explains simultaneously the shape of the hot spot and the radio and $\gamma$-ray data with a magnetic obliquity of $\alpha \approx (42\pm5) \degr$ and a line-of-sight inclination angle of $\zeta \approx (136 \pm5) \degr$. Our simple dipole model reproduces all the radio and $\gamma$-ray characteristics of PSR~J0437$-$4715, including its radio polarisation data. It shows that the radio emission could be produced in regions where the magnetic field is mainly of dipolar nature.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper delivers a consistent off-center dipole plus small-patch geometry for J0437-4715 that ties NICER hot spots to radio and gamma-ray profiles, but the fit rests on untested assumptions about the emission models.

read the letter

The core result is a magnetic geometry for PSR J0437-4715: a slightly offset dipole plus one localized small-scale dipole on a polar cap, giving alpha of about 42 degrees and zeta of 136 degrees. This single setup reproduces the NICER thermal hot-spot shape, the radio polarization swing, and the gamma-ray light-curve peaks at once. That cross-check across three independent data sets is the paper's real contribution for this specific, well-observed millisecond pulsar. It shows that a mainly dipolar field can still work if you allow modest offsets and one extra patch. The force-free simulations, striped-wind gamma-ray model, and rotating-vector radio model are all standard, so the exercise is straightforward to follow and the quoted uncertainties look reasonable given the inputs. The authors also note that radio emission can occur in regions where the field remains largely dipolar, which aligns with the data they show. The main limitation is that the small-scale patch and offset are added by hand to match the observations rather than emerging from the simulation. The paper does not run the quantitative checks needed to confirm the emission models remain valid once the surface field is altered—such as tracing how the current sheet or open-field footpoints shift at the altitudes where radio and gamma rays are produced. Without reported goodness-of-fit numbers or comparisons to alternative geometries, it is hard to judge how unique the solution really is. The work is aimed at pulsar modelers who already use NICER hot-spot fits and striped-wind calculations for millisecond pulsars. Readers working on emission geometry for this source or similar ones will find the numbers useful as a reference point. I would send it to peer review. The data combination is solid enough to merit referee time, even if the modeling assumptions need more scrutiny in revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that a slightly off-centred dipole augmented by a small-scale dipole patch on one polar cap simultaneously reproduces the NICER-derived hot-spot geometry, radio pulse profiles and polarization, and γ-ray light curves of PSR J0437−4715. Force-free dipolar simulations supply the global magnetosphere, the striped-wind model generates the γ-ray peaks, and the rotating-vector model fits the radio polarization swing, yielding α ≈ 42 ± 5° and ζ ≈ 136 ± 5° while asserting that radio emission occurs in regions where the field remains mainly dipolar.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work supplies a concrete, multi-wavelength geometry for a well-studied millisecond pulsar that links surface thermal emission to magnetospheric radiation and demonstrates that modest near-surface complexity need not invalidate standard high-altitude emission prescriptions.

major comments (2)

[Magnetosphere structure and emission modeling] The central claim rests on the continued validity of the unmodified striped-wind and rotating-vector models once an off-centred dipole plus localized small-scale patch is introduced. No quantitative test—such as field-line tracing from the perturbed surface to the light cylinder or recomputation of the current-sheet location—is reported to confirm that the γ-ray peak phases and radio polarization swing remain unchanged at the assumed emission altitudes (see the sections describing the magnetosphere simulations and the γ-ray/radio modeling).
[Results and discussion] The small-scale dipole strength and location are chosen post-hoc to match the hot-spot shape; the manuscript provides no formal goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., reduced χ² or Bayesian evidence) that quantifies the joint fit across the three independent data sets, leaving the quoted ±5° uncertainties on α and ζ without a clear statistical foundation.

minor comments (2)

[Methods] Notation for the small-scale dipole parameters is introduced without an explicit equation or table summarizing their best-fit values and uncertainties.
[Figures] Figure captions would benefit from explicit statements of the reduced χ² or residual statistics for each wavelength band to allow readers to assess fit quality directly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the two major comments in detail below, clarifying our modeling approach and indicating where revisions have been made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Magnetosphere structure and emission modeling] The central claim rests on the continued validity of the unmodified striped-wind and rotating-vector models once an off-centred dipole plus localized small-scale patch is introduced. No quantitative test—such as field-line tracing from the perturbed surface to the light cylinder or recomputation of the current-sheet location—is reported to confirm that the γ-ray peak phases and radio polarization swing remain unchanged at the assumed emission altitudes (see the sections describing the magnetosphere simulations and the γ-ray/radio modeling).

Authors: We acknowledge the value of an explicit quantitative check. The small-scale dipole patch is spatially localized near one polar cap, and its contribution falls off rapidly with distance; the global structure at the light cylinder is therefore still governed by the off-centred dipole. In the revised manuscript we have added field-line tracing from the perturbed surface through the force-free domain, confirming that the current-sheet location and the open-field-line footpoints relevant to the striped-wind model are unchanged within the adopted emission altitudes. The rotating-vector-model applicability is likewise preserved because the radio emission region lies well above the patch where the field remains predominantly dipolar. revision: yes
Referee: [Results and discussion] The small-scale dipole strength and location are chosen post-hoc to match the hot-spot shape; the manuscript provides no formal goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., reduced χ² or Bayesian evidence) that quantifies the joint fit across the three independent data sets, leaving the quoted ±5° uncertainties on α and ζ without a clear statistical foundation.

Authors: The small-scale dipole parameters were first adjusted to reproduce the NICER hot-spot geometry; the resulting α and ζ were then verified for consistency with the radio polarization swing and γ-ray light-curve peaks. Because the three data sets are of fundamentally different character (thermal X-ray imaging, radio polarization, and high-energy light curves), a single joint χ² or Bayesian evidence is not straightforward to construct. In the revised discussion we have clarified how the ±5° uncertainties were obtained from the range of (α, ζ) values that simultaneously satisfy all three observables to within their respective observational tolerances, and we have added a qualitative assessment of the joint consistency. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper applies standard striped-wind and rotating-vector models plus force-free dipolar simulations to fit the geometry parameters alpha and zeta to NICER hot-spot, radio, and gamma-ray pulse profiles. This is ordinary multi-wavelength parameter estimation whose outcome is directly compared to the same observations; the fitted values do not reduce to the inputs by construction, nor does any step rely on self-definition, self-citation load-bearing, or smuggled ansatzes. The central claim that the chosen off-centered-plus-patch configuration reproduces the data is therefore an externally falsifiable fit rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on three standard assumptions (force-free magnetosphere, striped-wind gamma-ray emission, rotating-vector radio polarization) plus two fitted parameters (obliquity and inclination) and one ad-hoc small-scale dipole patch whose strength and location are chosen to match data.

free parameters (3)

magnetic obliquity alpha
Fitted to reproduce the observed pulse profiles and polarization swing.
line-of-sight inclination zeta
Fitted simultaneously with alpha to the multi-wavelength data.
small-scale dipole strength and location
Introduced ad hoc on one polar cap to match the NICER hot-spot shape.

axioms (3)

domain assumption Magnetosphere obeys force-free electrodynamics with a dominant dipolar component
Invoked to generate the global field structure from which emission is computed.
domain assumption Gamma-ray emission follows the striped-wind model
Used to predict the gamma-ray light-curve shape from the magnetic geometry.
domain assumption Radio polarization follows the rotating-vector model
Used to fit the observed polarization angle swing.

invented entities (1)

small-scale dipole patch on one polar cap no independent evidence
purpose: To reproduce the observed X-ray hot-spot geometry while keeping the global field nearly dipolar
Postulated without independent evidence outside the fit; no predicted observable signature is given that could falsify its existence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5612 in / 1923 out tokens · 41233 ms · 2026-05-15T13:38:27.317370+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Our γ-ray light-curve shapes rely on the striped wind model, whereas the radio polarisation fits rely on the rotating vector model. The magnetosphere structure is obtained from dipolar force-free magnetosphere simulations.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean J_uniquely_calibrated_via_higher_derivative unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

a slightly off-centred dipole augmented by a small scale dipole located on one polar cap

What do these tags mean?

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

The swept-back multipolar magnetic field of neutron stars: Application to NICER MSP J0030+0451
astro-ph.HE 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

A centered swept-back multipolar magnetic field up to octupole order reproduces the bolometric thermal X-ray light curve of MSP J0030+0451.
Multiwavelength Analysis of PSR J0437-4715 with Pulse Profile Modeling
astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Joint multi-wavelength analysis of PSR J0437-4715 yields neutron star mass 1.38 solar masses and equatorial radius 13.25 km with two uniform-temperature hot spots at colatitudes of approximately 130 and 9 degrees.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

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

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, Science, 325, 848, aDS Bibcode: 2009Sci...325..848A

work page 2009
[2]

& Trümper, J

Becker, W. & Trümper, J. 1993, Nature, 365, 528, aDS Bibcode: 1993Natur.365..528B

work page 1993
[3]

2013, ApJ, 762, 96

Bogdanov, S. 2013, ApJ, 762, 96

work page 2013
[4]

S., et al

Bogdanov, S., Guillot, S., Ray, P. S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, L25, aDS Bibcode: 2019ApJ...887L..25B

work page 2019
[5]

M., Leahy, D., & Campbell, S

Cadeau, C., Morsink, S. M., Leahy, D., & Campbell, S. S. 2007, ApJ, 654, 458

work page 2007
[6]

2023, MNRAS, 520, 3151

Carrasco, F., Pelle, J., Reula, O., Viganò, D., & Palenzuela, C. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3151

work page 2023
[7]

Y ., Yuan, Y ., & Vasilopoulos, G

Chen, A. Y ., Yuan, Y ., & Vasilopoulos, G. 2020, ApJL, 893, L38

work page 2020
[8]

2024, ApJL, 971, L20

Choudhury, D., Salmi, T., Vinciguerra, S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L20

work page 2024
[9]

N., et al

Dai, S., Hobbs, G., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3223

work page 2015
[10]

J., Miller, M

Dittmann, A. J., Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 295, aDS Bibcode: 2024ApJ...974..295D

work page 2024
[11]

2019, MNRAS, 488, 2018

Dyks, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2018

work page 2019
[12]

1984, A&A, 132, 312 González-Caniulef, D., Guillot, S., & Reisenegger, A

Gil, J., Gronkowski, P., & Rudnicki, W. 1984, A&A, 132, 312 González-Caniulef, D., Guillot, S., & Reisenegger, A. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5848

work page 1984
[13]

E., Lupsasca, A., & Philippov, A

Gralla, S. E., Lupsasca, A., & Philippov, A. 2017, ApJ, 851, 137

work page 2017
[14]

M., Archibald, R

Guillot, S., Kaspi, V . M., Archibald, R. F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2612

work page 2016
[15]

& Chen, A

Huang, C. & Chen, A. Y . 2025, ApJ, 991, 90

work page 2025
[16]

R., Harrison, P

Johnston, S., Lorimer, D. R., Harrison, P. A., et al. 1993, Nature, 361, 613, aDS Bibcode: 1993Natur.361..613J

work page 1993
[17]

K., & Kazanas, D

Kalapotharakos, C., Wadiasingh, Z., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2021, ApJ, 907, 63

work page 2021
[18]

E., Özel, F., & Psaltis, D

Lockhart, W., Gralla, S. E., Özel, F., & Psaltis, D. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1774

work page 2019
[19]

Manchester, R. N. & Johnston, S. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 441, L65, aDS Bibcode: 1995ApJ...441L..65M Article number, page 6 of 8 J. Pétri et al.: Multi-wavelength emission modelling of PSR J0437−4715

work page 1995
[20]

Mauviard et al., arXiv:2506.14883 [astro-ph.HE] (2025),https://arxiv

Mauviard, L., Guillot, S., Salmi, T., et al. 2025, A NICER view of the 1.4 solar- mass edge-on pulsar PSR J0614–3329, arXiv:2506.14883 [astro-ph] version: 1

work page arXiv 2025
[21]

C., Lamb, F

Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L24

work page 2019
[22]

C., Lamb, F

Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, L28, aDS Bibcode: 2021ApJ...918L..28M

work page 2021
[23]

I., & Basu, R

Mitra, D., Melikidze, G. I., & Basu, R. 2023, MNRAS: Letters, 521, L34

work page 2023
[24]

M., Leahy, D

Morsink, S. M., Leahy, D. A., Cadeau, C., & Braga, J. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1244

work page 2007
[25]

N., Sandhu, J

Navarro, J., Manchester, R. N., Sandhu, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., & Bailes, M. 1997, ApJ, 486, 1019 Osłowski, S., van Straten, W., Bailes, M., Jameson, A., & Hobbs, G. 2014, MN- RAS, 441, 3148 Pétri, J. 2017, MNRAS, 466, L73 Pétri, J., Guillot, S., Guillemot, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A93 Pétri, J., Guillot, S., Guillemot, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A39

work page 1997
[26]

& Cooke, D

Radhakrishnan, V . & Cooke, D. J. 1969, Ap. Lett., 3, 225

work page 1969
[27]

J., Bailes, M., Shannon, R

Reardon, D. J., Bailes, M., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L18

work page 2024
[28]

E., Watts, A

Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L21

work page 2019
[29]

S., Ray, P

Salmi, T., Deneva, J. S., Ray, P. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 58

work page 2024
[30]

2022, ApJ, 941, 150, aDS Bib- code: 2022ApJ...941..150S

Salmi, T., Vinciguerra, S., Choudhury, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 150, aDS Bib- code: 2022ApJ...941..150S

work page 2022
[31]

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

Smith, D. A., Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 191

work page 2023
[32]

2024, ApJ, 965, 140

Sur, A., Yuan, Y ., & Philippov, A. 2024, ApJ, 965, 140

work page 2024
[33]

L., et al

Vinciguerra, S., Salmi, T., Watts, A. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 62

work page 2024
[34]

Zavlin, V . E. 2006, ApJ, 638, 951, aDS Bibcode: 2006ApJ...638..951Z

work page 2006
[35]

E., Pavlov, G

Zavlin, V . E., Pavlov, G. G., Sanwal, D., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 894, aDS Bibcode: 2002ApJ...569..894Z 110 120 130 140 150 160 110 120 130 140 150 160 α(in deg) ζ(in deg) Radio+gammaχ 2 isocontour 3.8 11.4 19.0 26.6 34.2 41.8 49.4 110 120 130 140 150 160 110 120 130 140 150 160 α(in deg) ζ(in deg) Radio+gammaχ 2 isocontour 4.4 13.2 22.0 30.8 39.6 48.4 57...

work page 2002